[mikemike]

I don’t think we, as a society, really want equality because individual people want different things. It seems that there is a big fight for the causes of XYZ Equality/Justice/Egalitarianism whether XYZ is income, wealth, health, education, housing, or any other factor of society. I think different people want different things out of life and if we were all equal, we would be all equally miserable. Some people want more money than other people and are willing to make sacrifices in terms of stress, time, and happiness in order to achieve that end, other people want to be healthier than other people and are willing to put in the effort in maintaining a healthy life style to achieve that, and so on. Everyone seems to want to be great at something, do something they are proud of, or have something they are proud of but with equality that just would not be possible.

If people have freedom, they will (and have) self-select away from equality. Nowhere is this more evident or more impactful than our personal relationships where more often than not you see yuppies marrying yuppies, trailer trash marrying trailer trash, people marrying within their own race, people marrying within their own sexual orientation, or people not marrying at all and just living promiscuous lives. In a society with relationship equality, you would need to have arranged marriages so that a white heterosexual male trailer trash high school dropout has an equal chance at ending up married to black homosexual Ivy League graduate as he does marrying the girl from the trailer next door. You would have people forced to raise an equal number of children regardless of whether they want no children or lots of children. The choice of who we build our life with and how many children we have has such profound impacts on everything else in our society but there seems to be no outcry for equality on this area and so I don’t think we really want a society of universal equality.

[Nesster]

Mike, your insight into people psychology is good; however, I'm not sure you are drawing the right conclusions, confusing "equality of outcome" to "equality under the law" and/or "equality in opportunity".

The problem of course comes in when we try to apply metrics to laws, regulations, and spending programs. If we want to measure if a weapons program, say, is cost effective and productive of desired results, we examine the spend and test the weapon. Applying this to softer areas, we are left to measuring poverty rates, graduation rates etc... which of course are fodder for politics. What? The program didn't end poverty? Cancel it, as obviously it doesn't work! say one side. What? The program didn't end poverty? Increase funding, as obviously we haven't done enough! says the other. The sensible of course look at the marginal improvements, i.e. did the poverty rate go down, by how much, and did the poor receive services? And then the political question of was this change cost effective.


In your examples, marriage self selection can only occur if laws prohibiting it don't exist.

But your first paragraph seems to be about income equality? My notes about poverty apply here also. Except for some misguided souls, I do not see anyone seriously advocating a result where everyone, no exceptions, gets paid exactly the same. The question, however, is that for society in aggregate, for the entire country, how much income difference is most productive? When do income leveling policies become a drag on growth and innovation? When does an increase extreme high income - while the majority is stagnating - become a drag on growth and innovation? (I pick g&i as sample metrics, but there are of course others.)

[stevewig]

Mike - I want to live in a society that gives me the freedom and equality of opportunity to become whoever (socially or professionally) or whatever (socially or professionally) I wish to be. I understand that this will always be an ideal that will never actually be realized but I want to live in a society that strives for and continues to move towards that impossible dream.

A country where somebody like Obama can become President is moving in the right direction despite all the considerable forces that work against this being achieved.

If the above describes Freedom and Equality then that is what I mean by these terms and that is what I want.

[causey]

I don’t think we, as a society, really want equality because individual people want different things.

Not the basic things, no: food, shelter, health, education etc. For instance, with respect to health, don't all people just want to be healthy? You say, "some want to be healthier than others..."--but this is consistent with the idea of all individuals wanting to be healthier than others. I guess your intended to say that some put more effort than others into staying healthy. Still, I suppose all would very much like to be spared a terrible misfortune. And there certainly are diseases that simply strike one out of nowhere, as it were. I also suppose that all of us, smokers and non-smokers, would like to have a minimum of health.

If people have freedom, they will (and have) self-select away from equality.

No, they wouldn't. They certainly would--if you think in terms of perfect equality; but then it's very easy to have a system with less than perfect equality. Not to mention that a system of perfect equality is Utopian.

But if you think in terms of some degree of equality, assuming you aren't talking of equality before the law and equality of opportunities, I think you are wrong. Suppose people are under a Veil of Ignorance: "no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like." (Rawls, A Theory of Justice)
Suppose they had to decide the basis structure of their society without any knowledge of their particular place in that society.

Would you choose a system of the greatest possible inequality?Would you choose a system in which you are at risk of being born to an extremely poor family in a slum? And if you were born in such conditions, wouldn't you find them unjust? Would you risk being a black woman in a system that (unofficially) discriminates against women and against blacks?

There is also a problem of (in)stability of the systems with great social inequalities--of course they make the best soil for extreme egalitarian ideologies.

---

Last edited by causey; 11-03-2011 at 09:30 AM.

[Jack]

Not the basic things, no: food, shelter, health, education etc. For instance, with respect to health, don't all people just want to be healthy?

I say no. Some people smoke and others drink themselves to death, sometimes both at the same time. Maybe they want to be healthy but aren't doing anything to help themselves, in cases like this those that do take care of themselves shouldn't have to pay for their medical costs.

[GeneV]

I say no. Some people smoke and others drink themselves to death, sometimes both at the same time. Maybe they want to be healthy but aren't doing anything to help themselves, in cases like this those that do take care of themselves shouldn't have to pay for their medical costs.

Then you would ban insurance, right?

[GeneV]

Not the basic things, no: food, shelter, health, education etc. For instance, with respect to health, don't all people just want to be healthy? You say, "some want to be healthier than others..."--but this is consistent with the idea of all individuals wanting to be healthier than others. I guess your intended to say that some put more effort than others into staying healthy. Still, I suppose all would very much like to be spared a terrible misfortune. And there certainly are diseases that simply strike one out of nowhere, as it were. I also suppose that all of us, smokers and non-smokers, would like to have a minimum of health.




No, they wouldn't. They certainly would--if you think in terms of perfect equality; but then it's very easy to have a system with less than perfect equality. Not to mention that a system of perfect equality is Utopian.

But if you think in terms of some degree of equality, assuming you aren't talking of equality before the law and equality of opportunities, I think you are wrong. Suppose people are under a Veil of Ignorance: "no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like." (Rawls, A Theory of Justice)
Suppose they had to decide the basis structure of their society without any knowledge of their particular place in that society.

Would you choose a system of the greatest possible inequality?Would you choose a system in which you are at risk of being born to an extremely poor family in a slum? And if you were born in such conditions, wouldn't you find them unjust? Would you risk being a black woman in a system that (unofficially) discriminates against women and against blacks?

There is also a problem of (in)stability of the systems with great social inequalities--of course they make the best soil for extreme egalitarian ideologies.

True. I think what many non-libertarians want is a floor, which may also imply a ceiling.

[causey]

Some people smoke and others drink themselves to death, sometimes both at the same time.

Granted! But does this make health a matter of merit simpliciter? Is good health the mere result of one's taking care of oneself? I mean, in all cases?

[Jack]

No, they wouldn't. They certainly would--if you think in terms of perfect equality; but then it's very easy to have a system with less than perfect equality. Not to mention that a system of perfect equality is Utopian.

But if you think in terms of some degree of equality, assuming you aren't talking of equality before the law and equality of opportunities, I think you are wrong. Suppose people are under a Veil of Ignorance: "no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like." (Rawls, A Theory of Justice)
Suppose they had to decide the basis structure of their society without any knowledge of their particular place in that society.

Would you choose a system of the greatest possible inequality?Would you choose a system in which you are at risk of being born to an extremely poor family in a slum? And if you were born in such conditions, wouldn't you find them unjust? Would you risk being a black woman in a system that (unofficially) discriminates against women and against blacks?

There is also a problem of (in)stability of the systems with great social inequalities--of course they make the best soil for extreme egalitarian ideologies.

That's what makes America unique and droves of people still want to come here. People aren't created equal, but we have equal opportunities. There are many stories of rags to riches here, try that in an equality system. If you're not one of them there is no one to blame but yourself. Am I rich? Monetarily, no. Have I taken the time to build a successful business? No. That is my choosing. Am I content? Yes and no. There are things I would like and places to go. When I can afford it I'll do those things. It isn't up to government to supply them. People are not entitled to any thing except to be born and die. Any thing in between is up to them. Should others help? Even government? Of course. Everybody falls on hard times and needs help once in a while. That's what makes us human But only those that think they're entitled believe in cradle to grave government welfare. I'm sure there are many people in other equality controlled governments that would love our system That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

[mikemike]

Not the basic things, no: food, shelter, health, education etc. For instance, with respect to health, don't all people just want to be healthy?

Not necessarily. Some people like to eat more food, some people like to eat less, some people like healthy food, and some like unhealthy food. Some people like to live in a big house where they can entertain, some people like to live in low maintenance apartment or condo, some people have kids and want each to have their own bedroom and some want their children to share bedrooms, some people like to live in a densely populated metro area, and some like to live in the country. Everyone wants to be healthy but sometimes they want something else more so they are willing to sacrifice their health to achieve it for example they might like unhealthy food enough that they are willing to eat it regardless of the health consequences or they may like money enough that they are willing to work a high stress job because it pays more, they may like thrills and take risks like driving a motorcycle fast, they may like sex and engage in risky sexual behavior, or they may like to get high and use recreational drugs all these things take a toll on their health. Same with education, some people love it and want to keep going and going and would be professional students if they could afford it others would drop out of the third grade if they were allowed to. There is no equality of desire on any one of these facets of life and they are all tightly interrelated.

I think we have a society which has done a good job at equalizing opportunity where the safety wheels start to come off as you are a teenager (you can make some life altering decisions like having a child, crashing a car, dropping out of school, committing a serious crime, or becoming addicted to drugs at this point) and are all the way off when you turn 18. The push is on now to equalize outcomes for adults: I went to college and can't get a middle class job as a social worker (wah wah wah), I worked 40 hours this week and didn't get paid the same amount as my boss (wah wah wah), I bought an SUV and can't afford gas (wah wah wah), I borrowed money to buy a house and I couldn't afford to repay the loan now the bank wants to take my house (wah wah wah).

[Nesster]

If you're not one of them there is no one to blame but yourself. Am I rich? Monetarily, no. Have I taken the time to build a successful business? No. That is my choosing. Am I content? Yes and no. There are things I would like and places to go. When I can afford it I'll do those things. It isn't up to government to supply them. People are not entitled to any thing except to be born and die. Any thing in between is up to them. Should others help? Even government? Of course. Everybody falls on hard times and needs help once in a while. That's what makes us human But only those that think they're entitled believe in cradle to grave government welfare. I'm sure there are many people in other equality controlled governments that would love our system That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it

I am sympathetic to the idea of personal choice - whether consciously made or not - being a determinant on where one is in life. I think that way myself, and I'm a liberal

Thing is, it's easy to say "Have I taken the time to build a successful business? No. That is my choosing." - I say that myself ... but think about it, if you haven't done so, how can you possibly know what obstacles or aids are in place? If you've never been that black woman, how do you know what she has to overcome vs. (say) a white male from a priviledged upper-mid background?

When I see "equality controlled" I think of the Nordic countries. Others are "opportunity controlled" through various remnants of caste systems... where there may be measurable equality but relatively less movement up and down the economic ladder.

We've discussed this here before. In the USA, statistically, there is less economic mobility than we typically assume. The few success stories do not exclusively represent the whole. The fact that the USA affords economic mobility for immigrants is a different matter - you have to look at the conditions at the "from" country as well.

I'd love to hear from some of our Scandinavian/Finnish (NOT the same thing ) members about opportunity and just how those welfare states limit freedom and liberty.

Based on my experience, there's less limitation due to welfare state than there is due to e.g. the size of the country (only so many orchestra conductors can be supported), the long dark winters, and the propensity of humans to find misery in any circumstance.

[jeffkrol]

And The Happiest Place On Earth Is... - CBS News

Could it be that the true secret of happiness is a swift kick in the pants, or a large dose of humiliation?

[Nesster]

Hmmmm, from the same piece

For example: they have no student loans hanging over their heads. All education is free in Denmark, right on through university. And students can take as long as they like to complete their studies.

"And we get paid to go to school actually. Instead of in the U.S. you pay to go to school, we get paid to go to school if we pass our exams," a student explains.

"Americans watching this particularly people your age would be bowled over by the very idea that the government pays you to go to school," Safer remarks.

"Yeah," the student acknowledges.

"I'm being paid right now for not going to school. I'm being paid for parenting," another male student tells Safer. "It's 100 percent paid for by the government for half a year."

Denmark also provides free health care, subsidized child care and elder care, a social safety net spread the length and breadth of the country.

"I mean, we're pretty much free to do whatever we want. We're secure from the day we're born. For a Dane who lives in Denmark," a male tells Safer.

[jeffkrol]

Hmmmm, from the same piece

Benefit of living in a sovereign nation using fiat currency... ............err wait a minute.............

[redrockcoulee]

Jack

Canada, New Zealand and Australia are also unique and loads of people want to move to those countries as well. I have not travelled much in Europe only in Austria and the Czech Republic and to me they were both more unique to each other and to home than the US is. I think that this American exceptionalism and uniquness is over blown in most cases. Yes you can get richer there than some other countries but it is not a choice between what happens in the US and the most socialist country or a third world country.

As far as social equaity or social justice , I do not think most people view that the same as every one being the same or having all the same things. That does work, just check out the success of Hutterite Colonies. But looking at the chart that was posted on another thread, Canada was in fifth place in regards to seniors in poverty, just under 6% I believe whereas in the US over 22% of seniors live in poverty. How can there be much social equality if almost one in four seniors live in poverty? And was it simply that American seniors made worse choices in their working lives than did Canadians who made worse ones than at least four other countries? The fact that in the US the richest 1% made significanly higher percentage of increases than their counterparts in Europe or Canada and yet there is massive unemployment and problems and yet during that same time the poorest in Canada made the same increase percentage as the richest and yet we have less economic woes. My conclusion from this is that social inequality is not good for the society and leds not only to the economic problems but the associated ones of poorer health, crime and loss opportunties. Why do people think there has to be huge disparities and that the rich get to be super rich for the society to be sucessful without considering how the poor and the less than super rich and all inbetween are fairing?

I read somewhere, perhaps on this forum, that in the US your income is highly corelated to your parent's income. Social equality balances that to a certain extent so the corelation is less and more on your own merits which is what Americans seem to keep presenting that merit is more important in their fcountry than in others, is that even the case?