Quote:
Originally Posted by BitchiBee
yes you mostly correct imo
Although it is a strawman to say that people think " where people end up in life is purely a consequence of how hard they work, or don't." Very few people believe that anybody can climb high in the social/economic ladder, but we do believe that in the free west for the majority of people if you work hard and delay gratification you can lead a comfortable life.
The argument from the right about equality of opportunity accepts that the market creates distortions that are not entirely "fair" but that its not up to the government to use state force to hammer those distortions out.
I don't think
everyone agrees with such a strong statement of meritocracy, but I've heard it enough times in my life to disagree that it's a strawman. There's also plenty of survey research on American attitudes about meritocracy. I may be guilty of exaggerating the strength of some people's beliefs.
I support government regulation which attempts to rein in the tendency of a capitalistic economy (especially now, with the growth of technology) to concentrate wealth and political power in the hands of a very few people.
I think that saying "it's not up to the government" is basically expressing some kind of axiomatic moral principle. But it's not an axiom or a moral judgement I accept. I think a society which limits relative inequality (and which seeks to reduce poverty) is preferable to one that doesn't. I'm not a principled moral utilitarian but I do think the basic idea of the diminishing marginal utility of money suggests a utilitarian argument in favor of redistribution as well.
I also think, to wil's question about paying for someone else's healthcare, that it's actually in the best interest of most wealthier people to accept some reasonable burden of taxation intended to fund social programs for the poor. It's in their best interest in that it helps maintain the stability and productivity of society, which is a precondition to the existence of much of that wealth in the first place.
In practice, all of these basic moral or philosophical principles are subject to pragmatic constraints. That's why I agreed with OrP's point about minimum wage laws, for example. If mimimum wage laws don't accomplish their goals, then it makes sense to pursue other policies. Policy choices are guided by foundational principles, but should be empirically determined. My foundational principles are closely related to my basic moral worldview, which I accept is not some objectively correct fact about the world.