Equality

@nicodemus,

nicodemus wrote:

there are many breeds of equality, equality under the law, social equality, economic equality, and tabula rosa. Those who would be "levelers", i challenge you. Those who would allow us to let the strong rise and the weak fall, this is a call to arms (figuatively). my basic thesis is this,
we are born equal, but not endowed equally, and this is good

We need the most talented members of society to be rewarded and put in positions of power in order to make a better and greater society. This is true. But this should be for the betterment of the greater mass of humanity, it should be an equality of benefit, or you are simply unequally lowering society to its lowest denominater.

0 Replies

@nicodemus,

but at what point do you draw the line. what about those who dont produce, who simply feed off the belly of the system and keep a low profile, would you make the productive members of society pay for thes parasites. What about the chronically unemployed. The ones who are hired and fired in the same day, these are the people who drag the system to its knees and its best with it, until they realize that they are working so hard for something everyone else is getting for free, and they stop

1 Reply

@nicodemus,

nicodemus wrote:

there are many breeds of equality, equality under the law, social equality, economic equality, and tabula rosa. Those who would be "levelers", i challenge you. Those who would allow us to let the strong rise and the weak fall, this is a call to arms (figuatively). my basic thesis is this,
we are born equal, but not endowed equally, and this is good

We are not born equal, if by that you mean created equal...Created equal is metaphysical claptrap... We are equal genetically, having relatively great difference compared as individuals, and across the whole of humanity having near 100% equality, compared with 99% equality with chimps, and 60% equality with mice... Equality is primarily a social form... Weigh two pennies and no two are the same weight, and if you look harder you will find great degrees of difference... Yet they are counted as one, and have the same value, which is to say, meaning, socially, by agreement... So, by conception and not at conception people are equal, all units, and individuals... Now; to be individuals of a set equality must be certain... To be a brick in a wall or a cog in a gear all have to be equal... We are not that, but we can easily see that people are roughly the same, certainly equal in our needs, and equal in our expectations, and only able to achieve our needs in cooperation with others, that is, socially... No democracy is possible without social equality, and no form of government hs proven able to deliver justice so regularly...Where can justice ever be shown for any two groups or individuals unless each can admit an equal need, and give equal concessions for it??? Still it is an injustice to suggest equality between people... Where equality was most social, expected, and demanded, people always sought distinction for honor...Where equality is some formality that no one finds meaning in, people outdo themselves for dishonors... Madoff is an example of this, because nothing says inequality like inequality of wealth, and where money is dear honor is cheap... Equality is real... We cannot be conceived of except as equally human, but vanity alone is enough to justify inequality, and inequality justifies injustice, and destroys democracy which is our social mechanism for achieving justice...The perception of inequality leads to inequality in fact...

0 Replies

@nicodemus,

All people are not equal as they are not the same in terms of innumerable variables. I happen to be a libertarian, which means that I desire everyone to be equal before the law and that the law is very minimal. The ideal would be a constitutional, federal republic, the government of which does virtually nothing but defend the country from external threats and protect absolute individual liberties.

...wait, that sounds familiar..

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

All people are not equal as they are not the same in terms of innumerable variables. I happen to be a libertarian, which means that I desire everyone to be equal before the law and that the law is very minimal. The ideal would be a constitutional, federal republic, the government of which does virtually nothing but defend the country from external threats and protect absolute individual liberties.

...wait, that sounds familiar..

Your problem is not with people, but with the term, Equality... To be an individual in any class is to be an equal... All bricks are bricks...A is A, all dogs are dogs, all cows are cows... Not all ones are ones... What are you comparing??? A pound of feathers weighs as much as a pound of steel... That part at least is a function of identity... Genetically, which is a quality we can compare, we are identical, at least as much as two pennies, certainly as much as one hundred pennies compared to one hundred pennies because we have nearly one hundred percent equality... What you are reacting to is appearant differences rather than real differences... You see that one has a small nose and another has a large nose, and you are not seeing that each has a nose in the same location on their face able to recognize the same scents, and you may instead by seeing a difference in environmental variable going as far back as into the womb...
Legal equality is a myth without economic equality... Wealth comes out of power and is converted to power, and we live in a money society, andnot an honor society... If the object in your economy is inequality, where is the advantage to that if it does not equat with political power, because only political, which is to say, legal power can defend wealth because wealth is never general, but held by a few in relation to many poor... Michael De Montaigne said as much the the rich man's gain is the poor man's loss...It is true in law as well as economy...

2 Replies

@Fido,

Fido, you are forgetting what Orwell importantly said, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".

All bricks are bricks... so what?

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

Fido, you are forgetting what Orwell importantly said, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".

All bricks are bricks... so what?

We are not animals... We are sociables..We quit living as animals a long time ago, and certainly Orwell should have recognized that... What may have made him phrase it so, is that for some to make much of themselves and have more, as though they are more, they force all their fellows into an animal existence, stealing their lives, taking food out of their mouths, using them forr bests of burden, or slaughtering them... But that does not change the facts...So long as people do not lose their humanity they cling to their equality, which admitttedly, is a moral form; a form just like a house is a form, or a community is a form, a form of relationship, as it is through our use of forms that we have survived all... People can only offer a defense of rights which is a self defense offered communally so long as they accept equality... Law (another form), to a great extent defends inequality and so much so fails to bring law or peace..

Try to grasp the concept... Bricks are bricks, and this means that to be an individual brick means to be identical to other bricks...People are inclined to a certain amount of accepted stupid talk... They say they are individuals as though that means they are not the same when it really means they are the same as all other individuals of the class... If they said they were a unique individual, well in a sense that is also always true; but usually they are one or the other, unique and not an individual, or an individual and so, not unique... If you want to say you are unique, just say you are unique, so everyone can see through your words to the obvious truth... Everyone is the same even if everyone is different...So what if we are all the same in being superficially different???

1 Reply

@Fido,

Unless you hold animals as a praise, explain how we stopped acting like animals on a macro scale.

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

Unless you hold animals as a praise, explain how we stopped acting like animals on a macro scale.

After I get some sleep I am going to call up my congressman on the phone, as seen if he can dig up any examples of any other species having homes, beds, telephones, congressmen, and governments for a handful of obvious examples...We have forms. That is how we coneive of knowledge and relate to each other and add to knowledge.. We are not supposed to be the victims of chance or fate, because our ability to form conceptions of reality should allow us to rule out incidence, and happenstance, and other wise control reality...Gnight.

2 Replies

@Fido,

Does intellect seriously have an effect on human behaviour? How strong of a force is it compared to others. But yes, sweet dreams.

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Intellect and culture... We are no less biological, but because we are a step above biological considerations we can conceive of ourselves spiritually...Ultimately it is intellect, in that we can conceive of reality through forms and ideas, but also transmit these forms culturally so that knowledge can be preserved and built upon generation after generation...So essentially all our behavior is built ultimately upon intellect and culture, and so much so that instinct is denied or forgotten, which is not always a good thing for people or society... Some people are so well cultured they forget to breed... Some forget to eat...Some forget to fight back... Some forget what they are living for, and some forget why they are allowing others to live... So culture can be a good thing, but it should never be taken out of context... So how it compares with other forces??? All the other forces in peoples lives are biological...Animal and culture add up to us... I cannot compare intellect to itself, and cannot even say the more or less of it is ncessarily good or bad...I can see it at work, and while it is at work I cannot examine it in detail, and when it does not work it is not representative of all intellect..

0 Replies

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Your problem is not with people, but with the term, Equality... To be an individual in any class is to be an equal... All bricks are bricks...A is A, all dogs are dogs, all cows are cows... Not all ones are ones... What are you comparing??? A pound of feathers weighs as much as a pound of steel... That part at least is a function of identity... Genetically, which is a quality we can compare, we are identical, at least as much as two pennies, certainly as much as one hundred pennies compared to one hundred pennies because we have nearly one hundred percent equality... What you are reacting to is appearant differences rather than real differences... You see that one has a small nose and another has a large nose, and you are not seeing that each has a nose in the same location on their face able to recognize the same scents, and you may instead by seeing a difference in environmental variable going as far back as into the womb...

No. That is the most foolish thing I have heard in a long time. Almost all human beings are different in terms of mental ability, physical ability, desires, taste, personality and so on. The fact that we are genetically almost identical does not trump the fact that we are different in reality, where people's actions are the issue, not their molecular chemistry.

Quote:

Legal equality is a myth without economic equality... Wealth comes out of power and is converted to power, and we live in a money society, andnot an honor society... If the object in your economy is inequality, where is the advantage to that if it does not equat with political power, because only political, which is to say, legal power can defend wealth because wealth is never general, but held by a few in relation to many poor... Michael De Montaigne said as much the the rich man's gain is the poor man's loss...It is true in law as well as economy...

'My economy' is not to be directed toward an object. That is the difference between freedom and central planning: i.e. fascism. There is either individualism or collectivism. I hope you're an American; if so you'll have your wish soon enough. Due to people like you, who at heart would rather be pampered slaves than poor freemen, the government has been able to ensure that we will all be equal: in poverty...Except of course for the central planners themselves. All Hail Equality!

:nonooo:

1 Reply

@Fido,

[SIZE="4"][INDENT]

It would be better to say that all people should be allowed equally the opportunity to better themselves, should they want to. However, if they choose not to take such opportunity, then I see no problem with cutting them off from the system, so long as we leave the option open that they can always come back should they choose to take the opportunity to better themselves.

Does that sound like a good idea?
umm...anyone?

...[SIZE="3"]hello?[/SIZE]

[/INDENT][/SIZE]

1 Reply

@Sekiko,

Sometimes though, is it not fair to say, that people do not know what they want.

0 Replies

@nicodemus,

You can only give so many last chances though, what about the chronic failure in high school who sees attending such a public institution as a social day where he can converse with his fellow delinquents, he has no love of learning or inclination thereto. Should the system really bend over backwards for such a waste of resources

0 Replies

@nicodemus,

if they are willing to rejoin and actually participate, then by all means let them back in, but after 2 strikes, they can go where the wind takes them

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

No. That is the most foolish thing I have heard in a long time. Almost all human beings are different in terms of mental ability, physical ability, desires, taste, personality and so on. The fact that we are genetically almost identical does not trump the fact that we are different in reality, where people's actions are the issue, not their molecular chemistry.

'My economy' is not to be directed toward an object. That is the difference between freedom and central planning: i.e. fascism. There is either individualism or collectivism. I hope you're an American; if so you'll have your wish soon enough. Due to people like you, who at heart would rather be pampered slaves than poor freemen, the government has been able to ensure that we will all be equal: in poverty...Except of course for the central planners themselves. All Hail Equality!

:nonooo:

If your economy has no object you do not have an economy...Fascism has nothing to do with central planning...It was industrial feudalism, and it turned the idea of the individual on its head, thought of society as so many individual, mass individuals; but as opposed to free societies which were primitive societies, freedom was denied within society and the individual was made free outside of society, that is -outside of humanity, in war, rape, and murder....The most organized societies were primitive, and voluntary...They needed to be organized, and by honor, people were bound to each other, to cooperate...They were constrained in their behavior outside of society so they could be free within... Learn something before you use terms like Fascism... Read something about primitive societies for example... They needed organization... They had no technology...All they had was each other and their ability to cooperate... We put individual freedom on an alter and think it is God...Ask Madoff if the individual is God...Some one like that would not have lasted ten seconds in a primitive society... He can feed off the masses because of a failed philosophy that has never worked for anything but the exploitation of the weak by the strong... Such individualism supported for the few by the many destroys societies.
You might consider fascist states compared to primitive societies... The common denominator was wide spread poverty, and in each instance social control was the solution...There the resemblance ends.. Under fascism, cooperation was coerced. Under fascism, only the leaders could be individuals, and have personalities... All others were individuals, but expected to sublimate their individualism to the general purpose as outlined by their leaders, to become a single individual...It was not the goal of primitive survival reached by consent and consensus... What was asked of the savage was expected of the Nazi..

1 Reply

@nicodemus,

nicodemus wrote:

there are many breeds of equality, equality under the law, social equality, economic equality, and tabula rosa. Those who would be "levelers", i challenge you. Those who would allow us to let the strong rise and the weak fall, this is a call to arms (figuatively). my basic thesis is this,
we are born equal, but not endowed equally, and this is good

The most important equality, and the equality that serves as the bedrock of any other measure of equality, is egoistic equality: universal respect for oneself as a person and the acceptance of the primacy of one's own values.

0 Replies

@nicodemus,

nicodemus;42858 wrote:

but at what point do you draw the line. what about those who dont produce, who simply feed off the belly of the system and keep a low profile, would you make the productive members of society pay for thes parasites.

Not all underachievers are created equal. Some are lazy, some are uneducated, some have medical or social or psychological problems, and some are doing the best they can. There isn't a fair way to discriminate one from the other, because it's not going to be clear to the "enlightened" people in power. So you don't draw a line through the middle of people. You make certain benefits and safeguards available to everyone who abides by the law, and you make certain other benefits (like disability status or medicaid) available to people who meet certain criteria.

2 Replies

Equality

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know