Communism is about giving the maximum opportunity to the maximum amount of people. The cost of this however, is that exceptional individuals are not rewarded as massively as they might be in a free market society. The reason i favour this trade-off is that a large base of small contributions is far more beneficial for society as a whole than a tiny base (1%) of exceptional contribution.
I am of course referring to theoretical benefits of the free market system rather than actual outcome. The reality is of course very different; people like Paris Hilton are in no way exceptional and are certainly not making socially beneficial contributions and there are many people benefiting in this way. They're simply beneficiaries of nepotism and are parasites on society. Again, akin to monarchy.
The truth of the matter is that the very exceptional people in today's society, while they certainly are generally better off than most, they never find their way into the top 1% where they theoretically should be. My argument is that even if we had an ideal free market system, it would be nowhere as efficient as a system that gives everyone the maximum possible opportunity in life.
Do we acknowledge the pros and cons of a distributed society and address the problems and dangers, and then implement it? Or do we continue using a primitive, inefficient, aristocratic social order simply because we know all it's quirks and have therefore accepted it as our comfort zone?
Comments
Also classifying Paris Hilton under 'people' is pushing it.
We have had some interesting disagreements online but I think everyone can agree that 'things' like Paris Hilton don't deserve the rewards they get for being completely stupid as a profession.
Post a Comment