Equality

[Phatscotty]

Can we come to a consensus on equality?

Francis Fox Piven, Milton Friedman, and others chew on it

More great discussion from all sides in another clip from this same show.

[Lootifer]

Loaded question, so I'm not going to bother answering it.

Also they should be a factor of one another; equal opportunity leads to equality in living standards or whatever other results you care to look at.

Your man Friedman just pursues the distinction between the two and then pushes for equal opportunity because it fits with the free market ideals that he supports. It's a self-sustaining argument, which isn't a good thing, arguments should be sustained by supporting rational arguments and fact.

As far as equality goes; it's very easy to tear down the existance of equality in opportunity in a completely free society (which is developed):

- Education: User pays system; the more you pay for education, the better education you recieve. It takes money to get a good education, therefore it takes money to make money. Those with money to begin with have a significantly better opportunity to suceed.

- Wellbeing: A healthy worker is a better worker; but being healthy costs money. Healthy food tends to be more expensive (than unhealthy food), good healthcare is more expensive (than average/poor healthcare), therefore if you have money you are more likely to be healthier, therefore having a better opportunity.

I could go on...

Now I'm not saying these are hard and fixed rules. You can be poor in one generation and turn that around, and be the next Bill Gates. However on average poor families produce a poor next generation, and wealthy families produce a wealthy next generations, therefore the idea that a free market results in equality of opportunity is unsupported.

[Lootifer]

heres the key quote (paraphrased):

The best mechanism for the poor people to advance their status is by government policy and processes to eliminate arbatairy barriers to advancment. - Friedman

I ask you: How do you do that?!? How do you remove these barriers to advancment?

[BigBallinStalin]

heres the key quote (paraphrased):

The best mechanism for the poor people to advance their status is by government policy and processes to eliminate barriers to advancment.

I ask you: How do you do that?!? How do you remove these barriers to advancment?

By granting greater autonomy to individuals so that they'll be able to resolve these collective action problems via markets.*

(Markets aren't just places where you buy and sell monetarily. Markets are everywhere. For example, this forum is a market of knowledge where we exchange information with one another.)


Granted, for proponents of free markets, they draw various lines for the government's scope of authority in overcoming certain collective action problems, or as acting as a proper substitute for situations where transaction costs are too high.


(please, if you don't understand the terms I'm using, just ask, so I can define them. I'm getting tired of writing before both parties have reached mutual understanding).

[Phatscotty]

heres the key quote (paraphrased):

The best mechanism for the poor people to advance their status is by government policy and processes to eliminate arbatairy barriers to advancment. - Friedman

I ask you: How do you do that?!? How do you remove these barriers to advancment?

Whos quote?

[Lootifer]

Granted, for proponents of free markets, they draw various lines for the government's scope of authority in overcoming certain collective action problems, or as acting as a proper substitute for situations where transaction costs are too high.

Heh, we're on the same page, just disagree over the details. Thanks.

I think even though we have relatively high taxes and a fairly cumbersome welfare budget, you'd enjoy living in New Zealand.

[BigBallinStalin]

Granted, for proponents of free markets, they draw various lines for the government's scope of authority in overcoming certain collective action problems, or as acting as a proper substitute for situations where transaction costs are too high.

Heh, we're on the same page, just disagree over the details. Thanks.

I think even though we have relatively high taxes and a fairly cumbersome welfare budget, you'd enjoy living in New Zealand.

Sure, the benefits of the scenery and culture offset the unseen costs of government intervention.

But shit man, I wouldn't live there in the long-term, and I'd try my best to not pay taxes.

[Lootifer]

Sure, the benefits of the scenery and culture offset the unseen costs of government intervention.

But shit man, I wouldn't live there in the long-term, and I'd try my best to not pay taxes.

I find it interesting that you'd rather settle for your broken and inept, but constitutionally free'er, government over one which may, on paper, limit your freedom more, but due to being relatively less politically fucked presents increased economic freedom.

I'm knocking you for it, I just find it interesting.

[Phatscotty]

heres the key quote (paraphrased):

The best mechanism for the poor people to advance their status is by government policy and processes to eliminate arbatairy barriers to advancment. - Friedman

I ask you: How do you do that?!? How do you remove these barriers to advancment?

He was making a comparison (paraphrase better) from the poor advancing their status to the big business and multi-national corps to similarly advance their status is by government policy and processes to eliminate barriers to "advancement".

The government removing barriers to advancement means subsidizing a preferred group with special rights and privileges. (same with big biz) Far from anything I would consider equality.

So overall I think you might have got the wrong point on the "quote"

[Lootifer]

He was making a comparison (paraphrase better) from the poor advancing their status to the big business and multi-national corps to similarly advance their status is by government policy and processes to eliminate barriers to "advancement".

The government removing barriers to advancement means subsidizing a preferred group with special rights and privileges. (same with big biz) Far from anything I would consider equality.

So overall I think you might have got the wrong point on the "quote"

Erm...

Start from 3:55 in you second clip... end at 4:20.

I stand by my paraphrasing.

Edit: Sorry about the confusion if in this case there is.

[Phatscotty]

He was making a comparison (paraphrase better) from the poor advancing their status to the big business and multi-national corps to similarly advance their status is by government policy and processes to eliminate barriers to "advancement".

The government removing barriers to advancement means subsidizing a preferred group with special rights and privileges. (same with big biz) Far from anything I would consider equality.

So overall I think you might have got the wrong point on the "quote"

Erm...

Start from 3:55 in you second clip... end at 4:20.

I stand by my paraphrasing.

Edit: Sorry about the confusion if in this case there is.

Well, thats the snippet I was referring to, and what I said pretty much reflects basically what followed the minute after your snip. The way it needs to be done is within a framework that respects freedom.

First, in regards to opportunity, what are the barriers?

[Lootifer]

The government removing barriers to advancement means subsidizing a preferred group with special rights and privileges. (same with big biz) Far from anything I would consider equality.

He says nothing like that at all.

Sure he points the finger at government intervention. But his position as stated in that snippet clearly states that in his model of government: their duty is not to subsidize or allocate, but to remove arbatairy barriers to advancement.

[Phatscotty]

The government removing barriers to advancement means subsidizing a preferred group with special rights and privileges. (same with big biz) Far from anything I would consider equality.

He says nothing like that at all.

Sure he points the finger at government intervention. But his position as stated in that snippet clearly states that in his model of government: their duty is not to subsidize or allocate, but to remove arbatairy barriers to advancement.

yeah but that's just the tail end of a sentence that had 5 pieces of information in it. He said a lot like that but perhaps it was later or earlier in the video, which is why you can't just take the end of one statement without all the context preceding it. Its like making sense of 1/6 of a sentence

[Lootifer]

FFS, now you're just being obtuse. BBS got it.

[Phatscotty]

FFS, now you're just being obtuse. BBS got it.

oh yeah, wrong clip. you meant the second clip I assume lol! Dang bra cuz before you edited whos quote it was for a second I thought you were quoting Sowell (I just watched a shit load of Milton vids)

Yeah, what BBS said.

[BigBallinStalin]

Sure, the benefits of the scenery and culture offset the unseen costs of government intervention.

But shit man, I wouldn't live there in the long-term, and I'd try my best to not pay taxes.

I find it interesting that you'd rather settle for your broken and inept, but constitutionally free'er, government over one which may, on paper, limit your freedom more, but due to being relatively less politically fucked presents increased economic freedom.

I'm knocking you for it, I just find it interesting.

Haha, I can't argue against NZ's higher economic freedom, but I value much about my immediate community. I've traveled around, and I plan on traveling some more, but I really identify with my current city and its people. It's a unique experience and a great place to live.

I need to place myself in an area where I can do the most influence. There's a lot that's wrong with the US, and I can't really promote awareness of that by running away. Instead, I need to be running around.

[Lootifer]

FFS, now you're just being obtuse. BBS got it.

oh yeah, wrong clip. you meant the second clip I assume lol! Dang bra cuz before you edited whos quote it was for a second I thought you were quoting Sowell (I just watched a shit load of Milton vids)

Yeah, what BBS said.

Lol, all good.

[nietzsche]

wait,

but why do we need equality? Isn't that one of those concepts we humans invent and then believe it has always existed, and must always exist? Like justice?

[Nobunaga]

wait,

but why do we need equality? Isn't that one of those concepts we humans invent and then believe it has always existed, and must always exist? Like justice?

... The opportunity for equality in the US is set up in the Constitution, where every man and every woman citizen is confirmed to possess the same rights, free of interference.

... There's a lot of unconstitutional interference these days, so things become skewed.

...

[Lootifer]

wait,

but why do we need equality? Isn't that one of those concepts we humans invent and then believe it has always existed, and must always exist? Like justice?

Watch the clips lol.

I agree with the free market proponents with regards to what area or specifiction of equality we should be looking at.

We should be targetting equality of opportunity. (not equality of results).

Unfortunatly I (strongly) disagree with the assertion:

A society that puts equality ahead of freedom will get neither.
A society that puts freedom ahead of equality will get both.

[Phatscotty]

wait,

but why do we need equality? Isn't that one of those concepts we humans invent and then believe it has always existed, and must always exist? Like justice?

Watch the clips lol.

I agree with the free market proponents with regards to what area or specifiction of equality we should be looking at.

We should be targetting equality of opportunity. (not equality of results).

Unfortunatly I (strongly) disagree with the assertion:

A society that puts equality ahead of freedom will get neither.
A society that puts freedom ahead of equality will get both.

freedom naturally encourages equality.

[Lootifer]

Logic path: (assuming your assertion is correct)

-> Freedom
-> People are free to act how they please (within the law)
-> Those who work the hardest attain power
-> The powerful dictate how opportunity is distributed (directly or through choices, it doesn't matter)
-> They decide to promote equality of opportunity above self interest
-> Freedom has led to equality of opportunity

The bit I have identified is where we differ in opinion.

I ask one of two things:
- Explain to me where my logic is faulty, or,
- Provide evidence to support the assertion I have underlined.

[Phatscotty]

Logic path: (assuming your assertion is correct)

-> Freedom
-> People are free to act how they please (within the law)
-> Those who work the hardest attain power
-> The powerful dictate how opportunity is distributed (directly or through choices, it doesn't matter)
-> They descide to promote equality of opportunity above self interest
-> Freedom has led to equality of opportunity

The bit I have identified is where we differ in opinion.

I ask one of two things:
- Explain to me where my logic is faulty, or,
- Provide evidence to support the assertion I have underlined.

No. If that is you following a path of logic, is a pretty damn biased form of logic.

Okay, I know you are being general, but freedom isn't acting how you please , working hard has only some to do with "power". You associate working hard with achieving the power to dictate opportunity? I associate it with the power to create opportunity.

[Lootifer]

-> Freedom
-> People are allowed to act how freely within the law
-> Those who work the hardest attain wealth
-> Wealth in the free market is the single most important contributor to power
-> The powerful create opportunity
-> This in turn dictates how opportunity is distributed (directly through opporunity creation, or indirectly through choice theory)
... etc

Same shit, different colour.

My questions still apply.

[Nobunaga]

... It is quite simple. There are two approaches to equality in America.

... The first is the approach to equality through freedom, established through liberty. This equates to equality of opportunity for purposes of the poll.

... The second is the approach to equality through control and repression, establishing equality by hammering down the achievers and lifting the non-achievers (still subject to control). This is the equality of results option.

... The first approach is championed by the federalist/constitutionalist. The second by the statist.

... I'm glad the poll, thus far, sides heavily in favor of the first approach.

...