Yoepus: In principle I would agree with you that equality in the realm of political rights should be pursued. However, as equal political rights as concept is so closely connected with the concept of equal political power, which again is deeply intertwined with equal economic potential, it seems to me that achieving equal political rights descends us into radical communism.
Therefore, we should IMO only strive for securing a set of basic political rights to be enjoyed by everyone, and allow some individuals to have additional rights.

Nothing equal about men and women in my opinion. Plumbings all different and hormones are as well!


[[[smoke]]]

___________________

I see I've caught myself a few blowfish with this one. To you I say only: "blow, fish!"

Now, for those of you able enough to post something of substance...

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Arbiter: I agree (except for the two "but we know it is a lie"-statements - you cannot *know* that). However, you must acknowledge that the proportion of the human race, who has something to win by rejecting equality as an idol, is much smaller than that of those who benefit from it. As such, I think that investing a lot of effort into converting the "flock" might not be an optimal course of action - you are bound to be defeated. If you would be victorious, though, what would you gain from others accepting that humans are not created nor should be treated equal?

The belief in equality is appealing to many, but I do not think they have anything to win by believing in it. It is a classic case of there being a difference between what one's desires and what is really good for oneself. While the belief in ones own "equality" is an appealing thought, what would really be a victory for oneself is to become as great as one can be. But if you already believe you are to all others equal, then you will not improve yourself.

If we all live life as a race, always seeking to outshine one another, then we all benefit (though some more than others). But, when we live life wallowing in one place - some imaginary state of perpetual mediocrity in which we are all "equal" - then we will all be lesser than our potential, and thereby we will all be victims. So when you ask what would gain, the answer is precisely that: I would live in a better world, populated by better people, and I would be moreso driven to better myself.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Arbiter, when you mentioned "All men are created equal" this statement does not apply broadly. It does not mean I'm equally as smart as you, and it does not mean I'm equally as beautiful as hmm... err... who shall I name... ehh Tahti? What All mean are created equal is about, and only about is our political equalities. What that means is that even though we might not be physically or even mentally equal to one another, I have the same rights as anyone else - these rights are based upon the natural law which are basically an expanded version of the golden rule. This I do believe, that almost all people are capable of obeying and participating by the natural laws. Although I might agree with you that equality in all other realms should not be strived for, in the political realm it is demanded - it is the enforcer of liberty a greater virtue then equality. The question is when equality in the political realm moves into a different realm. Since all men are created equal - we shouldn't allow women to have the vote (something very unpopular yet, that I support... I'm glad there are never any women on this forum ) But which line do we cross when we give women the vote? Apparently none... as Men these days means Men and Women. How about gays? We give them the vote, does this cross any line however? How about a serial killer? We don't give him the vote (assuming he has been captured) or a lunitic, we don't give them a vote. But what is the criteria? That is the only problem I can see with the strive for political equality, it becomes murky in new fields. Of course today giving the slaves equality is a no brainer - it has become common acceptance, but when it happened it was on the fringe. One couldn't really know if it was in the political realm or another realm... I think that is the only problem with equality. Equality should be strived for in the political realm, not in our other realms... but if we grant it in one realm how can we make sure it doesn't spread into the others? We can't, the question is how we draw the line - and we haven't been able to do that either.

That is, of course, how the principle originated. But it has been distorted and equivocated by advocates of "equality," and thus we have all manner of bizarre legislation designed to promote equality. Even in its original form, it is too simplistic I think. Should the psychotic and the genius have an equal vote? Not if you want to optimize your society.

There is, of course, no reliable and objective measure by which we can determine whom is most qualified to be entitled to some particular right, so we must do our best with the impure and/or subjective. This is what we already do (is it a dirty secret?) when we stop young children from drinking or voting.

I do not find our efforts altogether satisfactory, but they are certainly better than to allow the infant or the lunatic to have an equal vote. The Confucian system of the Han was one of the best, but it was overcome by corruption after a while. But perhaps there would be some way to improve upon it.

I'll be back when I get a chance.

Regards,

Arbiter

quote:

Originally posted by arctic Precisely, quite frankly George, I'm getting increasingly exasperated at your inflammatory posting style whereby you launch a tirade of insults and ad hominems, rather than addressing the point at hand. I happen to disagree with Arbiter (I'll try and get a reply written up if possible, although due to being disturbingly busy - I can't guarantee it), but that doesn't mean that I automatically dismiss his post as 'a load of bull shit!' and announce that he doesn't even know what he's actually proposing. What is achieved by simply insulting someone? Does it help to further the quality of discussion around here? No, it doesn't. Say why you think his post is a 'load of bull shit' rather than just simply saying that it is. Ugh, now that I've got that out of the way, I'm off to get some much needed sleep.

Riiiiight...

So you dedictae a post to me in which you have a go at me, while simultaniously tell me you disagree with arbter but dont say why...

If you actually look, I actually asked arbter a few questions to challenge what he said, yet all you have offered is a go at me...

hypocrite?

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Why? Because you disagree? I would concede that the post is in a somewhat exotic language but that doesn't invalidate the points on why equality is not to be the object of blind pursuit. If you have any good arguments as to the opposite then I (for one) would like to read them - I think it is a fascinating topic.

A fascinating topic it may be, but I do believe I asked some relevant questions (that arbiter has so far refused to answer, probly due to yours and the other guy who copied you grieviences replies) that would help me understand what the fuck he was talking about...

I have a lot to say about the issue of equality and would like to air it but I cannot while ever you, arbiter and that other poster (name forgets me) merely descend to insults as I honestly dont know where arbiter is coming from with out answering my questions...

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter That is, of course, how the principle originated. But it has been distorted and equivocated by advocates of "equality," and thus we have all manner of bizarre legislation designed to promote equality. Even in its original form, it is too simplistic I think. Should the psychotic and the genius have an equal vote? Not if you want to optimize your society.

True, but Im not talking just about the vote.

Political rights carry other ramifications such as legal rights.
Both an infant and a lunitc still get their right to remain silent and the right to a just and speedy trial (whatever happened to speedy trial btw?)

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

Well seein as my questions remain unanswered here's my two penneth worth...

Arbiter, it seems to me that you are confusing the term 'equality' with the term 'indentical'

Equality in the sense we are discussing means equality of oppertunity, nothing more. It certainly does not mean everybody is the same (ie penis size, singing ability or hansome good looks) That is identicle. Nobody who wants equality wants that. Equality means everybody has the same oppertunities to become as great as they can be as you put it. Without equality, very few people can strive for this...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Arbiter, it seems to me that you are confusing the term 'equality' with the term 'indentical' Equality in the sense we are discussing means equality of oppertunity, nothing more. It certainly does not mean everybody is the same (ie penis size, singing ability or hansome good looks) That is identicle. Nobody who wants equality wants that. Equality means everybody has the same oppertunities to become as great as they can be as you put it. Without equality, very few people can strive for this...

Interesting. Would you say that equal opportunity can be obtained without equal political power and equal financial means?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley ...I cannot while ever you, arbiter and that other poster (name forgets me) merely descend to insults...

Well, it seems to me you are the one insulting here. I re-read my posts and see *no* traces of insults - but apparently you fail to show the dignity and respect of reading other people posts before replying and remembering who said what.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter The belief in equality is appealing to many, but I do not think they have anything to win by believing in it.

I agree with what you wrote in , but I think you have overlooked the aspect of "freedom of envy". I don't mind being less than average in some manner, but it bothers me when I socialise with people who are above average in that area - as it reminds me of my "defect". To me it would require a mentally superior person to contend himself with minor improvements in his own person, when others are way ahead of him.
Thus, the more the idols of the "supreme" and "improvement" are worshipped instead of the idol of "equality", the more bitter this pain in the "rabble" will be. If I am a below average or average person I therefore have something to win by holding onto the idol of "equality". I will be a happier person.
Hope my reasoning can be followed - I have a class in two seconds

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Interesting. Would you say that equal opportunity can be obtained without equal political power and equal financial means? Well, it seems to me you are the one insulting here. I re-read my posts and see *no* traces of insults - but apparently you fail to show the dignity and respect of reading other people posts before replying and remembering who said what.

Well maybe not in actual "words" but I could tell you were sittin behind your computer lookin down your nose at me!

Anyway...

No, I do not believe that equality (equal oppertunity) can be achieved with out total political AND financial/economical/social equality. We have near enough total political equality (which our respective laws guarentee us) but our economic system does not grant us financial equality, which is vital for equality (if we are all to have the same oppertunity of health care, education, etc) I dont think we can have total financial equality in our current economic system, but I believe our current economic system can actually give us a lot more financial equality than we currently get...

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I agree with what you wrote in , but I think you have overlooked the aspect of "freedom of envy". I don't mind being less than average in some manner, but it bothers me when I socialise with people who are above average in that area - as it reminds me of my "defect". To me it would require a mentally superior person to contend himself with minor improvements in his own person, when others are way ahead of him. Thus, the more the idols of the "supreme" and "improvement" are worshipped instead of the idol of "equality", the more bitter this pain in the "rabble" will be. If I am a below average or average person I therefore have something to win by holding onto the idol of "equality". I will be a happier person. Hope my reasoning can be followed - I have a class in two seconds

What you say is very true. I will have to consider it more thoroughly tonight, I am paying for my internet by the hour at the moment.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus True, but Im not talking just about the vote. Political rights carry other ramifications such as legal rights. Both an infant and a lunitc still get their right to remain silent and the right to a just and speedy trial (whatever happened to speedy trial btw?)

Yes, it is precisely so. There are some rights that are given to all, and others given to only certain people based upon their qualifications - that is as it should be, even more so. But these days the drive is to extend all rights indiscriminantly: those who do not have a right would wish to obtain it in the name of equality. But, they themselves are not equal: that is why they do not have equal rights.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Arbiter, it seems to me that you are confusing the term 'equality' with the term 'indentical' Equality in the sense we are discussing means equality of oppertunity, nothing more. It certainly does not mean everybody is the same (ie penis size, singing ability or hansome good looks) That is identicle. Nobody who wants equality wants that. Equality means everybody has the same oppertunities to become as great as they can be as you put it. Without equality, very few people can strive for this...

I should like to believe in this "equality," but I have never seen it and I am skeptical that it could exist. What exactly constitutes equal opportunity? To the point: it would seem to be the case that equal opportunity is impossible so long as we are not identical. For, if one has good looks, then others might be predisposed to treat them well where they would treat an uglier person more poorly. And hence, they might provide the more beautiful person with more opportunity. Would the opportunity not then be unequal?

Now, suppose a person has some disability. Clearly, they will not have an equal opportunity to be an athelete. Unless, that is, we cripple everyone else equally: but I know you are not proposing that. The opportunity is unequal, perhaps irrepairably so.

But, there is another quandary which this proposal would seem to present. Equal opportunity should exist from what starting point(s)? Hopefully my example is clear: if you give two people the same amount of money, and tell them to invest it, then you have given them an equal opportunity to succeed in their investments. But one day later, one of them has quite possibly made or lost more money than the other: and from this point on their opportunity is no longer equal. Surely, we should not perpetually equalize all opportunity: then there would be no motivation to succeed. But at what point ought the opportunity to be equal? And, how is opportunity to be measured?

It seems to me that it is not the nature of life to be even-handed. But even if we could make it so, wouldn't it only serve to further the jealousy that the less-able have for the more-able - that problem that trancaholic posed? Now, they have a convenient scapegoat: they can tell themselves that they did not have an equal opportunity (I see this all the time, and it brings them much relief from their envy.) But if opportunity were always equal, they would have no one to blame but themselves: and it seems to me that this would bring the failures a greater grief than to have been denied the opportunity in the first place. At least now they can disown their inadequacy: perhaps that is the solution to the problem of envy itself, all they need is a scapegoat for their deficiency.

Thank you everyone for your insights. I'll be back tomorrow to post again.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Yes, it is precisely so. There are some rights that are given to all, and others given to only certain people based upon their qualifications - that is as it should be, even more so. But these days the drive is to extend all rights indiscriminantly: those who do not have a right would wish to obtain it in the name of equality. But, they themselves are not equal: that is why they do not have equal rights.

But you are misusing the term here.

A right is what is given to all - is equal with everyone. A right to vote (though again it isn't or ever was), right to a fair trial, right to remain silent. Thos are rights.

'Rights' based on merit are called privileges. The quesiton then, is what rights do you think should be privileges?

Should voting be a privileges (it really is for all intense of purposes anyway)... what else?

What should be a real right?

Do you believe there is a need to restructure the constitution, or do you just feel that no body lives by it anymore?

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.