Equality

[martinm]

After the Equality and human rights subject was ended I thought you might like to ponder on this:

The problem with Equality, is, unless we are all meticulous and generous with surpluses, somebody has to define, administer and police Equality. The makes a lifetime work for these civil servants of the 'state'.
As individual wealth fluctuates, the definition of equality changes, Certain people decide they 'know' what this definition should be and regard themselves as a special 'elite' or 'class' or 'leader' , deserving perhaps of more that is regarded as the dues for the others. The 'elites' police and condemn categories of behavior that is outside what they consider just, (excluding their own, of course). adding in their personal prejudices and politics. The 'elite' administration grows and grows, the elite get richer and richer.
The European Union is based on ever closer laws to treat all people of Europe equally, and you can judge for yourself the outcome: Ever more regulation, until the people can stand it no more. hence the breakup of the EU.

[Timochizz]

every man is equal. period end of discussion

[henry quirk]

Lil Jimmy Sparkles is born smart, beautiful, and healthy.

Lil Johnny Shit is born dumb, ugly, and sickly.

From the start: demonstrably there is no *equality.

'nuff said.









*pretending equality exists don't make it so (though, you should feel free to pretend whatever you like)

[The Voice of Time]

After the Equality and human rights subject was ended I thought you might like to ponder on this:

The problem with Equality, is, unless we are all meticulous and generous with surpluses, somebody has to define, administer and police Equality. The makes a lifetime work for these civil servants of the 'state'.
As individual wealth fluctuates, the definition of equality changes, Certain people decide they 'know' what this definition should be and regard themselves as a special 'elite' or 'class' or 'leader' , deserving perhaps of more that is regarded as the dues for the others. The 'elites' police and condemn categories of behavior that is outside what they consider just, (excluding their own, of course). adding in their personal prejudices and politics. The 'elite' administration grows and grows, the elite get richer and richer.
The European Union is based on ever closer laws to treat all people of Europe equally, and you can judge for yourself the outcome: Ever more regulation, until the people can stand it no more. hence the breakup of the EU.

If there's bad regulation it can always be undone, it's why there's a democratic "parliament" of Europe.

As for the elite I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. Of course if you don't care about organizing yourself politically you won't have a say, but you'll always have the opportunity to make a difference, it's all about commitment to it.

[Skip]

Nobody has ever tried to legislate "equality" without qualifiers. It's equality under the law, or equality of opportunity, or equal pay for equal work or equal political status or some other specific guarantee under a constitution. Of course no two complex entities could ever be equal in every way - not even twins, and probably, if we looked closely enough, not even clams.

So, when discussing equality, you need to be clear on what particular kind of equality you wish to discuss, affirm, dispute, protect, enact, repeal or change.

[henry quirk]

"bad regulation...can always be undone"

I'm 51.

I became aware fully of that sphere of action called politics somewhere around age ten.

For 41 years I watched governance in action: I've watched an executive branch grow in power (overshadowing legislative and judicial branches in exactly the way prohibited by the constitution); I've watched a legislative branch become less thoughtful, more reactionary, and far more the conduit for executive whim; I've watched a judiciary lose its independence and become subject to the same skewed profiteering that plagues the rest of the governors.

In short: in 41 years, I've yet to see any bad regulation stricken down or reversed.

#

"if you don't care about organizing yourself politically you won't have a say"

HA!

Yes, mob rule (democracy) is a fine way for an individual to get his or her voice heard...

For the sane (you can stop listening now, Voice): your best bet at autonomy is to divorce yourself, to the extent possible for you, from the greater culture and community...as the *Christians say, 'be in the world but not of the world'...if you're relying mostly on 'you' then why give a shit what the other guys is, or isn't, doing (beyond assessing that other as potential obstacle, that is)?









*even crazy folks get it right once in a great while

[The Voice of Time]

your best bet at autonomy is to divorce yourself, to the extent possible for you, from the greater culture and community...as the *Christians say, 'be in the world but not of the world'...if you're relying mostly on 'you' then why give a shit what the other guys is, or isn't, doing (beyond assessing that other as potential obstacle, that is)?

I'm sorry you're in a situation where you are afraid from putting your faith and heart with "greater culture and community", but alone you are not at good chances and you are hugely incapable of dealing with any problem of size in your life. You may want to wish different or trivialize it, but logically you are making a loosing choice and only unreasonable stubbornness is your obstacle.

Also we do not stick together because of constant calculating, but because of the aesthetic appeal people make of each other having had successful largely unproblematic upbringings with each other. It is unfortunate you've not had a good chance to acquire this sense, and I can only hope there'll be someone once who can open your mind to the natural view of humans that is "humanism".

[henry quirk]

Does my soul good to be assessed negatively by the untried.

Means I'm on the right track...

[thedoc]

Living life tends to make you a bit cynical and distrusting of the motives of others. You eventually find out that others are mainly interested in themselves, at your expense. Someone not yet out of their parents basement, can hardly be expected to know much about life.

[thedoc]

Before anyone reads my post the wrong way, one reason I like Henry is that I feel that I can trust him. He doesn't expect anything of me and doesn't offer me anything. A perfect relationship.

[Immanuel Can]

In his inimitable, blunt but engaging style, VOT is right on the money. I'm with him: equality, how ever much we may love it, is not a self-evident fact. In fact, there are innumerable ways in which it is obviously *not* true, and so we owe skeptics a rational defense of it.

People manifestly differ in age, weight, height, intellect, athleticism, gender, ethnicity, language, wit, experience, locality, generation, preferences, values, sensory input, perception, vitality, health, longevity, upbringing, culture, religion, cunning, dexterity, variability, ...the list continues. This is obvious and uncontroversial.

But what that obvious fact implies is that the burden of proof is *entirely* on the persons who want to say we are "equal." They owe us to explain precisely in what sense that term is meant, and to defend their position on the basis of sound reasons compelling to every rational hearer.

Absent that, we have every reason to doubt that "equality" is a concept with any moral weight -- or even any specific meaning -- at all.

But I find that most people who claim they believe in it do so without any good reasons behind their position. I'm guessing Timochizz (see above) is a pretty good illustration of what I mean: that is, unless he actually *has* reasons he's forgotten to share with us.

That being said, I do believe there is a singular explanation for equality.

[henry quirk]

"Someone not yet out of their parents basement, can hardly be expected to know much about life."

Amen to that.

[henry quirk]

"A perfect relationship"

HA!

I feel the same...

[henry quirk]

"I do believe there is a singular explanation for equality"

I'm all ears.

[The Voice of Time]

In his inimitable, blunt but engaging style, VOT is right on the money. I'm with him: equality, how ever much we may love it, is not a self-evident fact. In fact, there are innumerable ways in which it is obviously *not* true, and so we owe skeptics a rational defense of it.

People manifestly differ in age, weight, height, intellect, athleticism, gender, ethnicity, language, wit, experience, locality, generation, preferences, values, sensory input, perception, vitality, health, longevity, upbringing, culture, religion, cunning, dexterity, variability, ...the list continues. This is obvious and uncontroversial.

But what that obvious fact implies is that the burden of proof is *entirely* on the persons who want to say we are "equal." They owe us to explain precisely in what sense that term is meant, and to defend their position on the basis of sound reasons compelling to every rational hearer.

Absent that, we have every reason to doubt that "equality" is a concept with any moral weight -- or even any specific meaning -- at all.

But I find that most people who claim they believe in it do so without any good reasons behind their position. I'm guessing Timochizz (see above) is a pretty good illustration of what I mean: that is, unless he actually *has* reasons he's forgotten to share with us.

That being said, I do believe there is a singular explanation for equality.

I'm not sure why you referenced my name as I didn't talk about equality but politics.

Anyways, "Equality" is an umbrella term for sets of problems that are individually sorted out in discussions between political actors (whomever they may be, I'm not just talking about politicians). The problems are solved differently by different states, therefore you get ambiguity, and some states refuse to address the problems entirely. There is no definition of "Equality" other than perhaps a "progress in which the qualities of different lives of peoples are approximating". The absolute form of equality found in Thomas More's "Utopia" for instance is undesirable for almost everyone so, but most people want in some way or another to avoid inequality, whether it is in terms of money, resources, law, rights, opportunities, safety, and so on. There is great difference between different people from different countries who wants different forms of equality, or avoid different forms of inequality.