Should life really be unfair?

[ScottSA]

Only in a decadent soft society would this even be a serious question. How far from reality have we drifted anyway?

[AndrewL]

Right wingers love to tell us that life is unfair. I'd certainly agree since none of them ever seem to send their kids to fight wars in godforsaken corners of the world. Lefties, on the other hand, are dedicated to making sure that life is fair.

Do you think life should really be unfair?

I would have made this a poll but the polling mechanism here is unfair

At the most basic level, life is 'unfair'. For the Wolf to survive he must eat a Deer, and so on. There is always a winner and a loser. That is just the way of things.

Andrew

[M.Dancer]

Only in a decadent soft society would this even be a serious question. How far from reality have we drifted anyway?

Beats me. Tell you what, lets walk to the caberet and have a few schnapps and discuss it while we watch the new review.

[myata]

So life doesn't have to be unfair, if only those with more would be compassionate enough to do what they could to help those less fortunate.

Or those less fortunate more willing to look for positive ways to improve their condition?

Sure. The question is in the practical domain.

How do we instill the same idea of fairness in both "givers" and "receivers"?

Methods like taxation, forced redistribution of wealth, are inherently involuntary therefore unfair. Voluntary is bound to create conflict over and again (she wants to give less than needed; he wants to receive more than is available).

Sadly I don't see any practical way out of this conundrum.

[Visionseeker]

A true libertarian rejects intervention in any form, including the idea of rendering aid to a neighbour or friend. For the true libertarian holds that “that’s your problem, not mine.” Libertarians, and not conservatives, are the advocates of social Darwinism.

That's not true at all. Libertarians, such as myself, have no issue with people assisting their neighbours or friends or what not. They are against the State coercively taking our money and giving it to someone else. My freedom of choice allows me to do whatever I wish with my funds, whether that is buy a bigger car or give my neighbour some food.

Well, your having "no issue with people assisting their neighbours" is not the same as stating that you, as a Libertarian, have no compunctions about doing so yourself; ergo, that's their problem, not yours. It is more proper to speak of economic Conservatives being "against the State coercively taking our money and giving it to someone else" as it is economic conservatism that speaks against the redistribution of wealth. True Libertarians are opposed to state interference in all its forms because they are opposed the "tyranny of the state."

It is a mistake to confuse "freedom of choice" with libertarianism, for freedom of choice is really a centrist philosophy (i.e. the mid-point between the Libertarian-Authoritarian spectrum). In a true Libertarian's view, cars represent an extension of state intrusion because they are only practical where a state exists with the capability to build and maintain roads and thereafter police their use.

Those who exhibit libertarian tendencies are not really libertarians. They are individuals who almost uniformly come from comfortable-to-affluent material backgrounds and possess “right-wing” sympathies born from a predisposition to resist change. But their loyalty to the “conservative” playbook is tenuous in that the pseudo-libertarian tend to acquiesce to progressive initiatives if they consider such outcomes as inevitable (i.e. gay marriage).

Those with libertarian tendencies are apt to be disproportionately represented in the group of undecided in political polls. In the US, they call them independent voters.

I disagree with much of your charectisation. I do agree that most of us do have right-wing tendencies, at least most start out that way. Ideally though, a rational person that believes that individual liberty precedes all else will eventually be led to libertarianism. It is the most rational political ideology in that it's not hypocritical of itself.

I don't understand what you mean by "It is the most rational political ideology in that it's not hypocritical of itself." Perhaps you might expand?

There's a big difference between a Libertarian and someone with libertarian tendencies.

A true far "right-wing" libertarian believes in no law (imposed order) and adheres to the "law of the stronger". The right of possession is both gained and defended by force and no legitimate arbiter shall exist to interfere with this natural state.

A true far "left-wing" libertarian also believes in the absence of imposed order and adheres to the principle of "inherent goodness". The right of possession exists only in the satisfaction of immediate utilitarian needs (i.e. taking only what you need). There are some tribal communities throughout the world who continue to practice variants this belief system.

A true "centrist" libertarian believes that order can be achieved through the tacit or conventional consent of the commune. The "right" of possession exists as is a privilege recognized by the commune as belonging to all who keep to communal values.

Somehow I don't think you would claim to belong to any of these.

I also disagree that we as a whole fundamentally reject social conservatism just because we realise it's inevitable. I truly dismiss all of the State's influence in personal affairs. It's not libertarian to agree with SSM. It is libertarian to dismiss the government from marriage all together, and allow whatever arrangement of consenting individuals to do whatever they wish and call it whatever they wish. That's always been my viewpoint. Don't legalise gay marriage. Just get the government right out of it. Just an example.

Now the above is a pretty good example of libertarian tendencies. But I suspect that you haven't thought it all through. If the state is to stay out of the marriage business altogether, does it not stand to reason that it cannot preside over divorce? How then can one reconcile the division of assets let alone the right of claim? Who ensures an "equitable" custody arrangement? And what of any enduring financial obligations? Or are you simply saying that the parties simply go their separate ways and that's that?

My point with respect to the SSM example is that most people who call themselves libertarians are actually economic conservatives who use a libertarian tract to defend their opposition to the redistribution of wealth within society. As their conservatism is not necessarily socially motivated, they can often appear at odds with more authoritarian-leaning conservatives and thereby seem libertarian by way of comparison.

I do agree with the independant voters... in Canada we are often called that too, libertarians are constantly torn between the Liberals and the Conservatives as a compromise vote... do we go with economic liberalism or social liberalism.

I think you meant to place economic conservatism with social liberalism as this would seem consistent with your argument above. Based on what you've revealed above, I have no doubt that you possess libertarian tendencies; some of which maybe motivated by self-interest and others perhaps more altruistic. But I harbour strong doubts that you are so far from the middle ground to be called a Libertarian.

[Visionseeker]

So to round it up in your own words, those who tend to believe in "personal choice and responsibility" do somehow achieve "comfortable-to-affluent" background?

Ah no, that is not a fair representation of what I wrote by any stretch. I pointed-out that Libertarianism is often mislabeled as "personal choice and responsibility" and that those who exhibit libertarian tendencies "almost uniformly come from comfortable-to-affluent material backgrounds" which means they start-out that way.

And, to take to the other extreme, those who don't, may find themselves struggling, in the material aspect at least? Isn't it that obvious link between the effort and result?

Well, I think you've digressed from my post even further here, but I'll play:

Without obvious effort, one can hardly expect results; with hard effort alone, one cannot expect obvious results; yet with both hard effort and opportunity, results tend to be obvious.

Is it "fair" to be able to obtain something freely, for which someone else has to work hard, day after day?

Tell me about it. Most of my university clan had school, board and entertainment suitably subsidized by their parental units. I on the other hand, had to resort to more menial sources of finance and state-sponsored student loans that I took 10 years to pay-off. So I wonder, why are their degrees' just as valid/valuable as mine?

And if that something (material wealth to be exact) were to become available freely to everybody, would they work hard, day after day, to create it?

Really, there's only two logical choices: 1) wealth is available in endless amounts without any effort (i.e. manna falling from the sky); or 2) someone has to work to create it.

While "left wing" is still working on #1, we're stuck with the alternative. It also has two main flavours: voluntary work for incentive (aka "capitalism"): no work, little wealth; or involuntary work under duress (slavery, communism). Pick your choice.

How very binary and therefore false.

While it is certainly true that the capitalist model carries within it the motivation to pursue and gather wealth, it is also true that it tends to creates substantial numbers of economically dispossessed who if simply left to fall through the cracks will eventually turn against the model altogether. People who speak of the "left" and capitalists as mutually exclusive are really a curious bunch who seem to invite self-immolation. For without the influence of the left to counter unfettered capitalism, the law of the lowest common denominator would prevail and the system would self-destruct in short order.

Welfare and other social programs are part hand-up initiatives and part pacification programs (social sedatives) which serve to keep most of capitalisms victims from becoming so miserable that they opt to take out the system. Now one can rightfully argue about the relative generosity of such programs, but when doing so it is important to keep in mind that diminishing investment on the social equity file tends to dramatically increase costs on the justice and corrections files soon after. It's all a matter of the balance that society is willing to accept.

Don't take me that there should be no place for compassion and assistance in our society. It's just that these must be and are voluntary, based on consent of those who create wealth to share it with less fortunate. The alternative would be slavery, whether traditional or "left wing" communism.

Well, it would seem that the voluntary system of the 1900s just didn't work (for one, people didn't give enough during the best of times and such a model was far too susceptible to recessionary factors for it to kick-in when it was most needed. See: Great Depression) and so a "compulsorily" system was devised to fill the need.

[Guest American Woman]

Or those less fortunate more willing to look for positive ways to improve their condition?

Sure. The question is in the practical domain.

How do we instill the same idea of fairness in both "givers" and "receivers"?

Methods like taxation, forced redistribution of wealth, are inherently involuntary therefore unfair. Voluntary is bound to create conflict over and again (she wants to give less than needed; he wants to receive more than is available).

Sadly I don't see any practical way out of this conundrum.

Who says they aren't "looking" for ways to improve their condition?

As I said, the way out is for those with more to be compassionate enough to give to those with less; and that includes time and money and opportunity. That would go a long way towards making life more fair.

[myata]

Who says they aren't "looking" for ways to improve their condition?

And who says they aren't compassionate enough? You see, it's a matter of perspective.

[myata]

which means they start-out that way.

That just won't be true, factually. Over and again, people start out from virtually nothing and achieve "affluent" or at least "comfortable" standard of living. And I'm not talking about Bills Gates. Each year thousands of immigrants come to this country with barely any money, often pure knowledge of language, and local customs, no connections, and so on. Great majority of them succeeds. Which should allow me to modify your next statement:

with hard effort alone, one cannot expect obvious results;

to: "with hard effort and persistency, one can definitely expect positive results barring some unfortunate circumstances".

Your school experience is simply unfortunate. Speaks to the general "unfairness" of life.

While it is certainly true that the capitalist model carries within it the motivation to pursue and gather wealth, it is also true that it tends to creates substantial numbers of economically dispossessed who if simply left to fall through the cracks will eventually turn against the model altogether. People who speak of the "left" and capitalists as mutually exclusive are really a curious bunch who seem to invite self-immolation. For without the influence of the left to counter unfettered capitalism, the law of the lowest common denominator would prevail and the system would self-destruct in short order.

...

It's all a matter of the balance that society is willing to accept.

Certainly. Just as the fact that certain (and quite significant) "measure" of capitalism is acceptable and even desirable by the socitiety so that it won't run into the opposite extreme (i.e. communism), which so far showed no smaller problems than its "unfettered" counterpart.

Well, it would seem that the voluntary system of the 1900s just didn't work (for one, people didn't give enough during the best of times and such a model was far too susceptible to recessionary factors for it to kick-in when it was most needed. See: Great Depression) and so a "compulsorily" system was devised to fill the need.

Agreed, too. However, this compulsory system has obvious limits in how much of wealth can be contributed to assistance probrams without hurting foundations of economy (i.e the incentive principle). The moment average citizen finds out that working does not provide sufficient advantage to receiving assistance, the economy collapses. Obviously, with all the programs supported by it.