Is equality of outcome important?
Discuss issues related to the politics of the UK, such as the actions of any MP, any current or potential law, or any other factor affecting the British political system.
| Announcements | Posted on | |
|---|---|---|
-
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- Banned
- Location: London
Is equality of outcome important?Why do people put so much emphasis on people having eqaul wealth? What does it matter, as long as people are improving from their own starting points? Is it better to have all poor than some rich and and some poor? Isn't eqaulity before the law the only justifiable form of equality.
-
- Reputation:
- TSR Deity
- Location: Kent
Is that a sweeping generalisation? Or is it a fact?(Original post by objectivism)
Many socialists strike me as defeatist failures who can't make it on their own so want to drag everyone down to their level.
And don't others, aside from socialists, like to see equality of outcome? -
- Reputation:
- TSR Royalty
No. Why should the stupid and the lazy get paid as much as the smart, and the hard-working? Why should people who take risks not have the opportunity to make more (or less) than those who do not?(Original post by yawn)
And don't others, aside from socialists, like to see equality of outcome? -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: 2
- Posts: 3,491
I've never met a single person who demanded we should all have equal wealth, more equitable distribution yea, but not absolutely equal - with emphasis.(Original post by objectivism)
Why do people put so much emphasis on people having eqaul wealth? What does it matter, as long as people are improving from their own starting points? Is it better to have all poor than some rich and and some poor? Isn't eqaulity before the law the only justifiable form of equality.
I'm not sure why you think it matters that we all get richer from our strting points either, I'll be happy enough with my parents level of income.
Straw men gone... Yes, equality before the law is the only justifiable form of equality.
Mmm, in my experience, most young socialists are from wealthier backgrounds.
Agreed, but running away a little, there are many children who really do lack equality of opportunity. Feckless adults I'd happily take round the back and shoot, but we still have a way to go in creating an education system and society which lifts the kids of the feckless adults.(Original post by Bismarck)
Why should the stupid and the lazy get paid as much as the smart, and the hard-working? Why should people who take risks not have the opportunity to make more (or less) than those who do not? -
- Reputation:
- TSR Royalty
And most of them have not worked a day in their lives.(Original post by ArthurOliver)
Mmm, in my experience, most young socialists are from wealthier backgrounds.
There is little that can be done about bad parenting. Teachers can try as hard as they could, but children spend most of their time at home (or with friends), which means the education system has a limited impact on their lives. If someone has a solution to this problem, I'd be glad to hear it. Otherwise, students should be encouraged to do what they are best at, and should not be forced to learn at a faster or slower pace than they are capable of. The stigma of going to technical schools has to be eliminated, as they allow people who might not be the best at learning to have productive and well-paying jobs. I know that an average plumber or an electrician in the US makes significantly more than an average uni graduate.Agreed, but running away a little, there are many children who really do lack equality of opportunity. Feckless adults I'd happily take round the back and shoot, but we still have a way to go in creating an education system and society which lifts the kids of the feckless adults. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: 2
- Posts: 3,491
Yup. Can't disagree, but doesn't seem enough.(Original post by Bismarck)
There is little that can be done about bad parenting. Teachers can try as hard as they could, but children spend most of their time at home (or with friends), which means the education system has a limited impact on their lives. If someone has a solution to this problem, I'd be glad to hear it.
The word 'community' keeps pushing its way to the front of my mind, yet nothing would be worse than some form of compulsion to be a good neighbour...
**** 'em then.
-
- Reputation:
- TSR Demigod
- Location: Landan
Couldn't agree more, i think it is solely down to whether parents are good role models for their children. Before i moved to the best school in my city, i went to a crappy school, and did extremely well. The teaching isn't much different in my new school, so this pretty much tells me it is the individual and their family..(Original post by Bismarck)
And most of them have not worked a day in their lives.
There is little that can be done about bad parenting. Teachers can try as hard as they could, but children spend most of their time at home (or with friends), which means the education system has a limited impact on their lives. If someone has a solution to this problem, I'd be glad to hear it. Otherwise, students should be encouraged to do what they are best at, and should not be forced to learn at a faster or slower pace than they are capable of. The stigma of going to technical schools has to be eliminated, as they allow people who might not be the best at learning to have productive and well-paying jobs. I know that an average plumber or an electrician in the US makes significantly more than an average uni graduate.
Back to the question, i just wonder if you were at the bottom end of the financial scale, would your views still say the same, because i sincerely think they'd change.....Its easy to go on about wealth when you have a lot of money, or at least a reasonable amount -
- Reputation:
- Peer Of The TSR Realm
I don't think that Equality of outcome should be important. A man should be entitled to keep the money that he has taken risks and worked hard to obtain, and not have to give it to the state so that they can spend it on lazy benefit seekers. Benefits themselves should be made as more of a temporary option, as a stopgap between jobs rather than the income that some live off for years.
Of course it is a generalisation, but if you work hard in life, take neccessary risks and use your brain, then you will go somewhere and end up reasonably well off, whether it is as a plumber, lawyer, doctor or electrician. -
- Reputation:
- Exalted Member
- Location: Sandland
- Posts: 335
Of course equality before the law is important. But come on are you seriously arguing that any redistribution of wealth is wrong. I would never support complete equality of wealth as I am not a communist and this is of course unworkable. But I would echo what someone else said, some people are generally born into disadvantaged backgrounds with less opportunity than others. Surely society has a moral obligation to help them achieve all they can? Surely it is not morally right to allow monetary worth to dictate how you can live your life? If redistribution of wealth can help redress this then it is and always will be a good idea.(Original post by objectivism)
Why do people put so much emphasis on people having eqaul wealth? What does it matter, as long as people are improving from their own starting points? Is it better to have all poor than some rich and and some poor? Isn't eqaulity before the law the only justifiable form of equality. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Royalty
How does giving the "disadvantaged" money going to help them achieve more? Empirical evidence certainly proves the exact opposite.(Original post by Blur303)
Of course equality before the law is important. But come on are you seriously arguing that any redistribution of wealth is wrong. I would never support complete equality of wealth as I am not a communist and this is of course unworkable. But I would echo what someone else said, some people are generally born into disadvantaged backgrounds with less opportunity than others. Surely society has a moral obligation to help them achieve all they can? Surely it is not morally right to allow monetary worth to dictate how you can live your life? If redistribution of wealth can help redress this then it is and always will be a good idea. -
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- Banned
- Location: London
Yes (you obviosuly haven't read my 'is taxation theft?' thread)Of course equality before the law is important. But come on are you seriously arguing that any redistribution of wealth is wrong.
But I would echo what someone else said, some people are generally born into disadvantaged backgrounds with less opportunity than others. Surely society has a moral obligation to help them achieve all they can? Surely it is not morally right to allow monetary worth to dictate how you can live your life? If redistribution of wealth can help redress this then it is and always will be a good idea
To take from someone and give to another without consent is theft, whether its end or seen as good or not. If i was robbed and the money went to help a poor family i would still class it as theft and immoral. People do not need to steal from others to succeed they just need freedom to send the money they earn as they see fit, to work without red tape getting in the way and the freedom to put an idea into the marketplace without some pen pusher preventing them. -
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- Banned
- Location: London
I suggest you read the thread i named before, i explain it there. Basically a vol insurance based contract system i.e a businessman wants to make sure that they can take the other party to court if they break their deal he can but only if he insures by paying the gov a small fund. Please be informed when you reply.(Original post by Blur303)
If you find taxation so abhorrent presumably you suggest abandoning it. How is government supposed to function without revenue?
