A question for Moorobot / Propertarian / other Egalitarian Types

[TomCollins]

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?

[valenzuela]

[ QUOTE ]


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

[/ QUOTE ]

yes.

[Al68]

I think you're missing the main underlying assumption. The reason "inequality" is viewed as "harm" is because wealth is seen as pre-existing its ownership. Like a pie that just exists. And if some people have a bigger piece of this pie than others, it is "harm" because the pie should have been "divided" equitably.

Maybe "pre-existing" is the wrong word, but they always talk about wealth in this way. For example "why should they have most of the wealth [/i]. Or the money. As if wealth just "exists".

This misconception of wealth was made somewhat more common by the writings of Karl Marx. He kept referring to "the means of production", etc.

And of course it's been repeated so much since then, it's commonplace.

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. Wealth is not created without ownership. So there is no such thing as "the wealth".

And I am asking to be corrected if I'm wrong. I know how easy it is to misrepresent someone else's beliefs without realizing it. After all, libertarians are often accused of "wanting the rich to get richer and screw the poor", etc. So I don't want to misrepresent anyone. So please, please correct me if I'm wrong.

[valenzuela]

We have 5 kids. If you give all of them a bread and butter they will be happier if you give bread and butter to 4 of them and you give a big hamburger to one of them.( the exception is the kid that will have the big hamburger)
If anyone denies this theyre simply not being intelectually honest, whether you like it or not thats the way human beings work.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
We have 5 kids. If you give all of them a bread and butter they will be happier if you give bread and butter to 4 of them and you give a big hamburger to one of them.( the exception is the kid that will have the big hamburger)
If anyone denies this theyre simply not being intelectually honest, whether you like it or not thats the way human beings work.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, speaking only for myself of course.

If Bill Gates had showed up in my favorite cardroom yesterday and generously gave everyone $600, but only gave me $300, I would be happier than if he had never showed up at my favorite cardroom that day. I would of course wonder why he did it that way, and it would seem very odd, but I would still be happier than if he hadn't done it at all or if he had stayed home yesterday.

Further, change the amounts to where everyone else in the cardroom received $1,000,000 gifts, but I only received a $200,000 gift. In that case, even though the disparity is proportionately greater, I would be positively ECSTATIC.

[valenzuela]

I never said that the kids prefered not getting fed over getting bread with butter while one kid gets an hamburger.

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]

Further, change the amounts to where everyone else in the cardroom received $1,000,000 gifts, but I only received a $200,000 gift. In that case, even though the disparity is proportionately greater, I would be positively ECSTATIC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two possible senarios: 1) You and your four friends are at the cardroom that day. Each of your friends receives $1,000,000 and you are given nothing. You're not better off, you're not worse off. Do you feel the least bit slighted? What do you think the total happiness is of the group of 5?

2) You and your four friends are at the cardroom that day. Each of you is given a gift of $800,000. Obviously--for the math disinclined--the same amount of money, but now distributed to all 5 of you. How do you feel now? Do you think the total happiness of the group is more, less, or the same compared to senario 1?

[ALawPoker]

There are times when people will still be happier, and there are times when they won't be. If I got the free car and my neighbors got the better car, I would still be happier, because getting any car is a very good thing and the knowledge that everyone else got a better car isn't enough to outweigh it. But if you ask yourself would you be happier if a.) you knew about what your neighbors got and b.) if you didn't, I think B is the obvious answer. The knowledge that other people are better off than you is (generally) a bad thing (in itself). You will still be happy to have a car, because the car offsets this. If everyone else was given $100,000 but you were given $5, you'd probably be happier without any of the gifts. It's just a matter of degree, and the free car example is somewhat sensational. I could be wrong, but I don't think the egalitarians ever argue that the benefit of quality is so great that it offsets all material gain.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Two possible senarios: 1) You and your four friends are at the cardroom that day. Each of your friends receives $1,000,000 and you are given nothing. You're not better off, you're not worse off. Do you feel the least bit slighted? What do you think the total happiness is of the group of 5?

2) You and your four friends are at the cardroom that day. Each of you is given a gift of $800,000. Obviously--for the math disinclined--the same amount of money, but now distributed to all 5 of you. How do you feel now? Do you think the total happiness of the group is more, less, or the same compared to senario 1?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not apt. here's one that is.

1) You and four of your friends all get $200,000.
2) You get $200,000, four of your friends get $1,000,000.

or

2b) You and three friends get $200,000, one friend get's $1,000,000

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Further, change the amounts to where everyone else in the cardroom received $1,000,000 gifts, but I only received a $200,000 gift. In that case, even though the disparity is proportionately greater, I would be positively ECSTATIC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two possible senarios: 1) You and your four friends are at the cardroom that day. Each of your friends receives $1,000,000 and you are given nothing. You're not better off, you're not worse off. Do you feel the least bit slighted? What do you think the total happiness is of the group of 5?

2) You and your four friends are at the cardroom that day. Each of you is given a gift of $800,000. Obviously--for the math disinclined--the same amount of money, but now distributed to all 5 of you. How do you feel now? Do you think the total happiness of the group is more, less, or the same compared to senario 1?

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you use to measure "total happiness"?