Winston Churchill

[ChezGiven 0]

It's not invalid, all I'm saying is it needs careful interpretation (see Chez's post).

 

Anyhow, I have literally just found out I have passed the second module of my distance learning exam in Health Econonomics - I thought I'd fucked it up big style, so now I'm over the moon. Get in.

 

 

Well done. Remember to donate generously to those less well off once you're stinking rich.

 

If everyone had access to the same 'capability set' (which they dont) then i would argue he should not donate anything.

 

Inequalities are not inequitable.

 

Does that mean you think he should give Jonny Decka a tab when asked or not?

 

Yes because i doubt he had access to the same opportunities as most for one reason or another. The capability set approach to justice looks to ensure equality of access to opportunities. If you have the same access to 'capabilities' and end up with less resources, then thats a fair outcome.

[ChezGiven 0]

It would also mean resources are funneled to Jonny on the basis of improving his capabilities, as tabs hinder these in terms of health, then a purist would deny him. I smoke and am generous so wouldnt deny him.

[Happy Face 29]

It would also mean resources are funneled to Jonny on the basis of improving his capabilities, as tabs hinder these in terms of health, then a purist would deny him. I smoke and am generous so wouldnt deny him.

 

I guess access to tabs will reduce his chances of expanding the reduced capability set in future and also ensures that it's size is more rapidly decreased by his accelerated removal, enriching opportunity for the few that remain. Not that I'd endorse eugenics of course.

[Renton 18081]

It would also mean resources are funneled to Jonny on the basis of improving his capabilities, as tabs hinder these in terms of health, then a purist would deny him. I smoke and am generous so wouldnt deny him.

 

I guess access to tabs will reduce his chances of expanding the reduced capability set in future and also ensures that it's size is more rapidly decreased by his accelerated removal, enriching opportunity for the few that remain. Not that I'd endorse eugenics of course.

 

 

You should do an Economics diploma mate, that's exactly the sort of stuff they come up with.

[ChezGiven 0]

It would also mean resources are funneled to Jonny on the basis of improving his capabilities, as tabs hinder these in terms of health, then a purist would deny him. I smoke and am generous so wouldnt deny him.

 

I guess access to tabs will reduce his chances of expanding the reduced capability set in future and also ensures that it's size is more rapidly decreased by his accelerated removal, enriching opportunity for the few that remain. Not that I'd endorse eugenics of course.

 

Its the individual capability set that matters, not society's. This is about interpersonal comparisons of welfare and you started it

Edited March 15, 2010 by ChezGiven

[snakehips 0]

Jonny D was on the other side of the street from me in Whitley a few years ago. He shouts over to me, 'HOW DID THE COURT CASE GO ?'.

 

I cannot recall my reply, but his question will remain with me forever