Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Mr. Magoo on January 09, 2012, 08:16:37 AM
-
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 :P.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/opinion/krugman-americas-unlevel-field.html?_r=1&ref=global-home
Last month President Obama gave a speech invoking the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt on behalf of progressive ideals — and Republicans were not happy. Mitt Romney, in particular, insisted that where Roosevelt believed that “government should level the playing field to create equal opportunities,” Mr. Obama believes that “government should create equal outcomes,” that we should have a society where “everyone receives the same or similar rewards, regardless of education, effort and willingness to take risk.”
As many people were quick to point out, this portrait of the president as radical redistributionist was pure fiction. What hasn’t been as widely noted, however, is that Mr. Romney’s picture of himself as a believer in a level playing field is just as fictional. Where is the evidence that he or his party cares at all about equality of opportunity?
Let’s talk for a minute about the actual state of the playing field.
Americans are much more likely than citizens of other nations to believe that they live in a meritocracy. But this self-image is a fantasy: as a report in The Times last week pointed out, America actually stands out as the advanced country in which it matters most who your parents were, the country in which those born on one of society’s lower rungs have the least chance of climbing to the top or even to the middle.
And if you ask why America is more class-bound in practice than the rest of the Western world, a large part of the reason is that our government falls down on the job of creating equal opportunity.
The failure starts early: in America, the holes in the social safety net mean that both low-income mothers and their children are all too likely to suffer from poor nutrition and receive inadequate health care. It continues once children reach school age, where they encounter a system in which the affluent send their kids to good, well-financed public schools or, if they choose, to private schools, while less-advantaged children get a far worse education.
Once they reach college age, those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds are far less likely to go to college — and vastly less likely to go to a top-tier school — than those luckier in their parentage. At the most selective, “Tier 1” schools, 74 percent of the entering class comes from the quarter of households that have the highest “socioeconomic status”; only 3 percent comes from the bottom quarter.
And if children from our society’s lower rungs do manage to make it into a good college, the lack of financial support makes them far more likely to drop out than the children of the affluent, even if they have as much or more native ability. One long-term study by the Department of Education found that students with high test scores but low-income parents were less likely to complete college than students with low scores but affluent parents — loosely speaking, that smart poor kids are less likely than dumb rich kids to get a degree.
It’s no wonder, then, that Horatio Alger stories, tales of poor kids who make good, are much less common in reality than they are in legend — and much less common in America than they are in Canada or Europe. Which brings me back to those, like Mr. Romney, who claim to believe in equality of opportunity. Where is the evidence for that claim?
Think about it: someone who really wanted equal opportunity would be very concerned about the inequality of our current system. He would support more nutritional aid for low-income mothers-to-be and young children. He would try to improve the quality of public schools. He would support aid to low-income college students. And he would support what every other advanced country has, a universal health care system, so that nobody need worry about untreated illness or crushing medical bills.
If Mr. Romney has come out for any of these things, I’ve missed it. And the Congressional wing of his party seems determined to make upward mobility even harder. For example, Republicans have tried to slash funds for the Women, Infants and Children program, which helps provide adequate nutrition to low-income mothers and their children; they have demanded cuts in Pell grants, which are designed to help lower-income students afford college.
And they have, of course, pledged to repeal a health reform that, for all its imperfections, would finally give Americans the guaranteed care that everyone else in the advanced world takes for granted.
So where is the evidence that Mr. Romney or his party actually believes in equal opportunity? Judging by their actions, they seem to prefer a society in which your station in life is largely determined by that of your parents — and in which the children of the very rich get to inherit their estates tax-free. Teddy Roosevelt would not have approved.
-
Utterly absurd article. We spend far more on education per capita than most others, same with health care, etc.
The problem in our society is the cost of living, inflation, regulation, taxation, and too many laws.
Why is equalty of outcomes even a desired outcome? We can all be equally broke and slaves right?
-
Utterly absurd article. We spend far more on education per capita than most others, same with health care, etc.
The problem in our society is the cost of living, inflation, regulation, taxation, and too many laws.
Why is equalty of outcomes even a desired outcome? We can all be equally broke and slaves right?
U.S. spending more than others doesn't mean we need to reduce amount spent. It could mean we need to spend on different areas, restructure what we do spend it on, or even that other countries don't spend enough, etc. And nobody argues that equality of outcomes is a desired outcome. That reduces personal responsibility, and the principle that governments should treat their citizens with equal respect (point is from Ronald Dworkin). Imagine two people who got equal income. One has simple tastes and the other is handicapped and needs to pay someone to watch after him, etc. It seems unfair to give them both equal income when the 2nd has much more expenses, and might lead a much worse life if given an equal pay.
-
our government falls down on the job of creating equal opportunity.
Maybe our government should get out of the business of creating equal opportunities all together?
-
Maybe our government should get out of the business of creating equal opportunities all together?
Do you think a government should preserve and promote what is "just" and "fair"? If not, then do you believe an aristocracy or a feudal system is an acceptable form of government? If the answer to the first is no, but the answer to the second is also no, then why?
If yes to the first question, do you think it's "fair" or "just" that some people lack equal opportunity due to no choice of their own?
-
U.S. spending more than others doesn't mean we need to reduce amount spent. It could mean we need to spend on different areas, restructure what we do spend it on, or even that other countries don't spend enough, etc. And nobody argues that equality of outcomes is a desired outcome. That reduces personal responsibility, and the principle that governments should treat their citizens with equal respect (point is from Ronald Dworkin). Imagine two people who got equal income. One has simple tastes and the other is handicapped and needs to pay someone to watch after him, etc. It seems unfair to give them both equal income when the 2nd has much more expenses, and might lead a much worse life if given an equal pay.
Businesses don't give people income. Employees earn it. That's the way it ought to be.
-
Businesses don't give people income. Employees earn it. That's the way it ought to be.
Irrelevant to my thought experiment. I was only showing how equal outcomes can be argued to be unacceptable and unfair. The example was two people receiving an equal income. Notice the word "imagine" in that paragraph. If you really care so much about the example being realistic, then imagine the income was in the form of an inheritance to two children, one who is handicapped and need more funds (pay somebody to watch after them, etc) to lead an equal successful life as their non-handicapped sibling.
-
Do you think a government should preserve and promote what is "just" and "fair"? If not, then do you believe an aristocracy or a feudal system is an acceptable form of government? If the answer to the first is no, but the answer to the second is also no, then why?
If yes to the first question, do you think it's "fair" or "just" that some people lack equal opportunity due to no choice of their own?
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Not sure what you mean by this. But the basic rule of justice, fairness, equality, etc. is that you don't treat different people differently. That doesn't just apply to race or sex, but also income: those of higher income levels should face the same rules (and taxes) as the rest of the population.
-
LOL at this article... income mobility was the greatest in the United States till this country was overrun with taxes, regulations, and "welfare" which restricted the ability of the poor to rise to the top.
-
LOL at this article... income mobility was the greatest in the United States till this country was overrun with taxes, regulations, and "welfare" which restricted the ability of the poor to rise to the top.
These leftists are a real hoot. They dont understand basic concepts or reality to any degree whatsoever.
-
Irrelevant to my thought experiment. I was only showing how equal outcomes can be argued to be unacceptable and unfair. The example was two people receiving an equal income. Notice the word "imagine" in that paragraph. If you really care so much about the example being realistic, then imagine the income was in the form of an inheritance to two children, one who is handicapped and need more funds (pay somebody to watch after them, etc) to lead an equal successful life as their non-handicapped sibling.
Wasn't really commenting on your thought experiment. Just this:
It seems unfair to give them both equal income when the 2nd has much more expenses, and might lead a much worse life if given an equal pay.
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.
-
What part of thats not what this country is, don't you get. There is no free lunch. Both sides of my family are immigrants. One off the boat from Ireland and one second generation Italian for Sicily. They both did well. My grand parents and their famlies all did well eventually. Why have the children of Asians done well....why is only one group done poorly...that one group has been here the longest. Why is it that latin Americans are slowly moving up the ladder. People need to work hard...no hand outs..no unlevel advantage. You have idiots in US Berkley whining about the fact that there are more Asians and whites in the engineering department then minorities...what? So the answer is lowering standards? You libs and your bizarre thought process.
-
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.
-
Do you think a government should preserve and promote what is "just" and "fair"? If not, then do you believe an aristocracy or a feudal system is an acceptable form of government? If the answer to the first is no, but the answer to the second is also no, then why?
If yes to the first question, do you think it's "fair" or "just" that some people lack equal opportunity due to no choice of their own?
In reply to your first question, of course.
We've gone way overboard in "leveling the playing field" today. We should continue to level the playing field through our schools, public libraries, churches, etc... Our government can't continue to attempt to raise people though, and we all need to realize a certain percentage of people are just doomed to fail.
-
When is the playing field considered level? We have had Black SECDEF and State, Black Oscar winner, Black Supreme Court Justices, Black President, Black CEOs. What is the criteria for saying the playing field is level lets move on?
-
It would only be fair if Mr Magoo was stoned to death. Perhaps an equal number of similarly sized black, white and brown rocks can be hurled at his empty head with precisely equal force so that he may accurately absorb the true essence of fairness.
While other rocks of dissimilar size and color would experience discrimination, the issue of rock fairness can be adequately addressed through numerous legislative avenues. Fortunately, all of these avenues begin and end with US government subsidies and affirmative action quotas. The rock lobby is quite powerful in certain DC circles.
Just saying...
-
U.S. spending more than others doesn't mean we need to reduce amount spent. It could mean we need to spend on different areas, restructure what we do spend it on, or even that other countries don't spend enough, etc. And nobody argues that equality of outcomes is a desired outcome. That reduces personal responsibility, and the principle that governments should treat their citizens with equal respect (point is from Ronald Dworkin). Imagine two people who got equal income. One has simple tastes and the other is handicapped and needs to pay someone to watch after him, etc. It seems unfair to give them both equal income when the 2nd has much more expenses, and might lead a much worse life if given an equal pay.
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...
-
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?
-
Fairness is Helen Keller being allowed to become a Navy Seal. Actually no wait--- Fairness is Congress forcing the military to make Helen Keller a Navy Seal. Her squad members will have to "get with the program" and realize that gender distinctions, handicap-able attributes and unnecessarily wasting money/ putting lives in danger are fair necessities of a civilized society.
How's fairness done for the black community? 30 years of "fairness" has done wonders!
How about "economic" fairness? I can't think of a more resounding success. 1 trillion dollars wasted on the "war against poverty" and making home ownership more "fair" via Fannie and Freddie and look at how wonderful everything has become!
Fairness is blaming someone else for what YOU don't have because your too stupid or too lazy or too inept or too much of a coward to be what you want to be.
Those who deserve help and need help NEVER bitch about "fairness". Only the rats who suck the blood out of society and their political party ( the left) whine about things being unfair.
-
How's fairness done for the black community? 30 years of "fairness" has done wonders!
How about "economic" fairness? I can't think of a more resounding success. 1 trillion dollars wasted on the "war against poverty" and making home ownership more "fair" via Fannie and Freddie and look at how wonderful everything has become!
Fairness is blaming someone else for what YOU don't have because your too stupid or too lazy or too inept or too much of a coward to be what you want to be.
Booom.
-
Booom.
Double boom.
-
I'll respond to some of these tomorrow or sometime, I've been busy lately
-
I look forward to your justification of the ppl who exert more effort/produce more getting less as equal treatment...;)
-
Maybe our government should get out of the business of creating equal opportunities all together?
Haha come on. Capitalism is based on equality of opportunity for all. In order to have a true capitalist system there must be equal opportunity for anyone to enter the market and compete. Clearly that is not the case when education and resources are not available to all in the same way.
-
Haha come on. Capitalism is based on equality of opportunity for all. In order to have a true capitalist system there must be equal opportunity for anyone to enter the market and compete. Clearly that is not the case when education and resources are not available to all in the same way.
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.
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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?
-
Kc, what opportunities are being denied to what groups?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
::) 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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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).
-
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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :P.
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.