>A group's lack of movement is not unjust if their groups actions do justify a movement upward.
I assume you mean "do not justify" and the bottom line is that this type of thinking is fundamentally erroneous.
We agree to live in a society of this construction not so everyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps (asinine conception that misunderstands structural vs individual agency) but because it is of collective benefit.
If it it not of collective benefit, the social agreement needs to be renegotiated.
There's no chance everyone will agree to live in an arrangement where a minority of the population accrues all of the benefit because they go out of their way to execute financial scams, but I'm willing to litigate that publicly, which we're doing here.
My whole point is that to the extent accumulated wealth is happening by playing by the rules, there is no injustice in accumulating wealth, nor in accumulating more than those who did not do the actions which relate to wealth building. (And there's a randomness factor involved so it mostly has to be taken on average, on average starting a business is profitable, but also lots of them fail)
If the rules technically allow a loophole that allows a minority group to accrue wealth over the majority, why would the majority agree or consent to be in that system? A minority oppressing a majority is classically a definition of tyranny.
Society isn't some abstract collection of rules that must be followed. Those rules are actively negotiated for majority benefit, and we agree that each person has an equal voice in the west.
If that collection of rules is failing, it's considered unjust and something to amend.
"That's just smart" because someone found a loophole or did a scam to accrue wealth isn't an acceptable negotiated state of affairs to most people.
> Those rules are actively negotiated for majority benefit
This is a presumed goal/value. A more conservative take is that the rules are actively enforced based on values or justice.
A value could be that we do not support ill gotten gains, to the extent that the majority votes for free things paid for by the minority it could "benefit the majority" and still violate the value
I can't think of any known moral system where "willingness and persistence to execute various clever scams and accrue resources" is identified as a value worth prioritizing or protecting.
I've actually gone through the rolodex of all known moral systems and none of them endorse the conception that a minority, who just earned it rightfully, is allowed to accrue outsize resources while other groups do not.
So, again; as I said earlier, I open the floor for discussion. This is the moral certainty that the process by which we adjudicate the social order will not be favorable to an unjust conception. The simple light of day ends most of these discussions.
A health and fitness tracker that cannot be worn during a common health and fitness activity seems highly problematic as a form factor, especially since competing form factors do not have this problem.
Except absolute numbers are meaningless. You need to know driving hours or miles to know the scale. E.g. deaths per 100,000mi or deaths per 100,000hrs.
2013-2025 and only 2 linked to FSD ? The rest are human errors ? FSD sounds better than human drivers just going by that data. How many people have, for example, BMW killed in 12 years ?
They are all "human errors" since FSD and Autopilot are supervised systems, which is why statistics like these can't be used to make claims like "FSD sounds better than human drivers". At best, you could claim that [Autopilot|FSD]+supervision is better than a human driver, but even then there a a huge number of other variables to consider, e.g.: 'human only engages FSD when they are confident it will handle situation safely'->'artificially high miles/crash for FSD'
If you see any businesses or new buildings named paperclips incorporated mysteriously show up in your area notify authorities IMMEDIATELY. Run away from the area, do not walk. Take shelter in a reinforced building. Wait for at least 30 minutes after the explosions have stopped.
Thank you for your cooperation in keeping the universe safe.
I assume you mean "do not justify" and the bottom line is that this type of thinking is fundamentally erroneous.
We agree to live in a society of this construction not so everyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps (asinine conception that misunderstands structural vs individual agency) but because it is of collective benefit.
If it it not of collective benefit, the social agreement needs to be renegotiated.
There's no chance everyone will agree to live in an arrangement where a minority of the population accrues all of the benefit because they go out of their way to execute financial scams, but I'm willing to litigate that publicly, which we're doing here.
reply