A CHALLENGE TO THE FORUM

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Dachshund
Posts: 274
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

A CHALLENGE TO THE FORUM

Post by Dachshund » Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:30 am

It seems to me that for the most part in the West one's political sympathies are either with the RIGHT or the LEFT

In the US the LEFT is represented by the Democrat Party and the RIGHT is represented by the REPUBLICAN PARTY. In the UK the RIGHT is represented by the British Conservative (or "Tory") Party and the LEFT by The British Labour Party. In Australia the RIGHT is represented by the Liberal Party and the Left by the Labor Party. There are lots of other minor, fringe or "one issue" political parties in the West, like the former Screaming Lord Such's "Monster Raving Loony" Party in England, though as they are not serious contenders for political office, I will not be discussing them.

So what is the primal principle that undergirds the political LEFT. What drives the political LEFT, what is it raison d'etre?

Before I answer that question, I must state that I think all philosophy (including political philosophy) boils down to the question of values; and as far as academic philosophy is concerned values are studied in the field of ethics and/or axiology. Ethics is typically defined as "the science of morality" or, if you prefer, that branch of philosophy that studies moral principles.

It seems to me the most important, fundamental moral principle - the one that supports the entire edifice of LEFT-ist political ideology is MORAL EGALITARIANISM. Thesis is famously stated by Thomas Jefferson in The American Declaration of Independence"...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are all endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are Life , Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Note that when Jefferson uses the word EQUAL he means it to connote : THE SAME or IDENTICAL.

So what does he mean by "created "equal"(?) when it is patently obvious that men differ toa great degree in many ways: height, intelligence, strength, shin colour, language, personality traits, state of health, occupation and income, marital status, etc.The answer is that Jefferson means equal in DIGNITY, or (moral) WORTH/VALUE.

What Jefferson is claiming is that ALL human beings possess an EQUAL (IDENTICAL) modicum of INNATE DIGNITY (moral WORTH or VALUE) and this is known as the doctrine of MORAL EGALITARIANISM.

It is THIS notion that has inspired every LEFT -wing political theorist and activist since the Enlightenment's father of the LEFT, Rousseau scribbled out "The Social Contract" ( a classic utopian socialist text) in men like Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles, Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, Tony Benn, Aneuran Bevan, and Jeremy Corbyn to name but a few

Because they take it for granted that all men are created EQUAL in terms of how much innate (moral) value/worth they possess - because the believe that they are endowed with THE SAME allocation of inherent DIGNITY - the LEFT insists we must therefore strive to level the social playing field; that we must endeavour to eliminate all social inequalities between people, that all individuals must be treated THE SAME, that they are all entitled to equal respect, that they are all equally entitled all of the Human Rights set out in the United Nations Declaration of HR.

But there's one BIG problem I have with the LEFT and this is THAT MORAL EGALITARIANISM is a thesis in Ethics that HAS NOT EVER BEEN PROVED/JUSTIFIED. To state that LEFTIST politics is totally legitimised because "all men are created equal (i.e. in terms of dignity)" is to affirm and act upon a controversial (to say the least !) theoretical point of view in ethics. At present, because we simply do not know (though personally I am absolutely 100% sure it is not the case) for a fact whether "all men are created equal", the claim is nothing but the presumption of an assumption.

To date, despite the tremendous effort that expert Western moral philosophers have expended in an effort to provide A RATIONAL, THEORETICAL JUSTIFICATION for the thesis of moral egalitarianism THEY HAVE ALL FAILED. They have generated counted reams of paper, but at the end of the day, its always the same defeated coda: "Sorry, no can do." Its like "the Hard Problem" in theory of mind, no one can work it out.

To cut to the chase, me it seems very likely that the whole foundation of the LEFT (socialism, communism,etc; of any species) is a lie, and the whole political LEFT is a "ship of fools." Because while the thesis of moral egalitarianism has not been proved, it is certainly counter-intuitive and just from my own experience of interacting with human beings, I am left in no doubt that they are not all endowed with an equal innate modicum of dignity. I mean, how is it that, say, a psychopathic, serial killer like Ted Bundy possess the same amount of innate moral worth/value as Mother Teresa? In what way was Stalin a moral human being; how would you rate his moral value/worth. The morally "good" is that behaviour which (1) affirms life and (2) does no harm - causes no suffering to oneself or others without rational justification. Stalin murdered 40-60 million of his own people and tortured, starved and imprisoned countless more . All men are not born equal to a monster like Stalin ?

To conclude, I hereby declare that anyone who vote for a LEFT-wing political party is a BIRD BRAIN. And if any bird brains would like to object, please do so. All you need to do make me eat my hat - (and publically admit to the forum that I am a gold-plated nincompoop), is post a clear, rational, theoretical justification of moral egalitarianism.
Last edited by Dachshund on Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:14 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5920
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A CHALLENGE TO THE FORUM

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:59 am

Dachshund wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:30 am
It seems to me the most important, fundamental moral principle - the one that supports the entire edifice of LEFT-ist political ideology is MORAL EGALITARIANISM. The thesis is famously stated by Thomas Jefferson in The American Declaration of Independence"...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are all endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are Life , Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."
This isn't Leftist, because it emphasizes that these rights reside in the individual. Leftism is collectivist. Extreme Leftism does not even recognize rights like "freedom of speech," because it believes all speech is really nothing but an expression of class or race or culture, not an expression of the conscience of the sovereign individual.
Note that when Jefferson uses the word EQUAL he means it to connote : THE SAME or IDENTICAL.
He doesn't really mean either.
What does he mean by created "equal"(?) when it is patently obvious that men differ a great degree in many ways: height, intelligence, strength, shin colour, language, personality traits, state of health, occupation and income, marital status, etc. Jefferson means equal in DIGNITY, or (moral) WORTH/VALUE.
Now, you've got it. And notice that man is "endowed by his Creator" with the unalienable rights. That means that the equality is one of value in the eyes of God.

Locke's original triad "life, liberty and property" is even more explicitly Protestant in its rationalization. In fact, the only reason Locke gives for us having rights at all is that we all equally will have to stand before The Judge on what he calls "The Great Day," the Day of Judgment.

Human rights are theistic products. Deny Theism, and the whole rationale for them evaporates. No wonder, then that the Left's actual practical record on human rights is so abominable, despite their continual demands for new "rights."
It is THIS notion that has inspired every LEFT wing political theorist and activist since the Enlightenment's father of the LEFT
,
No, it's not, actually. The Left argues for equality of outcome, on a collectivist basis; the Right argues for equality of opportunity, on an individualist basis.
At present we simply do not know (though personally I am absolutely 100% sure it is not the case) for a fact whether "all men are created equal", the claim is nothing but the presumption of an assumption.
Right. Our value in the eyes of God might be equal, in some sense (though only God could say for sure that was true); but there is no criterion which humans use to value themselves or other humans by which we can say they are equal, or intrinsically that they deserve any rights at all.

Think of it this way: if you and I are the accidental byproduct of an indifferent universe, and for some reason you end up having something more or something better than I do, to what court can I appeal that I am owed anything? The universe doesn't care, and societies are just groups of that are also accidental byproducts of that indifferent universe. In what sense, then, can we say that accidents (i.e. human beings) are "owed" to be made "equal"?

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11849
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: A CHALLENGE TO THE FORUM

Post by Arising_uk » Fri Apr 05, 2019 10:40 am

What happened to an 'analysis' about the Right in the interest of philosophical consistency or are you just a right-wing propagandist?

You appear to ignore a great chunk of British political history in your 'analysis' of the Left? Is it that you've never heard of the egalitarian and utopian social movements of the C17th, for example the Levellers and Diggers?

You also appear to ignore the Liberals and Liberalism in UK political history? Are/were they Left or Right?
p.s.
You really should stop using CAPS if you want to be taken seriously as it makes you look like a loon.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2779
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: A CHALLENGE TO THE FORUM

Post by -1- » Fri Apr 05, 2019 12:04 pm

Dachshund wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:30 am
It seems to me that for the most part in the West one's political sympathies are either with the RIGHT or the LEFT

In the US the LEFT is represented by the Democrat Party and the RIGHT is represented by the REPUBLICAN PARTY. In the UK the RIGHT is represented by the British Conservative (or "Tory") Party and the LEFT by The British Labour Party. In Australia the RIGHT is represented by the Liberal Party and the Left by the Labor Party. There are lots of other minor, fringe or "one issue" political parties in the West, like the former Screaming Lord Such's "Monster Raving Loony" Party in England, though as they are not serious contenders for political office, I will not be discussing them.

So what is the primal principle that undergirds the political LEFT. What drives the political LEFT, what is it raison d'etre?

Before I answer that question, I must state that I think all philosophy (including political philosophy) boils down to the question of values; and as far as academic philosophy is concerned values are studied in the field of ethics and/or axiology. Ethics is typically defined as "the science of morality" or, if you prefer, that branch of philosophy that studies moral principles.

It seems to me the most important, fundamental moral principle - the one that supports the entire edifice of LEFT-ist political ideology is MORAL EGALITARIANISM. Thesis is famously stated by Thomas Jefferson in The American Declaration of Independence"...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are all endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are Life , Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Note that when Jefferson uses the word EQUAL he means it to connote : THE SAME or IDENTICAL.

So what does he mean by "created "equal"(?) when it is patently obvious that men differ toa great degree in many ways: height, intelligence, strength, shin colour, language, personality traits, state of health, occupation and income, marital status, etc.The answer is that Jefferson means equal in DIGNITY, or (moral) WORTH/VALUE.

What Jefferson is claiming is that ALL human beings possess an EQUAL (IDENTICAL) modicum of INNATE DIGNITY (moral WORTH or VALUE) and this is known as the doctrine of MORAL EGALITARIANISM.

It is THIS notion that has inspired every LEFT -wing political theorist and activist since the Enlightenment's father of the LEFT, Rousseau scribbled out "The Social Contract" ( a classic utopian socialist text) in men like Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles, Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, Tony Benn, Aneuran Bevan, and Jeremy Corbyn to name but a few

Because they take it for granted that all men are created EQUAL in terms of how much innate (moral) value/worth they possess - because the believe that they are endowed with THE SAME allocation of inherent DIGNITY - the LEFT insists we must therefore strive to level the social playing field; that we must endeavour to eliminate all social inequalities between people, that all individuals must be treated THE SAME, that they are all entitled to equal respect, that they are all equally entitled all of the Human Rights set out in the United Nations Declaration of HR.

But there's one BIG problem I have with the LEFT and this is THAT MORAL EGALITARIANISM is a thesis in Ethics that HAS NOT EVER BEEN PROVED/JUSTIFIED. To state that LEFTIST politics is totally legitimised because "all men are created equal (i.e. in terms of dignity)" is to affirm and act upon a controversial (to say the least !) theoretical point of view in ethics. At present, because we simply do not know (though personally I am absolutely 100% sure it is not the case) for a fact whether "all men are created equal", the claim is nothing but the presumption of an assumption.

To date, despite the tremendous effort that expert Western moral philosophers have expended in an effort to provide A RATIONAL, THEORETICAL JUSTIFICATION for the thesis of moral egalitarianism THEY HAVE ALL FAILED. They have generated counted reams of paper, but at the end of the day, its always the same defeated coda: "Sorry, no can do." Its like "the Hard Problem" in theory of mind, no one can work it out.

To cut to the chase, me it seems very likely that the whole foundation of the LEFT (socialism, communism,etc; of any species) is a lie, and the whole political LEFT is a "ship of fools." Because while the thesis of moral egalitarianism has not been proved, it is certainly counter-intuitive and just from my own experience of interacting with human beings, I am left in no doubt that they are not all endowed with an equal innate modicum of dignity. I mean, how is it that, say, a psychopathic, serial killer like Ted Bundy possess the same amount of innate moral worth/value as Mother Teresa? In what way was Stalin a moral human being; how would you rate his moral value/worth. The morally "good" is that behaviour which (1) affirms life and (2) does no harm - causes no suffering to oneself or others without rational justification. Stalin murdered 40-60 million of his own people and tortured, starved and imprisoned countless more . All men are not born equal to a monster like Stalin ?

To conclude, I hereby declare that anyone who vote for a LEFT-wing political party is a BIRD BRAIN. And if any bird brains would like to object, please do so. All you need to do make me eat my hat - (and publically admit to the forum that I am a gold-plated nincompoop), is post a clear, rational, theoretical justification of moral egalitarianism.
Dachshund, you built your entire theory on one single solitary point: that being that equality does not exist.

Because (according to your claim) the LEFT assumes that everyone is equal, the party is doomed to failure, and it is philosophically untenable.

This is what your paper says.

This is a huge Strawman.

Because the values of the LEFT are more than just elevating a/o degrading everyone to an impossible level of equalness. The LEFT has other values: compassion; logic; progress; helping those who need help; no person left behind to die in the gutter sick and miserable while society trots along on its path of progress and general well-being.

So you are throwing the baby out with the bath water when you condemn the left as not suitable to vote for, on the basis of the LEFT's demand that we accept that we are all equal.

Aside from this fallacious reasoning, please note the very CHRISTIAN way of approaching the problem you presented. YOU ARE CHERRY-PICKING! This is the favourite method of those Bible scholars who like to state that the Bible has merit, wisdom, guidance. But... but... the Bible has been so badly written, it is so full of self-contradictions, that those who need to prove the Bible to have any consistency of internal effort, must cherry-pick instances of it, and walk around in a huge circle around other instances of it.

Your approach to the issue of LEFT and RIGHT has been the same: you completely forewent other issues but the one you focussed on, because this was the only way, albeit false, misleading and illogical, to prove your point.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

left, right: meh

Post by henry quirk » Fri Apr 05, 2019 3:41 pm

who's got the :gun:s?

Walker
Posts: 6686
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: A CHALLENGE TO THE FORUM

Post by Walker » Fri Apr 05, 2019 3:49 pm

-1- wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 12:04 pm
So you are throwing the baby out with the bath water when you condemn the left as not suitable to vote for, on the basis of the LEFT's demand that we accept that we are all equal.
What, only the Left can throw out babies?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3819
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: A CHALLENGE TO THE FORUM

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:22 pm

Dachshund wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:30 am
It seems to me that for the most part in the West one's political sympathies are either with the RIGHT or the LEFT

In the US the LEFT is represented by the Democrat Party and the RIGHT is represented by the REPUBLICAN PARTY. In the UK the RIGHT is represented by the British Conservative (or "Tory") Party and the LEFT by The British Labour Party. In Australia the RIGHT is represented by the Liberal Party and the Left by the Labor Party. There are lots of other minor, fringe or "one issue" political parties in the West, like the former Screaming Lord Such's "Monster Raving Loony" Party in England, though as they are not serious contenders for political office, I will not be discussing them.

So what is the primal principle that undergirds the political LEFT. What drives the political LEFT, what is it raison d'etre?

Before I answer that question, I must state that I think all philosophy (including political philosophy) boils down to the question of values; and as far as academic philosophy is concerned values are studied in the field of ethics and/or axiology. Ethics is typically defined as "the science of morality" or, if you prefer, that branch of philosophy that studies moral principles.

It seems to me the most important, fundamental moral principle - the one that supports the entire edifice of LEFT-ist political ideology is MORAL EGALITARIANISM. Thesis is famously stated by Thomas Jefferson in The American Declaration of Independence"...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are all endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are Life , Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Note that when Jefferson uses the word EQUAL he means it to connote : THE SAME or IDENTICAL.

So what does he mean by "created "equal"(?) when it is patently obvious that men differ toa great degree in many ways: height, intelligence, strength, shin colour, language, personality traits, state of health, occupation and income, marital status, etc.The answer is that Jefferson means equal in DIGNITY, or (moral) WORTH/VALUE.

What Jefferson is claiming is that ALL human beings possess an EQUAL (IDENTICAL) modicum of INNATE DIGNITY (moral WORTH or VALUE) and this is known as the doctrine of MORAL EGALITARIANISM.

It is THIS notion that has inspired every LEFT -wing political theorist and activist since the Enlightenment's father of the LEFT, Rousseau scribbled out "The Social Contract" ( a classic utopian socialist text) in men like Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles, Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, Tony Benn, Aneuran Bevan, and Jeremy Corbyn to name but a few

Because they take it for granted that all men are created EQUAL in terms of how much innate (moral) value/worth they possess - because the believe that they are endowed with THE SAME allocation of inherent DIGNITY - the LEFT insists we must therefore strive to level the social playing field; that we must endeavour to eliminate all social inequalities between people, that all individuals must be treated THE SAME, that they are all entitled to equal respect, that they are all equally entitled all of the Human Rights set out in the United Nations Declaration of HR.

But there's one BIG problem I have with the LEFT and this is THAT MORAL EGALITARIANISM is a thesis in Ethics that HAS NOT EVER BEEN PROVED/JUSTIFIED. To state that LEFTIST politics is totally legitimised because "all men are created equal (i.e. in terms of dignity)" is to affirm and act upon a controversial (to say the least !) theoretical point of view in ethics. At present, because we simply do not know (though personally I am absolutely 100% sure it is not the case) for a fact whether "all men are created equal", the claim is nothing but the presumption of an assumption.

To date, despite the tremendous effort that expert Western moral philosophers have expended in an effort to provide A RATIONAL, THEORETICAL JUSTIFICATION for the thesis of moral egalitarianism THEY HAVE ALL FAILED. They have generated counted reams of paper, but at the end of the day, its always the same defeated coda: "Sorry, no can do." Its like "the Hard Problem" in theory of mind, no one can work it out.

To cut to the chase, me it seems very likely that the whole foundation of the LEFT (socialism, communism,etc; of any species) is a lie, and the whole political LEFT is a "ship of fools." Because while the thesis of moral egalitarianism has not been proved, it is certainly counter-intuitive and just from my own experience of interacting with human beings, I am left in no doubt that they are not all endowed with an equal innate modicum of dignity. I mean, how is it that, say, a psychopathic, serial killer like Ted Bundy possess the same amount of innate moral worth/value as Mother Teresa? In what way was Stalin a moral human being; how would you rate his moral value/worth. The morally "good" is that behaviour which (1) affirms life and (2) does no harm - causes no suffering to oneself or others without rational justification. Stalin murdered 40-60 million of his own people and tortured, starved and imprisoned countless more . All men are not born equal to a monster like Stalin ?

To conclude, I hereby declare that anyone who vote for a LEFT-wing political party is a BIRD BRAIN. And if any bird brains would like to object, please do so. All you need to do make me eat my hat - (and publically admit to the forum that I am a gold-plated nincompoop), is post a clear, rational, theoretical justification of moral egalitarianism.
Values are strictly self-evident truths assumed with no thought...

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2779
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: A CHALLENGE TO THE FORUM

Post by -1- » Fri Apr 05, 2019 7:53 pm

Walker wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 3:49 pm
-1- wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 12:04 pm
So you are throwing the baby out with the bath water when you condemn the left as not suitable to vote for, on the basis of the LEFT's demand that we accept that we are all equal.
What, only the Left can throw out babies?
Touchee, almost, but it's embrios you're fatally mistaking for babies. Big difference.

Walker
Posts: 6686
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: A CHALLENGE TO THE FORUM

Post by Walker » Fri Apr 05, 2019 9:12 pm

When I was an embryo I thought as an embryo, and I spake as an embryo.

When I became a fetus* I put away embryonic things.

When I was a fetus I thought as a fetus, and I spake as a fetus.

When I became an infant I put away fetal things.

When I was an infant ...

When I was in the youth of old age, I thought as a senior, and I spake as a senior.

When I became old ...


*foetus for the fancy

Dachshund
Posts: 274
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: A CHALLENGE TO THE FORUM

Post by Dachshund » Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:07 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 4:59 am


It is THIS notion that has inspired every LEFT wing political theorist and activist since the Enlightenment's father of the LEFT
,
No, it's not, actually. The Left argues for equality of outcome, on a collectivist basis; the Right argues for equality of opportunity, on an individualist basis.
I'm glad you mentioned equity. The current push for equality of outcome (equity) by the Left in the United States nicely demonstrates the dangerous, stupidity of the the Leftist mind.

At present, the American Left are attempting to implement the legislative necessity to eliminate the gender pay gap, and set up a bureaucratic inquisition to ensure that this takes place. You might think, well there's nothing pathological about this, it's a simple and clearly definable equity objective - not murky in any way. I agree. This particular example of providing equality of outcome is a relatively straightforward matter. My point is - as I will argue below - that implementing a general policy of equality of outcome starts to get very murky and extremely complex very quickly.

The American Left (the Democrats) are still playing the Identity Politics game. They don't have the brains to understand that if you play Identity Politics, you cannot win - you WILL lose. There are lots of reasons...

DEMOCRAT :"Let's push for equality of outcome everyone ! Let's make this thing happen ! YAAAAY !"

CONSERVATIVE/REPUBLICAN: "OK, but who's going to measure it ? Measuring it is a big, important problem, it's not a little problem, you know. It's not like you can just say, Oh, don't worry we'll figure that out later, the problem of measurement is paramount."

DEMOCRAT: "Who measures it?" A bureaucracy of course."

CONSERVATIVE/REPUBLICAN: "Yes, and I bet it will be a very large bureaucracy, one that has its fingers everywhere and is staffed by your kind of people. And what about the problem of intersectionality?"

DEMOCRAT: "How is intersectionality going to be a problem?"

CONSERVATIVE/REPUBLICAN
: Well, let's say were dealing with race and gender? What about the interaction between race and gender. You might start start with 3 racial categories and 2 gender categories, but that means you will now have 6 intersectional categories. Now you're just getting started, because there are, hypothetically speaking, an infinite number of gender that could exist!. What about racial groups, do you want to include ethnicity? Should we add socioeconomic class? What about attractiveness? The point is that every time you add another category to the singular entities you increase the multiplicative entities in a multiplicative fashion. How are you going to deal with this? What are you going to do? Are you telling me that your going to equate across all those categories? Sorry, but that's an impossible task.

DEMOCRAT: That's all just privileged, white, male hate speech !!

CONSERVATIVE/REPUBLICAN: "Pipe down, I'm not finished speaking yet ! Supposing, theoretically, that you could equate across the million intersectional categories, then across what dimensions would you equate? Will it just be socioeconomic class (salary)? If so, what about all the legion other ways people are unequal? No, you cant just stop with SES !" I'll tell you what I think of your EQUITY policy, my friend, it's a COMPLETE BLOODY CATASTROPHE - A TOTAL BALLS-UP !"

DEMOCRAT: "That's hate speech dude, I'm callin' in Antifa to kick your butt !"

So, that's why I think equality of outcome is a non-starter. It's interesting to note, as well, that the discovery of intersectionality by the radical Left coincided with their discovery of the fundamental flaw in their Identity Politics ideology. Groups can be multiplied without limit - that's not merely a problem, it's a fatal flaw, and they have already discovered it, they just haven'y figured it out. The reason that the West privileges the individual is because we figured out 2000 years ago that you can fractionate group identity appropriately right down to the level of the individual.


Regards


Dachshund

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5920
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: A CHALLENGE TO THE FORUM

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat Apr 06, 2019 1:14 pm

Dachshund wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:07 am
The reason that the West privileges the individual is because we figured out 2000 years ago that you can fractionate group identity appropriately right down to the level of the individual.
This is true. The intersectionality problem renders the equity idea irrational.

But it's even a bit worse than that: because since people are naturally different and inevitably produce different levels of success through competence differences, the only way to produce equality of outcome is to use political power to destroy the advantages of success, and to take from the successful and redistribute to the unsuccessful. It means to take from the achievers, and to give to those who have not achieved. To take from the clever and hard-working, and give to the uncreative and indigent. It means to take from the producers and give to the jealous.

In short, it means, "Let's pull everyone down to the same level, the lowest common denominator." Because that's the only way equality of outcome can ever happen.

The supposition is that there is no inherent difference between individuals (they're all just members of a 'class'), and all differences of success are produced by some classes having more advantages in their social conditions than do others. So if we can somehow equalize the social conditions, the supposition goes, then equity will just happen.

But then there's the historical problem too. Some people's social conditions are partly produced by a history of oppression, so the story goes: so the successful owe the unsuccessful reparations. It does not matter if the social conditions that contributed to the differential in the first place are 150 years old, or older, or if all the people involved in the original situation are long ago dead. It does not even matter if the current "privileged" class's progenitors were not even in the same country when the problem first developed -- the fact is that merely by having a certain skin colour or cultural background, one class is owed reparations and the other owes them...how much, and how long this goes on not even the most ardent Leftists are able to say.

But here's the kicker: another Leftist cause is open-borders immigration. Now, what happens when you pair open-borders immigration with this story of indebtedness to the oppressed?

It means that every person in the underdeveloped (Third?) world has a moral and financial claim against every person in the developed world. In other words, there are no current winners of this narrative in the West: if it goes through, then the other two-thirds of the planet are owed money, and every Westerner alive owes to give it up, regardless of how they got it.

And that includes every Antifa loony parading through the streets. Her I-Phone is owed to somebody in Guatemala. Her Nikes go back to a worker in Vietnam, where they were produced. Her chai latte is secretly property of a Colombian coffee farmer. The house she lives in is owed to be divided up among three families from Bosnia or Nigeria...because that's the only way equality of outcome on a world-wide scale can be produced: and there are no longer any borders to signify where alleged historical indebtedness stops.

I wonder how many of them would parade if they had thought long enough to realize that.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests