Meritocracy shouldn’t be dependent on any criteria other than the merit itself. With or without a “safety net” the best candidate for any post should get it, the alternative is giving the post to a lesser qualified person damaging the position and the better candidate!
-
-
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Precisely because of the impact that a position may have on the society and environment the sole criteria should be the merit so the best people, regardless of color or economic status or gender, should have it! You can do charity with your own means.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
@SamHarrisOrg Will you talk to@dpakman about religion? He has been trying to interview you on his show!!Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This is really the sticking point isn't it? How do you define, and implement, a strong safety net? Do you prefer a current or past American iteration or one of the social democracies in Europe?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Agreed, but Safety Net != Hammock.
-
To form that opinion, my guess is you don’t actually spend time with people who benefit from social programs.
-
Not quite. I myself was the benefactor of such programs when I defected from communism in 82, though only for a short time as I made it a point to strive. I understand that not all can, as hard times can strike anyone at will. Until AI-enabled UBI, it ought not to be a hammock.
-
I agree with you. I must have missed the point of your comment then, thinking that all on social programs are lazy. I think Sam’s point being that a capitalist society must have well thought out programs to provide support when needed. I also think UBI is where we are headed.
-
It is interesting that approx. 55% of the recipients of those programs are single mothers. Another big portion are the elderly. There are not many options those groups have for personal betterment.
-
Yep, this is precisely who I had in mind when I said not everyone can. Unfortunately, there are some who blatantly abuse the system and thus erode it for those who truly need it. As with other things in life, it is tough striking the balance.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Hi sam
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Great! Thanks for the reassurance. I trusted in your intent having heard your thoughts on Feminism though I was unsure of your familiarity with their word games. See you in Vancouver. :thumbsup
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
In my view there is only a single legitimate understanding of what "equality" means in the social sense: equality under the law. Every one has an equal claim to justice. Period. That's it. Everything else is a fabrication either for better or for worse.
-
Is law the only arbiter of opportunity? Is law encompassing? How much social, economic, ideological interaction occurs outside of the paradigm of law?
-
I didn't use the word "opportunity". Law encompasses whatever it does and doesn't whatever it doesn't. It attached equally though in every case. Other forms of interaction may or may not offer "equality" among the participants. Usually they don't. That's life as we know it.
-
True, you did not, but I inferred from the thread, which included the concept of “equality if outcome”, which is usually contrasted or connected to equality of opportunity. Your equality under law is why many prefer justice to pure equality.
-
Equality of not if
-
Everyone has an equal claim to "justice" - agreed. Equality in that sense is both theoretical and axiomatic. There is no need to prove it but it exists primarily as an idea not a fact. A good idea nonetheless. Everything else? Not so much.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.