Economic Justice

[DonkSlayer 1]

People bring up the term "Economic Justice" a lot on MLK day..they say he thought that must be in place to truly achieve racial justice and overall peace.For me, it means no legal hindrances for citizens gaining or losing wealth.I realize others believe it means government redistribution of wealth to ensure everyone is equal financially. What does Economic Justice mean to you?

[brvheart 1,752]

This is a thread for OT general. You will get more/better responses. Have DNA move it.

[semaj550 0]

This is a thread for OT general. You will get more/better responses. Have DNA move it.

Not that I know anything for certain about it but if I had to guess it sounds to me like a concept of even distribution of economic resources amount various groups (possibly racial).

[DonkSlayer 1]

This is a thread for OT general. You will get more/better responses. Have DNA move it.

Eh lets see what happens. This is really the philosophy forum too.

[DonkSlayer 1]

Not that I know anything for certain about it but if I had to guess it sounds to me like a concept of even distribution of economic resources amount various groups (possibly racial).

Not what it sounds like, what it means to you. Not sure what you mean by this...investment capital? Machines? Labor?

[BWToth 0]

Economic Justice, if you believe in the idea of it would have to mean MORE than 'no legal hindrances' in order to even begin to occur. One could argue that we are at a point in the US where there are no 'legal' hindrances, but there is certainly not economic justice.Economic Justice would mean that every individual has an equal chance to "make it" economically, where "make it" could mean different things depending on how far you wanted to take the system.Some people are born with less of a chance to obtain economic wealth or even economic comfortability (for lack of a better word) through absolutely not fault of their own. Socio-economic situations, public schooling, or the simple fact that some people are born smarter than others etc. all contribute to one's ability to obtain wealth. No matter how much conservatives like to promote 'the american dream' and the 'pull yourself up by the bootstraps' mentality, it is nearly impossible for all individuals to have an equal chance at economic freedom without intervention by the govt.This means ensuring that there is not a disparity in the education in public schools in different areas, welfare and welfare to work systems in place to kick start the process, a highly skewed tax system, a full public healt care system and finally...AFFIRMATIVE ACTION is, at this point in our society, a necessary tool to ensure equal opportunity.There is a big difference between 'no legal hindrances' and pro-active laws.I've got tons more to say but i'll wait until some other opinons roll in first. Generally, someplace like Sweden comes to mind.

[crowTrobot 2]

What does Economic Justice mean to you?

keeping big business agendas and government agendas separate would be a good place to start.

[DonkSlayer 1]

Economic Justice, if you believe in the idea of it would have to mean MORE than 'no legal hindrances' in order to even begin to occur. One could argue that we are at a point in the US where there are no 'legal' hindrances, but there is certainly not economic justice.Economic Justice would mean that every individual has an equal chance to "make it" economically, where "make it" could mean different things depending on how far you wanted to take the system.Some people are born with less of a chance to obtain economic wealth or even economic comfortability (for lack of a better word) through absolutely not fault of their own. Socio-economic situations, public schooling, or the simple fact that some people are born smarter than others etc. all contribute to one's ability to obtain wealth. No matter how much conservatives like to promote 'the american dream' and the 'pull yourself up by the bootstraps' mentality, it is nearly impossible for all individuals to have an equal chance at economic freedom without intervention by the govt.This means ensuring that there is not a disparity in the education in public schools in different areas, welfare and welfare to work systems in place to kick start the process, a highly skewed tax system, a full public healt care system and finally...AFFIRMATIVE ACTION is, at this point in our society, a necessary tool to ensure equal opportunity.There is a big difference between 'no legal hindrances' and pro-active laws.I've got tons more to say but i'll wait until some other opinons roll in first. Generally, someplace like Sweden comes to mind.

A few things though:First, Sweden is highly homogenous, for whatever that's worth.Second, what do you mean by economic freedom? Surely, if you give something to someone, you have to take it from another, in a vacuum...so are you not diminishing the freedom of, say, a software-producer-miser who creates an uncopiable, high-demand program and wants to keep all the money made selling the product under his mattress? Third, is it "justice" to resdistribute, restrict, or enhance wealth arbitrarily? There will have to be an arbitrary set of standards to base the sytem of the redistribution. In natural law, is taking away from some and giving to others, regardless of talent, work done, etc, justice?

[semaj550 0]

Not what it sounds like, what it means to you. Not sure what you mean by this...investment capital? Machines? Labor?

Basically, economic justice is the idea that everyone should have equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from the economy and that policies should ensure equal access to the things that enable this (i.e. education).

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I guess in a perfectly theoretical framework it means that every brain has an equal chance of achieving wealth and that the amount of wealth that one achieves only depends on one's mental capacities or skills directly related to their chosen field. It means that placing a CEO's brain inside of any individual born in the country (or world depending on the scale we are talking about) would have the same chance of becoming a CEO as if he were born in his original body. So, I guess I'm saying that it involves more than simply removing direct government hindrances to equal advancement and actually ensuring that the actual probabilities associated with a given mental capacity achieving a given economic position are evened out throughout society.Imagine that we could determine for a given bran and a given job a probability of that brain achieving that job. So, for example, we could say that Steve Jobs has a 98% for CEO or something like that (a number I just pulled out of my head for the sake of illustration). Economic equality would ensure that the numbers for a person's brain itself exactly match the actual numbers that are achieved in the real world. So, if we examine all the 80% brains for a given job, no matter their socioeconomic or racial background, 80% of them will eventually get the job.Does this make any sense? Honestly, I'm not sure.

[DonkSlayer 1]

Does this make any sense? Honestly, I'm not sure.

It makes sense in terms of what you're trying to get across and it makes sense in terms of an idealist solution.Say Steve Jobs gets married to the girl of his dreams, however, and loses her because he travles too much as a CEO?He decides that she's more important to him that being a CEO, so he wants to go back to being a developer instead. He cannot though, because the system is rigid. He lost his freedom because of justice. Weird concept.

[BWToth 0]

A few things though:First, Sweden is highly homogenous, for whatever that's worth.Second, what do you mean by economic freedom? Surely, if you give something to someone, you have to take it from another, in a vacuum...so are you not diminishing the freedom of, say, a software-producer-miser who creates an uncopiable, high-demand program and wants to keep all the money made selling the product under his mattress? Third, is it "justice" to resdistribute, restrict, or enhance wealth arbitrarily? There will have to be an arbitrary set of standards to base the sytem of the redistribution. In natural law, is taking away from some and giving to others, regardless of talent, work done, etc, justice?

Exactly, if people in the US were given a 'homogenous' opportunity to excel then there would be less unsuccessful, A LOT of moderately successful, and few super successful. That's the point. Of course we're going to have to take away from those who have it, but you have to look at the utility of each, $50,000 has a lot more value to somone making minimum wage than a multi millionare...therein is where you get the justification for enacting govt. means to redistribute wealth.Justice and freedom aren't the same thing...to enact justice limits must be put on 'freedom' on both ends fo the spectrum. I would propose a system where people who make under a certain amount aren't allowed to buy over a certain amount of lottery tickets (one example) and people who have over a certain amount of money would not be allowed to use their money on certain luxury items unless they do something like give a certain amount to charity, or back to the govt.I dont know where you are getting the word arbitrarily from, none of the things i'm saying will be done arbitrarily they will be done with the intention of creating a more egalitarian socio-economic system based on rules which maximize the utility of money.The richest of the rich could lose A LOT of money before their 'lifestyle' would be affected, if that is what they hold so dear and what they claim to have 'earned' through their hard work and blah blah blah.Due to our history and cultural make-up and attitudes that Americans have molded over the last 200 years it will take drastic measures to ensure economic justice, more so than if we were to start a society from scratch.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

It makes sense in terms of what you're trying to get across and it makes sense in terms of an idealist solution.Say Steve Jobs gets married to the girl of his dreams, however, and loses her because he travles too much as a CEO?He decides that she's more important to him that being a CEO, so he wants to go back to being a developer instead. He cannot though, because the system is rigid. He lost his freedom because of justice. Weird concept.

Yeah, my model was very idealistic. Basically, I assumed that we were talking about a specific person whose sole aspiration from birth is to acheive a given job using all of his mental capacity. I ignored distractions since I was trying to equalize whether or not he could get the job with the correct probability given enough drive and determination.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

The richest of the rich could lose A LOT of money before their 'lifestyle' would be affected, if that is what they hold so dear and what they claim to have 'earned' through their hard work and blah blah blah.

Ignoring the theoretical definition of economic "justice" or whatever, this indeed is very true. Does Brittney Spears really need a private plane to fly her coffee from one specific place every day? Probably not.

[DonkSlayer 1]

I dont know where you are getting the word arbitrarily from, none of the things i'm saying will be done arbitrarily they will be done with the intention of creating a more egalitarian socio-economic system based on rules which maximize the utility of money.

The "arbitrary" will come from deciding how much the "rich" can lose and still maintain their "lifestyle" and how much it'll take to bring others "up".

The richest of the rich could lose A LOT of money before their 'lifestyle' would be affected, if that is what they hold so dear and what they claim to have 'earned' through their hard work and blah blah blah.

Well, again, it would depend on your definition of what's important in life. As below, I think hers would be a bit skewed from what your would be.

Ignoring the theoretical definition of economic "justice" or whatever, this indeed is very true. Does Brittney Spears really need a private plane to fly her coffee from one specific place every day? Probably not.

I would agree. Our free market determines labor value, however...and the labor gets to spend how they wish.

[Balloon guy 158]

I know one thing for sure, being smart and being successful and rich do not always go together. Some people are too stupid to know why they shouldn't start their own business and then become wildly successful. I know some of them and I can only attribute their success to hard work and stubbordness.As far as economic justice using MLK as a springboard, Generally being born white male today means that your father and his father etc have had full opportunity to work, educate and create themselves for many generations. Being born black today means that, maybe your father had options, but his father was greatly limitied. So the school option, business, etc. are less available. That's why Affirmative action is okay by me. ( Not the normal Republican line) And will be okay for at least one more generation, or until we see significant change in inner city slums etc.

[copernicus 0]

You cant say "economic justice" and "affirmative action" in the same sentence. Oh..wait...I just did. but thats not what I meant.As soon as you give preference to anyone through affirmative action that they did not otherwise earn, you are being unjust to someone else. That person is paying for the societal sins of the past, not for anything of his own doing. Justice can only be achieved incrementally through changes in society overall, not incrementally by screwing individuals.

[DonkSlayer 1]

You cant say "economic justice" and "affirmative action" in the same sentence. Oh..wait...I just did. but thats not what I meant.As soon as you give preference to anyone through affirmative action that they did not otherwise earn, you are being unjust to someone else. That person is paying for the societal sins of the past, not for anything of his own doing. Justice can only be achieved incrementally through changes in society overall, not incrementally by screwing individuals.

This brings up another point about affirmative action and economic justice...it would be difficult to decide who earned and who did not. For instance, if a white person could prove that his family immigrated from Sweden in 1930 and moved to Montana, and the family rock-drilling business took off and all the children, who are VP's of the company, made their money at the expense of no slave, indentured or otherwise discriminated labor (there was no one but whites to discriminate against), should he have some sort of code he could put on his kid's college application so they weren't passed by just because of race? If someone literally worked since they were 18 and moved their way up to president of a company, going to college, etc. all on their own dime..should they lose the same percentage as someone making an equal amount acting or playing baseball or because of an inheritance? Shouldn't we have examples of wealth built from straight hard work and initiative?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

As soon as you give preference to anyone through affirmative action that they did not otherwise earn, you are being unjust to someone else. That person is paying for the societal sins of the past, not for anything of his own doing. Justice can only be achieved incrementally through changes in society overall, not incrementally by screwing individuals.

I disagree on two fronts:1) Affirmative action isn't about the past; it's about the present. It's not a way of paying back for slavery, but rather it is an attempt to put all people in the current, modern world on equal playing fields. It is a recognition that there exist stereotypes in the modern world and that there exist unequal barriers faced by different people from different parts of the country with differing socioeconomic status.2) Affirmative action is more unfair than the concept of a person with equal mental capacity as another having a much lower chance of getting the same job as one who grew up in a more affluent society.That being said, I believe that there are many problems with affirmative action. It doesn't take into account white people who are born in impoverished neighborhoods and don't receive proper education (for example) and it suggests that there are inherent differences between people of a different race and that they should be treated differently.The bottom line is this: I believe it is pretty easy and straightforward to understand what perfect economic equality would be (as in, I'll know it when I see it) but it's extremely difficult if not impossible to achieve that through any number of systems or policies. It's just too difficult to take into account history, economic, and an individual’s opportunities in a way that creates true justice.But then again, I'm not suggesting that the answer is to give up and do nothing...

[BWToth 0]

You cant say "economic justice" and "affirmative action" in the same sentence. Oh..wait...I just did. but thats not what I meant.As soon as you give preference to anyone through affirmative action that they did not otherwise earn, you are being unjust to someone else. That person is paying for the societal sins of the past, not for anything of his own doing. Justice can only be achieved incrementally through changes in society overall, not incrementally by screwing individuals.

Yorke addressed this, and I agree with him mostly.But furthermore, how are you supposed to just make society change? That's the point of affirmative action, it is the govt. stepping in and taking out of the equation instances where society hasn't changed.You say white people today shouldn't pay for the sins of the past but by the same token are you supposing that black/minorities should still have to pay for them?DonkSlayer,As for determining how much of the lifestyle of the uber-rich should be taken away, well I'm sure it would be easier to come up with a formula to figure out that number rather than just let things go.Obviously there will be some snags along the way, but if you keep the two goals of egalitarianism and utility at the core it should allow for measurable results to show what the right decision would be in any situation where redistribution of wealth is going to occur.I think everyone is getting caught up in the practicalities of the ideas instead of looking at it from an ideological standpoint first. The biggest problem by far with any system of creating economic justice is to get the laws entacted, and that in and of itself can't happen at this time because the rich want to stay rich.

[DonkSlayer 1]

I think everyone is getting caught up in the practicalities of the ideas instead of looking at it from an ideological standpoint first. T

The realist in me and the idealogue in you This is going to be really philisophical, but I believe people are truly only interested in their personal utility, not the group utilty...I think any affinity toward the group utility is merely a means to greater personal utility (see, why society formed in the first place).So, if economic egalitarianism first, then what? Money would probably disappear a la Star Trek, because there would really no need for it...at this point, after survival, it's merely a means to gain utility for one's self. It's really not unreasonable to think that the next step would be genetic egalitarianism...it's not my fault that I don't have the wherewithal to beat minesweeper in 2 seconds (my best time is 4), neither did you "earn" that ability (you likely inherited the mental acuity), so, if beating minesweeper in 2 seconds was decided to be good for the group's utility, my type would be bred out unless there was some way to "take" some ability from those who could beat minesweeper in 1 second and give it to me so I could get as close to 2 seconds as possible (I know it's not really possible to tranfer mental ability, but suppose it was). Or,Our government then decides that love is necessary for our society to survive. My parents did not love me, because their parents did not love them, because they were born when money still existed and they blamed their lack of money on having to support children. Your grandparents inherited a lot of money, and thus loved their children because they were no burden, and thus your parents loved you. Therefore, you did not earn your loving wife and 2 loving children, all of whom you were able to gain because you were a loving person yourself. Society should take one of your loving family members, perhaps two because you have enough love for yourself as well, and give them to me, so that we may be equally loved. What do you think?

[BWToth 0]

Well, I think these are legitimate concerns, although I don't think that people are only looking out for themselves I don't believe altruism is dead. Even if people were looking out for themselves, the things they do for others could be justified as means of gaining a good name for themselves, avoiding guilt, etc and not necessarliy just to gain more money down the line. If it was possible to guilt people into accepting these ideas for economic justice so be it, the ends would justify the means.But my point is taking these ideas to get from the point we are at now in the US and get to a point where true equal opportunity exists, and from there all that seperates one from another are things like natural intellect, work-ethic, determination, sound investments, etc.Then people are free to go above and beyond and aquire more wealth for themselves due to these aspects and not reasons such as they inherited money, they happened to be born into an affluent family/or below the poverty line.As things begin to even out the govt. systems will be scaled back slowly.once again...ideally.I'm not advocating socialism, all i'm saying at that with the disparity between rich and poor today in the US we are nearly at the opposite extreme.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I'm not sure if this is exactly what you're talking about, Donkslayer, but this is my discussion of utility:Economic equality works for the betterment and the purification of capitalism. Giving the best brains, no matter their background, equal chances to advance in society good for society. It is survival of the fittest and isolating the "fittest" to be those that are best at their job, not those that were born into their job. Thus, by allowing for the economic equality that I described in above posts, one ensures that the best minds are at the heads of industry and therefore that industry thrives. I could probably argue that the economy of a given country thrives when the economic leaders of that country (CEO's, etc) are the best minds possible for the job. Businesses fail, jobs are lost, and government intervention (scary, right) becomes necessary when businesses are poorly run.I'm not going to touch some of the dystopian imagery that you painted, Donk (though maybe later).

[Loismustdie 0]

Well, I think these are legitimate concerns, although I don't think that people are only looking out for themselves I don't believe altruism is dead. Even if people were looking out for themselves, the things they do for others could be justified as means of gaining a good name for themselves, avoiding guilt, etc and not necessarliy just to gain more money down the line. If it was possible to guilt people into accepting these ideas for economic justice so be it, the ends would justify the means.But my point is taking these ideas to get from the point we are at now in the US and get to a point where true equal opportunity exists, and from there all that seperates one from another are things like natural intellect, work-ethic, determination, sound investments, etc.Then people are free to go above and beyond and aquire more wealth for themselves due to these aspects and not reasons such as they inherited money, they happened to be born into an affluent family/or below the poverty line.As things begin to even out the govt. systems will be scaled back slowly.once again...ideally.I'm not advocating socialism, all i'm saying at that with the disparity between rich and poor today in the US we are nearly at the opposite extreme.

You wanted my take on this BW so I will give it to you, but it's not going to be as pie in the sky as most of you guys seem to be. Really for this country, it's to late. The wealth is already distributed. Occasionally, there is an economic shift- an invention,a certain company does well, etc, but rarely does it effect more than a few in any hardcore postive manner. Real wealth is grown and passed on- Bill Gates is wealthy, his grandkids grandkids will be insanely wealthy. See how that works? What MLK pushed for and really we have it now is the right for anyone to give it a shot, to get a loan, to try and get a good job- all of these things are in place. Nobodys telling a black man he can't apply for anything, and I see very few instances where a white man is obviously biased in his dealings with a black man. As a matter of fact, I see the opposite in the work place- I hear alot of complaining about the white man holding somebody down but I don't actually see it. I see normal BS that I deal with, that any man or woman deals with, being reclassified as the white man holding somebody down. There is a mentality that is being pushed that says I must be given something for nothing.(Of course this is both a black and white thing- except a black person actually has groups that push this agenda.) Which, in my opinon, is miles away from what MLK had in mind, and is the main reason why the non-wealthy will stay that way. Nobody wants to work for it anymore. One thing that America has that I love is you really can be anything you want- but you gotta want it. Not many want it enough. That's the reality. So, in answer to the question I believe this life is what you make of it,there should be no system in place that shifts the balance,because the balance is neccesary to ensure power that means something. If we just handed Joe Schmoe 10 million, or even 1 what would happen? Chances are he would blow it- lottery winners prove this again and again. They do little to nothing to grow it into actual wealth, to build empires.

[Loismustdie 0]

I'm not sure if this is exactly what you're talking about, Donkslayer, but this is my discussion of utility:Economic equality works for the betterment and the purification of capitalism. Giving the best brains, no matter their background, equal chances to advance in society good for society. It is survival of the fittest and isolating the "fittest" to be those that are best at their job, not those that were born into their job. Thus, by allowing for the economic equality that I described in above posts, one ensures that the best minds are at the heads of industry and therefore that industry thrives. I could probably argue that the economy of a given country thrives when the economic leaders of that country (CEO's, etc) are the best minds possible for the job. Businesses fail, jobs are lost, and government intervention (scary, right) becomes necessary when businesses are poorly run.I'm not going to touch some of the dystopian imagery that you painted, Donk (though maybe later).

A good example of goverment intervention that was absolutley neccesary would be the Securities acts after/during The Great Deppresion.