Quote:
Originally Posted by Vythica
Nothing went wrong. This scenario went like it always does. The whole problem starts with it being "almost" egalitarian. This isn't the goal of communism isn't "almost" egalitarian, it is egalitarian. That's the whole problem, any time you have one or more parties with "slightly more" you will encounter a similar scenario. That's why it's imperative that everyone be completely equal. Only then can a true egalitarian state be realized.
|
But someone always having more
will always be the problem The only real solution I can interpret from your answer since you would not work from the scenario questions to work with what you have been given, is that everyone must be first reduced to base level 0 standard of living. level 0 only representing true equality. In some respects by that measure is the only true way to have an egalitarian society where no one has more, because no one has anything. No advantages, no competition, no external variables, and almost no free will of choice.
Continuing with the everyone must have equal share principle your answer does not seemingly fit well when environmental variables are introduced. Sometimes on some land crops will fail, this will create an immediate "has more" situation for those who have crops that do not fail. So is the solution to take the land away from the side that crops have grown to give to those who have land that crops have failed? Or do you give a portion of the crops to those who have not produced in order to sustain them until they can produce again? If you chose the latter that fits within the original Khan principles above where those that have more give to those who do not. If you chose to give land to those who are now without, how will you regulate who gets what if you have 6 successful planting areas and 7 failures? If you go back to your post about small tribunals that act behind the scenes and say that everyone involved is in a commune of sorts, you still get the have not principle when one commune is not producing as much as the others and must seek external aid. This would be a communal Khan concept where communes in more fertile land would give to those in less fertile land.
Also with being completely equal you need to define when that equality begins and stops. Mental Equality can not be controlled unless you kill everyone below and above a specified range, physical equality would need to be defined (speed and strength or does having all your limbs matter?) and then you have the talent equality that must be defined as well (what must everyone be capable of doing). There are a number of other variables left to be addressed and defined that further confound the issue like emotional endurance, genetic requirements (those with hereditary disorders), and personality.
True equality can only exist in a controlled lab where external variables are negated and risk management is in place to aid in mitigating unforeseen challenges. The almost-egalitarian framework is what works in reality because no one can control all the external variables, true egalitarianism is only viable in simulation.
Note: egalitarianism as mentioned refers to the economic version in re-distributive economics, not the political version