America's Unlevel Field- NY Times

[kcballer]

Capitalism isn't based on equality of opportunity, but on the private ownership of the means of production... And in a true capitalist system, everyone must be treated equally and fairly - meaning everyone must be treated by the same rules. That means not taking money from some in order to give it to someone else to buy a certain product.

"everyone must be treated by the same rules" sums up the basis for equality of opportunity in capitalism. How that comes about is debatable, but the idea that it is not a central theme of capitalism is false.  Without the equal opportunity to compete it is not a capitalist market.

[howardroark]

"everyone must be treated by the same rules" sums up the basis for equality of opportunity in capitalism. How that comes about is debatable, but the idea that it is not a central theme of capitalism is false.  Without the equal opportunity to compete it is not a capitalist market.

If everyone is treated equally - that means no special subsidies for certain products (e.g. education) like the author of the article in the OP would like.

[kcballer]

If everyone is treated equally - that means no special subsidies for certain products (e.g. education) like the author of the article in the OP would like.

That is an extreme view, for an equal playing field education is necessary for all.  In your interpretation private education would be banned as that is a special subsidy is it not?

[tonymctones]

Kc, what opportunities are being denied to what groups?

[kcballer]

Kc, what opportunities are being denied to what groups?

Read the article.  Opportunity to pursue higher education is predicated on parentage not merit.  That is not a meritocracy but instead an aristocracy. Education is fundamental to capitalism's need for equality of opportunity to fundamentally work. 

[Soul Crusher]

Read the article.  Opportunity to pursue higher education is predicated on parentage not merit.  That is not a meritocracy but instead an aristocracy. Education is fundamental to capitalism's need for equality of opportunity to fundamentally work. 

Who controls education in this country?   The leftist pofs teachers' unions.   FAIL again for you.     

[kcballer]

Who controls education in this country?   The leftist pofs teachers' unions.   FAIL again for you.     

  are you really this dumb or is it an act?

[Soul Crusher]

are you really this dumb or is it an act?

No- its the damn truth.   blame the stupid idiotic govt we have and the AFT.    They are to blame more than anyone.   

[tonymctones]

Read the article.  Opportunity to pursue higher education is predicated on parentage not merit.  That is not a meritocracy but instead an aristocracy. Education is fundamental to capitalism's need for equality of opportunity to fundamentally work. 

So the parents themselves shouldn't play a role in their children's future?

Maybe you guys dont know the trend, first generation comes over an works menial jobs second generation gets an education and gets a better job and the third gets even more education and a better

[howardroark]

That is an extreme view, for an equal playing field education is necessary for all.  In your interpretation private education would be banned as that is a special subsidy is it not?

No - private education would not be banned. Government education would be defunded. Like I said - it's immoral, unequal, and unfair to take from some in order to subsidize the purchase of certain products by other people.

[George Whorewell]

That is an extreme view, for an equal playing field education is necessary for all.  In your interpretation private education would be banned as that is a special subsidy is it not?

So in your warped universe, the government is supposed to take the place of responsible parents by stealing the money of other citizens to pay for the educational "needs" of the less fortunate?

See how your concept of fairness has helped the black community=

Is it any wonder that unemployment is more than double in the black community and children born out of wedlock are at an all time high-- and yet we have had the same "fair" policies in place for 30 years and today we have a black (albeit a complete and utter failure) president.

Your equally moronic assertion that in order for the playing field to be level, everyone is entitled to an education ( on the backs of the tax payers no less) just shows how ignorant and out of touch with reality you are. You are so brainwashed and incapable of rational thought that you are completely oblivious to the fact that you are parroting the same false narrative that has been forcefed to you by the left for your entire worthless life.

Colleges today are a complete farce due largely in part to the social engineering joke that higher education has transformed into. Now EVERYONE has to go to college- there is a college on practically every corner and yet Americans are stupider than ever. Electricians, plumbers and other vocational jobs clearly pay more, cost less to learn and are better suited for a huge segment of the population that is forced into attending college.

I can go on for days about what an idiot you are, but I'll close with this-- If your parents were junkie fuck ups who didn't know how to use birth control, how is it "fair" that I should pay your way through life?

If you took out loans you couldn't pay, how is it "fair" that I should pay so you get to stay in your home?

If you are too stupid, too lazy, too under-skilled, under-motivated, or [ insert generic excuse]  to accomplish something that other people are capable of doing on their own merit, how is it fair to give you something that you didn't earn and don't have the talent or inclination to achieve on your own?

Is it fair to dumb down an entire society because a permanent underclass of leeches refuses to improve itself? The 1% that needs more "fairness" is dragging down the shit out of the rest of us.

[Mr. Magoo]

Wasn't really commenting on your thought experiment.  Just this:


Regarding the inheritance, not sure what point you're trying to make?  Government should have nothing to do with how people decide to give their money/property/assets away.  

The point was to show how equal outcomes can be argued to be unacceptable and unfair. Everyone having the same of something (for simplicity purposes let's say income) can be argued to be unfair and therefore unjust. I gave examples to show how one can conceivably see how 2 people having equal income, in certain circumstances, can be unfair. The ideal of equality does not necessary mean equality of income, etc. So when talking about equality, do not think automatically of "equality of outcome". This is not directed to you specifically, but I am elaborating on the point I originally made to 3333.

[Mr. Magoo]

I'll reiterate since the OP has not replied... The only fair or egalitarian society is one where everyone is treated equally, in other words, one negative rights are observed and no positive obligations are made by government... the article in the OP goes directly against that. The article presumes to take from some and give to others. That is not fair and it most certainly is not equal treatment.

Instead of separating your post up, I'll try to respond this way:

I disagree with "the only fair or egalitarian society is one where everyone is treated equally". I can think of several counterexamples to show how that is not an agreeable definition. First, a simple one. Refer back to my "equality of income can be unjust" argument I gave earlier in this thread. That was a scenario that met your criterion, but was still unfair. Second, a more radical example. Consider if Nazi germany, instead of killing only the jews, gays, etc, killed all of the citizens (or at least as many as possible). That would also be a scenario that matched your criterion of "everyone being treated equally" (They all get killed). But this scenario is also unfair/unjust (i use those terms interchangeably).

So, treating everyone equally is NOT sufficient for a fair society. There needs to be more added to the theory of equality. Since the foundation of your argument has been refuted, the rest is equally refuted.

[George Whorewell]

Instead of separating your post up, I'll try to respond this way:

I disagree with "the only egalitarian society is one where everyone is treated equally". I can think of several counterexamples to show how that is not an agreeable definition. First, a simple one. Refer back to my "equality of income can be unjust" argument I gave earlier in this thread. That was a scenario that met your criterion, but was still unfair. Second, a more radical example. Consider if Nazi germany, instead of killing only the jews, gays, etc, killed all of the citizens (or at least as many as possible). That would also be a scenario that matched your criterion of "everyone being treated equally" (They all get killed). But this scenario is also unfair/unjust (i use those terms interchangeably).

So, treating everyone equally is NOT sufficient for a fair society. There needs to be more added to the theory of equality. Since the foundation of your argument has been refuted, the rest is equally refuted.

You are living proof that some people should not be allowed to attend college. What a twisted, asinine and completely off base comparison. Did your freshman humanities professor feed you that drivel-- and was it before or after the lecture on how capitalism exploits women so men should pee sitting down, or was it later in the semester where you learned about how the heroic Che Guevara was a much better human being than our greedy, murderous founding fathers?

[Mr. Magoo]

doesnt seem unfair to me at all, you get out what you put in...

who gets to determine what their needs are?

by your logic a wellfare queen with 5 kids should be pulling down six figures for sitting on her ass...

what you fail to see is that paying them in accordance to their input is egalitarian as a matter of fact its the most objective way to be fair about it...

If you want to know who gets to determine what their needs are, do your own reading lol. Dworkin suggests the "hypothetical insurance market", but that is too complicated to spell out on a forum. Second, who gets to determine needs is irrelevant for my argument. I am arguing what justice requires. That is a different question than 1) The practicality of bringing about justice and 2) What the state should do. Note the difference between what I am arguing, and #2.

Second, I think you picked a bad example with the woman with 5 children, it's not one you would want to make to prove your point (your point being "what about lazy people?"). Mainly because it deals with dependency (i.e. "Why should the children suffer because their mother is lazy? If the children shouldn't suffer (because they didn't choose their mother) then they should be given more resources solely for the reason of dependency, if not the reason of merit on behalf of the mother).

[Mr. Magoo]

You are living proof that some people should not be allowed to attend college. What a twisted, asinine and completely off base comparison. Did your freshman humanities professor feed you that drivel-- and was it before or after the lecture on how capitalism exploits women so men should pee sitting down, or was it later in the semester where you learned about how the heroic Che Guevara was a much better human being than our greedy, murderous founding fathers?

Idiot....it wasn't a "comparison".

[Mr. Magoo]

Magoo,

what makes you think its fair for one person to put in the same or more effort and get less?

how is that fair at all?

Good question. First of all let me make sure I understand your argument. "If someone puts in more effort, then they should get more". Correct?

I'll quote a paragraph by John Rawls (From his A Theory of Justice page 312).
  "The effort a person is willing to make is influenced by his natural abilities and skills and the alternatives open to him. The better  endowed are more likely, other things equal, to strive conscientiously, and there seems to be no way to discount for their greater good fortune.  The idea of rewarding desert is impracticable."

I underlined the word "influenced". It does NOT mean "wholly due to". He means that we cannot reckon the extent to which their abovepar effort is attributable not to admirable striving but to greater good fortune.  (point taken from Cohen).

I'll give an example to try and show this point.
Imagine 2 people working at a job. Let's imagine we can quantify their effort at that job. Person A puts in 90% effort. Person B puts in 85% effort. There is a chance for a promotion. Who should get it? You argue Person A (because he put in more effort). However, consider this. Person B has to support several dependents and fatigue impedes his commitment to his job. Since Person B lacks complete control over his predicament , basing justice on solely effort could be unjust (Those dependencies will suffer due to inflation, while Person A has simple tastes, etc etc).

I predict you will bring up the practicality objection to reply to this, but see my other post. I am only talking about what justice requires.

[howardroark]

I disagree with "the only fair or egalitarian society is one where everyone is treated equally". I can think of several counterexamples to show how that is not an agreeable definition. First, a simple one. Refer back to my "equality of income can be unjust" argument I gave earlier in this thread. That was a scenario that met your criterion, but was still unfair.

Was it unfair? How so? Your argument that the two had different needs is silly on the face of it. First of all, it is impossible to clearly distinguish between wants, desires, and needs. Secondly, why do differing needs require different treatment? Thirdly, even if you are able to establish that differing needs require different treatment, then wouldn't that different treatment be inherently unfair and unequal?

Second, a more radical example. Consider if Nazi germany, instead of killing only the jews, gays, etc, killed all of the citizens (or at least as many as possible). That would also be a scenario that matched your criterion of "everyone being treated equally" (They all get killed). But this scenario is also unfair/unjust (i use those terms interchangeably).

So, treating everyone equally is NOT sufficient for a fair society.

Another silly argument.

First of all, that is not equal treatment, since there must be killers and victims in your example, which is inherently unfair.

Secondly, such a society requires some to provide the resources for the killing of others; in other words, it requires a positive obligation on certain citizens. Such a positive obligation is counter to the fair and equal society consisting of negative rights that I'm talking about.

Thirdly, such a society inherently infringes on the negative rights of citizens - the negative rights necessary for fair and equal treatment. So your argument collapses underneath its own weight.

[loco]

I'm doing an honors thesis in egalitarian political philosophy, so this piece caught my eye. If anyone insults the author instead of the argument, show yourself the door  .

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/opinion/krugman-americas-unlevel-field.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

The author is an idiot!  I'll read the argument later.

[tonymctones]

If you want to know who gets to determine what their needs are, do your own reading lol. Dworkin suggests the "hypothetical insurance market", but that is too complicated to spell out on a forum. Second, who gets to determine needs is irrelevant for my argument. I am arguing what justice requires. That is a different question than 1) The practicality of bringing about justice and 2) What the state should do. Note the difference between what I am arguing, and #2.

Second, I think you picked a bad example with the woman with 5 children, it's not one you would want to make to prove your point (your point being "what about lazy people?"). Mainly because it deals with dependency (i.e. "Why should the children suffer because their mother is lazy? If the children shouldn't suffer (because they didn't choose their mother) then they should be given more resources solely for the reason of dependency, if not the reason of merit on behalf of the mother).

I'll tell you what I'll read the stuff for your masters/phd if you read the stuff for my MBA, k?

You have to define justice first, you can't talk about what is just without determining what just is.

Now who gets to decide just?

Why should the kid with parents that did well for themselves be punished?

You still haven't given reasons for that

[tonymctones]

Good question. First of all let me make sure I understand your argument. "If someone puts in more effort, then they should get more". Correct?

I'll quote a paragraph by John Rawls (From his A Theory of Justice page 312).
  "The effort a person is willing to make is influenced by his natural abilities and skills and the alternatives open to him. The better  endowed are more likely, other things equal, to strive conscientiously, and there seems to be no way to discount for their greater good fortune.  The idea of rewarding desert is impracticable."

I underlined the word "influenced". It does NOT mean "wholly due to". He means that we cannot reckon the extent to which their abovepar effort is attributable not to admirable striving but to greater good fortune.  (point taken from Cohen).

I'll give an example to try and show this point.
Imagine 2 people working at a job. Let's imagine we can quantify their effort at that job. Person A puts in 90% effort. Person B puts in 85% effort. There is a chance for a promotion. Who should get it? You argue Person A (because he put in more effort). However, consider this. Person B has to support several dependents and fatigue impedes his commitment to his job. Since Person B lacks complete control over his predicament , basing justice on solely effort could be unjust (Those dependencies will suffer due to inflation, while Person A has simple tastes, etc etc).

I predict you will bring up the practicality objection to reply to this, but see my other post. I am only talking about what justice requires.

Again you use justice without defining it. If your idea idea of justice is ppls pay in accordance to their needs then somebody has to determine what their needs are

[Soul Crusher]

According to the leftists - they determine what "justice is" not the common law or penal code, or constitution.


If you disagree with them, off to the gulag.



Being a progressive communist is no different than being a malevolent tyrant.