Wealth distribution in the US

[Admiral Yi]

Why is not helpiing people who don't put in effort a problem?

[Sheilbh]

Why is not helpiing people who don't put in effort a problem?

Well they are still people. But that's exactly the problem with a perfect meritocracy. It's justly unequal, the system is more important than the humans in it. It can tolerate a perpetual (but shifting) underclass because it's a fair reflection of their ability and merit.

[Admiral Yi]

Well they are still people. But that's exactly the problem with a perfect meritocracy. It's justly unequal, the system is more important than the humans in it. It can tolerate a perpetual (but shifting) underclass because it's a fair reflection of their ability and merit.

In Korea they call this "east question, west answer."  Or something like that.  I asked about effort and your answered about ability.

Ability is arguably a random die roll of attributes at the beginning of the game over which you have no control.  But effort is very much an in-game choice.

[Sheilbh]

In Korea they call this "east question, west answer."  Or something like that.  I asked about effort and your answered about ability.

Okay but you were the only one talking about effort alone though, I said meritocracy means success = ability + effort.

Edit: However the answer's the same if it's just a question of effort. Despite people's choices, they are still people and that should matter in any society or economic system.

[Admiral Yi]

So it's "from everyone according to their abilities, to everyone according to their needs," unless they don't feel like it.

[DGuller]

The wealthy can privatize security much easier because of economies of scale than the middle class can.

Can they privatize patent defense?

[Admiral Yi]

Can they privatize patent defense?

Theoretically.  They could hire goons to break the knees of everyone who infringes on a patent.  I doubt that would be good use of resources however.

[Sheilbh]

So it's "from everyone according to their abilities, to everyone according to their needs," unless they don't feel like it.

I don't believe in the idea that there's a just way of being unequal. Any economic system should have the overall welfare of the people involved at its heart and they're fallible. Some will be lazy, some won't ever fulfil their potential or will take the piss and some will just fuck-up. That doesn't mean it's right for society to just let people suffer, or be abandoned.

Luckily in our imperfectly meritocratic society it isn't an issue. For us caring for the poorest and the jobless is good sense and fair. That we're not meritocratic compels us to help people at the bottom of society. In a more perfectly meritocratic society, as you show, it's just gratuitous charity that could rationally, and justly, be done away with. The only justification there (or, for that matter, in a Marxist state) for anything like a welfare state is human weakness and compassion.

[DGuller]

Can they privatize patent defense?

Theoretically.  They could hire goons to break the knees of everyone who infringes on a patent.  I doubt that would be good use of resources however.

I'm sure the rich would still prefer to live in a country with a rule of law, rather than in 1990ies Russia, and that they would be willing to pay quite a bit more money for that choice (obviously in absolute amounts, but even in relative amounts) than an average peon.

[CountDeMoney]

So it's "from everyone according to their abilities, to everyone according to their needs," unless they don't feel like it.

I don't believe in the idea that there's a just way of being unequal. Any economic system should have the overall welfare of the people involved at its heart and they're fallible. Some will be lazy, some won't ever fulfil their potential or will take the piss and some will just fuck-up. That doesn't mean it's right for society to just let people suffer, or be abandoned.

We didn't get to be America by thinking like that, man.

[Sheilbh]

We didn't get to be America by thinking like that, man.

As ever America needs more Catholics 

[Admiral Yi]

I don't quite see how a belief that ability and effort should necessarily be rewarded necessarily leads to a Randian indifference to those less fortunate and productive.

It's also mind-boggling that you think *any* inequality is unjust.

[MadImmortalMan]

I don't believe in the idea that there's a just way of being unequal.

Is there a just way of making them the same?

[jimmy olsen]

But I am not sure what sounds like a nightmare about a perfect meritocratic society. Everybody making their own destiny based on their ability sounds like a good thing to me.

The irony is 'meritocracy' was coined by a British writer in a satirical dystopian essay. It was a pejorative phrase that's now something we openly aspire towards.

What about the idea did the writer find so objectionable?

[Admiral Yi]

I'm sure the rich would still prefer to live in a country with a rule of law, rather than in 1990ies Russia, and that they would be willing to pay quite a bit more money for that choice (obviously in absolute amounts, but even in relative amounts) than an average peon.

Make your case.