Why YSK: because what seems like equal situation from surface isn’t always equal opportunity for all. And even when equal measure of help is provided, it might not be equally useful.

  • JustAThought@lemm.ee
    214·
    1 year ago

    I think your problem is that you think that something will be taken away. Try to think in terms of the giving. Steve is not going to have anything taken away. Someone will have access to guitars that wouldn’t otherwise. Steve will be fine.

      • ssboomman@lemm.ee
        94·
        1 year ago

        Then instead of letting the super advantaged, super rich take all the resources we should work on getting and producing more. Which probably starts with taking from the people who are hoarding them all.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
        4·
        1 year ago

        At birth there are situations that give people advantages that have nothing to do with ability. These advantages are systemic, where certain people will have better access to opportunity (apples) than others. The goal should be that the opportunities are equal so no one has a head start. The best apple picker will pick more apples instead of the person born with an orchard and apple picking machinery who very well may be a shit apple picker.

        For your example, we’d end up with the best musicians becoming popular, not the ones where their parent could afford to give them private lessons since childhood and had industry connections to make them big where they wouldn’t otherwise.

        It’s not about equality of outcomes, it’s about equality of opportunity. No one should start a race with a head start because then you don’t know who the best runner is. Everyone should start equally and everyone should have equal access to the same shoes, equipment, and practice opportunity, otherwise we can’t see who’s actually best without an advantage.

        • kool_newt@lemm.eeEnglish
          13·
          1 year ago

          Why is important to see who is “best”? That’s only important in sports, those which are not actually important.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
            4·
            1 year ago

            The comment above was about having the best guitarists. Regardless, why wouldn’t it be important to see who’s best? Why is it better to see who has the most advantages that weren’t earned? The argument for capitalism is that whoever can do the best gets rewarded the most. It’s fundamentally flawed because capitalism promotes creating barriers and ensuring the playing field isn’t even though.

            No matter what the situation, having the best people doing the jobs will create the best outcomes for the most people. In what way is this not desirable?