The key word is equitable, which means fair distribution, rather than equal distribution.henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:19 pm "Socialism is supposed to be about just, equitable and/or fair distribution of what is produced and also about rational decision making."
Seems to me, the above translates into 'profit or benefit should go to all equally instead of the lion's share goin' to the one taking the on-going risk, and the suffering of all should be borne by a few'.
That's a fine deal for a lot of folks, but not so much for 'me'.
The NFL is a good example of capitalism.
The most equitable distribution of the bounty collected from advertising and sales is the one based on the importance of each individual element to the team. The team is a compound of elements.
Owners are the most rare element, so more gets distributed their way. That is equitable.
Coaches are the next rarest element.
Star players are the next rarest element, and some rival the value of coaches.
Regular players follow, then bench warmers.
After that is support staff down to the janitor. A janitor is the least rare element.
Each element gets its portion of the pie, according to its rarity, and value to the team, the most rare being the most valuable.
Each element is essential for the existence of the compounded team, but the equitable distribution of bounty to each element, is based on objective rarity.
It's the same reason why, when observing the compound known as the body, that the brain gets first dibs on the bounty of nutrition.
One of the reasons why the owner is so valuable is that it has the flexibility to forgo top compensation to keep the team alive.
Another reason is the mantle of responsibility.
(That only took about ten edits)