Make everyone an impoverished slave and feed them all the same bowl of gruel everyday.

That's the problem with "equality." — fishfry

I agree. Competition is healthy. People love a game with a lucrative reward at the end for the winner. If we didn't, games would not be such a huge source of entertainment for us for millenia.

Furthermore competition is a natural phenomenon within and between species, and the basis for natural selection and evolution.

That being said, competition can be upheld without detriment to the quality of life of the loser. We are an animal with a sophisticated ability to not only communicate but also to imagine. And it is through these that we generate healthy competition - think the Olympics, video games, arcades, art and literature competitions etc. All ultimately arbitrary forms of reward and loss that don't directly threaten our survival.

We must subvert our tendency to compete so that we do not do so in a directly oppressive manner to society and human rights. Entertainment is the opium of the masses.

Without it, we would become toxically bored and engage in competing directing with and oppressing one another for our entertainment needs. To feel superior. A healthy society can have universal healthcare and universal income so long as we are happy consuming healthy competitions so we don't create unhealthy ones out of a desperate need for purpose and flexing our competitive prowess.

I agree — Benj96

I'll quit when I'm ahead here then :-)

A healthy society can have universal healthcare — Benj96

Many issues with long wait times at NIH in Great Britain. And in Canada, they offer assisted suicide for depression. I'd like to see some datapoints where universal health care has worked. Not an expert on health care policy, just repeating anecdotal evidence re Britain and Canada. Not necessarily defending the expensive US system, but it's a complicated issue. Just giving people free stuff is not a panacea. Who pays for the free stuff? As Margaret Thatcher once noted, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

If I'm perfectly in the middle, my opinion doesn't matter either way. — Benj96

Even the middle can have an opinion of what's right and wrong with his social arrangement and how it might be improved. Anyway, only one person can perfectly in the middle; all the rest of us are somewhere on the spectrum.

People love a game with a lucrative reward at the end for the winner. If we didn't, games would not be such a huge source of entertainment for us for millenia. — Benj96

Games and sports don't always carry 'lucrative' prizes. The winner used to be content with the acclaim of his peers, a reputation for accomplishment in some specialized area, perhaps increased social status.
Material rewards turn games into business, to the detriment of both the players and the standard of fair play.

This appears to be the case. — Vera Mont

Just for light conversation ... when I say that a lot of people these days are advocating for equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity ... you do not know what I am referring to? The DEI movement, social justice, wokitude, and the like? Disciplinary standards relaxed in schools, admission criteria relaxed in universities, the criminal justice system biased in favor of criminals, massive social change for the purpose of balancing out racial categories?

This news has not yet reached your province?

We must subvert our tendency to compete — Benj96

I just noticed this. What means would you use to bring this about?

This news has not yet reached your province? — fishfry

Imagine the nerve of somebody demanding fair treatment for all kinds of people, even the designated victims! Appalling, innit?

Imagine the nerve of somebody demanding fair treatment for all kinds of people, even the designated victims! Appalling, innit? — Vera Mont

Indeed it is. I quite share your sensibilities, or at the very least I have great sympathy for them.

But the larger point is that you have heard about people these days who prefer equity to equality, equality of outcome over equality of opportunity. You in fact seem to happen to be one of those folks.

But earlier, you claimed there were no such people.

So I take it that you have conceded my point. I'm not arguing the point of view pro or con; only that the point of view exists. That in fact you exemplify and represent it. So what you initially said, that you did not believe there were many of these people, was not quite true. Have I got that right? I don't want to presume, I may have misunderstood you.

Secondly, and again purely for conversation, on the issue of criminal justice. Do you follow New York City politics and current events? Do you support Alvin Bragg? Can you see how some people might think that compassion to criminals, no matter how well intentioned, can end up becoming a pronounced lack of compassion for their victims? Some of the folks pushed onto subway tracks by individuals previously treated gently by the criminal justice system might see it that way. Can you at least see that?

As Margaret Thatcher once noted, "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." — fishfry

The problem with Margaret Thatcher is that she thought that a dumb quip is a substitute for serious thinking. But then, she was a politician. She also believed that there is no such thing as society.

when I say that a lot of people these days are advocating for equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity — fishfry

I agree that equality of outcome is not a reliable index of equality of opportunity and that people often talk, lazily, as if they were. But if equality of opportunity does not result in changes to outcomes, then it is meaningless. The only question is, how much change is it reasonable to expect? If 50% of the population is female and only eight of UK's top 100 companies are headed by women (Guardian Oct. 2021), don't you think it is reasonable to ask why? I agree that it doesn't follow that unfair discrimination is at work, but it must be at least a possibility. No?

Many issues with long wait times at NIH in Great Britain. — fishfry

There are always issues with the NHS in the UK. But that's not about universal health care or not. It's about what can be afforded, what priority it has. Difficult decisions, indeed, but anyone with sense knows they must be made. That's why we have the national institute of clinical excellence. It is not perfect, but it is an attempt to make rational decisions; other systems do not even attempt to do that.
Of course, when my life, or my child's life, is at stake, I will put the system under as much pressure as I can to try everything. And to repeat, it's not about charity or robbing the rich. It's about insurance.

Games and sports don't always carry 'lucrative' prizes. The winner used to be content with the acclaim of his peers, a reputation for accomplishment in some specialized area, perhaps increased social status.
Material rewards turn games into business, to the detriment of both the players and the standard of fair play. — Vera Mont

The complication is that the acclaim and reputation tends to result in financial opportunities. That was certainly true in ancient Greece and I would be suprised if it wasn't true of modern Olympics as well. I don't think one can draw a clear line.

A healthy society can have universal healthcare and universal income so long as we are happy consuming healthy competitions so we don't create unhealthy ones out of a desperate need for purpose and flexing our competitive prowess. — Benj96

That sounds good. Not easy, though. There are always free riders and malcontents.

We must subvert our tendency to compete so that we do not do so in a directly oppressive manner to society and human rights. — Benj96

There is always a problem about excessive competition. There are usually systems in place to control it and they are at least reasonably successful.

But the larger point is that you have heard about people these days who prefer equity to equality, equality of outcome over equality of opportunity. — fishfry

I've heard of people who want equity, yes. I have no idea what all this "outcome" babble is about. What exactly is being demanded in terms of the "outcome" - that is result - of what endeavour? Is someone demanding that children should all have decent food and shelter and a safe environment, so that they can do well in school? Is someone demanding that adults be allowed to marry whom they choose?
Is someone demanding that people who do the grunt work of society be compensated with a living wage? Or that claiming that a man who has four-hour lunches doesn't deserve 400 times the pay of the man who welds car chassis? Or that the people most likely to be arrested for crimes should not have the worst legal representation? Yes, I've heard those things. Yes, I want those things, too.

Do you follow New York City politics and current events? — fishfry

I have no reason to give a flying fig about New York politics.

Can you see how some people might think that compassion to criminals, no matter how well intentioned, can end up becoming a pronounced lack of compassion for their victims? — fishfry

The fucked-up criminal justice system is just another symptom of a generally fucked-up political and economic system. Far too big a topic for idle conversation.

Have I got that right? — fishfry

AFAICT, you ain't got nothin' right.

The complication is that the acclaim and reputation tends to result in financial opportunities. — Ludwig V

In a society that monetizes everything, and sucks the joy out of everything but money, yes.

That was certainly true in ancient Greece and I would be suprised if it wasn't true of modern Olympics as well. — Ludwig V

It's not. Modern Olympic games are business. Huge government contracts to build new arenas, huge financial losses for the public sector - but, hey, some jillionnaire will buy the arena cheap, plaster his name all over it and charge exorbitant ticket prices to the people who paid for the building of it. As for the athletes, if they survive with body and mind intact, their best hope is to sell their name to a corporation.

It's not. Modern Olympic games are business. Huge government contracts to build new arenas, huge financial losses for the public sector - but, hey, some jillionnaire will buy the arena cheap, plaster his name all over it and charge exorbitant ticket prices to the people who paid for the building of it. As for the athletes, if they survive with body and mind intact, their best hope is to sell their name to a corporation. — Vera Mont

I'm so sorry. There's a small typo in what I said. It should have read:-

That (i.e., the acclaim and reputation tends to result in financial opportunities. was certainly true in ancient Greece and I would be surprised if it wasn't true of modern Olympics as well. — Ludwig V

Though you are also quite right to observe that there are also financial opportunities in creating and running the opportunities to acquire acclaim and success. Not to mention in training and looking after the competitors.

In a society that monetizes everything, and sucks the joy out of everything but money, yes. — Vera Mont

There's a valid complaint here, because our society does tend to suck the joy out of everything. But I'm not sure it is money that is the problem. The thing is, money represents resources. It isn't possible to set up or compete in sport without any resources. Ditto art and pure science. Or raising a family.
It would be better to say that the tendency to measure the value of everything by reference to money that sucks the joy out of everything, because that measure misses the point. Money isn't worth anything for in its own right. Its value is what you can buy or do with it.

But I'm not sure it is money that is the problem. — Ludwig V

You're right. Money is just the thing that's being misused. The problem is a society founded on the concept of portable, cumulative wealth, that puts a monetary value on every thing, every place, every man, every idea.

It isn't possible to set up or compete in sport without any resources. — Ludwig V

A field. A road. A frozen pond. A set of hurdles made of trestled logs. People used to compete before arenas and giant monitors. Kids still do, if we let them.

It would be better to say that the tendency to measure the value of everything by reference to money that sucks the joy out of everything, — Ludwig V

I did say that. Everything but money - because joy also has a dollar value. Just watch the ads if you don't believe me.

I did say that. Everything but money - because joy also has a dollar value. Just watch the ads if you don't believe me. — Vera Mont

Sorry, I didn't think I was contradicting you. Just expressing the point differently.

you do not know what I am referring to? The DEI movement, social justice, wokitude, and the like? — fishfry

They do, they are just playing dumb. If you go back to 2017 these would be the people openly talking about microaggressions and reparations. Now that the whole planet is swinging right and people are tired of woke, they are just dissimulating their views while still defending them. See:

Is someone demanding that children should all have decent food and shelter and a safe environment, so that they can do well in school?

They try (and obviously fail to) to blur the lines between human rights and what you are talking about, to pretend they are the same thing, using cheap sophistry such as the above.

Soon enough they will be recanting their views. I wonder what they will do if (when?) we go totalitarian. Will they be staunch supporters, like everybody (especially women!) was in Nazi Germany? Relevant snippet by JBP before he went crazy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVCAhGL0ohw

I should have seen that.

Soon enough they will be recanting their views. I wonder what they will do if (when?) we go totalitarian. — Lionino

Die by the thousands, as usual. Evil always wins; it's not hindered by scruples, compassion or shame.

Oh of course, the victims.

Marxism isn't bothered by inequality, but by unfair exploitation. The slogan "from each according to their ability and to each according to their needs" is not about equality. — Ludwig V

Who decides what the needs of each are? Perhaps the same question could be asked of abilities.

Who decides what the needs of each are? Perhaps the same question could be asked of abilities. — Janus

Good question. The short answer is, public discussion followed by a political deal - not because it is right, but because it is practical. A consensus would be a good basis, but one would probably have to settle for a majority view that is acquiesced in by those who don't agree. But I think with reasonable good will, one could make an initial deal and go from there.

Everybody needs food, shelter and security. But when you get down to details, it gets difficult. One question is what level of needs is appropriate - the level of bare survival or the level required to function as a member of society. Is health care part of the package or not?
Level of ability is not too hard, but very difficult if you are trying to assess what level someone is capable of achieving, rather than what level they are at. Enthusiasm or commitment is, in practice, part of the package as well.

Yes, them too, by and by. But first, the opposition.

Who decides what the needs of each are? Perhaps the same question could be asked of abilities. — Janus

But isn't that the same question asked now, when allocating resources and remunerations under capitalist organization? Somebody always seems willing to decide who is worthy of what.

But isn't that the same question asked now, when allocating resources and remunerations under capitalist organization? Somebody always seems willing to decide who is worthy of what. — Vera Mont

The trick is, to find something that is objective, or at least rational, or at least acceptable to those who are rejected. As things are, the first two are achieved to some extent, but the last is often suspected of being primarily acceptable only to those in power. Hence all the business with equality of outcomes.

A consensus would be a good basis, but one would probably have to settle for a majority view that is acquiesced in by those who don't agree. — Ludwig V

Yes, it's either that or it is imposed by the authority of power, and that goes for any society, whether capitalist or communist.

One question is what level of needs is appropriate - the level of bare survival or the level required to function as a member of society. Is health care part of the package or not? — Ludwig V

But isn't that the same question asked now, when allocating resources and remunerations under capitalist organization? Somebody always seems willing to decide who is worthy of what. — Vera Mont

Under a capitalist system, apart from whatever welfare state is in play, people end up getting whatever their capacities enable them to. Under most communist regimes, people simply get what they are given by the powers that be.

They do, they are just playing dumb. — Lionino

LOL. I'm just trying to take the subtle approach.

I have no reason to give a flying fig about New York politics. — Vera Mont

It's a beautiful living experiment in what's known as restorative justice.

Crime is rampant and the DA is busy prosecuting the victims. People don't feel safe. It's going to sink Mayor Adams's once-promising political career.

I would think that many people interested in politics do follow New York City politics. But if you don't, that's cool. Not sure you are qualified to comment on the social justice approach to crime, though. It's failing in New York City in a very obvious way.

Under a capitalist system, apart from whatever welfare state is in play, people end up getting whatever their capacities enable them to. Under most communist regimes, people simply get what they are given by the powers that be. — Janus

Interesting. Under capitalism, you think that people get things from an entirely passive system, and under communism, the system dishes things out to people who are entirely passive. That's far too simple. The systems are far more alike than you seem to think. Under communism, people manipulated the system as much as they could to get what they wanted, and under capitalism, the system exercises its power as much as it can. Though it is true that each system does to present itself in the way you outline.

You may be thinking that I'm saying that the two are as bad as each other. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it's not a black and white issue. I would not choose to live under a communist system as we knew them. But I would not choose to live under a pure capitalist system, as in the 19th century, either. We live under a modified capitalist system and that seems to me a reasonable way to go - at least, I don't know of a better. But that doesn't mean it cannot be improved.

By the way, you recognize that any welfare system modifies capitalism and that is true, and those systems are very important in making it possible for many more people to live in a more civilized way than pure capitalism can. But the various regulatory systems that West has introduced are also critically important to making capitalism liveable.

I would think that many people interested in politics do follow New York City politics. But if you don't, that's cool. Not sure you are qualified to comment on the social justice approach to crime, though. It's failing in New York City in a very obvious way. — fishfry

So is it possible that a different version of the social justice approach might be more effective? Is it possible that other places may be implementing it in a better way?

The problem with Margaret Thatcher is that she thought that a dumb quip is a substitute for serious thinking. But then, she was a politician. She also believed that there is no such thing as society. — Ludwig V

I thought it was on point. People in the US like "forgiving student debt." But every nickel is just passed on to the taxpayers. Government doesn't have any money that it doesn't take from someone else. Or borrow and print, that's a nice game that has to end at some point too.

I agree that equality of outcome is not a reliable index of equality of opportunity and that people often talk, lazily, as if they were. But if equality of opportunity does not result in changes to outcomes, then it is meaningless. The only question is, how much change is it reasonable to expect? If 50% of the population is female and only eight of UK's top 100 companies are headed by women (Guardian Oct. 2021), don't you think it is reasonable to ask why? I agree that it doesn't follow that unfair discrimination is at work, but it must be at least a possibility. No? — Ludwig V

I agree. We need a balance between trying to homogenize society, and old-fashioned notions of merit.

Perhaps it's a matter of pendulum swinging and patience.

There are always issues with the NHS in the UK. But that's not about universal health care or not. It's about what can be afforded, what priority it has. Difficult decisions, indeed, but anyone with sense knows they must be made. That's why we have the national institute of clinical excellence. It is not perfect, but it is an attempt to make rational decisions; other systems do not even attempt to do that.
Of course, when my life, or my child's life, is at stake, I will put the system under as much pressure as I can to try everything. And to repeat, it's not about charity or robbing the rich. It's about insurance. — Ludwig V

Health care policy's hard, I agree. I've only heard anecdotal evidence about NHS.

Under capitalism, you think that people get things from an entirely passive system, and under communism, the system dishes things out to people who are entirely passive. That's far too simple. — Ludwig V

I wasn't implying that under communism or capitalism people wouldn't try to play the system. I have no doubt there is criminal activity, for example, under both systems. I can't think of any totally unregulated capitalist systems. On the other hand, communist systems, insofar as they are anti-democratic (which most seem to be and to have been) exercise far more control over their citizens.

I also did not want to imply that the differences between the systems is black and white. In the modern world it is money which effectively rules, and governments are, to a large extent, bought. The CCP on the other hand controls the money because it effectively owns the business it seems.

The trick is, to find something that is objective, or at least rational, or at least acceptable to those who are rejected. — Ludwig V

In a society that cared about its members, there would be no people rejected. You don't need a whole lot of objectivity to figure out what people need. What people are able to contribute, they do, if they're given the chance. Nobody wants to be left out; nobody likes being useless. A badly organized society creates many malcontents and disrupters; a well organized one tends to give rise to very little crime and abuse.

Under a capitalist system, apart from whatever welfare state is in play, people end up getting whatever their capacities enable them to. — Janus

In whose movie? How can you know what the capacities are of a child who doesn't get healthy food or adequate care? What good are capacities where honest work doesn't earn a living wage? What are people supposed to do with their capacities when a company closes its operations and moves to China, leaving entire towns up Shit Creek? Some turn their intelligence and agility to crime. Every economic and political system produces the kind and amount of crime that showcases the capacities of its neglected members. (Except for the mass shootings - that's about internal conflict. Eventually, it becomes civil war.)