I see, I see. I’d like to ask a follow-up question. If what you said about human nature is true, which I believe is more likely to be so than not, then does that mean that meritocracy, assuming a definition of meritocracy as that society in which everyone agrees that everyone is getting what they what they deserve, must be a utopia, provided that the human nature that causes at least some people in a society to disagree that their society is a meritocracy (as defined) remains unchanged?
Also, is that definition of meritocracy, in your opinion or general knowledge, a “straw man” in that either the definition is actually not the “true” definition of meritocracy, or misses so many points that it’s really inadequate? I don’t want to be talking about the implications of meritocracy if I’m actually wrong on what it actually is! If so, what would be your definition of that word?
Furt’s post is a good example of what we liberals mean when we say you conservatives think people “deserve” their economic situations–you guys tend to think that a person’s economic situation is a result of his own choices, while us guys tend to think that a person’s economic situation is a result of choices plus luck. (“Tend”.)
Smiling Bandit said he doesn’t think this, but I’m not sure I believe him! I need to search for his past posts to see if what he’s said in the past matches what he says now. My impression is that it doesn’t–but I certainly could be wrong.
There is no illusion of meritocracy, and Republicans would not have it so. That’s why conservatives abhor the estate tax.
That said, I don’t think most conservatives think there is something inherently wrong with poor people or that they deserve their lot or whatever. That sort of assumption stifles debate.
And Democrats believe there should be no illusion of ownership, of anything - everything you have belongs to the state, and you should be grateful for whatever they deign to allow you to keep.
I agree that I tend to view a person’s economic situation is generally the result of their own choices. I suppose luck plays a part if you mean the sort of luck as to what family you’re born into, but that stretches the definition past usefulness.
:dubious: So, you’ve never seen someone lose out on success just because of competition? How many aspiring retail entrepreneurs get to be Sam Walton? For that matter, know many humanities Ph.D.'s?
I suppose there is supposed to be some central clearing house that tells us whether or not we have a chance in a chosen career. Well, there’s not. We live in chaos, we gamble with our lives, sometimes we listen to people who tell us to take a chance. That’s about luck, or the hope of luck.
Hmm… how do I put it? I don’t see the divide you do. Yeah, you make choices. But it doesn’t have anything to do cosmic worth or “just desserts.” With hard work and a little luck, you can do better. That doesn’t mean you deserve, or dont deserve, to win the lottery (take that literally or metaphorically as you please).
We cannot guarantee success, but we can take steps to minimize the effect of bad luck and maximize the effect of good luck, and thus vitiate their effects.
I check my spare tire and oil and tire pressure every time I gas up.
I might get a flat. But if it happens, I know I’ll have a spare ready.
I have a friend who had to miss a job interview because of a flat, and a flat spare.
“When did you last check the spare?”
“Uh.. when I bought the car?”
But that event was “bad luck,” which no one could foresee.
Now, other things can happen, of course. An accident can disable the car no matter how peppy the spare is. But the point is not to eliminate such events. It’s to make choices that minimize the exposure.
Without exception, in my experience, the people that talk about life being a confusing chaotic mess are the ones that don’t handle the boring mundane little tasks like checking oil and changing filters. But then, when something happens, it’s bad luck, and who can be held responsible for bad luck, after all?
I don’t like either one. I’d like to see military spending cut by over 50%.
I agree with it; though I also think it’s a phony issue: notwithstanding cherry-picked anecdotes, the vast, vast majority of wealthy people pay plenty in taxes.
Is this some kind of test to see if I’m really a libertarian? Do I pass, or do you need to hear about my views on the drug war? And is any of it relevant to the thread?
No, this is completely wrong. Don’t know where you get this. Of course everyone has good and bad luck.
A difference no doubt lies in what to do about someone’s bad luck. Liberals tend to have great deal more stock in the idea that the larger society has an obligation to make everyone’s luck even out, and conservatives are more apt to accept the fact that life is inherently unfair.
I don’t know about others but when I see that I always reply that:
Of course life is unfair, so pay up more taxes than the poor to make a better safety net.
So if that is indeed a fact that life is unfair, I think then that wealthy conservatives should not complain much when the unfairness of higher taxes comes to them.
Despite Liberal rhetoric, I don’t hear any serious people on the right saying they want to switch to a regressive tax scheme. Despite Conservative rhetoric, I don’t hear any serious people on the left advocating that only the wealthy should be paying taxes.
Especially in the US, our political disagreements tend to be within a very narrow band on a very, very wide potential continuum.
Every word of your post that I quoted was designed to put focus on the way that people’s economic situations are results of their own choices. When I say you, as a conservative, think people “deserve” to be where they are economically, that’s what I’m talking about–you tend to think that people are where they are because of their own choices. This is what your post says.
Bricker denies that this has any significance, and in another thread Chessic Sense outright denied it. So it may not be as “of course” as you think.
I have never checked to see if my spare was flat, because I have had the bad luck to have had no idea spares could even go flat while simply sitting in the trunk, short of massive trauma.
This is consistent with what you said in another thread–that you keep close and detailed tabs of your checking account down to the penny. You were amazed that anyone doesn’t do this.
I’ve gotta locate that research that seems to show that the detail-oriented people actually tend to do worse (financially) than the “round to the nearest significant digit” people.
Anyway I myself tend to see “knowing how to make good choices” as itself involving quite a bit of luck–a result of birth, upbringing and contacts. Let me be clear I don’t think this is something that it would make much sense to shape political policy around–I’m just illustrating a difference I see in how conservatives I know and read, and liberals I know and read, seem to see things.
