1 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
View submission: /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | February 24, 2025
Can you really out-compete the inequality of randomly allocated ressources for example?
But see it's not by any random occurrences those resources being allocated since there are those who are better at hacking the game than others and thus those resources will be allocated to them, can we least agree on that ?
We live in an era where you can out-earn many people just by having a computer and trading online, that to me is an example of hacking the game better and thus such people will be given more while others get less unless they start implementing the same stragety
Even if you would remove any possible human trait variable you would still end up with constants out of humanity's control, how likely is it that full equality (which is a human construct) is natural?
I sincerely doubt equality would be the natural outcome if that were the case although it might but in this discussion we at least myself isn't trying to construct a perfect utopian paradise where resources are allocated equally among individuals since we've removed all the human variables that lead could to inequality
All am essentially pointing out is any form of competition in any enterprise you choose to examine, inequality will always arise from it once people figure out they can hack the game better than others
Comment by Choice-Box1279 at 25/02/2025 at 19:18 UTC
2 upvotes, 2 direct replies
I mean I don't think anyone is trying to deny that competition is a variable, I disagree that it's the sole one.
But see it's not by any random occurrences those resources being allocated since there are those who are better at hacking the game than others and thus those resources will be allocated to them, can we least agree on that ?
But that is not necessarily true, lets take for example those who are born in harsh climate where ressources are scarce. They could theoretically be the most intelligent and competitive yet they would have no chance of even matching the ressources of those in more favorable environments.
Even if it were true I struggle to understand how the vague notion of "better at hacking the game" would imply that competition is it's sole precursor. Being arbitrarily in a location where ressource extraction is favorable would naturally result in higher allocation regardless of any human trait involved.
All am essentially pointing out is any form of competition in any enterprise you choose to examine, inequality will always arise from it once people figure out they can hack the game better than others
It's impossible to contradict this as you've created a tautology. Those who manage to have more have more therefore inequality.
You say that inequality will arise once this occurs, but seem to agree that equality would occur regardless, I am struggling to understand what you're trying to point out.