EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL PEOPLE FROM BIRTH
Published at: http://www.archania.org
August 18, 2017
According to The Global Wealth Report 2016 by Credit Suisse Research Institute[1], the 0.7%
richest of the world population owns 45.6% of the world’s wealth, while the 73.2% poorest of
the world population own only about 2.4% of the worlds wealth (Figure 1).
73.2% 18.5% 7.5%
11.4% 40.6% 45.6%
2.4%
0.7%
Percentage of Population
Percentage of Wealth
Figure 1: Global wealth distribution in 2016[1].
When athletes compete in running, biking, swimming and/or cross-country skiing, they all need
to start from the same line at the same time. It would be rather unfair if some people had to start
far behind the others, or much later than the rest. This is however how the world is for people
today. Poor people are born with much less access to good education than rich people, so of
course they need to work much harder to get equally educated. This is not very fair.
Equal opportunities for all people from birth
Free mandatory education from birth with healthy food and clothes included
Figure 2: In a fair world we would all have access to equally good education from birth.
A standardized system for educating third world countries
How well a democracy functions depends primarily on how well educated people are. If the
population in a country isn’t very well educated, it is more difficult for them to know if a
politician is honest or deceitful, and the truth doesn’t necessarily sound as appealing as a
fabrication. Deceitful politicians that use common prejudices and xenophobia to their advantage
often gain the upper hand. Democracies implemented in third world countries, where the local
population hasn’t been properly educated first, are likely to turn into corrupted autocracies.
This is why we need to focus on education before democracy. If we focus upon educating
people, functional democracies might emerge almost by themselves. One way of doing this is
by building educational facilities in third world countries. However, people in third world
countries are often skeptical to the idea of getting educated by foreigners. To increase the local
popularity of the educational facilities, they should also offer free food and medical aid. Much
of the food can be grown at the facility, which will also serve to teach the local population about
more efficient ways of farming. Many third world countries are unfortunately dangerous, so
there should be armed guard towers to protect the people working in the educational facilities.
Guard
tower
Guard
tower
Guard
tower
Guard
tower
Guard
tower
Guard
tower
Educational facility which offers
free education from birth
Health facility
free of charge
Hydroponic and raised-bed
vegetable farm
Cafeteria
with free food
F
e
n
c
e
F
e
n
c
e
F
e
n
c
e
Entrance
F
e
n
c
e
F
e
n
c
e
Figure 3: Standardized facility for educating people in third world countries. People need to
attend to the educational facility, to get free food and medical aid. You can read more about how
people should be educated here (PDF,HTML).
There are many benefits with having a standardized system for educating people in third world
countries. The components to the different buildings can be mass-produced in factories. It is
also much easier to oversee that the educational facilities work like they should, and that they
aren’t getting corrupted when they are standardized. Study programs can be made available in
universities, which give graduated students the opportunity to work in any of these standardized
educational facilities all around the world. Employees can then also easily change to work in
different facilities in different countries if they desire to broaden their experiences.
Funding a global welfare system with progressive taxes
Building and maintaining these standardized educational facilities in third world countries is
going to be expensive. A global welfare system can however be funded by a highly progressive
tax system (Figure 4), so that people pay a higher percentage in taxes the more they earn, while
the poorest individuals are completely exempt from taxes.
Below
10 thousand
Above
10 thousand
Above
25 thousand
Above
70 thousand
Above
500 thousand
Above
5 million
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Yearly income (USD)
Marginal tax rate
Figure 4: A progressive tax system, where the poorest do not pay any income tax at all, while the
richest need to pay 75% income tax on everything they earn above 5 million USD.
Such a progressive tax system would also work to contract how the banks are helping to increase
global wealth inequality. Since the poor often are forced to take out huge mortgage loans while
the rich usually deposit large amounts of money to banks, the poor mostly pay interest rate to
banks while the overly rich mostly receive interest rate from banks. So the banks we have today
actually take money from the poor while they give money to the rich (the opposite of what the
English folklore hero Robin Hood did[2]), and this does not just apply to individuals but to whole
nations as well (Figure 5).
Poor people Banks Rich people
Interest rate Interest rate
Figure 5: How the poor mostly pay interest rate to banks, while the rich mostly receive interest
rate from the banks.
It seems fair to decrease global wealth inequality with a progressive tax system. However, it also
seems fair that people are partially involved in deciding what their taxes are used for. If I am a
pacifist and my country is waging war, it seems fair that my taxes aren’t used to fund that war. If
I believe in the importance of free mandatory education with healthy food and clothes included,
I should be allowed to invest some of my taxes in this. This would make it more agreeable for
me to pay taxes, and it might make me more supportive of a highly progressive tax system. It
might also make our society more dynamic, by helping us to address problems more quickly. If
for example the infrastructure is very bad in a society, many people might choose to invest their
taxes in infrastructure, and as a consequence it might rapidly improve.
What do you want to
invest your taxes in?
Police/Military
Healthcare
Education
Infrastructure Subsidies
Pension
Figure 6: Figure showing options of what we should be allowed to invest our taxes in.
Tax payers are a diverse group of people, so it is unlikely that all of them are going to invest in the
same sector. However, people should only be allowed to decide what 50% of their taxes are used
for, in case some sectors get little funding from the tax payers. These sectors might nevertheless
need money, and if the government gets the remaining 50% of the money payed in taxes they
should have more than enough to ensure that all sectors get sufficient funding.
Ending international competition for the lowest corporate taxes
In the current multinational world, countries are competing to have the lowest corporate taxes
and the lowest taxes for the rich, since it tends to attract businesses[3,4]. But wealth inequality
also increases with less corporate/progressive taxes. So countries have the choice between more
wealth inequality or less businesses. Since countries are completely dependent upon businesses
for less unemployment and economic growth, the choice tends to be in favor of the right-wing
argument. This is one of the main reasons why global wealth inequality continues to increase.
Less corporate taxes and
less taxes for the rich
Attracts businesses
Less unemploymentIncreases wealth inequality
L
e
f
t
-
w
i
n
g
A
r
g
u
m
e
n
t
R
i
g
h
t
-
w
i
n
g
A
r
g
u
m
e
n
t
Figure 7: The right-wing argument for less corporate/progressive taxes, and the left-wing
counterargument against less corporate/progressive taxes.
To invalidate the right-wing argument and remove the incentive for countries to have less
corporate/progressive taxes, there needs to be a multilateral tax treaty which ensures that all
countries have the same corporate/progressive taxes.
No discrimination based on: ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation
It seems to be somewhat difficult for people to understand the misery of being discriminated,
unless they have experienced it themselves. However, discrimination tends to be detrimental
for everyone in a society. Discriminated ethnicities will for example often rebel against and
terrorize their suppressors. In the worst cases, discrimination has led to ethnic cleansing and
genocides. There is a long history of discrimination against black people in the United States
and Latin America. As of 2016, homosexual intercourse has death penalty in Yemen,
Saudi-Arabia, Mauritania, Sudan, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan. While there is life
imprisonment in India, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Tanzania, Zambia, Guyana[5]. Most of these
countries also have much less rights for women. One of the biggest achievements of modern
western democracies, is equal rights for people of different ethnicity, gender, and sexual
orientation (Figure 8). We believe these civil rights must be implemented globally.
Equal rights for
all ethnicities
Equal rights for
men and women
Equal rights for
homosexuals
Figure 8: Our modern understanding of civil rights in western democracies.
Religions are somewhat incompatible with our modern understanding of civil rights
Article 18 of the human rights declaration says that everybody should be free to believe in
whatever religion they want, but religions themselves are somewhat incompatible with modern
ideas of civil rights (Table 1). The idea that certain rights are natural or inalienable also has
religious undertones, since there is nothing in science which says that humans (or other
animals) are given certain rights by nature. Rather, we as a society should give civil rights to our
citizens (Figure 8), and these rights should take precedence over religious freedom.
Table 1: Table showing why religions are somewhat incompatible with our modern
understanding of civil rights.
Women’s rights Homosexuality
Judaism and Christianity
Although traditionally considered
inferior to men, today most jews and
christians believe in equal rights for
men and women.
Homosexuality is often considered
sinful among conservatives, but
homosexuality is legal in Israel and
most christian countries.
Islam
Women are worth half as much as
men according to the Quran, and most
islamic countries have less rights for
women than for men.
Homosexuality is illegal in many
muslim countries, and some even have
death penalty for homosexuality.
Hinduism
Varies due to the pluralistic nature of
hinduism. However, women in India
face numerous problems, including
victimization when raped and forced
prostitution of young girls.
Varies due to the pluralistic nature of
hinduism. However, sexual activity
between people of the same gender is
forbidden in India, and is punishable by
lifetime imprisonment.
Buddhism Women are often considered to be
spiritually inferior to men.
Early texts do not mention
homosexuality. Buddhist countries tend
to be the most liberal for homosexuals
in Asia.
Modern civil rights Equal rights for men and women. Equal rights for homosexuals.
In addition to discrimination against women and homosexuals, the Hindu caste system
discriminates people according to which caste they are born into. This is also completely unfair,
since all people should have equal rights and opportunities from birth. Religious groups also
often discriminate people adhering to other religions.
Children of mixed heritage have less recessive genetic disorders
Marriage of first cousins is common in many middle eastern countries today, and cultural
prejudices against marrying foreigners is common in many countries all around the world.
However, to children of mixed heritage are actually generally more healthy. If both of your
parents are carriers of a recessive genetic disorder, you have a 1/4 (25%) likelihood of getting
the recessive disorder (Figure 9).
Child 1
Affected
Child 4
Unaffected
Child 2
Carrier
Child 3
Carrier
Mother
Carrier
Father
Carrier
D
r
D
r
Dr
D
rD D
rr
Figure 9: Showing that there is 1/4 (25%) chance that a child will get a recessive disorder from
its parents, if both of the parents are carriers of a recessive disease.
Many recessive genes are shared within an ethnicity, so the likelihood of both parents being
carriers of a recessive disorder, is larger if both of the parents belong to the same ethnicity than if
they are of different ethnicities. The detrimental effects of recessive genetic disorders can be seen
clearly with inbreeding.
How diversity makes a team better at predicting
We often assume that one specific ethnicity or personality type is better than the rest. However,
according to the diversity prediction theorem, by Scott E. Page at the University of Michigan[6,7],
groups with a high level of diversity should be more successful at predicting than groups with a
low level of diversity (Figure 10). In fact, the success rate of a team, seems to depend just as
much upon its diversity as upon the skillfulness of its members. It should not be surprising that
diversity makes a group better at predicting. If we all look at a tree from the same angle, we see
much less of the tree than if we look at it from different angles. In general, we should get more
information from having more points of view. This can be formulated as a mathematical
theorem, which describes how diversity influences a group’s ability to predict.
(CX)2=1
nn
P
i=1
(xiX)2-1
nn
P
i=1
(xiC)2
The team’s square error = The mean square error - The diversity of the team
Figure 10: The diversity prediction theorem, formulated by Scott E. Page at the University of
Michigan. A more detailed explanation of the theorem can be found here (PDF,HTML). The
theorem has huge implications for how one might choose to put together a team.
Bibliography
[1] Credit Suisse Research Institute, “The global wealth report 2016.” https://www.
credit-suisse.com/us/en/about-us/research/research-institute/news-and-videos/
articles/news-and-expertise/2016/11/en/the-global-wealth-report-2016.html.
[2] H. Pyle, The Adventures of Robin Hood. Sterling, 2005.
[3] R. B. Davies and K. C. Vadlamannati, “A race to the bottom in labor standards? an empirical
investigation,” Journal of Development Economics, vol. 103, pp. 1–14, 2013.
[4] OECD, “Harmful tax competition - an emerging global issue.” https://www.oecd.org/tax/
transparency/44430243.pdf, 1998.
[5] Aengus Carroll, “State sponsored homophobia report.” http://ilga.org/downloads/02_
ILGA_State_Sponsored_Homophobia_2016_ENG_WEB_150516.pdf.
[6] S. E. Page, “Where diversity comes from and why it matters?,” European Journal of Social
Psychology, vol. 44, p. 267–279, 2014.
[7] R. Batchelor and P. Dua, “Forecaster diversity and the benefits of combining forecasts,”
Managment Science, vol. 41, pp. 68–75, 1995.