First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
Is Equality Evil?
15295 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Midland, Texas
Online
Posted 2/21/15
Animal Farm is a good example of a way to answer this. It shows the folly of Marxists ideology and how communism in the former soviet union was making citizens suffer. Good quote by AridDxD directly from the book. However, when "asking is equality evil?" everyone should think about the end result of that thinking and the paths taken to get to that result as shown in the book. If you were to ask me, people are not equal but should have equal opportunity if they put their best foot forward. Of course this isn't a end all be all as a solution, but in the end humans are humans and I believe people have forgotten what that means. For instance, I hear "everyone makes mistakes", or "well we're only human". I hate hearing these things because it devalues everybody in the species especially the good people who have been on a good path their during life.
12374 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Iceland
Offline
Posted 2/21/15
The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.
- Aristotle
21448 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Between yesterday...
Offline
Posted 2/21/15

mailrus wrote:

The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.
- Aristotle


Depends on how you go about making things equal.

Breaking things so that they are equal or do you build it up fixing the flaws and improving it.

The flaw in his logic is it fails to take into account empathy and it fails to take into account that there is more than one way to make something equal. His would be the hammer approach I have a hammer so all my solutions are nails. I suspect this was his teach Plato had issue with this logic, I know I do because it is childish and immature doesn't look at the possibilities of a person. Calling Aristotle childish and immature to clarify who.
xxJing 
37163 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Duckburg
Offline
Posted 2/21/15
I don't think equality is evil.

This meme is why. There are a lot of people with this philosophy out there.


12374 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Iceland
Offline
Posted 2/21/15

gvblackmoon wrote:


mailrus wrote:

The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.
- Aristotle


Depends on how you go about making things equal.

Breaking things so that they are equal or do you build it up fixing the flaws and improving it.

The flaw in his logic is it fails to take into account empathy and it fails to take into account that there is more than one way to make something equal. His would be the hammer approach I have a hammer so all my solutions are nails. I suspect this was his teach Plato had issue with this logic, I know I do because it is childish and immature doesn't look at the possibilities of a person. Calling Aristotle childish and immature to clarify who.


Most quotes shouldn't be taken as absolutes. They often taken without their original context. I do not know much of Aristotle or where this quote is taken from but I can see some truth in it.
Inequality is to take the riches of a hard worker and give it to the sluggard so that they would be even.
Inequality is to pass a failing student so that he appears to be equal to those who passed the exam.
What I'm getting at is that inequality is to take something from a person who deserved it and equally distribute it to another person that didn't deserve it. Of course this isn't the only definition of inequality but it is definitely part of it. This is what comes to my mind when I read this quote from Aristotle.
34946 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 2/21/15
Weren't Aristotle's comments on equality made with respect to forms of governance? I'm thinking that the quote is drawn from "Politics", a treatise in which he basically concludes that democracy (while imperfect) is the most stable form of governance and that the chief "flaw" in democracy is its "assumption" that where a person is equal with another in one way they are both absolutely equal. Modern democratic governance assumes no such thing, instead simply positing that a government whose power is derived from the governed is more legitimate than one whose power is not derived therefrom.
17380 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 2/21/15 , edited 2/21/15

SilvaZoldyck wrote:

This always seems to be thrown around in the wrong context. Vonnegut was a pretty big fan of 'equality', 'egalitarianism' and indeed socialism.

http://www.writethinker.com/wp-content/uploads/courses/eng102/critical_essay/The%20Politics%20of%20Kurt%20Vonneguts%20Harrison%20Bergeron%20by%20Daniel%20Hattenhaur.pdf

The great irony is that people who point to this saying "see! That's what forced equality really looks like!" are missing the point. "No, this is the absurd caricature of what people mean when they say 'forced equality'."

Bravo and Kudos.
But I fail to see why this (it being absurd) matters.


All macroeconomic indicators suck, simply because they try and compress so much information into one number. It might follow from "all models are wrong'.
however, since you want a PPP adjusted GDP,
normal
9,800 - China
52,700 - Hong Kong
ratio - 5.60055824886

adjusted
53,216 - Hong Kong
11,907 - China
ratio - 4.46930377089

GDP is almost equivalent to the amount of money people make in wages+some other stuff in a year, and dividing that by the number of people gives a rough estimate of the amount of wealth created in a single year by an average person. Obviously I'm fudging some stuff, but using the basic model of "Good" "Not-so-good" to judge with, Hong Kong gets "good" and the rest of China gets "Not-so-good" based on those numbers. The general idea should come across since the ratio is fairly large. If you look at a list of countries by GDP Per capita, you see places like Norway and America at the top, and places like Niger and Haiti at the bottom. So the comparison should be valid, so long as you aren't being too picky about it.

And the reason all of those states became authoritarian in the first place was because they attempted to follow communism. They came up with an idea for a utopia and then failed because they didn't know what they were doing. Then people took power and the whole thing turned out not to be so equal after all. The world is a really complicated place. People have this idea that you can just do stuff and ignore the consequences. People like to back up stuff like wealth redistribution, which would crash the economy if it were implemented on a large scale.
I don't think it's chance that every large "Communist" country is less well off than the Capitalist ones. Private property and the ability to benefit from helping yourself are really good if you want to own more and do better for yourself. I suppose to actually prove the statement, I'd need to run experiments, and collect data, but as far as I'm aware, every time a geographic location has been split into "capitalist" and "communist" sections, the capitalists have wound up with more stuff. and a better life than the Communists have. Unless the whole world has been lying to me anyways.

"Equal" is not the same as "everybody should have certain base necessities and/or comforts".
People should be able to have as much as they please. If that creates inequality, then so be it. Some people having more doesn't hurt others. We can make more stuff. It isn't necessary to tax people. Edit: (clarify-It is for now)
Taxing is basically theft. "Give me money or go to jail". Is it good at funding large scale maintenance and projects and charity? Yes. But it isn't the only mechanism. Taxing strains the economy. If an economy is capable of bearing that strain then fine, but if there isn't enough food, collecting and redistributing paper isn't going to help feed people, but it can prevent farmers from being able to invest in producing more food. Unless the intent is the government doing the farming, in which case I trust the farmers/businessmen or agricultural scientists, or whoever they are, with experience at growing food more than bureaucrats and lawyers and revolutionaries.

And considering my Ideal economy is one where machines do all of the work, mining, farming, research, cooking and cleaning while humans get to be a bunch of bums that benefit off that for free, I'm not really in the best position to oppose you here. I want to remove humans from necessary sections of the economy entirely. And I don't want laws promoting legal and social inequality among human defined wealth classes.
Gah, I feel like I'm getting hard to read.
21448 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Between yesterday...
Offline
Posted 2/21/15 , edited 2/21/15

Nobodyofimportance wrote:


SilvaZoldyck wrote:

This always seems to be thrown around in the wrong context. Vonnegut was a pretty big fan of 'equality', 'egalitarianism' and indeed socialism.

http://www.writethinker.com/wp-content/uploads/courses/eng102/critical_essay/The%20Politics%20of%20Kurt%20Vonneguts%20Harrison%20Bergeron%20by%20Daniel%20Hattenhaur.pdf

The great irony is that people who point to this saying "see! That's what forced equality really looks like!" are missing the point. "No, this is the absurd caricature of what people mean when they say 'forced equality'."

Bravo and Kudos.
But I fail to see why this (it being absurd) matters.



All macroeconomic indicators suck, simply because they try and compress so much information into one number. It might follow from "all models are wrong'.
however, since you want a PPP adjusted GDP,
normal
9,800 - China
52,700 - Hong Kong
ratio - 5.60055824886

adjusted
53,216 - Hong Kong
11,907 - China
ratio - 4.46930377089

GDP is almost equivalent to the amount of money people make in wages+some other stuff in a year, and dividing that by the number of people gives a rough estimate of the amount of wealth created in a single year by an average person. Obviously I'm fudging some stuff, but using the basic model of "Good" "Not-so-good" to judge with, Hong Kong gets "good" and the rest of China gets "Not-so-good" based on those numbers. The general idea should come across since the ratio is fairly large. If you look at a list of countries by GDP Per capita, you see places like Norway and America at the top, and places like Niger and Haiti at the bottom. So the comparison should be valid, so long as you aren't being too picky about it.

And the reason all of those states became authoritarian in the first place was because they attempted to follow communism. They came up with an idea for a utopia and then failed because they didn't know what they were doing. Then people took power and the whole thing turned out not to be so equal after all. The world is a really complicated place. People have this idea that you can just do stuff and ignore the consequences. People like to back up stuff like wealth redistribution, which would crash the economy if it were implemented on a large scale.
I don't think it's chance that every large "Communist" country is less well off than the Capitalist ones. Private property and the ability to benefit from helping yourself are really good if you want to own more and do better for yourself. I suppose to actually prove the statement, I'd need to run experiments, and collect data, but as far as I'm aware, every time a geographic location has been split into "capitalist" and "communist" sections, the capitalists have wound up with more stuff. and a better life than the Communists have. Unless the whole world has been lying to me anyways.

This whole argument is as I state once already false it is sophistry a argument presented as fact this is not fact. Fact China enforces inequality that favors the ruling class. Hong Kong is regulated by special rules, these are the facts and reality that you are ignoring in your argument. Your argument is false what it does show is what happens when someone enforces inequality on a society.




"Equal" is not the same as "everybody should have certain base necessities and/or comforts".
People should be able to have as much as they please. If that creates inequality, then so be it. Some people having more doesn't hurt others. We can make more stuff. It isn't necessary to tax people. Edit: (clarify-It is for now)
Taxing is basically theft. "Give me money or go to jail". Is it good at funding large scale maintenance and projects and charity? Yes. But it isn't the only mechanism. Taxing strains the economy. If an economy is capable of bearing that strain then fine, but if there isn't enough food, collecting and redistributing paper isn't going to help feed people, but it can prevent farmers from being able to invest in producing more food. Unless the intent is the government doing the farming, in which case I trust the farmers/businessmen or agricultural scientists, or whoever they are, with experience at growing food more than bureaucrats and lawyers and revolutionaries.

Taxation is not theft it is the fee one pays for the services they receive from the society they are part of. If you do not wish to be part of a society I suggest you find someplace that does not have one. Equality is defined as the following, equal treatment under the law, equal access to goods and services, equal access to to politics in government, equal moral status all lives are equal. The services you receive in your society are and not limited to protection of personal property from fire and theft and natural disasters, Education, Medical, Security if you become disabled. Protection from discrimination do to race gender or sexuality. This is what your society provides you this is why you are taxed. Your whole argument is false.



And considering my Ideal economy is one where machines do all of the work, mining, farming, research, cooking and cleaning while humans get to be a bunch of bums that benefit off that for free, I'm not really in the best position to oppose you here. I want to remove humans from necessary sections of the economy entirely. And I don't want laws promoting legal and social inequality among human defined wealth classes.
Gah, I feel like I'm getting hard to read.

Economies do not work with out government and society setting the rules when this happens they fall apart and regress to a simpler version. People even when they have all their basic needs provided for still seek knowledge and understanding of their worlds they do not become bums. Without laws that promote social and legal equality you loose rights and privileges for those that seek power will take it from you normally at the end of a gun. Your whole argument is false and if it does anything proves that equality is needs and should be enforced.
17380 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 2/21/15 , edited 2/21/15

gvblackmoon wrote:

This whole argument is as I state once already false it is sophistry a argument presented as fact this is not fact. Fact China enforces inequality that favors the ruling class. Hong Kong is regulated by special rules, these are the facts and reality that you are ignoring in your argument. Your argument is false what it does show is what happens when someone enforces inequality on a society.

Taxation is not theft it is the fee one pays for the services they receive from the society they are part of. If you do not wish to be part of a society I suggest you find someplace that does not have one. Equality is defined as the following, equal treatment under the law, equal access to goods and services, equal access to to politics in government, equal moral status all lives are equal. The services you receive in your society are and not limited to protection of personal property from fire and theft and natural disasters, Education, Medical, Security if you become disabled. Protection from discrimination do to race gender or sexuality. This is what your society provides you this is why you are taxed. Your whole argument is false.

Economies do not work with out government and society setting the rules when this happens they fall apart and regress to a simpler version. People even when they have all their basic needs provided for still seek knowledge and understanding of their worlds they do not become bums. Without laws that promote social and legal equality you loose rights and privileges for those that seek power will take it from you normally at the end of a gun. Your whole argument is false and if it does anything proves that equality is needs and should be enforced.


Hong Kong was a British Colony that kept a capitalistic economy when it was returned to China. It does not "Enforce Inequality."
And even if it did, that would have nothing to do with the numbers I gave. Hong Kong is better off than the rest of China.


A tax (from the Latin taxo; "rate") is a financial charge or other levy imposed upon a taxpayer (an individual or legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state to fund various public expenditures. A failure to pay, or evasion of or resistance to taxation, is usually punishable by law. Taxes are also imposed by many administrative divisions. Taxes consist of direct or indirect taxes and may be paid in money or as its labour equivalent. Few countries impose no taxation at all, such as Bahrain and United Arab Emirates.



In international law, a sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.[1] It is also normally understood that a state is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state.[2]


Sovereignty, in layman's terms, means a state or a governing body has the full right and power to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity.[1] It is a basic principle underlying the dominant Westphalian model of state foundation.

- wikipedia
Your country can enforce what it tells you what to do because it is bigger than you. If it says give me money, you give it money. It does not matter why. It does not need justification. I did not sign a contract stating that I wanted to pay them money for certain goods and services. I will, but that's because I know if I pay them nothing bad will happen, and because I understand the value of government and predictability.
The purpose of government is stability. Whether or not I consent to that purpose is irrelevant.
"Equal" is a word that means the same as. And society provides a large number of things outside what you've given.

Economies arise naturally. People organize themselves when placed in chaotic situations. We can develop new norms and cultures on the spot. I would very much appreciate if you would not call me a sophist and my "Argument" wrong. Conversation is a means of communication. If information is communicated to me that convinces me something I say is actually wrong I will change my viewpoint or correct myself. Or I should.
11497 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/21/15

Nobodyofimportance wrote:

Bravo and Kudos.
But I fail to see why this (it being absurd) matters.


Because the whole point is "this is absurd", it's saying "here's the strawman of liberalism"... and people often cite it as 'the problems of liberalism' failing to realize it's an intentional strawman. In any discussion about 'the evils of equality', it's kinda necessary to make the distinction that this story isn't defending the idea that equality is evil.


"Equal" is not the same as "everybody should have certain base necessities and/or comforts".
People should be able to have as much as they please. If that creates inequality, then so be it. Some people having more doesn't hurt others. We can make more stuff. It isn't necessary to tax people. Edit: (clarify-It is for now)
Taxing is basically theft. "Give me money or go to jail". Is it good at funding large scale maintenance and projects and charity? Yes. But it isn't the only mechanism. Taxing strains the economy. If an economy is capable of bearing that strain then fine, but if there isn't enough food, collecting and redistributing paper isn't going to help feed people, but it can prevent farmers from being able to invest in producing more food. Unless the intent is the government doing the farming, in which case I trust the farmers/businessmen or agricultural scientists, or whoever they are, with experience at growing food more than bureaucrats and lawyers and revolutionaries.

And considering my Ideal economy is one where machines do all of the work, mining, farming, research, cooking and cleaning while humans get to be a bunch of bums that benefit off that for free, I'm not really in the best position to oppose you here. I want to remove humans from necessary sections of the economy entirely. And I don't want laws promoting legal and social inequality among human defined wealth classes.
Gah, I feel like I'm getting hard to read.


It isn't necessary to tax people? The hell? So... public roads should be private? Screw public schools, all schools should be private?

I know that there are 'other mechanisms' for building roads, or providing education... but there's a reason that roads, or schools, are owned by the public. Consider a road from city A to B. Some company builds a nice road through the fastest, easiest to maintain route, and charge a massive toll. They make tons of money, but every other individual and company now has to incur a large non-negotiable cost to travel that road. The road company can charge nearly arbitrarily large sums, because people don't have any other choice. They can also keep the road well maintained, and as it's short, it costs less to maintain.

So lets say you felt "hey, that company is an evil monopoly, lets start up our own company to build a road from A to B that's cheaper". Except roads are physical objects, so the competitive road would need to take a more round-about less direct route. That also means it'd need to spend more on maintenance. It has a tighter profit margin, and anyone choosing to use that road would also incur an added delay in their travel time, costing still more productivity. Yeah, the company might hire people to build more roads, so yay, 'employment', but it's now employment on a project that didn't need to be done in the first place if we hadn't allowed a private industry monopoly over transit routes.

If, however, the public decides 'lets pool our money to publicly pay a contractor to build the roads we plan for us, then we can drive on them for free', sure, the road companies might not be quite as happy, but the entire rest of the economy is. Free roads means everyone can save on transit costs, people can drive from town to town with more money to spend in their pocket, meaning they can buy more. The people they're buying from then earn more, which makes business owners happy too. Sure, road companies are sad that they can't charge arbitrarily large sums of money for transit, but that's because public ownership holds too many advantages for society at large.

How do you pay for basic services, for basic 'necessities' if you don't have SOME form of taxation? Even with automation eventually going to force large sectors of the workforce out of employment, which adds its own problems, all of the basic things you take for granted, like the currency you hold in your wallet, aren't possible without acknowledging the basic necessity of the principle of taxation for government functions. Now, yes, 'private banks' did used to issue their own currency, and we even have experiments in 'decentralized currency' like bitcoin, but the only 'safe' currency in the history of humanity have had the weight of government coffers behind them to back their value. Safe currency is kinda required for currency as a principle to stick around.

Beyond even roads or schools, where there are 'private alternatives' to the public ones.... I'm also curious how you maintain things like environmental regulations if you don't have some form of government. There, whatever the problems with 'corruption' seem nothing compared to the lack of a regulatory body altogether. If you have a 'private environmental regulator' what would give it authority to actually do its job? And if you bank on the 'invisible hand' doing the job, we may not see many effects for decades after initial exposure.
18014 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / USA
Offline
Posted 2/21/15

Genbu89 wrote:

That's a complex question.

Morally, no. In a perfect world everyone contributes equally, in whatever way they can, towards whatever the group's current goal is.

But we don't live in a perfect world.

There are always going to be people better than others at things - not to talk down on anyone, but that's a cruel truth of the world. Inequality isn't just some concept enforced by the bourgeois, it's a fundamental truth of reality... and to make things better we first need to accept that. It's not the existence of inequality that causes problems, but that people with superior capabilities like to lord over the "lesser beings" that causes problems.


Agreed.

The problem with forcing equality is that it ignores the logic of working harder to gain more. Why put in the extra effort if you're going to be rewarded the same as that other lazy guy? Competition isn't exactly a horrible thing. It rewards those that put in the effort to be better. It's obviously not perfect (nothing is) but I'd rather live in a society where my extra efforts will actually do something for me.
5727 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19
Offline
Posted 2/21/15 , edited 2/21/15
Maybe we're not created equal. But pertaining to equal opportunities and standards, that's not evil at all.

Having a "perfect" and "peaceful" society is an unattainable goal at this point, but having equal distribution of resources and other things as other human beings is a very logical concept privileged people can't seem to grasp. Of course it still won't be the "peaceful" society we strive for. Of course no one's going share the same views that other human beings deserve equality, (i.e., minorities) unfortunately.

But it's 2015, and I fail to see why people STILL think LGBT+ people, women, PoC, certain people of religious groups etc. (AKA fellow humans,) don't deserve equal distribution.

Christ almighty.
1398 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 2/21/15

trmjkd989 wrote:


Genbu89 wrote:

That's a complex question.

Morally, no. In a perfect world everyone contributes equally, in whatever way they can, towards whatever the group's current goal is.

But we don't live in a perfect world.

There are always going to be people better than others at things - not to talk down on anyone, but that's a cruel truth of the world. Inequality isn't just some concept enforced by the bourgeois, it's a fundamental truth of reality... and to make things better we first need to accept that. It's not the existence of inequality that causes problems, but that people with superior capabilities like to lord over the "lesser beings" that causes problems.


Agreed.

The problem with forcing equality is that it ignores the logic of working harder to gain more. Why put in the extra effort if you're going to be rewarded the same as that other lazy guy? Competition isn't exactly a horrible thing. It rewards those that put in the effort to be better. It's obviously not perfect (nothing is) but I'd rather live in a society where my extra efforts will actually do something for me.


you do know that your argument is entirely based in fantasy,
even in countries with massive social safety nets and taxation there is a marked difference in what people receive for their efforts.

source; scandinavia
a lot of scandinavia even has better economic freedom than the us even despite taxes of 30% or more, source; GINI.
21448 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Between yesterday...
Offline
Posted 2/21/15

Nobodyofimportance wrote:


gvblackmoon wrote:

This whole argument is as I state once already false it is sophistry a argument presented as fact this is not fact. Fact China enforces inequality that favors the ruling class. Hong Kong is regulated by special rules, these are the facts and reality that you are ignoring in your argument. Your argument is false what it does show is what happens when someone enforces inequality on a society.

Taxation is not theft it is the fee one pays for the services they receive from the society they are part of. If you do not wish to be part of a society I suggest you find someplace that does not have one. Equality is defined as the following, equal treatment under the law, equal access to goods and services, equal access to to politics in government, equal moral status all lives are equal. The services you receive in your society are and not limited to protection of personal property from fire and theft and natural disasters, Education, Medical, Security if you become disabled. Protection from discrimination do to race gender or sexuality. This is what your society provides you this is why you are taxed. Your whole argument is false.

Economies do not work with out government and society setting the rules when this happens they fall apart and regress to a simpler version. People even when they have all their basic needs provided for still seek knowledge and understanding of their worlds they do not become bums. Without laws that promote social and legal equality you loose rights and privileges for those that seek power will take it from you normally at the end of a gun. Your whole argument is false and if it does anything proves that equality is needs and should be enforced.


Hong Kong was a British Colony that kept a capitalistic economy when it was returned to China. It does not "Enforce Inequality."
And even if it did, that would have nothing to do with the numbers I gave. Hong Kong is better off than the rest of China.


A tax (from the Latin taxo; "rate") is a financial charge or other levy imposed upon a taxpayer (an individual or legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state to fund various public expenditures. A failure to pay, or evasion of or resistance to taxation, is usually punishable by law. Taxes are also imposed by many administrative divisions. Taxes consist of direct or indirect taxes and may be paid in money or as its labour equivalent. Few countries impose no taxation at all, such as Bahrain and United Arab Emirates.




In international law, a sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity that is represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.[1] It is also normally understood that a state is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state.[2]


Sovereignty, in layman's terms, means a state or a governing body has the full right and power to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity.[1] It is a basic principle underlying the dominant Westphalian model of state foundation.

- wikipedia
Your country can enforce what it tells you what to do because it is bigger than you. If it says give me money, you give it money. It does not matter why. It does not need justification. I did not sign a contract stating that I wanted to pay them money for certain goods and services. I will, but that's because I know if I pay them nothing bad will happen, and because I understand the value of government and predictability.
The purpose of government is stability. Whether or not I consent to that purpose is irrelevant.
"Equal" is a word that means the same as. And society provides a large number of things outside what you've given.

Economies arise naturally. People organize themselves when placed in chaotic situations. We can develop new norms and cultures on the spot. I would very much appreciate if you would not call me a sophist and my "Argument" wrong. Conversation is a means of communication. If information is communicated to me that convinces me something I say is actually wrong I will change my viewpoint or correct myself. Or I should.


Please stop trying to use Hong Kong and China you are wrong in your logic and have only proven that corruption and inequality are the root of the problems in China one is more equal than the other.Hong Kong is more equal than China when it comes to personal rights. I have stated this several times now one is ruled by a corrupt government that favors the ruling class and the other while ruled by the first has special rules in place to allow it to continue with the equality it enjoyed under it's former rulers. China is attempting to change this by the way this is why all the students protested last year.

A sovereignty set the rules within the bounds of the territory it controls and rules over they also provide goods and services to those that they rule over. A limit on that power is found in international Human rights which limit the treatment of the citizens of those sovereignties
All of the human rights treaties deal directly with equality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_human_rights_instruments

Economies are a means by which goods and services are distributed between people in a society. While this occur naturally on a small scale when the society is small. On a large scale they require regulations and protections so that the citizens are not cheated. This comes in the form on contract law as as well as anti fraud laws and many other regulations. Our current economic system is not a natural one but one regulated and controlled by man.

You have up until this point have failed to grasp a very basic concept one that I understand and forgot that others don't. This concept has been ingrained into since birth and I understand it like breathing. You have a flaw in your logic it is a common flaw I will now aim to correct it.

You live in a society you are given protections and benefits from that society. They are numerous and benefit you greatly. What your fail to grasp is the fact that this is not a one way street you do not get to take without paying back at some point. You fail to grasp that you are responsible for the next generation behind you that you need to protect them as your were protected.

Your arguments are base on faulty logic you are a sophist you do not grasp that you are not able to just take but you must also make reparations to the next generation and they will make them to the next. This is how a society progresses forward, each generation providing for the next.

The road goes both way you owe a debt to the society that raises you and protects you how you pay that debt is through taxation. If you do not feel this is the case please refer to the following link. Your arguments are false based on the failing in your logic and understanding of how a society works. Now since you insist that you are right I will point out once again based on the definition if Evil provided Equality is not evil enforced equality is not evil and at times is required when inequality is to great.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/09/18/783895/-The-Teabagger-Socialist-Free-Purity-Pledge?detail=email

17380 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 2/21/15

SilvaZoldyck wrote:

Because the whole point is "this is absurd", it's saying "here's the strawman of liberalism"... and people often cite it as 'the problems of liberalism' failing to realize it's an intentional strawman. In any discussion about 'the evils of equality', it's kinda necessary to make the distinction that this story isn't defending the idea that equality is evil.

Okay, but it's still absurd. If he accurately characterized how the people he disagreed with think of his political view, then that's good. Now all that needs to happen is to say that nobody wants that. It's a nice story, but I don't know where we're going with this. He can poke fun at people all he wants, but what's the point?

It's like if you said.
"I am not a penguin"
Okay, where are we going with this.


"Equal" is not the same as "everybody should have certain base necessities and/or comforts".
People should be able to have as much as they please. If that creates inequality, then so be it. Some people having more doesn't hurt others. We can make more stuff. It isn't necessary to tax people. Edit: (clarify-It is for now)
Taxing is basically theft. "Give me money or go to jail". Is it good at funding large scale maintenance and projects and charity? Yes. But it isn't the only mechanism. Taxing strains the economy. If an economy is capable of bearing that strain then fine, but if there isn't enough food, collecting and redistributing paper isn't going to help feed people, but it can prevent farmers from being able to invest in producing more food. Unless the intent is the government doing the farming, in which case I trust the farmers/businessmen or agricultural scientists, or whoever they are, with experience at growing food more than bureaucrats and lawyers and revolutionaries.

And considering my Ideal economy is one where machines do all of the work, mining, farming, research, cooking and cleaning while humans get to be a bunch of bums that benefit off that for free, I'm not really in the best position to oppose you here. I want to remove humans from necessary sections of the economy entirely. And I don't want laws promoting legal and social inequality among human defined wealth classes.
Gah, I feel like I'm getting hard to read.


It isn't necessary to tax people? The hell? So... public roads should be private? Screw public schools, all schools should be private?

I know that there are 'other mechanisms' for building roads, or providing education... but there's a reason that roads, or schools, are owned by the public. Consider a road from city A to B. Some company builds a nice road through the fastest, easiest to maintain route, and charge a massive toll. They make tons of money, but every other individual and company now has to incur a large non-negotiable cost to travel that road. The road company can charge nearly arbitrarily large sums, because people don't have any other choice. They can also keep the road well maintained, and as it's short, it costs less to maintain.

So lets say you felt "hey, that company is an evil monopoly, lets start up our own company to build a road from A to B that's cheaper". Except roads are physical objects, so the competitive road would need to take a more round-about less direct route. That also means it'd need to spend more on maintenance. It has a tighter profit margin, and anyone choosing to use that road would also incur an added delay in their travel time, costing still more productivity. Yeah, the company might hire people to build more roads, so yay, 'employment', but it's now employment on a project that didn't need to be done in the first place if we hadn't allowed a private industry monopoly over transit routes.

If, however, the public decides 'lets pool our money to publicly pay a contractor to build the roads we plan for us, then we can drive on them for free', sure, the road companies might not be quite as happy, but the entire rest of the economy is. Free roads means everyone can save on transit costs, people can drive from town to town with more money to spend in their pocket, meaning they can buy more. The people they're buying from then earn more, which makes business owners happy too. Sure, road companies are sad that they can't charge arbitrarily large sums of money for transit, but that's because public ownership holds too many advantages for society at large.

How do you pay for basic services, for basic 'necessities' if you don't have SOME form of taxation? Even with automation eventually going to force large sectors of the workforce out of employment, which adds its own problems, all of the basic things you take for granted, like the currency you hold in your wallet, aren't possible without acknowledging the basic necessity of the principle of taxation for government functions. Now, yes, 'private banks' did used to issue their own currency, and we even have experiments in 'decentralized currency' like bitcoin, but the only 'safe' currency in the history of humanity have had the weight of government coffers behind them to back their value. Safe currency is kinda required for currency as a principle to stick around.

Beyond even roads or schools, where there are 'private alternatives' to the public ones.... I'm also curious how you maintain things like environmental regulations if you don't have some form of government. There, whatever the problems with 'corruption' seem nothing compared to the lack of a regulatory body altogether. If you have a 'private environmental regulator' what would give it authority to actually do its job? And if you bank on the 'invisible hand' doing the job, we may not see many effects for decades after initial exposure.


Why do both of you think I want to abolish government?
Consider this: The government owns Robot factories that can make robots.
Some of those robots can make other robots and factories.
Some of those robots can maintain and build things.
Assign X robots to road maintenance.
Road gets maintained, robot doesn't require payment.
Problem solved with stuff that doesn't exist yet.

You can do basically the same thing with schooling, although I doubt people will like automating learning with machines.

Modern currency floats. It isn't tied down to anything of value.

Governments can get money in ways other than telling people to give it to them.
For example, by providing goods and services.
Printing money.
Owning land and collecting rent.
Being the company that collects the toll on the road.
Exporting goods to other countries.


They use currency to pay for stuff. How they get that currency is more or less irrelevant, so long as it doesn't cause problems.
And if they can do what they need to without requiring currency, all the better for them
If Gov Y owns and maintains a farming company which earns money by selling food to grocery stores, and other distribution places, then they can very well pay some of their personnel with profits from the food business. It's getting dangerously close to socialism/communism, but so long as they compete fairly I don't see why it can't be done.

Things could be handled privately as well, so long as whatever corporation or charity that does it is genuinely interested in the good of society and makes decisions that reflect that.

They could also make money by lending to people and businesses at some interest rate, instead of being in perpetual debt.

I'm interested in things that work. And things that work better.
Lower taxes mean more money for people. More money is better for people.
Eliminating taxes is therefore good if the income can be supplanted by something else.
There are a large number of places where that would be difficult or impossible now simply because of how scarce resources are and how much people want.
I'm not saying getting rid of taxes is easy, simply that it should be possible, and lower taxes are better for people.
And I'm CERTAINLY NOT saying we should get rid of government. That would be begging for all sorts of trouble.
Stability is incredibly important.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.