News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A Random Distribution of Wealth (2017) by marginalia_nu on Friday June 24, 2022 @08:56AM (#31861034)
Ok, let's permit ourselves to think the unthinkable through to the conclusion rather than immediately withdraw: Why can't there just be civil unrest?
Re:A Random Distribution of Wealth (2017) by UncleMeat on Friday June 24, 2022 @09:07AM (#31861168)
The devil has enough advocates. Is it really necessary to argue against the very idea of goodness itself?
Re:A Random Distribution of Wealth (2017) by sokoloff on Friday June 24, 2022 @09:36AM (#31861577)
Is it unambiguously good to forcibly take from someone to give to someone else merely because the first party has more than the second? That's an essential element of any wealth redistribution scheme that seeks to reduce inequality.

If you imagine a scale from [0, 1] where 0 is no redistributive mechanisms at all and 1 is perfect, daily rebalancing to exact equality of outcome, it's fairly obvious to me that neither extreme of 0 nor 1 is "the very idea of goodness itself".

Re:A Random Distribution of Wealth (2017) by blitz_skull on Friday June 24, 2022 @10:00AM (#31861919)
Who says civil unrest is inherently bad?

Civil unrest led to women's suffrage, racial equality, and countless other things that are indeed good. Good things sometimes come from bad situations.

There's very little to support your argument that "Why can't there just be civil unrest?" is arguing against the idea of goodness itself.

Re:A Random Distribution of Wealth (2017) by marginalia_nu on Friday June 24, 2022 @09:12AM (#31861220)
I'm definitely not opposed to goodness, I'm just not convinced by this line of reasoning this is.
Re:A Random Distribution of Wealth (2017) by yourgranny on Friday June 24, 2022 @09:22AM (#31861360)
I'll assume if you had experience in a country with a significant amount of civil unrest, these "thought" experiments wouldn't be necessary.
Re:A Random Distribution of Wealth (2017) by leereeves on Friday June 24, 2022 @09:15AM (#31861261)
If your only concern is self interest, you should consider what happens to the "elite" in a revolution.

The phrase "civil unrest" is far too tame; it doesn't even begin to conjure the horrors that people are capable of when they get angry enough.

Re:A Random Distribution of Wealth (2017) by marginalia_nu on Friday June 24, 2022 @09:25AM (#31861415)
Isn't the angry mob also acting in self interest? If the well-being of others is what they actually care about, why can't they enjoy the well-being of the likes of Richard Branson?

Anyway, if death is the price you have to pay for living a life true to yourself, in accordance with your values, in accordance with what you think is right and not what you think will appease some hypothetical angry mob, then so be it. Surely it's better to live a short life true to what you believe, than a slightly longer life lacking any sense of integrity.

Re:A Random Distribution of Wealth (2017) by leereeves on Friday June 24, 2022 @09:29AM (#31861483)
Yes, the angry mob is acting according to the values you espouse here. That's the natural consequence of pure self interest.

And that's why pure self interest is something to be avoided even by people who only care about themselves.

Some elites might imagine that they can remain on top forever, unaffected by the violence and oppression they inflict on others. History suggests otherwise.

Re:A Random Distribution of Wealth (2017) by marginalia_nu on Friday June 24, 2022 @09:44AM (#31861693)
Maybe it's supposed to be a cycle of elites climbing to the top and being overthrown. Maybe that's like the seasons, it just happens every few hundred years. Sucks for those involved, but that's what human societies do.

We even had the cycle of elite-formation and power-accumulation into civil unrest and collapse happen in the Soviet union, which was literally engineered to prevent this exact thing from happening, complete with profound socialist indoctrination of the population. They weren't supposed to be self-interested, yet when it came down to it, they were.

Overall I'm fairly skeptical toward the notion that societies can be designed at all, to a meaningful degree.

What fundamentally shapes the human societies is human nature which is self-interested and largely immutable. You can try to force it, to artificially make societies that contradict human nature through the imposition of rules, but that's if anything even more volatile, because that makes all their citizens unhappy, like animals in a zoo.

Re:A Random Distribution of Wealth (2017) by leereeves on Friday June 24, 2022 @09:51AM (#31861804)
Well, I think you've found the answer to your original question: why not ignore inequality?

As you said: the "cycle of elites climbing to the top and being overthrown...sucks for those involved".

Having acknowledged that it sucks, why not try to improve it?

Re:A Random Distribution of Wealth (2017) by marginalia_nu on Friday June 24, 2022 @10:08AM (#31862074)
I've seen no credible evidence it can be improved, all attempts at doing so, and we've been at this for over a hundred years now, all attempts at doing so have sucked for those involved, in a real dystopian boot-stomping-on-face-forever sort of a way.

The problem is that while you can convince someone briefly that your new utopia is a good idea, as the years go by, people start having other ideas, they start wanting things. Self-interest never really went away. So you need to stop them from thinking wrong and wanting the wrong things and having the wrong ideas, and the only way to do that is through oppressive totalitarianism.

Human institutions ossify and start to serve the ends of their own power accumulation, no matter how noble their initial ideals and goals were.

Re:A Random Distribution of Wealth (2017) by leereeves on Friday June 24, 2022 @10:45AM (#31862824)
The original proposal wasn't "we should enforce a socialist utopia", it was:

> If you have the benefit of this inequality, you should use it to ensure the availability of life’s necessities

That's an individual decision, not an oppressive dystopian institution.

In fact, one way we could start working on reducing inequality is to reduce the oppressive dystopian elements of our current institutions.

And toward that end, we should note that any elite privileges you may enjoy ultimately rest on the ability to call on the government to use force on your behalf.

Re:A Random Distribution of Wealth (2017) by imtringued on Friday June 24, 2022 @06:00PM (#31869993)
They can't enjoy the wellbeing of starvation.
Re:A Random Distribution of Wealth (2017) by 411111111111111 on Friday June 24, 2022 @09:27AM (#31861449)
From my point of view (which likely differs from marzinalia_nu's) the question isn't really about why we think it matters and more about why the people holding the vast majority of money should care about it.

My personal worldview is quiet bleak and I'm very glad to already be in the middle of my thirties, because I struggle to find a reason which would matter to them.

I don't think there is any chance we'll avoid mass murder on the average people at this point, and I doubt the average software developer will escape unharmed either long term. Hopefully after I'm dead though.

[dead]
Re:A Random Distribution of Wealth (2017) by 411111111111111 on Friday June 24, 2022 @10:28AM (#31862431)
o rly? Should I notify the police that you've just made a death thread? I'm not sure why you think such an escalation was necessary from that comment.
Re:A Random Distribution of Wealth (2017) by stavros on Friday June 24, 2022 @10:31AM (#31862501)
I'm pointing out that if you're hoping for stuff to happen after you die, you can kill yourself before it happens. I don't see why you think I was making a death threat, but feel free to notify anyone you like.
Re:A Random Distribution of Wealth (2017) by city17 on Friday June 24, 2022 @09:16AM (#31861267)
This is an example where philosophical questions get detached from reality. While it can be an interesting thought experiment, intuitively you already know the answer, and if you would live through civil unrest yourself you would stop doubting that answer for sure.
Re:A Random Distribution of Wealth (2017) by malnourish on Friday June 24, 2022 @08:58AM (#31861063)
I would personally rather live in a safe society with happy and comfortable people, to the fullest extent possible.
Re:A Random Distribution of Wealth (2017) by blitz_skull on Friday June 24, 2022 @10:03AM (#31861984)
I would personally like to live in a society that glorifies violence, and promotes survival of the fittest. A society filled with suffering and strength.

I'm playing devil's advocate, but indeed there are those who agree with that statement. Who gets to decide which is right?

Re:A Random Distribution of Wealth (2017) by kelseyfrog on Friday June 24, 2022 @12:19PM (#31864785)
This is a really good example of how devil's advocate strategies don't actually add to furthering or strengthening a discussion. Categorically they add friction to the conversation without providing a benefit. Arguments from DA-proponents only provides more evidence of this position.
Re:A Random Distribution of Wealth (2017) by HWR_14 on Friday June 24, 2022 @02:21PM (#31867083)
Devils advocate strategies have nothing to do with the post you are responding to. That was just contrary assertions- which is just bad argumentation.
Re:A Random Distribution of Wealth (2017) by kelseyfrog on Friday June 24, 2022 @02:47PM (#31867536)
> I'm playing devil's advocate

Maybe you saw another post?

Re:A Random Distribution of Wealth (2017) by HWR_14 on Friday June 24, 2022 @03:41PM (#31868327)
I saw it. He's not actually playing devil's advocate, just using the name. It's like the People's Democratic Republic of Korea.
Re:A Random Distribution of Wealth (2017) by kelseyfrog on Friday June 24, 2022 @04:43PM (#31869045)
If you come across a devil's advocate let me know. I've only seen the People's Democratic Republic of Devil's Advocation and the I Actually Believe This But I'm Too Afraid To Say It types.
Re:A Random Distribution of Wealth (2017) by imtringued on Friday June 24, 2022 @06:01PM (#31870005)
We routinely abandon that strategy because it is highly inefficient.
Re:A Random Distribution of Wealth (2017) by twobitshifter on Friday June 24, 2022 @01:20PM (#31866034)
collectively societies decide and create laws to that effect. Some societies have laws that include decapitation, severing limbs, and stoning. Others see this behavior as inhumane.
Re:A Random Distribution of Wealth (2017) by imgabe on Friday June 24, 2022 @09:02AM (#31861107)
There can be. It is a thing that can possibly happen for sure.

The question is why would you prefer there being civil unrest to there not being civil unrest?

And if you prefer the latter why would you not exercise whatever power you have to realize your preference?

Re:A Random Distribution of Wealth (2017) by jacquesm on Friday June 24, 2022 @09:05AM (#31861143)
I've seen this sentiment embodied like this: if you could choose the shape of the world that you will be born in, but not into what house you will be born then that's the world you should strive to create.
Re:A Random Distribution of Wealth (2017) by imtringued on Friday June 24, 2022 @05:57PM (#31869960)
Civil unrest is a market clearing mechanism.

When you think about that, there is no way declared to be free markets are actually free.