My take on the three points very cleverly argued by this video by Ninad 1) lasting happiness - I did not understand how free market takes credit for this. "waiting to eat marshmellows" how is that free market....i thought govt programs help those who dont even have access to marshmellows...
3) most good for most vulnerable!!! I dont see anything in free market that does this... but let me explain this more... so in that video they said since 1970 percentage of people "living on dollar or less" has declined by 80%... did they adjust for inflation? else it makes no sense... and even if they did, some will say correlation is not causation.... and even if it somehow was causation didnt that video also say that free market has been under attack.... its just soo confusing to present data like this... (only somebody with biased mind will agree with their conclusion) Someone who has a different ideological bend will ask this who is typically poor? unemployed, underprivileged...etc. Doesnt government support these people... doesnt government create programs to keep them off poverty... so its the government that leads to less poverty not "limited government"'.... again I am confused...
2) real fairness - nothing wrong in rewarding success (keeping in mind free market is rewarding success and not hard work. again nothing wrong in that) but the problem is when it punishes failure....thats where the arguable portion of govt steps in... I will explain this based my philosophical bend towards life...
I think Two factors play major roles in success and richness of any person 1) contribution of society - there are many ways society contributes. it provides "demand" for your product. people buying movie tickets, eating in restaurants making profit for owner etc... Society provides infrastructure, schools colleges, roads police etc 2) Pure and simple luck - so its okay to reward their success but we should also remember that successful people need society as much as the society needs them. so if people who create demand for the 'successful' wish to include health care in their "basic rights" lets not call that as redistribution of wealth. Some will say wealth is already redistributed in wrong direction...
I appreciate the language and concept. I think in order to effect change we have to use our concepts, models, and facts, but speak in terms that are more familiar to our opposition. Doesn't it seem that consequentialists should be more open to preachy verbiage in order to get the optimal end result?
What's wrong with eating a Muffin?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy take on the three points very cleverly argued by this video by Ninad
ReplyDelete1) lasting happiness - I did not understand how free market takes credit for this. "waiting to eat marshmellows" how is that free market....i thought govt programs help those who dont even have access to marshmellows...
3) most good for most vulnerable!!! I dont see anything in free market that does this... but let me explain this more...
so in that video they said since 1970 percentage of people "living on dollar or less" has declined by 80%... did they adjust for inflation? else it makes no sense... and even if they did, some will say correlation is not causation.... and even if it somehow was causation didnt that video also say that free market has been under attack.... its just soo confusing to present data like this... (only somebody with biased mind will agree with their conclusion)
Someone who has a different ideological bend will ask this
who is typically poor? unemployed, underprivileged...etc. Doesnt government support these people... doesnt government create programs to keep them off poverty... so its the government that leads to less poverty not "limited government"'.... again I am confused...
2) real fairness - nothing wrong in rewarding success (keeping in mind free market is rewarding success and not hard work. again nothing wrong in that) but the problem is when it punishes failure....thats where the arguable portion of govt steps in... I will explain this based my philosophical bend towards life...
I think
Two factors play major roles in success and richness of any person
1) contribution of society - there are many ways society contributes. it provides "demand" for your product. people buying movie tickets, eating in restaurants making profit for owner etc... Society provides infrastructure, schools colleges, roads police etc
2) Pure and simple luck -
so its okay to reward their success but we should also remember that successful people need society as much as the society needs them. so if people who create demand for the 'successful' wish to include health care in their "basic rights" lets not call that as redistribution of wealth. Some will say wealth is already redistributed in wrong direction...
I appreciate the language and concept. I think in order to effect change we have to use our concepts, models, and facts, but speak in terms that are more familiar to our opposition. Doesn't it seem that consequentialists should be more open to preachy verbiage in order to get the optimal end result?
ReplyDelete