undefined | Better HN

0 pointsnathan_compton3y ago0 comments

"You simply CAN'T provide the same resource to all of them, some of them will have to vie for a lower-ranked resource."

Why not just distribute those resources via lottery? Why not actually just split resources evenly across the population? There are good practical reasons not to do this, but they are, fundamentally, ideological (eg, we might feel it is inefficient to spend resources on someone which may not provide as much productivity as someone else). It serves nothing to pretend these things are inevitable.

0 comments

hedora3y ago

Different people have different skill sets.

It makes sense to evenly distribute resources in elementary schools, but that’s not what is being’s discussed here.

You could give me the same violin lessons as a virtuouso, and stick a functionally-illiterate Michelin-starred chef in my favorite calculus series, but doing so would be a complete waste of everyone’s time.

nathan_comptonOP3y ago

"doing so would be a complete waste of everyone’s time"

I simply don't believe this. Playing violin is virtuous even if you aren't a virtuoso and knowing about calculus is virtuous even if you're a Michelin starred chef. Its certainly true that the situation you describes may not be an _efficient_ distribution of resources if all you care about is productivity, but there are other ways to think.

ryzvonusef3y ago

> Why not just distribute those resources via lottery

It comes back to the concept of "fairness"; or rather, something you can control for, something you can work hard and strive for.

Race/Gender/Ethnicity/Location/Wealth etc. are all lottery variables already, people was something that is not a lottery.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse