Fair and just rewards

Interesting.

I think I probably strive for the middle position. No-one deserves to be penniless or homeless, but I don't believe in rewarding people unfairly either. If you're just no good at your job, you probably shouldn't be doing it. I just think our society is too unequal, and while I also think it rewards the wrong people, I think right now it's more important to reduce the magnitude of the overall inequality level.

If you must pay actors more than doctors, at least don't pay them that much more. But total equality isn't any fairer than total inequality, in my view - you shouldn't pay an incompetent surgeon as much as a good one. Equality of opportunity is paramount, but precisely because people have different abilities, it shouldn't mean everyone ends up earning the same. Neither should it mean that anyone gets thrown in the gutter.

An Universal Basic Income would partially resolve this paradox. No-one would ever end up destitute but you would still be rewarded for good work. It would still be possible to win, but very much harder to lose. Unfortunately, so "radical" is the idea that everyone is entitled to live with dignity, it's probably impossible to predict what that consequences would be on a large-scale. More testing is urgently needed.

Originally shared by Yonatan Zunger

This short essay talks about two different movements within the left, "left meritocrats" and "left egalitarians." It seems to quite clearly capture the heart of the difference between Clinton's and Sanders' viewpoints. (It doesn't advocate for either, it simply helps clarify the difference)

The one thing which surprises me about this is that it implies that "left egalitarians" – those who believe that the very existence of social strata is a moral wrong – are roughly as numerous as "left meritocrats" – those who believe that the existence of wealth is fine, but there should be equality of opportunity. I suspect that within the US, meritocrats outnumber egalitarians by a large ratio. (NB that while Sanders himself is undoubtedly a "left egalitarian," by this definition, I suspect that many of his supporters ultimately aren't, but see his egalitarianism as a way towards a meritocratic end)

Honestly, prior to this election season, it had been so long since I heard anyone advocate honest-to-god old-school Socialism – not the stuff you normally see described as "European Socialism," with having generally available medicine and schools and such, but the real thing, starting from a principled opposition to one person having more than another – that it took a while to click that this was even what I was seeing.

(For those wondering who I'm supporting in this coming election, by the way: I'm still wondering that as well. I have profound concerns with every single candidate. All I know for certain is that there are two candidates I will be voting against, namely Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. The former is a theocrat, fundamentally opposed to working with people who disagree with him, and has the single most asinine tax plan I've seen in years. The latter is indistinguishable from a Nazi. This post should by no means be taken as a political endorsement.)
http://mattbruenig.com/2016/02/21/meritocrats-and-egalitarians/