The "right" amount of social equality
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 09:56:56 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  The "right" amount of social equality
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: What is most desirable?
#1
Total, complete social equality
 
#2
More social equality, but let's not get carried away
 
#3
About the same as what we have now
 
#4
There should be less social equality than what we have now
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 54

Author Topic: The "right" amount of social equality  (Read 1234 times)
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 13, 2014, 04:58:30 PM »

It's your choose.

Logged
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,235
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 13, 2014, 05:10:01 PM »

Option 1.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 13, 2014, 05:18:52 PM »

If its what I think it is, then yes, complete and total social equality. But I'm not sure what the OP interprets as social equality.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 13, 2014, 05:27:18 PM »

Total and complete social equality. The only inequalities that should exist in society are those naturally resulting out of individuals' specific talents.
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 13, 2014, 05:28:34 PM »

A combination of option 3 and 4. We need to change some things, revert on others, etc.
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,054
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 13, 2014, 05:37:45 PM »

I'm not entirely sure how you're using the term "social equality", so I'll go with option 3 to be safe.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 13, 2014, 05:52:20 PM »

A maximum income gap of about 1:20 seems about right (although that's probably never going to happen). More realistically, we could at least ensure that no one makes less than 2/3 of the median income.
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,234
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 13, 2014, 05:57:05 PM »

Logged
Negusa Nagast 🚀
Nagas
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,826
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 13, 2014, 05:57:51 PM »

A maximum income gap of about 1:20 seems about right (although that's probably never going to happen).

That's economic equality.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is mathematically impossible.

Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 13, 2014, 06:09:31 PM »

A maximum income gap of about 1:20 seems about right (although that's probably never going to happen).

That's economic equality.

Wouldn't "economic equality" in the most basic sense mean no income gap at all?


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is mathematically impossible.[/quote]

Nah, it's not. Any income distribution is naturally skewed to the right.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 13, 2014, 06:14:59 PM »

There is no optimum amount of social equality. In fact, given that markets are in a constant state of disequilibrium, there can never be an optimum amount of social equality.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 13, 2014, 06:17:37 PM »

There is no optimum amount of social equality. In fact, given that markets are in a constant state of disequilibrium, there can never be an optimum amount of social equality.

lolmarkets
Logged
Negusa Nagast 🚀
Nagas
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,826
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 13, 2014, 06:17:45 PM »

A maximum income gap of about 1:20 seems about right (although that's probably never going to happen).

That's economic equality.

Wouldn't "economic equality" in the most basic sense mean no income gap at all?

Closing the income gap is bringing about economic equality, not social equality. The latter deals with gender, race, and sexuality relations while the former is wealth and incomes.

Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 13, 2014, 06:57:51 PM »

The only inequalities that should exist in society are those naturally resulting out of individuals' specific talents.
Logged
SPC
Chuck Hagel 08
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,004
Latvia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 13, 2014, 08:51:10 PM »

There is no optimum amount of social equality. In fact, given that markets are in a constant state of disequilibrium, there can never be an optimum amount of social equality.

lolmarkets

Do you deny that there is an inherent futility in attempting to establish an optimal distribution of wealth, when such a distribution would be instantaneously disrupted by free exchange of goods and services?
Logged
Snowstalker Mk. II
Snowstalker
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,414
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 13, 2014, 08:58:57 PM »

Total and complete social equality. The only inequalities that should exist in society are those naturally resulting out of individuals' specific talents.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 13, 2014, 09:16:00 PM »

Total equality is impossible so long as it's among humans. Somewhat more is desirable for a prosperous society, although no one ever seems to like my methods for creating it Tongue
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 13, 2014, 09:18:19 PM »

What does "social equality mean"? Equal opportunities for everyone or equal incomes for everyone?
Logged
Redalgo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,681
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 13, 2014, 10:36:55 PM »
« Edited: August 13, 2014, 11:03:34 PM by Redalgo »

Option two because number one seems impossible.

Social equality requires classlessness - everyone believes everyone else is co-equal in every culturally-relevant, perceptible way. There are many relationships that encourage us to divide ourselves into ranks of superiority, equality, and inferiority depending on the setting. Even if we were to go the old Native route of believing nobody has the right to give a command to any other - which is itself an anarchical circumstance where there could be no enforcement of equality - there would be lingering distinctions drawn amongst people along the lines of having varied attributes and skills.

The best we can reasonably hope for is a solidaristic order where a limited degree of inequality is coped with using appeals to a shared group identity. It may be the "workers" or "international proletariat" for Marxian types, the "People" for my ilk, or else to smaller in-groups by relatively conservative folks - e.g. tribal appeals to patriotism, if passionate and effective enough, may get people to set aside many of their differences and treat each other equally to better pursue the national interest. Socialists really need to understand that an objectively classless order is not going to happen.

In response to some earlier posts, social and economic equalities appear to be inseparable. Scarcity of resources contributes to differences in social status... and if there were no differences in social status folks would have no reasonable basis on which to defend any amount of economic inequality amongst themselves, right? "Equality," "freedom," and "justice" are subjective and thrown around as convenient political buzz words. They can only be inter-subjectively achieved (or perceived?) in a group of people.

Antonio's proposed maximum for the income inequality ratio would be quite lovely, by the way, though I suppose 1:25 or even 1:30 could be reasonable provided all the low-end incomes are livable. In the U.S. today it appears that incomes vary from nothing to just shy of $142 million/yr.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 14, 2014, 03:56:49 AM »

A maximum income gap of about 1:20 seems about right (although that's probably never going to happen).

That's economic equality.

Wouldn't "economic equality" in the most basic sense mean no income gap at all?

Closing the income gap is bringing about economic equality, not social equality. The latter deals with gender, race, and sexuality relations while the former is wealth and incomes.

Even then, economic equality is an essential component of social equality. You just can't separate wealth from its social effects.
Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,978
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 14, 2014, 08:27:32 AM »

It's more important to focus on equality of opportunity. Human's aren't going to ever be equal. However, society will be much more equal, if everyone had the same opportunities. This is why I am against private education, for example.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.053 seconds with 14 queries.