Oswy
1st March 2011, 21:14
Hi, I'm trying to develop a thought experiment which, by analogy, demonstrates how the inheritance and accumulation of capital (or other equivalent resources) easily create structured advantages and disadvantages in competitive/capitalist society.
Any comments or ideas much appreciated, especially those which might help me make the case more simply and effectively.
Imagine living in a society based purely on competition, where your ability to feed, clothe and home yourself, and your family maybe, depends exclusively on you taking part in routine competition to secure the necessary reward. There is no welfare state here, you participate in the competition or you suffer the consequences. No one, however, is 'forced' into the competition, they are free not to participate, it's their 'choice'. Let’s imagine that in this particular society the form of that competition is knife fighting. Even if they sometimes do cause serious injury and death, there’s no automatic reason that such knife fights need always do so, as any participant in a knife fight can surrender at any moment, and thus hand victory over to their opponent. So far, so good. Even though the competitions are referred to as ‘knife fights’ the weapons used can vary considerably, some people bring only a pen-knife to their encounters, some bring double-edged swords. Why would anyone only bring a pen-knife? Well, some people in this society only have pen-knives, it is all their resources allow, some people don’t even have that and they can’t easily participate in the competition at all. On the other hand, some people have plenty of resources and turn up to their knife fight with just such a double-edged sword, sometimes they even have one in each hand. In this society of competition there is no rule which prevents a knife fighter bringing whatever he has to the fight by way bladed weapons. Not only this, the well resourced might easily come to their competition well prepared in other ways. Their resources might have permitted them to undertake an expensive series of sword-fighting classes in their youth, they may have some very useful, if expensive, body armour, they might even have their own fitness trainer and enjoy a diet which maximises their physical condition too. In contrast, the ‘pen-knife’ opponents are less likely to have even decent clothing, let alone body armour, and they may well spend much of their day, including the hours before their fights, scavenging on rubbish tips for leftover food. All other things being equal, we can easily see how some people win competitions more easily than others and how some people lose competitions more easily than others too. Occasionally there is a spectacular victory in which desperation or tenaciousness, alongside a little luck no doubt, allows a pen-knife fighter to secure victory over a sword wielding opponent. But we shouldn’t fool ourselves here, in the vast majority of encounters those who come to fights with only pen-knives have little chance if their opponents bring greater resources to bear in the battle. And, it stands to reason, those who routinely win fights win further resources to maintain or improve their competitive ‘edge’ (pardon the pun). In time, the well resourced fighter may even employ another to do their fighting for them and reduce their actual physical risks to zero. At the same time, those who routinely lose fights will struggle, not only to bring a more substantial weapon to their future fights, but to feed and clothe themselves adequately too. We might just imagine a pattern of results emerging in this society of ‘competition’.
To what extent can we apply the concept of ‘fairness’ to the above kind of competitive society?
Any comments or ideas much appreciated, especially those which might help me make the case more simply and effectively.
Imagine living in a society based purely on competition, where your ability to feed, clothe and home yourself, and your family maybe, depends exclusively on you taking part in routine competition to secure the necessary reward. There is no welfare state here, you participate in the competition or you suffer the consequences. No one, however, is 'forced' into the competition, they are free not to participate, it's their 'choice'. Let’s imagine that in this particular society the form of that competition is knife fighting. Even if they sometimes do cause serious injury and death, there’s no automatic reason that such knife fights need always do so, as any participant in a knife fight can surrender at any moment, and thus hand victory over to their opponent. So far, so good. Even though the competitions are referred to as ‘knife fights’ the weapons used can vary considerably, some people bring only a pen-knife to their encounters, some bring double-edged swords. Why would anyone only bring a pen-knife? Well, some people in this society only have pen-knives, it is all their resources allow, some people don’t even have that and they can’t easily participate in the competition at all. On the other hand, some people have plenty of resources and turn up to their knife fight with just such a double-edged sword, sometimes they even have one in each hand. In this society of competition there is no rule which prevents a knife fighter bringing whatever he has to the fight by way bladed weapons. Not only this, the well resourced might easily come to their competition well prepared in other ways. Their resources might have permitted them to undertake an expensive series of sword-fighting classes in their youth, they may have some very useful, if expensive, body armour, they might even have their own fitness trainer and enjoy a diet which maximises their physical condition too. In contrast, the ‘pen-knife’ opponents are less likely to have even decent clothing, let alone body armour, and they may well spend much of their day, including the hours before their fights, scavenging on rubbish tips for leftover food. All other things being equal, we can easily see how some people win competitions more easily than others and how some people lose competitions more easily than others too. Occasionally there is a spectacular victory in which desperation or tenaciousness, alongside a little luck no doubt, allows a pen-knife fighter to secure victory over a sword wielding opponent. But we shouldn’t fool ourselves here, in the vast majority of encounters those who come to fights with only pen-knives have little chance if their opponents bring greater resources to bear in the battle. And, it stands to reason, those who routinely win fights win further resources to maintain or improve their competitive ‘edge’ (pardon the pun). In time, the well resourced fighter may even employ another to do their fighting for them and reduce their actual physical risks to zero. At the same time, those who routinely lose fights will struggle, not only to bring a more substantial weapon to their future fights, but to feed and clothe themselves adequately too. We might just imagine a pattern of results emerging in this society of ‘competition’.
To what extent can we apply the concept of ‘fairness’ to the above kind of competitive society?