patrick.net

You aren't advocating fixing, you advocate what communists did in ussr, government forced equality of outcomes.Dan8267 says

Strategist says

The point is to appreciate what you have.

Appreciating what you have is not mutually exclusive with fixing problems. In this case, the problem does not even affect me as I'm well off. That doesn't mean I should have zero desire to see the problem fix. Have a little empathy, man.

Again, would you tell the military not to go after ISIS just because you were not personally a victim of terrorism? That would be silly. It's silly to ignore problems and let them fester just because they aren't affecting you right now or because "no one in life gets everything they want". That's a false dichotomy and a straw man argument. And it should be obvious to you that it is.

You have given us absolutely no reason why our society should not attempt to solve the problem of inter-generational poverty and lack of equal economic opportunity. Solving this problem, or ev...

Strategist says

Your theory or whatever you want to call it is just a form of socialism.

No, actually, by definition, it's not. You don't get to mislabel things just because you don't understand them.

Also, you are the biggest socialist here. You support current military spending, and that's socialism. Hypocrisy much?

Tall parents tend to give births to tall offsprings, who tend to be advantaged in basketball. Short parents tend to give births to short offsprings, who tend to live longer. Should government ban both tall people and short people for their respective "unfair" advantages? thereby banning everyone?

Likewise, IQ is highly heritable. Higher IQ people tend to make more money and be more successful in their lives, lower IQ people tend to be more easily content with their lives (i.e. subjectively happier, for the same level of material well being; unless they are disturbed by agitators). Should government ban both high IQ people and low IQ people? thereby banning everyone?

What exactly is wrong with children taking after their parents? What would be the point of mate selection if outcome were completely random and not affected by the characteristics of parents at all? We know good-looking people tend to produce good-looking offpsrings; would you want a government that mandates disfiguring all newborns just to make it "fair" for everyone? "Fair" to whom?

Why shouldn't height and good-looks be taxed if earning power is to be taxed? Should the law mandate all good-looking girls to be raped? just like people making more money are raped (the word came from "rapine" or pillage) in their wallets? This may not be an entirely academic question for hard-core Marxists, as it is the logic conclusion to a policy of making everyone equal in a biological world where females are hypergamous (they choose mates based on unequalness, the very basis of mate selection, one of the primary drivers of evolution.)

Capital goods ("means of production" in Marxian lingo) have to be privately owned because the benefit of capital goods is not ownership/consumption but what to do with it. "Public ownership" of capital goods just means conferring such decision power to monopolistic bureaucrats who are not subject to market competition. Private ownership of capital goods means there can be competitive ownership: open transparent bidding on the decision power as well as displacement of existing capital goods by new capital goods embodying better technology. The economic effect of robots is fundamentally no different from mass production lines. Private ownership in the West allowed better and better cars made in the West catering to consumer demands, whereas "public ownership" of manufacturing lines in the Soviet Union meant they continued to make 1940's car models well into the 1980's! making the jobs of bureaucrats easier at the expense of the general population, who had to suffer from the resource misallocation.

Applying absolute "equality" (i.e. "levelers" at the time of American Revolution) to capital goods ownership in a population of unequal IQ's is a stupid idea, as that would just make some people "more equal" than other people in an even more monopolistic way, a la Animal Farm. At any given time, everyone's IQ is never the same. Otherwise, there wouldn't be evolution. IQ is heritable; otherwise, there wouldn't be evolution and human society/species wouldn't improve. People being different from each other, and having different outcomes (both economic and non-economic) due to the differences, are fundamental to progress and improvement.

OTOH, social agitators tend to make things worse by transferring economic decision-making power from higher IQ people to lower IQ people, while making lower-IQ people unhappy by pointing out the notional "unfairness" in their otherwise relatively content lives. It is much easier to decide what's better for oneself than deciding what's better for someone else; the best thing lower/average IQ people can do is selecting which smart phone to buy for himself/herself instead of voting on how to make the next generation of smart phones. Let the high IQ people / geniuses decide how to make the next generation of smart phones, and then let the rest of the population decide which to buy for himself/herself among numerous competing offerings . . . instead of "public ownership" monopoly by a few tyrannical high IQ people mandating which exact model everyone in society is allowed to have.