I’m not looking for the obvious moral explanation, but the philosophical basis behind that line of thinking. Thanks!
In: 2
The human condition implies sympathy. By default, we’re social animals.
As wealth increases, the relative value of each individual dollar decreases. A billionaire’s money might fluctuate by millions day to day without affecting them meaningfully, whereas someone broke can have their entire future changed by thousands or hundreds of dollars.
While a concrete limit to the disparity between the two is hard to decide upon, as the gap widens, the point of one person getting even more money lessens, while the remaining amount of money becomes more rare among those who don’t have it.
At some point the practicality of a single person getting more money becomes impractical when others basically have to survive on it, for one reason or another.
While a single person can theoretically do greater things with money than countless others with the same amount spread amongst them, at some point it is impractical to expect a very human, single mind to be able to compete with the efficiency of a multitude of minds individually assigning the same funds. That is to say, a single person might be good or bad or have any number of flaws, a thousand, ten thousand, a million people deciding ‘normalizes’ where the funds go.
IE., one person might squander it on egotism or piss it away gambling or etc etc., but it is exceedingly overall unlikely for a multitude of people with money to simultaneously use it poorly.
The law of averages makes dips and spikes flatten out to uniformity across millions or billions of different decisions. Political decisions aside, predictability begets safety in society. Like how they say when you are driving, ‘don’t be kind, be predictable.’ Sometimes even the best of intentions can be worsemore damning than simply doing what is most expected.
Latest Answers