A question for Moorobot / Propertarian / other Egalitarian Types

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any evidence for a conclusion so absurd? Why would I think it was "fair"?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's saying random = fair.

[/ QUOTE ]

So he's saying that the only reason I would be happy about my neighbor winning the lottery is because it's random?

Still doesn't make any sense.

[valenzuela]

Im not saying random=fair

We have two types of inequality.
Inequality seen as fair and inequality seen as unfair.
The inequality that bothers ppl the most is inequality seen as unfair.


Does anyone on this thread thinks al68 would like it if the goverment gave his neighbour x million dollars just because he likes him, of course not. why? because al would think that inequality is unfair.

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
Im not saying random=fair

We have two types of inequality.
Inequality seen as fair and inequality seen as unfair.
The inequality that bothers ppl the most is inequality seen as unfair.


Does anyone on this thread thinks al68 would like it if the goverment gave his neighbour x million dollars just because he likes him, of course not. why? because al would think that inequality is unfair.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, that's not why. I do not object to inequality, period. I'm not an egalitarian, in case you haven't noticed.

[moorobot]

Let me just start out by saying this factor is far from the most important when considering the negative impacts of inequality.

[ QUOTE ]

Egalitarians have made the claim that inequality will negatively impact a person's well being. If I wake up one morning and find out I have a new Dodge Neon sitting outside my house I will be happier. However, if I later find out my neighbors were also given cars, but they were given BMWs, egalitarian types will claim the gift of a Neon means I was harmed, since I am further behind my neighbors than before (although not as harmed as if I were given nothing).


How far does this principle translate? Suppose scientists monitoring the heavens find a signal from a nearby solar system and are able to decode the message. It turns out that there are humans living on this planet that are incredibly wealthy. Technology on the planet has allowed everyone to pursue a leisurely life of pursuing anything they want with very little effort needed.

Are people harmed by knowing about this society who previously didn't?

[/ QUOTE ] It all depends on what their reference point is i.e. what a person is comparing themselves with, and who they are competing with in various competitions (e.g. status, jobs, mates, etc.). It also depends on the individual person; some people get a lot of enjoyment out of chocalate, some don't. That in no way means it is a "choice"; if we could choose what brought us harm or well-being, pain or pleasure, I suspect that we all would love the taste of salads and protein bars and that we would all enjoy taking out the garbage, cleaning and working out, and our jobs.

For example, in your initial example, the reference point is one's neighbor. Generally, a person's reference points are people they interact with in some way and/or other people in the country they live in. People in Sweden don't see themselves as being harmed when you get a BWM; they don't even care enough to notice.

Similarly, people who live in poor countries who are relatively rich but absolutely poor- compared to the relatively poor in, say, the United States- report higher levels of well-being than those who live in rich countries who are relatively poor.

This all makes perfect Darwinian sense, BTW.

So to answer your question, very few people are going to be harmed by discovering this wealthy race of aliens. I'd add that the fact that the wealthy are from a different race makes it even more unlikely that people are going to care.

[moorobot]

So if the government gave all white women who are currently under 125 lbs 1 million dollars (funded via tax dollars, of course), and gave everybody else nothing, you wouldn't find that at all unfair or otherwise objectionable?

What if the U.S. government had different legal rules for different races or for people with different colored eyes e.g. stiffer penalaties, higher taxes, less rights and more laws for one eye color than for another?

[SNOWBALL]

you have it totally wrong. Wealthy people don't get their riches from rubbing magic lamps. They get it from exploiting the working class. The fact that they are extremely rich presupposes the poverty of others. Please read wage labor and capital by Karl Marx so you can disabuse yourself of your shocking ignorance.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Please correct me if I have any of your claims wrong. I will clearly word them in a way not as favorable as you would, but anything that is flat wrong, please note.

Egalitarians have made the claim that inequality will negatively impact a person's well being. If I wake up one morning and find out I have a new Dodge Neon sitting outside my house I will be happier. However, if I later find out my neighbors were also given cars, but they were given BMWs, egalitarian types will claim the gift of a Neon means I was harmed, since I am further behind my neighbors than before (although not as harmed as if I were given nothing).

How far does this principle translate? Suppose scientists monitoring the heavens find a signal from a nearby solar system and are able to decode the message. It turns out that there are humans living on this planet that are incredibly wealthy. Technology on the planet has allowed everyone to pursue a leisurely life of pursuing anything they want with very little effort needed.

Are people harmed by knowing about this society who previously didn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they are in no way harmed. In fact they are helped by this knowledge as it allows them to see what Earthlings, too, might accomplish given efforts in a similar direction. It is evidence that pursuing technology can reap great rewards for all. It is a source of hope based upon example.

Those who would feel "harmed" by this knowledge (and there are probably quite a number of them) are simply immature. Here's a different example, related to maturity: if a kid gets a great present for Christmas and is very happy about it, then he sees that his classmate got an even nicer model of the same toy, he may feel somewhat jealous but he can still feel happy that he has the toy. The degree to which his happiness outweighs his jealousy is a measure of his maturity. If his previous happiness completely dissolves and he feels only jealousy, even days later, then he is very immature. A wonderful toy is a wonderful toy, even if someone else has an even better one.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
On the flip side, libertarians, including me, (correctly) recognize that wealth (in the form of material goods) is already owned by someone at the time it is created.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lmao, this desribes Marxist theory to a T. Who actualy makes the wealth, who adds the value of their labour to raw materials? According to your description of libertarianism workers should own everything they create. Are you a pinko communist.

[haarley]

[ QUOTE ]
What if the U.S. government had different legal rules for different races or for people with different colored eyes e.g. stiffer penalaties, higher taxes, less rights and more laws for one eye color than for another?

[/ QUOTE ] The U.S. government does have different rules for people of different colors.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
According to your description of libertarianism workers should own everything they create.

[/ QUOTE ]

He never said that. Only that it's owned by someone . In the typical case it would be the employer because he is the one requesting and paying for the labor.