On 2/19/2012 4:11 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 2/19/2012 3:40 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/18/2012 9:11 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

I do not think that most people would agree with your definition of
fairness. I think most people would agree that it is perfectly fair
for 1/2 the people to be poor and the other half rich , if all the
people have an equal opportunity to be rich.

See, Dan, you qualified your statement by saying if everyone had an
equal opportunity to be rich.

Everyone *does* have an equal opportunity to be rich.

Just like everyone has an equal opportunity to play in the NBA.

Yep. We don't all have an equal *likelihood* of playing in the NBA.

Good example of word play. You know what I meant. Only a handful of
people have the opportunity to play in the NBA meaning they have the
ability to even be considered as a member. It's not likely that anybody
will play in the NBA for that matter. So let's just agree the
opportunity to play is only granted to those who have the ability to
play basketball on that level, and that applies to almost nobody. So
everybody doesn't have an equal opportunity to play in the NBA. Without
the ability you don't have the opportunity, do you?


In other words if the
rich are rich because they earned the money and the poor are poor
because they prefered to not spend any time or effort in earning
money, then it is fair that some are rich and some poor.

That would be a much better argument, yes.

That *is* the argument.

I said "if" because

It *is* the argument.

When there are no other factors that would negate that argument. And
there are many.


But again, we know that it's
not just a matter of who puts out a good work effort and who didn't.

That's almost entirely the argument.

That's not the argument at all.

It is.

Not.

Because if it was then that would mean
Paris Hilton has put in far more work effort to earn money than you
have.

Nope. It means she has some innate market value that I don't have.


Wait a minute! You just said the argument was almost entirely about who
puts out a good work effort and who didn't? When I point out a case
where someone who doesn't work hardly at all and makes far more than you
do you chalk that up to her having some market value you don't have.
Well yeah, what the hell do you think I was talking about. The field
isn't level for anyone. She has things to allow her to make a lot that
you don't have. It's the same with everyone else too. It's not just who
works hard and who's a slacker. Like I said, "if" it was only that then
it would be easy to determine what's fair.

But when the field is anything but level in "innate market value" that
some have and most don't then that throws out the who works hard and who
doesn't argument. Because those with the innate market value are going
to clean up in the marketplace and those without it are going to be left
holding an empty bag.

Hawke