First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
Is Equality Evil?
27824 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Ohio, USA
Offline
Posted 2/21/15
Equality is for losers. I don't want to be like everyone else nor treated like everyone else. Just treat me with some respect and we'll be okay.
17380 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 2/21/15

I'm sorry, I'm having a difficult time understanding what you're trying to say.
What do you think my argument is?
28602 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
51 / M / Inside the Anime...
Offline
Posted 2/21/15

Sogno- wrote:


AridDxD wrote:

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”


pullin out ole george are we



Double think anyone?
11497 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/21/15 , edited 2/21/15

trmjkd989 wrote:

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.


Well... my taxes pay for my tap water. How much 'extra effort' do you want to exert to avoid taxation? How does a society build a reservoir for providing water without some form of government to manage such efforts? What should be considered a 'reward' versus 'basic public good/necessity'?

I could stake out a plot of land in the middle of nowhere, I'd be living a life of quite a lot of effort, with the 'reward' of no taxation. Personally, I'd rather live in a society where at the bare minimum, essentials are provided at very little cost. I don't want to have to work very hard for the 'reward' to be potable water.

You can work a desk job programming, and you can work a job digging ditches in an underdeveloped nation. The digging ditches is a LOT more 'effort', with vastly less 'reward'. But hey, the tax burden in a nearly undeveloped area is virtually nill, compared to a much larger one in any city that would allow you to work as a programmer.

If you want to live in a society where your 'extra effort' does a lot, it kinda helps to live in a society where necessities are covered under tax policy.


Nobodyofimportance wrote:

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.


... Huh? ... What?

Ok, the reason I think you seem to be asking to abolish government is because you're saying 'we don't need to tax people'. Yes, yes we do. Government cannot exist if it isn't paid for. You know when I said 'government contracts someone to build a road'. Yeah, the people building that road don't just want to do it out of the good for society. The guys laying asphalt like to be paid too, you know.

Low taxes for poor people tend to stimulate economic growth, because they aren't banking millions of dollars, they're spending it, meaning the money goes back into circulation in the economy. But 'no taxes, for anyone'... means 'no money to pay for essential functions of government', which is saying, 'no government'.
18014 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / USA
Offline
Posted 2/21/15

SilvaZoldyck wrote:


trmjkd989 wrote:

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.


Well... my taxes pay for my tap water. How much 'extra effort' do you want to exert to avoid taxation? How does a society build a reservoir for providing water without some form of government to manage such efforts? What should be considered a 'reward' versus 'basic public good/necessity'?

I could stake out a plot of land in the middle of nowhere, I'd be living a life of quite a lot of effort, with the 'reward' of no taxation. Personally, I'd rather live in a society where at the bare minimum, essentials are provided at very little cost. I don't want to have to work very hard for the 'reward' to be potable water.

You can work a desk job programming, and you can work a job digging ditches in an underdeveloped nation. The digging ditches is a LOT more 'effort', with vastly less 'reward'. But hey, the tax burden in a nearly undeveloped area is virtually nill, compared to a much larger one in any city that would allow you to work as a programmer.

If you want to live in a society where your 'extra effort' does a lot, it kinda helps to live in a society where necessities are covered under tax policy.


Nobodyofimportance wrote:

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.


... Huh? ... What?

Ok, the reason I think you seem to be asking to abolish government is because you're saying 'we don't need to tax people'. Yes, yes we do. Government cannot exist if it isn't paid for. You know when I said 'government contracts someone to build a road'. Yeah, the people building that road don't just want to do it out of the good for society. The guys laying asphalt like to be paid too, you know.

Low taxes for poor people tend to stimulate economic growth, because they aren't banking millions of dollars, they're spending it, meaning the money goes back into circulation in the economy. But 'no taxes, for anyone'... means 'no money to pay for essential functions of government', which is saying, 'no government'.


Okay? I never mentioned anything about taxes in my post. I was talking in generalities. You're arguing with the wrong person.
18014 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / USA
Offline
Posted 2/21/15

oodain wrote:


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.


You do realize I was mainly referring to extreme cases of forced equality right? Your argument has nothing to do with mine. Heck, I wasn't even arguing anything really. I just made a broad statement that true equality isn't always the ideal. I've got no problem with taxes.
21448 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Between yesterday...
Offline
Posted 2/21/15

Nobodyofimportance wrote:


I'm sorry, I'm having a difficult time understanding what you're trying to say.
What do you think my argument is?



Your argument up until now has been is equality that is enforced harms the society because it lowers the standards for others or forces others to a lower standard. An argument that I have pointed out a couple of times now is based on flawed logic and have attempt to make clear that if you are to enforce equality you do the opposite of what you are claiming will happen. Which by the way has been proven to work time and time again you can support people to make them stronger and better it is far better for the society in the long run make your society more inclusive not less all of these things improve everyones life over time yes you have the few that will cry foul but even they are more equal because the same protections also protect them.

Your example of China and and Hong Kong is false I have provided the explanation of the reason behind this and you ignore it. China is a corrupt government it has set up the rules to favor the ruling class there by creating inequality. Hong Kong while it is ruled by China has special exceptions to the normal rules and is less corrupt and the citizens are more equal. These rules are being changed by China slowly over time Hong Kong will become more and more like mainland China. The last attempt by the mainland government is what caused the students protests last year in Hong Kong.

On taxation many of the options you offer in one of your posts have been done in several countries and they still use taxes to cover cost. Taxes are the fees people incur as their debt to society. The two countries you give as examples get all their money from oil and they are kingdoms the King owns the oil and pays for services out of pocket. If they didn't have the oil they would also have taxation. Without taxation government stops working because they do not have a means by which to service debt and pay for goods and services. This is why some many states are cutting goods and services not enough tax money coming in and they do many of the things you suggest.

I never at any point stated you wanted to do away with government what I stated and rightly so since you did not understand what I was trying to get across.

Here it is you are beholden to the society that produced you. You benefited from schools, roads, health-care, anti-discrimination laws, and a bevy of other benefits. You have a responsibility back to that society, a social contract it is not a spoken contract it is an assumed contract the minute you enter into that society. So that means you have to pay it back in some way there is no free ride at some point you have to pay the debt you incur. You appear to attempting to find away to get around that debt and just take without paying back. Even in your society the citizens incur this debt and need to pay it back it comes from the services that society provides. You fail to understand how a society works and so you do not grasp the idea of the social contract and the debt you have incurred from the society you are part of.



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

SilvaZoldyck wrote:

... Huh? ... What?

Ok, the reason I think you seem to be asking to abolish government is because you're saying 'we don't need to tax people'. Yes, yes we do. Government cannot exist if it isn't paid for. You know when I said 'government contracts someone to build a road'. Yeah, the people building that road don't just want to do it out of the good for society. The guys laying asphalt like to be paid too, you know.

Low taxes for poor people tend to stimulate economic growth, because they aren't banking millions of dollars, they're spending it, meaning the money goes back into circulation in the economy. But 'no taxes, for anyone'... means 'no money to pay for essential functions of government', which is saying, 'no government'.


You can have a government that can't tax it's citizens.
The Articles of Confederation that created the U.S. had no power to tax and was chronically short of money and unable to enforce laws.
They changed that to the current version because no power to tax didn't lead to an effective government.

So long as the government can fulfill whatever functions it deems necessary, as in, be an effective government, then it's good.
In most cases it does this by taxing citizens and using that tax money to pay for those essential functions.

If the government can acquire money in another method than taxing, or fulfill its essential functions without using money, then it doesn't need to tax its citizenry.

For example, If it had a retinue of slaves that didn't count as citizens to order around. (hence the robots)

Obviously our current society doesn't have the capabilities to do this. And there are some things, like social security, which inherently require inputs of capital, and would consequently require the government or a charity to produce goods and services to offset the cost.

Ultimately it isn't spending that makes an economy better, it's production. You can make tons of bread, but if it all rots, you're back where you started. You want more Capital goods.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_good
Spending on consumption is good, but it's much better to make more than we need and be able to get it to the places it needs to be.

It will be fully possible for a government to function effectively without the need to tax.
21 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Bandung
Offline
Posted 2/21/15
All humans are equally valuable but they do have their own unique talents. I think forced equality of outcomes is evil since it only happens by crippling or stealing from successful people.

I am terrified of forced equality because it usually concentrates power in the hands of a few when used as a government policy, which hasn't really worked well for the folks living under Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, and other murderous dictators. The book Animal Farm comes to mind....
17380 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 2/21/15

I think I see the problem here.
1) I'm mostly talking about economic inequality, and partly the absurd ideas behind Harrison Bergeron
2) Hong Kong has a GINI coefficient of 43.4 China has a GINI of 37, but redistributing wealth so everybody has exactly the same ownership in everything would be a GINI of 0, and that causes problems. I said nothing about fundamental human rights like the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
3) I never said it would be easy to get to the point where it isn't necessary to tax people, those were quotes directly from Wikipedia. I wouldn't want to live in either country.
4) Don't try and force Thomas Hobbes's views on me. I am not of the opinion that life is nasty brutish and short. I am not of the opinion that I need to be doing forced volunteer work. If I want to volunteer for something I will do it because I want to help people, not out of some sense of social servitude or indebtedness.

We're talking about two different things. Legal and Social equality are obviously good. I took it for granted that wasn't what this was about, because I've never heard anybody argue against people having legal equality, and most of the time people talk about social equality that mean something along the lines of somebody being stronger, smarter, or richer.
11497 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/21/15

Nobodyofimportance wrote:

You can have a government that can't tax it's citizens.
The Articles of Confederation that created the U.S. had no power to tax and was chronically short of money and unable to enforce laws.
They changed that to the current version because no power to tax didn't lead to an effective government.

So long as the government can fulfill whatever functions it deems necessary, as in, be an effective government, then it's good.
In most cases it does this by taxing citizens and using that tax money to pay for those essential functions.

If the government can acquire money in another method than taxing, or fulfill its essential functions without using money, then it doesn't need to tax its citizenry.

For example, If it had a retinue of slaves that didn't count as citizens to order around. (hence the robots)

Obviously our current society doesn't have the capabilities to do this. And there are some things, like social security, which inherently require inputs of capital, and would consequently require the government or a charity to produce goods and services to offset the cost.

Ultimately it isn't spending that makes an economy better, it's production. You can make tons of bread, but if it all rots, you're back where you started. You want more Capital goods.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_good
Spending on consumption is good, but it's much better to make more than we need and be able to get it to the places it needs to be.

It will be fully possible for a government to function effectively without the need to tax.


Since I can't really think of any long-standing governments that could exist without some form of collecting money, which is inherently a tax (even if payment is in grain)... I tend to go with the 'governments need some form of taxation to maintain basic authority over their given currency' side of things. If perhaps in this robot hypothetical future we find that essential programs start costing less and less and less such that our government can do services at next to no cost, umm... great? But until then, taxation is the cost we pay for living in a society, and we have a LOT to gain by doing so.
21448 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Between yesterday...
Offline
Posted 2/21/15 , edited 2/21/15

Nobodyofimportance wrote:


I think I see the problem here.
1) I'm mostly talking about economic inequality, and partly the absurd ideas behind Harrison Bergeron
2) Hong Kong has a GINI coefficient of 43.4 China has a GINI of 37, but redistributing wealth so everybody has exactly the same ownership in everything would be a GINI of 0, and that causes problems. I said nothing about fundamental human rights like the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
3) I never said it would be easy to get to the point where it isn't necessary to tax people, those were quotes directly from Wikipedia. I wouldn't want to live in either country.
4) Don't try and force Thomas Hobbes's views on me. I am not of the opinion that life is nasty brutish and short. I am not of the opinion that I need to be doing forced volunteer work. If I want to volunteer for something I will do it because I want to help people, not out of some sense of social servitude or indebtedness.

We're talking about two different things. Legal and Social equality are obviously good. I took it for granted that wasn't what this was about, because I've never heard anybody argue against people having legal equality, and most of the time people talk about social equality that mean something along the lines of somebody being stronger, smarter, or richer.


If you are talking only about income inequality I covered that earlier I will go over it again.

Currently we are at the greatest level of income inequality in history the only other time that it was this high was before and during the Great Depression. The rules favored the few those with the most money, taxation was low on the rich. When this was change and taxation was increase on the rich this changed. Between 1940 and 1980 we had the greatest level of income equality that was enforced. Everyone and I mean everyone did better we did incredible things had the highest level of education ever were working on the social issue at the time. Everything was better this is why people want to go back to it but they don't understand taxes were higher the rich paid their fair share. This all changed when Saint Reagan cut taxes on the rich, wages stagnated and income inequality grew to where it is now. So sorry your whole notion of equality being enforce on income being bad is false, history shows that it is.

The research is out there watch Robert Reich's movie "Inequality for All" I'm actually paraphrasing from it. He did the research it was well presented in an easy to digest method and very educational. Wasn't really anything I didn't know already but thats because I have some memory of what life was like before Reagan, and have researched this on my own. Life before Reagan was better sure we were in a slump but that was the war spending winding down and that always happens after a war and would over time correct itself if they wanted to speed it up all they had to do is spend more money which stimulates the economy because all spending drives the economy.
65319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Atlanta, GA
Offline
Posted 2/21/15 , edited 2/21/15
Deep underneath the "equality is evil" claim is the moral philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche that challenges traditional moral norms. The idea goes like this. Basically long before Christianity people didn't have good and evil, but nobles and slaves. The "good" would have been what we typically associate with noble attributes. strength, cunning, resolve, domination, inequality, etc. The "bad" would have been what we associate with slaves. Humility, meekness, equality, etc. Somewhere along the lines, the moral code got "flipped" and the noble attributes we typically associated with goodness became "evil" and the slave attributes became "good." But that "flipping" of the code to associate good things with slave qualities will hold humanity back from any further progress (or evolution in the Code Geass case). This is because individual achievements will take a back seat to equality and other slave morality features.

The obvious question to ask in all this is, how did the moral code get "flipped"? Why did the weak, meek, and equality win out over strength and inequality? If strength is all that matters in evolution, then why are our societies trending towards equality and meekness? Why did Christianity ever get to be so big?

The important point I think we need to recognize in all this is that the "noble" morality Nietzsche described didn't win out. Society isn't trending that way, and the equality that's been holding us back from "evolving" has been winning for a while now. The astute will note that if there was really evolution to be had in inequality, that "noble" morality filled with inequality wouldn't have lost the fight.
16189 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/22/15
The word equal by definition means "the same". Each human being is not the same and thus should not be treated as if such was the case. Differences need to be accounted for and people need to be treated accordingly. Equality is not something humanity should strive for, and it does and has never existed. As said many times in this thread some people are simply superior to others in certain respects.

Life can be simplified to a game in which stats are given to players at birth and some are earned through work. Each human is born with a certain attributes dictating futures such as affinity for learning, music, working out, sports, and everything else. But in the grand scale of life affinity isn't all defining, and even one born with no affinity for sports can through work become an outstanding athlete. How many hours a day do you spend goofing around or on the internet/games/tv? What would happen if you put all those hours into something you think you suck at? I've heard so many people say "I'm not good at sports" like its something they cant help, but that's simply not the case. People underestimate the fruits of training. Sure there is a limit as how much a person can train and once you reach that limit those with more talent who train just as much will be better than you, but there is probably also a field in which your talent surpasses theirs.


Addressing each part of this response:

Addressing each part of that "speech" in turn:
1) There are different kinds of equality. All men are not equal in ability or heritage (luck basically), but all are equal in value regardless. Human value is an intrinsic part of being human. If you're human, you're equal to every other human out there in value.

No two humans are the same; thus no two humans are equal. There is no such thing as "the value of a human". Value is subjective to the valuer to a sick man a doctor is more valuable than a chef but to a hungry child the chef would be more valuable, as such claims declaring that the value of all humans is equal have no basis, as there is no such thing as "the value of a human". "If you're human, you're equal to every other human out there in value." In what value? Once again, worth is subjective. Someone who has not left their house in 30 years, has no job, leeches money from their parents, and has no talents when valued by society would not be considered to be of equal value of a doctor who is actively saving peoples lives.

2) There would be more war, violence , and unrest if people are considered unequal. See the various slave rebellions / mutinies as well as the various revolutions throughout history.

This opinion lacks concrete support. The examples listed only refer to countries in which people where not considered unequal but treated unequally under the law. In communist nations all people are considered equal, but they still had massacres, rebellions / mutinies.

3) Britannia sucks. Military prowess and money are just about all they have. A culture revolving around nothing but Darwinian evolution is a narrow culture indeed. This is why even though their nation is so great, all the ordinary citizens seem like jerks. You need more to culture than survival of the fittest - you need loftier ideals to strive for. It's kind of sad that they just looked at nature and said "with all of our human capabilities, let's go back to living like wild animals!"

I agree.


But why does contribution change one's "equality status"?

Ones equality status is defined by those around them and not their capabilities or contribution.

For all we know, a homeless man on the street might have the capability to become a renowned physicist if his lot in life at birth was different.

Unfortunately for that homeless man his life was not different, and as such he is not of the same value to society as a physicist. You are not defined by what you could be, but what you are. This is a sad but real truth.





884 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M
Offline
Posted 2/22/15
Are talking about Equal rights or Equality in general?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.