Aielyn said:
You seem to confuse "people being rewarded based on their contribution" with "people being given gifts based on their contribution". What I'm talking about is a society where those who contribute more get more money as a general rule. Not some great judgment system where a person's worth is determined by some sort of panel or authority, but where society does it automatically, through ordinary economic processes. I'm not confusing anything here. For something to follow a "rule," there needs to be some way to enforce it (whether it is government or not). Judgement will be made by someone because how "hard" someone works is highly subjective in terms of worth, and benefits to society will not come in the same form everywhere. It ends up that what you're thinking is that the people determine who deserves what. You're kind of trying to ask for a completely free market. That is not at all what would promote economic equality. For you see, the whole capitalist vs communist dichotomy is a false dichotomy. It is possible for a properly-created system to bring the best of both sides, by doing things like utilising market forces to achieve better equality. I've even got a few ideas on that front as a specific starting point, although they're too detailed to put here, and a quick summary wouldn't do them justice. Maybe you weren't saying this to me directly, but I know what Capitalism and Communism is, and I didn't even bring it up. Also, I highly doubt you have a system that would work in the real world. There are many factors at play, and for many countries their economic state is determined by other states. Beyond that, there are features of modern democracies that are rather outdated. The 24 hour news cycle has destroyed a large portion of the political system that worked well 100 years ago - the result is a combination of corruption and populism. 100 years ago, people became politicians to make a difference - it's as much about public exposure as anything else now, thanks to TV. There are more, but this isn't really the place for an essay. I don't think you know your stuff as well as you think you do if you think corruption is anything new. Corruption is just more transparent now. Do you even know what the definition of corruption is, anyway? Our "news cycle" doesn't "allow" corruption. It is possible that our entertainment-focused society has made a certain form of corruption more prevalent, but our information-society and our political system makes it harder for political leaders to get away with corruption. Nice job ignoring the actual point of my post, though. I see no way how I ignored the actual point of your post. I pasted it down below so you can go reread what you posted. I responded to your post, and obviously the point of your post is that there's a "correct" way to set up a democracy, and you gave a small brief of what your idea would fix and what you think the problem is. I countered it. Offended? |
Aielyn said:
Please clarify the definition of "Economic Equality".
If you mean "Everyone has the same economic capability", then that would be communism, and is not really compatible with Democracy.
If you mean "Everyone has access to the same potential for economic success", then I'd say that it's entirely compatible, and if the system is set up correctly, it will be the necessary outcome. But no democracy has been set up correctly, yet.
The key difference between the former and latter cases has to do with the difference between rewarding harder (or smarter, or more important, or more beneficial) work and treating everyone as equal independent of their contribution. Both are different from what we have right now, which is where economic capability is tied to parents' economic capability, social circumstances, etc. A kid in a poor family has far less chance to succeed than a kid in a rich family if both kids have the same skills, dedication, etc.
