> Yeah I’m not sure “people gather knowledge and guidance from their families and culture” is on the table, or desirable.
Are you missing something like "getting rid of", as in getting rid of that is a way to make things more equal? Because you are aware there are more than one way to make things more equal, right? For knowledge, a well-funded public education system (i.e., not the US apparently) goes a long way, and most people consider that a public good.
Most people concerned about inequality, I would wager, would be more focused on things like nepotism and access, for example I don't have a mum that could get me a meeting with the CEO of IBM to pitch ideas to.
A robust social safety net would probably be helpful if enabling non-already-rich people to take entrepreneurial risk is considered desirable, among other benefits.
The knowledge we are talking about is particular. You can’t learn how to navigate a professional basketball career AND how to do tech startups. There isn’t enough time even if that information was publicly accessible and teachable.
> I don't have a mum that could get me a meeting with the CEO of IBM to pitch ideas to.
Once again. How can you possibly correct for this? This is basically saying some parents work in tech and some don’t.
> enabling non-already-rich people to take entrepreneurial risk
I think what it does is let people play video games and watch porn. I don’t think the majority of the population is untapped entrepreneurial potential.
Inequality and difference is a natural part of life. The distribution of ability in almost every activity is massive. So why would or should outcomes be the same?
> I think what it does is let people play video games and watch porn. I don’t think the majority of the population is untapped entrepreneurial potential.
I don't think rich people are inherently more entrepreneurial so I don't see why they are the only people who should be allowed to have the opportunity to play video games, watch porn, and maybe occasionally start a company with any degree of security.
> You can’t learn how to navigate a professional basketball career AND how to do tech startups. There isn’t enough time even if that information was publicly accessible and teachable.
I never suggested that a public education system means no specialisation. In fact, most public tertiary education systems do separate people into specialised streams based on interest and skill.
> Inequality and difference is a natural part of life.
Again with the naturalistic fallacy.
> So why would or should outcomes be the same?
Why should the opportunities available be different?
> Once again. How can you possibly correct for this? This is basically saying some parents work in tech and some don’t.
Right, there is no possible way of ensuring things like hiring and contract negotiations are conducted at arm's length and in a fair and transparent manner, so we may as well not even try. I give up.
