papafigos on Nostr: The error in your reasoning is in the apriori assumption that it "has to be equal". ...

The error in your reasoning is in the apriori assumption that it "has to be equal".

You need massive levels of tyranny to enforce that, at the cost of destroying merit.

Not everyone can be a success, but you can make sure everyone becomes a failure. It's the only level where everyone could conceivably be "equal".

That is a victim mentality. You can always find a dimension of experience where someone was handicapped, whether it be due to genetics, the place they were born, etc.

Bitcoin is not equitable. It's not meant to be. You can't mandate equal outcomes and not expect to destroy the successful and the risktakers.

Early adopters took massive risk and were laughed at by ignorant people who could not be bothered to do even basic due dilligence. Sucks for them. Turns out the early adopters were right.

But if they had not been, and had sunk considerable time, expertise and capital into a failed project and a faulty idea, would society then have wanted to make it " equitable' for them and compensated them for their losses?

I'm gonna guess you agree the answer is no - they would have taken a shot and missed. Too bad. But it was their shot to take.

Why is it any difference when the opposite case is true?

It isn't.

Equal outcomes are a leftist fantasy, and their attempted implementation only imparts misery, discrimination and resentment - and justified resentment, because it's one thing to be simply unlucky and not have a certain attribute that would have helped you succeed, it's quite another to bar and/or steal from others so that they can be at the same level as the losers.

That, in a nutshell, is "equity".