Comments by "Jack Haveman" (@JackHaveman52) on "The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder"
channel.
-
You've completely distorted what Peterson means by equality of outcome. He's talking about the Marxist principle that does not allow one to have more, as a reward for hard work and ability, than a fellow citizen. He's saying that we don't know where that line is drawn where we will say that you're going to far and your forcing your country to the point that the Soviet Union, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia or present day Venezuela reached.
Peterson is Canadian and he comes from a country that has a state funded medical program. He doesn't disapprove of that at all and has never said that. Same as making sure no citizen starves. You're making an argument that was never made by Peterson and is definitely not what he means at all. One equality of outcome that he has spoken against is the idea that people must be categorised in the specific groups and that it is imperative that the demographics of any social entity must reflect, equally, the demographics of the public at large. As an example, a company must have 50 percent female mechanical engineers because that is the demographic of society. He believes, and he's right, that this deflates the value of merit and ability and it would hurt the future success of a business. It takes the right of a business to set its own standards of excellence and may force them to accept, as employees, those who may not have the ability they need or want. Not all people are equal in ability and he thinks that employees should be judged as individuals and NOT on their belonging to a demographic.
That is inequality of outcome. Not your claim that he doesn't like feeding the hungry or providing health care for all citizens. That is being so intentionally obtuse that it would almost seem intentional.
7
-
4
-
Josh White
The goal of equal outcome is that terrible and has been demonstrated amply over history to be terrible.
Equality of outcome destroys the concept of excellence. It's telling us that we no longer accept ability as the criteria for accomplishment. We allow ourselves to devolve into mediocrity. In fact, we discourage competence in favour of everyone being homogeneous in our accomplishments.
How do we keep the competent from excelling? As long as they have the freedom to work as they please they will excel. That is inevitable. The only way to prevent them from rising above others is to take away their freedom to excel and they will not take that lightly. In the end, they will be disciplined for their refusal to allow the mediocre to climb the lofty heights with them and that discipline has been done quite harshly in the past. The competent don't mind if others, who are competent, excel with them but they know that for the mediocre to be equal to them they have to keep their own competence in check.
That's isn't good for anyone. For humans to advance, as a group, we must allow the best of us to work at their peak level. Denying someone a place, due to demographics, hurts everyone, not just that individual, but everyone. That person will spend a lifetime being held back and that goes against a person's natural instinct and will rot him/her from the inside out.
3
-
1
-
1