Equal outcomes are not a noble goal.

[bricklayer]

Equal outcomes are not a noble goal because equal inputs cannot be, and should not be, enforced.

The rebranding of envy as 'social justice' doesn't fool me.

FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR WILL and TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR ABILITY

 

[Michael Cole]

Envious of what?

 

[Irredentist]

Equal outcomes are not a noble goal because equal inputs cannot be, and should not be, enforced.

The rebranding of envy as 'social justice' doesn't fool me.

FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR WILL and TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR ABILITY

One's capacity to succeed is impacted by more than just willpower and ability. You can never fully discount the possibility of external influences ruining even the best laid plans.

 

[bricklayer]

Envious of what?

Envy has been rebranded as 'social justice'.

By the way, it's envious of whom and covetous of what. One envies another and covets a thing. Envy isn't a desire for what belongs to another; that's covetousness. Envy is an intolerance of others having what the envious does not have. Envy is a form of intolerance of others. That particular form of intolerance has recently been rebranded as 'social justice'.

 

[bricklayer]

One's capacity to succeed is impacted by more than just willpower and ability. You can never fully discount the possibility of external influences ruining even the best laid plans.

That's very true. All the more reason why equal outcomes are not a noble goal.

 

[vegas giants]

That's very true. All the more reason why equal outcomes are not a noble goal.

Would you like the goal to.be a very small group control 90% of the wealth?

 

[CaughtInThe]

hell, i think a ton of people would simply be happy with a level playing field at this point.

 

[lwf]

Equal outcomes are not a noble goal because equal inputs cannot be, and should not be, enforced.

The rebranding of envy as 'social justice' doesn't fool me.

FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR WILL and TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR ABILITY

Correct. There is nothing noble about advocating for equal outcomes for unequal input. This would be motivated by envy. I don't know of anyone who does this, however.

Equal outcomes for equal input, (which is the aim of social justice,) is a noble goal, however. This is motivated by empathy and fairness and is the primary motivator of most social justice advocates.

 

[bricklayer]

Would you like the goal to.be a very small group control 90% of the wealth?

I want the goal to be - FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR WILL AND TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR ABILITY

 

[vegas giants]

I want the goal to be - FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR WILL AND TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR ABILITY

I see. You are a communist

The principle refers to free access to and distribution of goods, capital and services.[3]*In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the*abundance*of goods and services that a developed communist system will be capable to produce; the idea is that, with the full development of*socialism*and unfettered productive forces, there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs.

 

[bricklayer]

Correct. There is nothing noble about advocating for equal outcomes for unequal input. This would be motivated by envy. I don't know of anyone who does this, however.

Equal outcomes for equal input, (which is the aim of social justice,) is a noble goal, however. This is motivated by empathy and fairness and is the primary motivator of most social justice advocates.

A thing or a service is worth whatever someone will pay for it.
A thing or service costs whatever someone else will pay for it.

Arbitrarily equivocating inputs does not justify equal outcomes any better than it can produce equal outcomes.
The participation-trophy mentality defines the rebranding of envy as 'social justice'.

 

[Irredentist]

That's very true. All the more reason why equal outcomes are not a noble goal.

Truly equal outcomes may not be practically achievable. We should at the very least however expect equal opportunity, and we cannot have that when so many are systematically denied such opportunity due to factors outside of their control.

 

[Omniscient]

Equal outcomes are not a noble goal because equal inputs cannot be, and should not be, enforced.

The rebranding of envy as 'social justice' doesn't fool me.

FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR WILL and TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR ABILITY

free markets are great at first, but get worse and worse over time, requiring more and more socialism to try make them more fair

conservatives are simple minded and in denial of the fact that capitalism is intrinsically flawed.

Late capitalism - Wikipedia

Wealth inequality in the United States - Wikipedia

its the left that acknowledges this flaw and tries to patch it up, to slow the inevitable revolution into full blown communism.

 

[lwf]

If that's their aim, they're doing a terrible job at expressing that. In fact, absolutely everything that I've read or heard from anyone who claims to be a SJW implies exactly the opposite. Now, of course, one must adjust for the gross equivocations made by the SJWs - equivocations those in the market do not share.

A thing or a service is worth whatever someone will pay for it.
A thing or service costs whatever someone else will pay for it.

The most important decision is who decides. I think that the more people involved in the decision the better, and the best mechanism to reflect those decisions are free-market prices.

In most cases, yes. But there are a few industries that don't work well as a free market. Probably the most notable bipartisan one would be law enforcement. There is some evidence that health care, or at least health insurance, doesn't work well as a free market either, given the current state of the US healthcare industry compared to countries with more nationalized healthcare and insurance options.

 

[bricklayer]

I see. You are a communist

The principle refers to free access to and distribution of goods, capital and services.[3]*In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the*abundance*of goods and services that a developed communist system will be capable to produce; the idea is that, with the full development of*socialism*and unfettered productive forces, there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs.

Reread what I wrote. Your glance fooled you. My goal could not be further from the Marxist trope you are familiar with.

From each according to their ability and to each according to their need is the worst way to organize an economy.
From each according to their will and to each according to the ability is the least worst way to organize an economy.

 

[Michael Cole]

Envy has been rebranded as 'social justice'.

By the way, it's envious of whom and covetous of what. One envies another and covets a thing. Envy isn't a desire for what belongs to another; that's covetousness. Envy is an intolerance of others having what the envious does not have. Envy is a form of intolerance of others. That particular form of intolerance has recently been rebranded as 'social justice'.

I didn't ask what you're calling it.

Envious of what?

 

[bricklayer]

Truly equal outcomes may not be practically achievable. We should at the very least however expect equal opportunity, and we cannot have that when so many are systematically denied such opportunity due to factors outside of their control.

Compared to what, where, when? Who decides?

I will not go along with your belief that a baby born today already has a standing grievance against another baby born today because of something their ancestors did centuries ago.

 

[Michael Cole]

A thing or a service is worth whatever someone will pay for it.
A thing or service costs whatever someone else will pay for it.

Arbitrarily equivocating inputs does not justify equal outcomes any better than it can produce equal outcomes.
The participation-trophy mentality defines the rebranding of envy as 'social justice'.

You're defining terms with your opinion of others' mentalities. Oh brother.

Nobody cares. Get a grip.

 

[Michael Cole]

Compared to what, where, when? Who decides?

I will not go along with your belief that a baby born today already has a standing grievance against another baby born today because of something their ancestors did centuries ago.

Nobody needs your approval.

 

[bricklayer]

Truly equal outcomes may not be practically achievable. We should at the very least however expect equal opportunity, and we cannot have that when so many are systematically denied such opportunity due to factors outside of their control.

Truly equal opportunities are not achievable because truly equal abilities are not available.

 

[vegas giants]

Reread what I wrote. Your glance fooled you. My goal could not be further from the Marxist trope you are familiar with.

From each according to their ability and to each according to their need is the worst way to organize an economy.
From each according to their will and to each according to the ability is the least worst way to organize an economy.

My apologies.


So for people who have no ability to provide for themselves are they to get nothing?

 

[d0gbreath]

A thing or a service is worth whatever someone will pay for it.
A thing or service costs whatever someone else will pay for it.

Arbitrarily equivocating inputs does not justify equal outcomes any better than it can produce equal outcomes.
The participation-trophy mentality defines the rebranding of envy as 'social justice'.

Social justice doesn't have anything to do with envy. The justice warriors try to assist those less fortunate than themselves. Yeah, it goes against pathology and narcissism, but we can't all be that way.

 

[Irredentist]

Compared to what, where, when? Who decides?

I will not go along with your belief that a baby born today already has a standing grievance against another baby born today because of something their ancestors did centuries ago.

The grievances are not between individuals, but rather between groups. African Americans, for example, are disadvantaged because of the way they came to be in this country, and the way they have been treated while here.

 

[bricklayer]

In most cases, yes. But there are a few industries that don't work well as a free market. Probably the most notable bipartisan one would be law enforcement. There is some evidence that health care, or at least health insurance, doesn't work well as a free market either, given the current state of the US healthcare industry compared to countries with more nationalized healthcare and insurance options.

I'd like to discuss medical care, but I will not refer to it as "healthcare". Healthcare is comprised of diet, exercise and rest. Nothing has done more to undermine healthcare than equivocating it with medical care. I personally know people who have sacrificed their healthcare to maintain medical insurance; and when the inevitable decline in their health came to pass, they thought themselves prescient for having made the sacrifice. The elephant in the medical care room is exactly the lack of individual healthcare. I've been asking people in the medical industry, for years, what percentage of the medical care they meet out is necessitated because of a lack of healthcare on the patient's part. I've never received an answer below 90%.

This is not a mere semantic issue. It is the way many, especially the least healthy people, think. They think that they have good healthcare because they have the gold package or whatever. Meanwhile they're misshapen and old before they're aged. Most people would be way, way better off if they put a fraction of the time and money that they put into medical insurance into their actual healthcare.

Who pays for medical care is not even close to being the biggest problem with healthcare, not even close.

 

[lwf]

I'd like to discuss medical care, but I will not refer to it as "healthcare". Healthcare is comprised of diet, exercise and rest. Nothing has done more to undermine healthcare than equivocating it with medical care. I personally know people who have sacrificed their healthcare to maintain medical insurance; and when the inevitable decline in their health came to pass, they thought themselves prescient for having made the sacrifice. The elephant in the medical care room is exactly the lack of individual healthcare. I've been asking people in the medical industry, for years, what percentage of the medical care they meet out is necessitated because of a lack of healthcare on the patient's part. I've never received an answer below 90%.

This is not a mere semantic issue. It is the way many, especially the least healthy people, think. They think that they have good healthcare because they have the gold package or whatever. Meanwhile they're misshapen and old before they're aged. Most people would be way, way better off if they put a fraction of the time and money that they put into medical insurance into their actual healthcare.

Ok, universal 'medical care' then.