Look at the picture below very well. You must have seen it before somewhere on social media. Does it make you feel good or enlightened? Look at the words on the tagline, does it make sense to you? It shouldn't!

Equity is not fairness in any situation at all. It is equality of outcome. And equality of outcome is a terrible thing. Look at the picture. To achieve equity you take from the tall guy his box and give it to the little guy. Now if he gives it voluntarily that is virtue, but equity as a social mechanism is not self operated or based on personal virtue. It means someone coerces you into giving or even taking from you what is yours based on THEIR prerogative and understanding of virtue is and their will to force it down your throat. You know what the socioeconomic implication of the message of the picture is? Take from the rich till all have the same thing. You know what that does? It eliminates motivation for productivity and aspiration for growth, meaning that next time, the tall guy will be less inclined to bring any more boxes, while the little guys will feel less pressed to find more boxes because they are to be provided for by the forces of equity. The result? Nobody brings boxes.
The message of this picture is primed on scarce resources. But are resources always so scarce and new ones so difficult to generate? Why can't the little guy find his own extra boxes, or ask for help ? I know I'm sounding mean, cold and "immoral", but so is life here on earth. And we can make it better by espousing the virtues of kindness as much as responsibility and productivity, not some form of compelled "sharing"!

Also, it begs the question, how scarce can resources be that they must still be shared with equity? What if the tall guy is not so tall, and he needs two boxes to see clearly and one to see just so, the small guy has a smaller box and can barely see, and the little guy has none? Well in the spirit of equity, take one of the tall guy's boxes and give to the little guy, take the smaller box from the small guy and swap it with the tall guys other box, and now though Nobody can see, they have the same view. Lol. And what if there's only one box, and the tall guy has it, who gets the box?
There's one theme throughout all of that though- take from the tall guy, AKA the rich guy. Well then, in a society ruled by equity/equality of outcome, why should we ever aim to be rich or rise above our current means, if all that we gain will be taken from us?

Op, the pic is right, u r wrong

ameri9ja:
Op, the pic is right, u r wrong

please explain why that is so.

elfaez:

please explain why that is so.

Are u blind. The 3 can all enjoy the match.

The photo says a lot !

ameri9ja:


Are u blind. The 3 can all enjoy the match.

I'm sure that is a desirable outcome. What I am attacking though, is HOW that outcome is achieved. If it is achieved by voluntary charity, it is wonderful. Equity though, in modern socioeconomic discourse means that it is achieved by force. The picture is pretty, the outcome is desirable, but the message and method is terrible.
Why not just get another box for the little guy?

elfaez:


I'm sure that is a desirable outcome. What I am attacking though, is HOW that outcome is achieved. If it is achieved by voluntary charity, it is wonderful. Equity though, in modern socioeconomic discourse means that it is achieved by force. The picture is pretty, the outcome is desirable, but the message and method is terrible.
Why not just get another box for the little guy?

You worry to much. The big guy lost NOTHING.
Aim is everybody enjoy the game.

ameri9ja:


You worry to much. The big guy lost NOTHING.
Aim is everybody enjoy the game.

lol. did he lose nothing? if the aim is to simply enjoy the game, why did he bring the box? it is to enjoy the game better. And if he gives it willingly, there's no ish. Next time he'll bring two.
But if you force him, next time he won't bother to bring any.

elfaez:


lol. did he lose nothing? if the aim is to simply enjoy the game, why did he bring the box? it is to enjoy the game better. And if he gives it willingly, there's no ish. Next time he'll bring two.
But if you force him, next time he won't bother to bring any.

The PICTURE, which is what I said was right, doesn't show he was forced.

I have a problem with that meme. it assumes that the three boys are not equal. the first boy is superior to the third boy. and the third boy needs special treatment.


the meme would have been much better if the boys are of equal height, but the ground below them is uneven I.e the third boy is standing on lower ground. equality would then be achieved by filling the ground to make it level. then they have equal opportunity. the playing filled is now levelled. they can now all watch the match.

by extrapolation, the socioeconomic implication of this is that we should sieze from the rich what more they have than is absolutely necessary. That is the spirit of Marxism. It doesn't ask whether you got it fairly or not. You have more than others, it must be taken. Simple.
that has all sorts of terrible implications. And that is what the post is about.

Gggg102:
I have a problem with that meme. it assumes that the three boys are not equal. the first boy is superior to the third boy. and the third boy needs special treatment.


the meme would have been much better if the boys are of equal height, but the ground below them is uneven I.e the third boy is standing on lower ground. equality would then be achieved by filling the ground to make it level. then they have equal opportunity. the playing filled is now levelled. they can now all watch the match.

Well said sir. That is EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY, which is eminently desirable in every way.

OP you are wrong and the pic is right. Use your brain.

YungMillionaire:
OP you are wrong and the pic is right. Use your brain.

Using my brain led me to make the post, and I explained my thoughts. Can you explain why you think I'm wrong?

ehm....OP, that pic is correct.
Remember it says fairness in every situation. You have three boxes of food items, there is the very rich with surplus of food, then there is another with little food and another with no food at all...How do you do.
You got it wrong by saying it is wrong to take from the rich man. That is not what the meme is trying to buttress, it only makes an illustration of how fairness can be achieved in giving or practice, no one is robbing off the other.
The tall man doesn't need a box, the middle man needs one box, and the other needs two boxes to watch the game...see it as this.

elfaez:
Look at the picture below very well. You must have seen it before somewhere on social media. Does it make you feel good or enlightened? Look at the words on the tagline, does it make sense to you? It shouldn't!

Equity is not fairness in any situation at all. It is equality of outcome. And equality of outcome is a terrible thing. Look at the picture. To achieve equity you take from the tall guy his box and give it to the little guy. Now if he gives it voluntarily that is virtue, but equity as a social mechanism is not self operated or based on personal virtue. It means someone coerces you into giving or even taking from you what is yours based on THEIR prerogative and understanding of virtue is and their will to force it down your throat. You know what the socioeconomic implication of the message of the picture is? Take from the rich till all have the same thing. You know what that does? It eliminates motivation for productivity and aspiration for growth, meaning that next time, the tall guy will be less inclined to bring any more boxes, while the little guys will feel less pressed to find more boxes because they are to be provided for by the forces of equity. The result? Nobody brings boxes.
The message of this picture is primed on scarce resources. But are resources always so scarce and new ones so difficult to generate? Why can't the little guy find his own extra boxes, or ask for help ? I know I'm sounding mean, cold and "immoral", but so is life here on earth. And we can make it better by espousing the virtues of kindness as much as responsibility and productivity, not some form of compelled "sharing"!

Also, it begs the question, how scarce can resources be that they must still be shared with equity? What if the tall guy is not so tall, and he needs two boxes to see clearly and one to see just so, the small guy has a smaller box and can barely see, and the little guy has none? Well in the spirit of equity, take one of the tall guy's boxes and give to the little guy, take the smaller box from the small guy and swap it with the tall guys other box, and now though Nobody can see, they have the same view. Lol. And what if there's only one box, and the tall guy has it, who gets the box?
There's one theme throughout all of that though- take from the tall guy, AKA the rich guy. Well then, in a society ruled by equity/equality of outcome, why should we ever aim to be rich or rise above our current means, if all that we gain will be taken from us?

From what you've explained above, you've actually confirmed that the picture and its caption is right. You however think it's not fair to the tall dude and that it could discourage hardwork. The point you've raised is a subject of debate all over the world. You are both right and wrong, it all depends on the given circumstamce. For example, considering the scenario in the picture, what if I am the one with 3 boxes I want to offer; would you still think I am being unfair to the tall dude if I hand out the 3 boxes to the 2 shorter guys who actually need them? I guess not.

Gggg102:
I have a problem with that meme. it assumes that the three boys are not equal. the first boy is superior to the third boy. and the third boy needs special treatment.


the meme would have been much better if the boys are of equal height, but the ground below them is uneven I.e the third boy is standing on lower ground. equality would then be achieved by filling the ground to make it level. then they have equal opportunity. the playing filled is now levelled. they can now all watch the match.

Another scenario, imagine all three are fully grown. The second guy choose to kneel down on the stool, while the 3rd guy is sitting on the stool for convenience. The pix was delibrately rigged, with an intention to manipulate. A father would rather carry his young son on the shoulder instead of leaving him helpless on a stool. In real life, men are the ones competing not boys...our level of commitment, priorities, and sacrifice only differs. Meanwhile, why pip through the fence, when you can actually pay to enter the stadium..

I do hope you understand basic mathematics OP.

This is how it works in the economy especially in the West. Tax the rich heavily while you tax the poor sparingly. It is a relative thing.

Let ability to eat and have basic things in life= ability to view the match
Let each box = revenue made

Let riches be proportional to their respective heights meaning the tallest is the richest and the shortest is the poorest.

Also note that the reason why some are poor is due to disabilities, unemployment and all that.

Let’s start

By taking huge revenues (tax) from the tall man, it doesn’t render him incapable, he’d still be able to feed, fend for family, drive good cars and all that. ===taking the boxes from the tall guy, he can still watch d match right?

The huge revenues collected by government from the tall man is used to feed the weak and old, unemployed and infants. In the United States, there is something called EBT and or food stamps. This is the avenue where funds and food are made available to the categories of people aforementioned FREE.




As to your point about making people less zealous about getting rich. If you have been to centers where people queue up for food, if your ego is still intact, you’d never want to be lazy till you’d have to rely on government for food stamps.
In addition, the rich class are more than happy to part away with such taxes because it reduces hunger in the street, hence, hoodlumps that’d normally carry firearms to rob and kill the elites won’t have to do so. They have access to free money and food.

In addition, such huge taxes are used to build train stations such that even a beggar on the street has access to transportation at a very cheap rate.

In the US today, if you don’t have money to subscribe, there is free WiFi service in every subway and it’s very fast. It’s free for all and sundry, you can enjoy this enroute your journey.

Do you need more points?

Back to the image, if the shortest of them all can’t see the match well, he might end up pulling on the taller ones in order to be able to see clearly. Ain’t that disturbance?

Peace out!

Robynwelo1:
ehm....OP, that pic is correct.
Remember it says fairness in every situation. You have three boxes of food items, there is the very rich with surplus of food, then there is another with little food and another with no food at all...How do you do.
You got it wrong by saying it is wrong to take from the rich man. That is not what the meme is trying to buttress, it only makes an illustration of how fairness can be achieved in giving or practice, no one is robbing off the other.
The tall man doesn't need a box, the middle man needs one box, and the other needs two boxes to watch the game...see it as this.

well, in line with d op, it is ideas like this dat has led many to be lazy in life, believing those who have surplus MUST share with those who are less fortunate. it breeds lazines. another scenario, what if d first guy has five children, d second three & d third one, do u take d first man's two to enforce equality? & how do u enforce equity? let all work pls!

selectedhero:

well, in line with d op, it is ideas like this dat has led many to be lazy in life, believing those who have surplus MUST share with those who are less fortunate. it breeds lazines. another scenario, what if d first guy has five children, d second three & d third one, do u take d first man's two to enforce equality? & how do u enforce equity? let all work pls!

That picture depicts three men. One has no problem at all. NO ONE is trying to take ANYTHING from ANYONE here. It's like giving scholarship to dangote's child...Lol. it's more like an illustration of need.
Equity is fairness in any and all kinds of situation. There is no hiding it's pushing Marxism, but there is nothing wrong with that view.
Everybody can be happy, it's not a lazy or selfish agenda.
Should equal taxes be taken from everybody? Is it really equity to take a dollar from everyone.
Equality is giving every family 1 bag of rice for Christmas, equity is giving bag(s) of rice to families according to their riches or number. it's harder, but achievable.
Limited resources is a problem and would continue to be a problem if the rich ones keep getting more than what they would ever need. Capitalism.

Please also note that distribution according to work is also equity, distribution according to need is just one facet of equity and is what the picture above depicts.

daewoorazer:
I do hope you understand basic mathematics OP.

This is how it works in the economy especially in the West. Tax the rich heavily while you tax the poor sparingly. It is a relative thing.

Let ability to eat and have basic things in life= ability to view the match
Let each box = revenue made

Let riches be proportional to their respective heights meaning the tallest is the richest and the shortest is the poorest.

Also note that the reason why some are poor is due to disabilities, unemployment and all that.

Let’s start

By taking huge revenues (tax) from the tall man, it doesn’t render him incapable, he’d still be able to feed, fend for family, drive good cars and all that. ===taking the boxes from the tall guy, he can still watch d match right?

The huge revenues collected by government from the tall man is used to feed the weak and old, unemployed and infants. In the United States, there is something called EBT and or food stamps. This is the avenue where funds and food are made available to the categories of people aforementioned FREE.




As to your point about making people less zealous about getting rich. If you have been to centers where people queue up for food, if your ego is still intact, you’d never want to be lazy till you’d have to rely on government for food stamps.
In addition, the rich class are more than happy to part away with such taxes because it reduces hunger in the street, hence, hoodlumps that’d normally carry firearms to rob and kill the elites won’t have to do so. They have access to free money and food.

In addition, such huge taxes are used to build train stations such that even a beggar on the street has access to transportation at a very cheap rate.

In the US today, if you don’t have money to subscribe, there is free WiFi service in every subway and it’s very fast. It’s free for all and sundry, you can enjoy this enroute your journey.

Do you need more points?

Back to the image, if the shortest of them all can’t see the match well, he might end up pulling on the taller ones in order to be able to see clearly. Ain’t that disturbance?

Peace out!

the fact that it is operative in some countries in the world is exactly why I wrote this. Well look at those countries operating a welfare state and see how they're faring economically compared to their contemporaries. Just because it is the system in current use in some countries does not mean it is serving those nations well, which is entirely the fact. It is a way of wasting wealth generated in a capitalist past.

You should understand that the infrastructural and economic development of such states is not a product of a socialist/welfare state past, but a fiercely capitalist past. I don't think I need to explain that further to you. That's how it works; generate enormous wealth being capitalist, switch to socialist because now everyone is now living in a state so good socialism appeals to them, and then their economies go down the drain. Thatcher once said the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money, and that is exactly true. Every country under the sun using the system has experienced this : Denmark, Venezuela, Canada, Ireland, The Soviet union,... the only reason the US is still so successful is because 1, the wealth they generated during those fiercely capitalist 19th to early 20th century years is ridiculous, and 2, they're not taxing the rich nearly as much as socialists like Bernie Sanders want.
Sweden even apply the "Matthew principle" to an extent, taxing the middle class more and leaving the higher class to generate more wealth, and it is working actually!
China is still working and is growing stronger because their system does not threaten the rich.
Countries like Hungary and Croatia actually make references to their socialist past in their Constitution...in order to condemn it!
so, I know what I'm talking about sir.

Robynwelo1:

That picture depicts three men. One has no problem at all. NO ONE is trying to take ANYTHING from ANYONE here. It's like giving scholarship to dangote's child...Lol. it's more like an illustration of need.
Equity is fairness in any and all kinds of situation. There is no hiding it's pushing Marxism, but there is nothing wrong with that view.
Everybody can be happy, it's not a lazy or selfish agenda.
Should equal taxes be taken from everybody? Is it really equity to take a dollar from everyone.
Equality is giving every family 1 bag of rice for Christmas, equity is giving bag(s) of rice to families according to their riches or number. it's harder, but achievable.
Limited resources is a problem and would continue to be a problem if the rich ones keep getting more than what they would ever need. Capitalism.

Please also note that distribution according to work is also equity, distribution according to need is just one facet of equity and is what the picture above depicts.

Marxism is a tried philosophy, and history teaches us it always ends in disaster. It is nothing but a philosophy rooted in envy, so there's a lot wrong with it.
The problem with your post is that it places shadows where it needs to. Where do the bags of rice being distributed come from?
Who is giving the scholarship?
There's a big difference between giving the rich more and the rich generating more by themselves.
Nobody is taking anything from anyone? so you're saying robbing the rich continually is not really "taking anything" from them! Well, if you create a state where there's no very rich people with excess, you will also have created a state where there's no great wealth or excess. You must now continue to try to maintain a state where all can survive just so. Ask the USSR.

to all socialists here, let's take it a step further from the scenario in the picture...
What if the tall guy goes back and gets two more boxes to stand on so he can see the entire stadium?

ameri9ja:


The PICTURE, which is what I said was right, doesn't show he was forced.

pretend u understand him and answer. we kno u do understand him but due to d fact u dony have answer to him. u looking for way out

Obdk:



pretend u understand him and answer. we kno u do understand him but due to d fact u dony have answer to him. u looking for way out

abi o! lol.

Robynwelo1:

That picture depicts three men. One has no problem at all. NO ONE is trying to take ANYTHING from ANYONE here. It's like giving scholarship to dangote's child...Lol. it's more like an illustration of need.
Equity is fairness in any and all kinds of situation. There is no hiding it's pushing Marxism, but there is nothing wrong with that view.
Everybody can be happy, it's not a lazy or selfish agenda.
Should equal taxes be taken from everybody? Is it really equity to take a dollar from everyone.
Equality is giving every family 1 bag of rice for Christmas, equity is giving bag(s) of rice to families according to their riches or number. it's harder, but achievable.
Limited resources is a problem and would continue to be a problem if the rich ones keep getting more than what they would ever need. Capitalism.

Please also note that distribution according to work is also equity, distribution according to need is just one facet of equity and is what the picture above depicts.

Suppose as we know that the rich pay higher taxes relative to the poor, then we should say in order to be free from paying large taxes poor people should remain poor, so as to avoid the load. since equity shall prevail, he will eventually get what is taken from the rich.
so why should he aspire to be rich?
Fact is, THE 'GOOD LIFE' SHOULD BE ENJOYED BY ALL; but never beyond their capacities to earn.

Obdk:



pretend u understand him and answer. we kno u do understand him but due to d fact u dony have answer to him. u looking for way out

Either u go with the pic or you have to get into things like how did the man acquire two and the other man had none, etc, questions we can't answer from the pic.