Is equality evil?

it's a simple premise, people are born inherently different and unequal. Some are more intelligent, others are swifter of foot. Our society is shifting towards a paradigm of forced "equality" those who have talents are forced to contribute their abilities to prop up the incompetent. Those who have done well are being forced to compensate, to work harder, for the sake of those who have made poor decisions. Often those who are born with disadvantages are given advantages of the general populous to compensate for the sake of equity. But is this really equity?

I think it is more equitable if it comes from grass roots rather than the top down, however in our (US) democracy it's usually never all one or the other.

Yes, people are inherently born differently.

But you have to remember that many of the problems of unequality can be pinned on human error rather than unequally distributed endowments by mother nature.

So really, as a collective whole society is largely to blame, I would say.

However, which parts of society is mostly at blame is a completely different story and much more touchy subject.

True egalitarianism is perhaps not a realistic standard, but if we pretend that it is we'll at least come closer than where we currently stand.

it's a simple premise, people are born inherently different and unequal. Some are more intelligent, others are swifter of foot.

Not really, no. Are you familiar with the 10,000 hour rule? There are some difference between people, and there are physical differences between women, but they are, for the most part, not very large.

Our society is shifting towards a paradigm of forced "equality" those who have talents are forced to contribute their abilities to prop up the incompetent.

How so?

Those who have done well are being forced to compensate, to work harder, for the sake of those who have made poor decisions.

This assumes that those who do the best are those who do the most/best work, no?

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

it's a simple premise, people are born inherently different and unequal. Some are more intelligent, others are swifter of foot. Our society is shifting towards a paradigm of forced "equality" those who have talents are forced to contribute their abilities to prop up the incompetent. Those who have done well are being forced to compensate, to work harder, for the sake of those who have made poor decisions. Often those who are born with disadvantages are given advantages of the general populous to compensate for the sake of equity. But is this really equity?

I find the question vague. Are you talking about the welfare system, and saying that it is unfair that those who work harder are forced to support those that don't? Are you saying that not everyone deserves the vote? Are you asking whether society has gotten too politically correct, insisting that everyone has the same potential when everyone has different (though possibly still equal) abilities?

Equality under the law is vital. Forced equality is not, apart from being bad.

I am assuming you are speaking terms perhaps of economic equalization. In this case, I prefer the grey area between state communism and pure capitalism. In this grey area, the state imposes moderate regulations which ensures that the system never gets too top heavy. Of course, this is risky business, but to ensure our continued function, some regulation is necessary.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

state communism

State capitalism would be the more accurate term, no? But whatever. You know what I'm getting at.

Originally Posted by 8bit

State capitalism would be the more accurate term, no? But whatever. You know what I'm getting at.

Which would be proper for an assigned equal wage?

The whole point of equality is to provide a level playing field for peoples. No one is born equal or the same. Some people are just better than others in some way. But the best way for people to prove their quality is in an unbiased society that gives everyone the opportunity. It's not something yet realized but in the process of being made.

The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You can't concern yourself with liberty and self actualization when you still struggle to survive.

A world where the talented support the incompetent's survival is still better than one where the talented are struggling to live while the incompetent are in positions of wealth due to dumb luck. At least those with the potential to rise are in a better position to change their lot when they don't need to worry about such things as health. Society is and agreement between individuals to coexist and even help sustain one another.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Which would be proper for an assigned equal wage?

Hmm. That's a pretty damn good question. I'm not sure. I've heard the idea thrown around, usually in a critical manner, but I've never heard it phrased in the form of a specific term.

Communist state, however, refers to a state controlled by a Communist party. While I don't like this terminology, it doesn't really imply anything. For example, if the Communist party of Japan gained power they would be considered a "Communist state", however, the Communist Party of Japan is in no way communist. They're pretty much a centrist/center-left party.

Self actualization eh?
Someone's been studying their psychology.

I would argue that one can still become self actualized even if the pocket book isn't that full.

You don't necessarily need material wealth to become self actualized.

Just enough free time away from your day job to keep the old ticker in order, and enough serious investment in particular hobbies. books, chess, games, sports, etc.....

It probably goes deeper than that.

but more money certainly wouldn't hurt things in moving along that long road of self-actualization.

Originally Posted by 8bit

Hmm. That's a pretty damn good question. I'm not sure. I've heard the idea thrown around, usually in a critical manner, but I've never heard it phrased in the form of a specific term.

Communist state, however, refers to a state controlled by a Communist party. While I don't like this terminology, it doesn't really imply anything. For example, if the Communist party of Japan gained power they would be considered a "Communist state", however, the Communist Party of Japan is in no way communist. They're pretty much a centrist/center-left party.

I say communism simply because they equal pay reflects the 'according to your needs' mantra. If you find a more accurate term let me know.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

I say communism simply because they equal pay reflects the 'according to your needs' mantra. If you find a more accurate term let me know.

How about Pure Fantasy, because what you are talking about does not reflect on any 'Communist Government' in practice. Marx explicitly argues against equal wages in one of his most important works:

"In spite of this advance, this equal right is still constantly stigmatized by a bourgeois limitation. The right of the producers is proportional to the labor they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labor."

What this essentially means is that the worker can only receive in proportion to what he creates under socialist society. Rights are limited to the economic superstructure of any given society, therefore you can not expect a young socialist country, undoubtedly circled by capitalist nations, to suddenly be removed of some of the conditions of the capitalist society which birthed it. Likewise, it would be foolish to expect communist means of distribution to suddenly and miraculously appear.

Furthermore:

"But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal."

Equality isn't necessarily a bad thing, but we must recognize that individuals are not equally endowed, that needs are sometimes in direct contradiction between peoples.

Originally Posted by Discussion

How about Pure Fantasy, because what you are talking about does not reflect on any 'Communist Government' in practice. Marx explicitly argues against equal wages in one of his most important works:

What Marx argues is irrelevant, as one can be communist without following Marx's ways. The fact of the matter is that capital redistributed according to perceived needs can be considered a factor in state communism.

What this essentially means is that the worker can only receive in proportion to what he creates under socialist society. Rights are limited to the economic superstructure of any given society, therefore you can not expect a young socialist country, undoubtedly circled by capitalist nations, to suddenly be removed of some of the conditions of the capitalist society which birthed it. Likewise, it would be foolish to expect communist means of distribution to suddenly and miraculously appear.

Again, what does the ideology of Marx have anything to do with what I am discussing? You assume communists follow Marx by the book.

Equality isn't necessarily a bad thing, but we must recognize that individuals are not equally endowed, that needs are sometimes in direct contradiction between peoples.

Equality is just fine under the law. But artificially equalizing every aspect of ones life in the name of fairness, is hardly fair to the endowed.

What Marx argues is irrelevant, as one can be communist without following Marx's ways. The fact of the matter is that capital redistributed according to perceived needs can be considered a factor in state communism.

Can you find any socialist nation on earth that wasn't influenced at least in part, by Marxist theory? How many Lasallean nations have propped over in the last two centuries? Each and every 'Communist State' has identified as a marxist government, meaning they are representations of marxist theory.

Equality is just fine under the law. But artificially equalizing every aspect of ones life in the name of fairness, is hardly fair to the endowed.

I agree wholeheartedly, but who is arguing for that?

Originally Posted by Discussion

Can you find any socialist nation on earth that wasn't influenced at least in part, by Marxist theory? How many Lasallean nations have propped over in the last two centuries? Each and every 'Communist State' has identified as a marxist government, meaning they are representations of marxist theory.

Of course they are, but as I said, that doesn't guarantee they follow it by the book. In which case, they are free to adopt any system they conceive, which includes mine.

I agree wholeheartedly, but who is arguing for that?

Obviously nobody here is advocating in favor of EVERYTHING. But there is a thin line between too much and too little and I doubt anyone here can come to an agreement upon where that line is drawn.

Equality is just fine under the law. But artificially equalizing every aspect of ones life in the name of fairness, is hardly fair to the endowed.

I think it's because discussion effectively inversed the meanings of "equal" verses "unequal" in his last post combined with the fact that "artificial" is a relatively nebulous term in this context that has made it so that I can't really tell what you mean by that statement.

Would you mind elaborating for my sake?

For example does artificially mean strong-fisted by the government; that the top-down beurocratic approach almost always dehumanizes the liberties which make us human; or that it is on paper equal when in reality it isn't equal at all?

Also, contemporary understanding of the word "communism" is almost as diverse as the word "Christian", and some forms have presumably deviated further from the original source than others; however, as discussion has already said: they all stem from marx, no?

Originally Posted by Erasmus

I think it's because discussion effectively inversed the meanings of "equal" verses "unequal" in his last post combined with the fact that "artificial" is a relatively nebulous term in this context that has made it so that I can't really tell what you mean by that statement.

Would you mind elaborating for my sake?

For example does artificially mean strong-fisted by the government; that the top-down beurocratic approach almost always dehumanizes the liberties which make us human; or that it is on paper equal when in reality it isn't equal at all?

Also, contemporary understanding of the word "communism" is almost as diverse as the word "Christian", and some forms have presumably deviated further from the original source than others; however, as discussion has already said: they all stem from marx, no?

Implementing policy to prop up the less endowed.

Originally Posted by 8bit

Hmm. That's a pretty damn good question. I'm not sure. I've heard the idea thrown around, usually in a critical manner, but I've never heard it phrased in the form of a specific term.

Communist state, however, refers to a state controlled by a Communist party. While I don't like this terminology, it doesn't really imply anything. For example, if the Communist party of Japan gained power they would be considered a "Communist state", however, the Communist Party of Japan is in no way communist. They're pretty much a centrist/center-left party.

i think social democracy is close to what your'e looking for.

Originally Posted by Tyras

i think social democracy is close to what your'e looking for.

Not really, no. Social democrats do not advocate equal pay. I don't know any movement that seriously advocates equal pay, spare communism, in a sense, because we advocate no pay, but at the same time we require this to be within a stateless society, so this doesn't qualify for FoV's concept of an equal wages state.

Originally Posted by Discussion

Can you find any socialist nation on earth that wasn't influenced at least in part, by Marxist theory?

Can you find any socialist nation on earth?

I agree wholeheartedly, but who is arguing for that?

Wat.

You agree that equality under the law is fine?

Also, contemporary understanding of the word "communism" is almost as diverse as the word "Christian", and some forms have presumably deviated further from the original source than others; however, as discussion has already said: they all stem from marx, no?

No, actually. Communism was originally used as a term for Christians who wanted to live in a stateless society ruled only by their god.

Acts of the Apostles; chapter 2:

"42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.43 Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44 And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need." (King James Version)

In the early 16th century, after the book, Utopia, by Thomas More was written, which described a roughly communal secular society, we began to see the rise in the 'socialist' movement. At this point the we see communism beginning to represent all religiously totalitarian forms of communism, a socialism representing the secular group who advocated the same, egalitarian, stateless society, spare the religion.

In the 19th century we see Marx, who combined, and redefined communism and socialism, changing the term forever. As, at this point the church had mostly abandoned the concept of communism in order to further itself from socialists, we begin to see a conflict specifically between traditional socialists, who began to be called 'Utopian socialists', and those who followed Marx' writings, who were called, at the time, 'scientific socialists'.

How about Pure Fantasy

That works, but it isn't quite exclusive or descriptive enough, in my opinion.

Not everyone has equal abilities, needs, or ambitions, so it's a given fact that not everyone is equal in total. However, it is a commonly held belief that every human person is of equal dignity - that it is good to ensure that everyone has access to comfortable and practical living.

This is not a question of communism vs. capitalism, or of good vs. evil, etc. It's a simple fact in our society that everyone who earns a living does so either through being self-sufficient (which is a rarity as people have become specialized), or through the collective efforts of at least several thousand others to provide them the goods and resources they need to maintain that standard of living. Some people have greater need; ergo they are more dependent on the collective economy.

The question of communism/socialism vs. capitalism is largely this: should we make it the responsibility of the government to ensure that everyone has access to [any standard of] comfortable living, or should we make it the responsibility of the individual alone to secure this access? I would say that maintaining an economy that accommodates every individual is the ultimate goal of any state, but which accomplishes this better - capitalism or communism/socialism?

I think we've seen the results capitalism has reaped over the years - massive disproportion of wealth, unemployment and underemployment, etc. We've also seen the problems of totalitarian communism. I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle.