Don't you think it's time to move on and make things better, as well? — synthesis

Agreed, time to get rid of the US Constitution

Agreed, time to get rid of the US Constitution — Maw

Do you have any other really good ideas?

If the left desires equality of outcome and you're against it that means that you desire inequality of outcome.
— praxis
Equality of outcome is a lack of diversity. You can't have both equality and diversity. To achieve equality of outcomes, we'd all have to be genetically engineered and raised by the State. — Harry Hindu

Can you somehow support the claim that the left wants equality of outcome?

Can you somehow support the claim that the left wants equality of outcome? — praxis

The Left is constantly pushing their "inclusion" meme which I take as meaning that each GROUP needs to be represented according to their percentage in the population. Merit is of secondary importance.

This would be a disaster for all kinds of reasons.

The Left has also seemingly embraced the 'something for nothing' idea and made it a cornerstone of their being. I guess they figure, "why not join the corruption party." The entire 'something for nothing' mentality that has enriched so many for so long needs to be rooted-out, not further and more deeply institutionalized.

Can YOU somehow support the claim that the left wants equality of outcome?

Can YOU somehow support the claim that the left wants equality of outcome? — praxis

" From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs "

-KM

Technically, it's more than equality, it's...

"You give whatever we tell you to give because we know what's best for everybody."

Queue up the illogical compartmentalization of "left" with communism. LOL! The right is so predictable, because they want slavery based on race and class and dictatorship. They are all fascists.

" From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs " — synthesis

This by definition is not an equality of outcome. It's material consumption based on individuated needs.

This by definition is not an equality of outcome. It's material consumption based on individuated needs. — Maw

I get that, but it's a similar idea. IOW, you have to somehow justify the transfer of wealth in order to satisfy what others needs are, and that's where equality comes in because what's more fair than that?

Idealists want fairness above all else. Unfortunately, fairness is not the way the natural world works, and like it or not, we are part of the natural world. Why should somebody be born better looking or smarter, or nicer, or with more ambition, or a better athlete, or a million other things? It's just the way it is.

Therefore, you can attempt to change Nature through all kinds of social engineering that always goes really badly, or you can have a society which is geared toward providing everybody with the greatest opportunities to exploit their own strengths.

They are all fascists. — James Riley

Most people I know who would identify themselves as "right" are into limited government, small business, personal responsibility, etc.

that's where equality comes in because what's more fair than that? — synthesis

Equality and fairness are conceptually distinct. It shouldn't take more than several seconds to realize this. Just be an adult and admit that "Equality of Outcome" is not a Leftist goal, particular around asinine things such as athleticism, or looks, etc. which are abstract and subjective anyway. Equity and fairness for Leftists revolve around material conditions.

Perhaps more to the point, all wealth ownership past, present, or hypothetical Leftist distribution is socially engineered. There is no natural wealth distribution.

Perhaps more to the point, all wealth ownership past, present, or hypothetical Leftist distribution is socially engineered. There is no natural wealth distribution. — Maw

You speak in absolutes. The bottom-line is that people do much better when there is a system in place that protects body and property. You need a legal system to attempt to distribute the law equally and you do what you can to attenuate the accumulation of power and wealth (e.g., revoke all corporate charters).

You have to allow the gifted to do their thing because it will benefit everybody (even if means that they get to live better than everybody else). I suppose if you work 20 hours a day and come up with something that changes billions of lives for the better, then have a Ferrari and mansion to go with it.

Destroying all that is excellent is not the way to go. Creating the most opportunity for the most people is, and it is what has worked the best so far.

Always amusing when people can't admit they were wrong.

And if you are working 20 hours each day building something that benefits billions of people and all you have to show for it is a mansion and a nice car then you are complete rube.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs — synthesis

In reality both Marx and Engels eschewed the entire concept of equality as an abstract and idealistic bourgeois aspiration, focusing their analysis on more concrete issues such as the laws of motion of capitalism and exploitation based on economic and materialist logic. Marx renounced theorizing on moral concepts and refrained from advocating principles of justice. Marx's views on equality were informed by his analysis of the development of the productive forces in society. — Wiki

I guess Marx wasn’t woke. :sad:

I guess Marx wasn’t woke. :sad: — praxis

I've read a lot of Marx and his economic analysis was absolutely brilliant. The guy was a major genius. Beyond economics, though, he was a fool (you can't win them all).

My conclusion after decades of thinking about this stuff is that our best hope is to set individuals free within a framework of limited government that protects person and property and allow community institutions to gather the resources necessary to help those in need. Every time you go towards centralization (of power and wealth), things go south very quickly.

I'll take that as a no, you can't support the claim that the left wants equality of outcome.

I've read a lot of Marx and his economic analysis was absolutely brilliant. — synthesis

My conclusion after decades of thinking about this stuff is that our best hope is to set individuals free within a framework of limited government that protects person and property and allow community institutions to gather the resources necessary to help those in need. — synthesis

Honestly incredible, it takes an exceptionally unique individual to say that Marx's critique of Capitalism was spot on and yet we must do it anyway.

Would you like a mathematical proof? Again, this is not a black and white issue.

Honestly incredible, it takes an exceptionally unique individual to say that Marx's critique of Capitalism was spot on and yet we must do it anyway. — Maw

You can critique everything but that doesn't mean you are going to throw everything away. Capitalism is the only economic system there is. It works really well but has some contradictions that you can minimize but there is no perfect system.

We are talking about human beings so (really) it's quite incredible that we can anything without causing massive chaos!

You can critique everything but that doesn't mean you are going to throw everything away. Capitalism is the only economic system there is. — synthesis

Except you're not talking about Capitalism tout court you're specifically advocating a vague aperçu of laizze faire Capitalism, in your own words "limited government" that "protects property" while condemning policies that could provide redistributive wealth to those below. I mean at least you could advocate for Keynesianism based on Marxian analyst but you're gleefully throwing that out the door too.

Free everybody up and then see what you need.

If you've spent "decades thinking about this stuff" and this is all you have to show for it then...well, Jesus Christ.

If you've spent "decades thinking about this stuff" and this is all you have to show for it then...well, Jesus Christ. — Maw

Synthesis is the tortoise in the tortoise and the hare - but its rewritten by Dinesh D'Souza, William Lane Craig, and Dave Rubin.

Dinesh D'Souza, William Lane Craig, and Dave Rubin. — ToothyMaw

Sorry: add Karl Marx to the list of authors; just read some of his comments.

Would you like a mathematical proof? — synthesis

Sure, couldn’t be any worse than the Marx quote.

Obviously you all have been very successful in life and have it figured out.

I wish you continued success!

Actually, I have been tremendously unsuccessful according to my own (now changing) standards. And your viewpoint is appreciated, so keep on chugging along.

You fight in vain. Synthesis is a person who has opinions and has read something, but has little idea of philosophy. He works a lot in an occupation that does not interest him, to buy things that he does not need and to impress others who do not matter to him. He is a pre-Kantian sophist. "Idea for a universal history with a cosmopolitan purpose" is his future, but he doesn't know it yet.

The Left is constantly pushing their "inclusion" meme which I take as meaning that each GROUP needs to be represented according to their percentage in the population. Merit is of secondary importance. — synthesis

What's the difference between "outcome by merit" and "equal outcome"? "Merit" is not the name of a physical law or constant.

Capitalism is the only economic system there is. — synthesis

Err, what?