Is equality evil?

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Why isn't "I don't want to." an acceptable answer. Only you have the right to decide whether you do something or you don't.

Need means whatever you want it to mean. If you need 300 tons of Hershey chocolate, you damn well better get it because it's your need. Who is to determine need but the person themselves? How does anyone else know what another needs?

"Help! An axe murderer is chasing me! Someone call the police!"
"I don't want to".
In some countries, that is a crime. If someone is in danger and you can help them but don't, you go to jail.

People do not get to subjectively determine their own need. That's why things called human rights were invented - as a handy guide for determining whether someone's needs are being met or not.

@ flames of valor.

no, need doesn't mean just "whatever you want it to mean"

there all kinds of needs and not just the ones that keep your heart pumping and brain ticking.

there are emotional needs, mental needs, and bodily needs.

and others would also say spiritual needs as well.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

"Help! An axe murderer is chasing me! Someone call the police!"
"I don't want to".
In some countries, that is a crime. If someone is in danger and you can help them but don't, you go to jail.

People do not get to subjectively determine their own need. That's why things called human rights were invented - as a handy guide for determining whether someone's needs are being met or not.

Thats not forcing you into a certain line of work for the 'needs' of others based on your abilities.

Who gets to determine need? And why is it fair for one man to decide the needs of another?

Originally Posted by Erasmus

@ flames of valor.

no, need doesn't mean just "whatever you want it to mean"

there all kinds of needs and not just the ones that keep your heart pumping and brain ticking.

there are emotional needs, mental needs, and bodily needs.

and others would also say spiritual needs as well.

Yes, need means anything you think you need. Unless you are willing to allow someone determine your needs for you, it relies upon you to determine what you need.

I think you see perfectly well though the problem that comes with this approach.

yes needs are subjective but some people are unnecessarily needy and lack the tact to deal with this "problem".

*looks in Lord Ranil's general direction......*

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

I said fixed rate not fixed amount. If we did a percentage, it wouldn't affect the poor so badly, but the rich would get hit a lot harder. Which is what you wanted right?

Harder economically, to them it should be about the same degree of devastation, but you seem to understand my point yes.

I don't think you'd have to be one of her devoted followers to try and avoid being a slave to your own ability : /. If it came to it.

I think actively going out of their way to do a menial job because they think they'll be exploited if they do a better one is a bit retarded, which is why I only suggest that Ayn Rand and her followers would do it.

Originally Posted by Erasmus

huh.

The problem I have with the idea that Lord Zero is talking about is that it artificially reinforces naturalistic determinism-causality, thus it seems it reduces the ideals of individuality (albeit ironically so), free will, and thus liberty in general.

However as far as I'm aware Marxism never proposes that this system actually be implemented.

and I don't really think it would happen in a Marxist society, especially in light of a globalized city/nation.

I think it more likely that Utilitarianism would become the predominating set of work ethics in a Marxists society as opposed to the dehumanizing principles of the "invisible hand".

All I'm saying is, if we take "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" to its literal extreme, you end up with my situation. Regardless of what Marx actually said in more detail.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

Need, by definition, is not an asset. It is a lack of some vital asset. The important thing to note is that at no point does the one in need wind up better off than the person with ability - if they do, then the roles are reversed and THEY are the ones who must give support. Obviously this state of affairs doesn't occur too often, since most of the time the amount of 'support' called for doesn't break the bank.

When a person with ability uses that ability for the person in need, he is gaining nothing in return other than what he needs, and so being a person in need is beneficial because you will have everything you need given to you by those with ability. Which is what makes need an asset here - it is more beneficial, in such a society, to put oneself in a position of need than in a position of ability.

Give me an example where this would be a bad thing - 'need' does not equal 'want'.

That's what the next paragraph was for - to demonstrate how this could be a bad thing.

This person with ability is USING their ability - one of them, anyway. I am skilled in a couple of areas; just because I am pursuing a career in only one area, does not mean I am shirking responsibility - I'm only one person.

If you are more skilled in one area than you are in another, and there are people who need someone's ability in that first area, under "from each according to his ability", you are shirking the responsibility of using your ability because you're using a lesser ability than a greater one. Likewise, you may be choosing a job you enjoy but hardly anyone needs, when you have an ability in an area in greater demand - you are shirking your responsibility if you don't go for the job in greater demand, under the Marxist mantra.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

"Help! An axe murderer is chasing me! Someone call the police!"
"I don't want to".
In some countries, that is a crime. If someone is in danger and you can help them but don't, you go to jail.

The good Samaritan laws do not apply in the UK and I doubt they apply in America. In the story of the good Samaritan, two people walked past the man in need before the third helped him. The first two have no criminal liability whatsoever, and I can't think of any justifiable reason to impose it on them without being a little totalitarian and imposing a duty on all to protect all, as opposed to the simple duty not to actively do harm to another.

People do not get to subjectively determine their own need. That's why things called human rights were invented - as a handy guide for determining whether someone's needs are being met or not.

The ECHR doesn't say anything about food, warmth, or shelter. It doesn't say anything about needs, only rights that you innately have which are protected from government interference (without justification).

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

When a person with ability uses that ability for the person in need, he is gaining nothing in return other than what he needs, and so being a person in need is beneficial because you will have everything you need given to you by those with ability. Which is what makes need an asset here - it is more beneficial, in such a society, to put oneself in a position of need than in a position of ability.

That's an interesting definition of beneficial. You're saying that a person who is able to work is at a disadvantage because it's work? I would argue that being unable to work is less preferable - not only because you are less able to provide for yourself (which welfare assists with), but also because it's less fulfilling. I've worked dead-end jobs and I've been unemployed; I preferred the dead-end jobs. You get a sense of accomplishment.

If you are more skilled in one area than you are in another, and there are people who need someone's ability in that first area, under "from each according to his ability", you are shirking the responsibility of using your ability because you're using a lesser ability than a greater one. Likewise, you may be choosing a job you enjoy but hardly anyone needs, when you have an ability in an area in greater demand - you are shirking your responsibility if you don't go for the job in greater demand, under the Marxist mantra.

Well if that job was in enough demand, the elevated pay/prestige that would be associated with that demand should have enticed me. If it did not, then it's hardly in demand, is it? A failure of the system is not necessarily a fault of the individual.

The good Samaritan laws do not apply in the UK and I doubt they apply in America. In the story of the good Samaritan, two people walked past the man in need before the third helped him. The first two have no criminal liability whatsoever, and I can't think of any justifiable reason to impose it on them without being a little totalitarian and imposing a duty on all to protect all, as opposed to the simple duty not to actively do harm to another.

Strangely for you, I believe you're thinking of the wrong law - Good Samaritan laws don't punish those who don't help, but protect those who do. I'm talking about Civil Courage.

In any case, I don't see what the state of affairs in the UK has to do with anything. I am not attempting to say that it is right because it's law; I'm saying it's a law in some countries and my point is that I agree with it.

The ECHR doesn't say anything about food, warmth, or shelter. It doesn't say anything about needs, only rights that you innately have which are protected from government interference (without justification).

That's not my point. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly DOES provide for them. What legal force it has is not my point - my point is that people around the world have agreed that these are important things that everyone should have.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

That's an interesting definition of beneficial. You're saying that a person who is able to work is at a disadvantage because it's work? I would argue that being unable to work is less preferable - not only because you are less able to provide for yourself (which welfare assists with), but also because it's less fulfilling. I've worked dead-end jobs and I've been unemployed; I preferred the dead-end jobs. You get a sense of accomplishment.

This is true, endless unemployment would be boring as hell, but that doesn't change the fact that need is an asset when it gives you various entitlements from people who have ability.

Well if that job was in enough demand, the elevated pay/prestige that would be associated with that demand should have enticed me. If it did not, then it's hardly in demand, is it? A failure of the system is not necessarily a fault of the individual.

See, in a "from each according to his ability" society, you aren't entitled to higher pay because of your ability, you are simply entitled to that which YOU need, which isn't much when you are able.

Strangely for you, I believe you're thinking of the wrong law - Good Samaritan laws don't punish those who don't help, but protect those who do. I'm talking about Civil Courage.

In any case, I don't see what the state of affairs in the UK has to do with anything. I am not attempting to say that it is right because it's law; I'm saying it's a law in some countries and my point is that I agree with it.

See we're talking about two different things here - I'm talking about an obligation on those with ability to help those in need, you're talking about protection for those who do choose to help but no obligation. Only the obligation concerns what I'm saying at all - the rescuer protection laws (which I'm aware of and fully agree with) are irrelevant for the purposes of "from each according to his ability to each according to his need".

That's not my point. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly DOES provide for them. What legal force it has is not my point - my point is that people around the world have agreed that these are important things that everyone should have.

See, I'm talking about if "from each according to his ability" had legal force. Also, you claimed that the entire point of human rights is to ensure that peoples' needs are met, if they have no legal force then this is clearly not the case. On top of that, UN law has about as much authority as I currently do, i.e. not much.

Article 22 appears to be the most relevant here, because I'm not seeing any specific food, warmth or shelter clause.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

All I'm saying is, if we take "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" to its literal extreme, you end up with my situation. Regardless of what Marx actually said in more detail.

ahh, right. I was just using a marxist frame of reference since that tends to be where the idea of egalitarianism derives from, I think.
but I don't think anybody was arguing for the literal extreme were they?
(I might've skipped a couple posts....)

When a person with ability uses that ability for the person in need, he is gaining nothing in return other than what he needs, and so being a person in need is beneficial because you will have everything you need given to you by those with ability. Which is what makes need an asset here - it is more beneficial, in such a society, to put oneself in a position of need than in a position of ability.

If you are looking to make positive net gain, yea that's essential. It only works though when assuming that your needs can always be met and made available by another member of society.

Personally, I would say that it's better for your needs to be equal to or less than your abilities, but that's just my own preference. (credit cards suck. <__< )

If you are more skilled in one area than you are in another, and there are people who need someone's ability in that first area, under "from each according to his ability", you are shirking the responsibility of using your ability because you're using a lesser ability than a greater one. Likewise, you may be choosing a job you enjoy but hardly anyone needs, when you have an ability in an area in greater demand - you are shirking your responsibility if you don't go for the job in greater demand, under the Marxist mantra.

but should you really be expected to accept a job of "greater skill" if it does nothing to promote your own happiness?

Everyone should be granted the right to pursue those liberties which make them the happiest and if that means forgoing your greater "talents" then so be it. In a developed infrastructure there shouldn't be any problem finding someone to take up said "responsibilities" who enjoy it more than you might. In fact, I would posit that it is better that one enjoys one's place of employment. Those people usually do their job better anyways.

The ECHR doesn't say anything about food, warmth, or shelter. It doesn't say anything about needs, only rights that you innately have which are protected from government interference (without justification).

physical survival needs are not subjective. You either need them or you don't. I would prefer them not be so strictly regulated, but if they must be for the good of society, then I guess I would be willing to put up w/ it so long as my country doesn't ****ing suck. Otherwise it's goodbye America hello Deutschland. ^__^

Emotional and spiritual needs, however are much more subjective.

Originally Posted by Erasmus

ahh, right. I was just using a marxist frame of reference since that tends to be where the idea of egalitarianism derives from, I think.
but I don't think anybody was arguing for the literal extreme were they?
(I might've skipped a couple posts....)

They probably weren't, but I was demonstrating how equality, if held as the ultimate ideal, can go awry.

but should you really be expected to accept a job of "greater skill" if it does nothing to promote your own happiness?

Everyone should be granted the right to pursue those liberties which make them the happiest and if that means forgoing your greater "talents" then so be it. In a developed infrastructure there shouldn't be any problem finding someone to take up said "responsibilities" who enjoy it more than you might. In fact, I would posit that it is better that one enjoys one's place of employment. Those people usually do their job better anyways.

That's precisely the point, and this is one reason why enforcing "from each according to his ability" leads to injustice.

physical survival needs are not subjective. You either need them or you don't. I would prefer them not be so strictly regulated, but if they must be for the good of society, then I guess I would be willing to put up w/ it so long as my country doesn't ****ing suck. Otherwise it's goodbye America hello Deutschland. ^__^

Emotional and spiritual needs, however are much more subjective.

Physical survival needs are also not currently provided for, which was my point.

Oh.... so we agree this time?


.....wow.

xD

Equality being forced upon peoples is the work of the insecure, and it does have its advantages. However, if one ever becomes so disillusioned to the point that he believes a rendition of Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron" (namely where we purposely hamper the skills of the talented in order to save the sanity of the inept) is in order, then it has been taken too far. Thus far, a certain amount of idealistic equality has helped in many ways: women can vote in America and many inequities in other countries have somewhat been bettered. But I am worried that some will continue to sacrifice their individualism simply to acquire a sort of "ideal" equality among all of society.

As a side note, we've pretty much killed off natural selection by developing medicine and providing for so many people who cannot fend for themselves. Equality at this point is entirely what humans decide to make of it.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

I think actively going out of their way to do a menial job because they think they'll be exploited if they do a better one is a bit retarded, which is why I only suggest that Ayn Rand and her followers would do it.

Also, upon reading your post, you have reminded me of another aspect of this, while forgoing your actual potential in the interest of not being a slave, you effectively become 'needy' as well, as such, you gain the benefit of the 'needy'.

I personally wouldn't see it as retarded, if as you said they would only receive what they need regardless of the job they do, why bother to do a good job? Or work at all?

Originally Posted by Erasmus

Oh.... so we agree this time?

.....wow.

xD

I know right

Originally Posted by Alonely

Equality being forced upon peoples is the work of the insecure, and it does have its advantages. However, if one ever becomes so disillusioned to the point that he believes a rendition of Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron" (namely where we purposely hamper the skills of the talented in order to save the sanity of the inept) is in order, then it has been taken too far. Thus far, a certain amount of idealistic equality has helped in many ways: women can vote in America and many inequities in other countries have somewhat been bettered. But I am worried that some will continue to sacrifice their individualism simply to acquire a sort of "ideal" equality among all of society.

As a side note, we've pretty much killed off natural selection by developing medicine and providing for so many people who cannot fend for themselves. Equality at this point is entirely what humans decide to make of it.

Letting people do things that they're perfectly able to is more about not being retarded than enforcing equality though. Back then, they were forcing inequality, and as such refusing to allow people to be what they can be, stifling individuality in a sense. When we categorise people, we do force a sense of equality on them - they are equal to all within that group even if each group is not equal to each other. By taking away that categorisation, we restore individuality, and thus take away that image of equality to others.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Also, upon reading your post, you have reminded me of another aspect of this, while forgoing your actual potential in the interest of not being a slave, you effectively become 'needy' as well, as such, you gain the benefit of the 'needy'.

I personally wouldn't see it as retarded, if as you said they would only receive what they need regardless of the job they do, why bother to do a good job? Or work at all?

Both parts are valid points actually - the first means people will give the impression of being needy when they are able, just like today where people pretend to be disabled to receive benefits when they don't need them.

It always devolves into economy doesn't it?

Is that the only thing you can think of when the word "treat" is used?

There is far more to life than your 9 to 5.

I think people should be treated according to their worth as a human being. It should be based on mental ability(as physical ability can be honed save for in the most extreme cases) and on the events of your life, the deeds you do and the trials and tribulations you have gone through.

Just jumping in after reading the first post, I'd say Equality is just some idea, a ridiculous one at that, that really doesn't mean anything, and is desired by many hopefuls, much like the idea of Freedom. Countless wars have been started over the differing views on what freedom and equality are, and depending on the various backgrounds a person can come from, these ideas are perceived differently. If you are religious then you probably believe in a certain truth, and a certain definition of equality and think there is an ultimate truth about it somewhere. If your are not religious, and take note of all the things in life, you realize there is variation in EVERYTHING and that this inequality is what allows life to persist. So for me, Is equality evil? No, for what is evil? Is it wrong? No. Is it possible? No. Do I really care all that much?... not really, haha

Originally Posted by Anann

It always devolves into economy doesn't it?

Unfortunately, yes. The reality is that money is the agreed-upon standard used for measuring a man's worth. If he is useful to society, he will have it. If he is very useful, then he will be rich, etc...

If it was a flawless system of human energy transfusion then I wouldn't have any qualms about it, but seeing as it's just another flawed, arbitrarily decided upon human construct; I'm not the happiest about it.

Is that the only thing you can think of when the word "treat" is used?

There is far more to life than your 9 to 5.

I think people should be treated according to their worth as a human being. It should be based on mental ability(as physical ability can be honed save for in the most extreme cases) and on the events of your life, the deeds you do and the trials and tribulations you have gone through.

I whole-heartedly agree.
The economic right in America historically crusade vehemently against this viewpoint.

It's ironic, really, considering their stereo-typical religious preference.

but perhaps I just don't get it.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

This is true, endless unemployment would be boring as hell, but that doesn't change the fact that need is an asset when it gives you various entitlements from people who have ability.

Not really - it's no more of an asset than not needing.

See, in a "from each according to his ability" society, you aren't entitled to higher pay because of your ability, you are simply entitled to that which YOU need, which isn't much when you are able.

I'm not talking about communism; I'm talking about capitalism with regulation.

See we're talking about two different things here - I'm talking about an obligation on those with ability to help those in need, you're talking about protection for those who do choose to help but no obligation. Only the obligation concerns what I'm saying at all - the rescuer protection laws (which I'm aware of and fully agree with) are irrelevant for the purposes of "from each according to his ability to each according to his need".

But my point was that I DO agree with the obligation. Some things are minimum standards which you must be held to if you want to live in civilised society. Basic civil courage is one of them.

See, I'm talking about if "from each according to his ability" had legal force. Also, you claimed that the entire point of human rights is to ensure that peoples' needs are met, if they have no legal force then this is clearly not the case. On top of that, UN law has about as much authority as I currently do, i.e. not much.

Then the law does not go far enough in my opinion.

Article 22 appears to be the most relevant here, because I'm not seeing any specific food, warmth or shelter clause.

It's right there in Article 25.

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

Not really - it's no more of an asset than not needing.

Not being in need means you aren't entitled to any help from anyone with ability, and if you are able, that means you are obliged to help those who need your own ability. Thus, need is an asset, ability is a liability.

I'm not talking about communism; I'm talking about capitalism with regulation.

I was saying you sound like the kind of person who would approve of "from each according to his ability to each according to his need", which is in no way compatible with capitalism, since capitalism is "to each according to their ability (to provide) from each according to their need and how much they're willing to pay (to be provided for)".

But my point was that I DO agree with the obligation. Some things are minimum standards which you must be held to if you want to live in civilised society. Basic civil courage is one of them.

We cannot have a civilised society where every person believes they are obligated to help every person they see even remotely in need. You'd have to give money to homeless people in the street, and what kind of control would civil courage laws impose on the minimum amount to give them? If someone even looks like they're in danger, every person in the vicinity would be obliged to step in, and every person who does not would be liable. And so on, and so forth. It'd be a nightmare for courts.

Then the law does not go far enough in my opinion.

If international "law" were law at all, it'd be something.

It's right there in Article 25.

Aha, I see it. I'm sure the UN recognise that it's impossible to give that legal authority also.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

Not being in need means you aren't entitled to any help from anyone with ability, and if you are able, that means you are obliged to help those who need your own ability. Thus, need is an asset, ability is a liability.

Not being in need means that you have no major problems, and being able means that you help people insofar as it will not subsequently put YOU in need. I do not propose that people with ability should be bled dry; only their surplus should be made available, not the entirety.

I was saying you sound like the kind of person who would approve of "from each according to his ability to each according to his need", which is in no way compatible with capitalism, since capitalism is "to each according to their ability (to provide) from each according to their need and how much they're willing to pay (to be provided for)".

Capitalism is "You want something? It'll cost you". And for the privilege of living in a society with laws and protection, it costs you your surplus.

We cannot have a civilised society where every person believes they are obligated to help every person they see even remotely in need. You'd have to give money to homeless people in the street, and what kind of control would civil courage laws impose on the minimum amount to give them? If someone even looks like they're in danger, every person in the vicinity would be obliged to step in, and every person who does not would be liable. And so on, and so forth. It'd be a nightmare for courts.

Homeless people on the streets should be taken care of through welfare; the money you give to them is via taxes. If someone was in danger and no-one was helping them - yes, you'd be obliged to help if you could safely do so. As in the earlier example, you would be obliged to call the authorities, not fight off the axe-murderer yourself.

If international "law" were law at all, it'd be something.

True.

Aha, I see it. I'm sure the UN recognise that it's impossible to give that legal authority also.

Answer me this, though: why do you think they bothered to put it in writing, then?

Originally Posted by Evilsbane

Not being in need means that you have no major problems, and being able means that you help people insofar as it will not subsequently put YOU in need. I do not propose that people with ability should be bled dry; only their surplus should be made available, not the entirety.

And that surplus goes to people who "need" it. Thus you are entitled to the surplus of able people.

Capitalism is "You want something? It'll cost you". And for the privilege of living in a society with laws and protection, it costs you your surplus.

That's also true of communism, in essence.

Homeless people on the streets should be taken care of through welfare; the money you give to them is via taxes. If someone was in danger and no-one was helping them - yes, you'd be obliged to help if you could safely do so. As in the earlier example, you would be obliged to call the authorities, not fight off the axe-murderer yourself.

Yet if you have a decent amount of strength and maybe something to smack him with, then under the Marxist mantra there is no reason why you shouldn't.

Answer me this, though: why do you think they bothered to put it in writing, then?

Lip service. "We care about human rights, honest!" Every day member nations of the UN flaut these rules. They cannot possibly be law, or until something was done, every member nation would be held liable. They're more like guidelines than actual rules.