Ideally, I would say that the equality should mean that people at birth need to have equal rights and possibilities. What they do with their lives afterwards, and whether they prove themselves capable of their desired privileges is a different matter. (Un)fortunately, our society is strongly based on raising individuals inside their respective families, and that's why it's necessary to keep tilting the balance towards a more equal situation so that newborn individuals be provided with more equal starting positions. Otherwise, the society would quickly split into a relatively small and educated high class that controls most resources and a large and uneducated mass of uneducated mob.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter 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...

Blow me, you moron...


[[[smoke]]]

quote:

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

I do not know if it is going to make any difference, but I honestly did not. Until this point I have generally considered you to be one of the more intelligent posters here.

Now, the points Arbiter raised towards your concept of equality of opportunity are exacts replicas of my own thoughts on this ideal. As I see it only formal political power and financial means can be distributed equally by human will. As we are all differently gifted with looks, charms, wits, and physical strength, and since these cannot be equalised, we therefore end up with a society where some goods are equaly distributed and others are not. To me, that seems unfair to those neither gifted in charms, strenght or wits, but who would otherwise be dominant financially. Therefore, the very process of equalization would be "unequal" - in a sense defying its purpose.

The way I see it (simplified) is like a poker hand. Everyone is delt a different and inherantly unequal hand, but you have an equal chance to play that hand.

There is nothing you can do to make everyone have the same hand.

But you can make sure the game is played fairly. However you could see each differnt country as a differnt game with differnt rules. Some of which are harder to play than the others and with lower stakes. Though lower stakes don't need to mean a less enjoyable game. In fact quite the oposite in many ways. If you dig my metaphor.

Maybe the only way to be equal on a global sence is to all live in one country (all playing the same games with the same rules). But personnally as much as I'd love that. The problem is nationalism and tribalism. We always find ways to make ourselfs unique and differnt... when really we are not.

Basicly our own insecuritys mean we have to find a way in which we are better than other people (because in some way they are better than us). This creates nationalism. Which means we can never be the same or truely equal becuase we will always play a differnt game to differnt rules. Simply because we want to be differnt to/better than someone.... anyone.

___________________
If you can read this, I'm seriously fucking bored.

An interesting topic.

There will always be successful people and unsuccessful people. Some will be born rich, others in poverty. Some will be pretty, some ugly, some talented, some not. And so on. Yet when someone says "all men are created equal," I don't start thinking about things like this. Equality to me is a fundament, a principal that everyone has the same rights as every one else, regardless of who they are. If a poor, lower class person committs a crime, should he be punished more where an upper class person is not? Or what about a black person as opposed to a white person? Or what if some random guy murders an upper class, should he be punished more than if he had murdered a lower class?

Of course there are times that we should take circumstance into account. Should a man who kills a man in cold blood, and a woman who kills her abusive husband be punished equally? Or what about an adult vs a child?

I guess I'd agree on some points and disagree on others. I do think that everyone should be treated fairly and equally, no matter what their sex, race, religion, sexual preference, title, wealth, etc. But I do beleive that sometimes circumstance does superscede blind equality.

That brings up an interesting philosophical debate. Should the wealthy/privilaged who've worked for what they've obtained give up their extravagant rewards so that everyone in the world can live in 2 bedroom houses, drive sedans and go on one vacation a year together, so that no one is below anyone else? Or should those who choose to work their asses off, or take advantage of gifts/talents (sexy people being models, muscians making tracks, spinning around the world) be free to do so, while many people are still living in the shitters?

___________________
NEW MIX [Feb/March 2008]

quote:

Originally posted by nrjizer Yet when someone says "all men are created equal," I don't start thinking about things like this. Equality to me is a fundament, a principal that everyone has the same rights as every one else, regardless of who they are. If a poor, lower class person committs a crime, should he be punished more where an upper class person is not? Or what about a black person as opposed to a white person? Or what if some random guy murders an upper class, should he be punished more than if he had murdered a lower class?

Statistical regression has indicated that beautiful people in general recieve less punishment than ugly people for the same kinds of crimes. Therefore, I would guess that your kind of equality would be hard (=impossible) to realize, unless all judgment was given by some deterministic machine - incapable of distinguishing hot blondes from ugly bastards. If we take away the means of the wealthy for securing more rights for themselves, we should also make sure to butcher beyond recognition the faces of the beautiful. And - come to think of it - make sure elequent people have their tongue pulled out.

This topic is growing faster than I can afford to pay to respond to it, so I may not be able to respond to every point until I return home next week.

With regards to envy:

I'm not sure envy is a bad thing for people to have, so long as it is not combined with resignment. Unfortunately, it often is. I am somewhat uncertain as to what extent this is a learned reaction or a natural reaction. I have noticed that some people experience very little envy, while others tend to be highly envious. If a person is determined to blindly believe in something: e.g. his or her own equality, there is nothing that anyone can do to change it. And certainly, I would not prohibit people from such self-deception, even if I thought it unhealthy.

To persuade people that they are not equal should be easy: they will prove unequal by any number of standards. But this will not convince someone who believes blindly. With regards to them, it may be impossible to persuade, as they are so consumed with seeking mere contentment that they cannot see the greater harm they do themselves. What is necessary, however, I think, is to prevent these people from poisoning law with their deluded version of equality and thus infringing upon those who do not possess the belief. In other words, like any system of beliefs based on blind faith it should be kept far away from the state.

In democracy, however, this may be impossible. But I have never been an advocate of democracy.

That's all the time I have today. I'll try to catch up some tomorrow.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter With regards to envy: I'm not sure envy is a bad thing for people to have, so long as it is not combined with resignment. Unfortunately, it often is. I am somewhat uncertain as to what extent this is a learned reaction or a natural reaction. I have noticed that some people experience very little envy, while others tend to be highly envious. If a person is determined to blindly believe in something: e.g. his or her own equality, there is nothing that anyone can do to change it. And certainly, I would not prohibit people from such self-deception, even if I thought it unhealthy.

I tend to agree, I don't see anything wrong with looking at someone else's accomplishments and striving to acheive such yourself. I have a friend who has a movie room in his house, 12x8 foot TV, 4 leather sofas and something like a $11k sound system. Yeah, I can definately envy that, tho he's still just the same old guy to me with or without it. I'm not bitter that he's rich and I'm not, nor would I expect him to give up or share these things with me so that we both can get the same slice of pie.

But things like that are luxuries, things you don't really need to live. What does get to me, though, is how there are rich people who just sit on millions and billions of dollars when there are a lot of people out there who are starving to death. I know a lot of them do give a shitload to charaties, but in the end of the day that might mean that they can only have 3 bmw's instead of 4.

This is indeed an interesting subject. I wonder if anyone has done fiction on this yet? Maybe I should start flexing my writing muscle...

___________________
NEW MIX [Feb/March 2008]

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Ideally, I would say that the equality should mean that people at birth need to have equal rights and possibilities. What they do with their lives afterwards, and whether they prove themselves capable of their desired privileges is a different matter. (Un)fortunately, our society is strongly based on raising individuals inside their respective families, and that's why it's necessary to keep tilting the balance towards a more equal situation so that newborn individuals be provided with more equal starting positions. Otherwise, the society would quickly split into a relatively small and educated high class that controls most resources and a large and uneducated mass of uneducated mob.

Agree 100%

quote:

trancaholic: "I do not know if it is going to make any difference, but I honestly did not. Until this point I have generally considered you to be one of the more intelligent posters here."

Dont worry I was taking the piss, I do that from time to time

quote:

As we are all differently gifted with looks, charms, wits, and physical strength, and since these cannot be equalised, we therefore end up with a society where some goods are equaly distributed and others are not

I still say you are talking about being identical not equal. Apart from very specific (and inherently insignificant) vocations, such as modelling, these natural characteristics have no affect on the vast majority of jobs, which is what we are talking about when we say 'equal oppertunity'

quote:

nrjizer: "Should the wealthy/privilaged who've worked for what they've obtained"

Well how did they get there in the first place? Did they come from the "shitter"? Or were they born into privilage? Some I do not doubt came from the shitter but the majority will have been born into families that could afford to send them to university etc. Therefore, they have had more of an oppertunity to get into that "wealthy/privilaged" position that most working class people do not have. Equality would mean, in this example, that all people would get (free) university education (if they want it!) and therefore, they would all have had the same (equal) oppertunity...


Arbiter, do you believe that equal oppertunity (as I have described throughout the thread, ie none of that identical physical appearence stuff) is bad, or good?

quote:

Originally posted by nrjizer This is indeed an interesting subject. I wonder if anyone has done fiction on this yet? Maybe I should start flexing my writing muscle...

Er...not apart from the hundred thousand million political theory books dedicated to the subject!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I still say you are talking about being identical not equal. Apart from very specific (and inherently insignificant) vocations, such as modelling, these natural characteristics have no affect on the vast majority of jobs, which is what we are talking about when we say 'equal oppertunity'

But why focus only on the opportunity to get good jobs? How about the opportunity to have wild and passionate sex with super models every other week? The opportunity to travel the world and communicate with people from very different cultures? The opportunity to live without fear of buttons (don't ask)? The opportunity to never know the grief imposed by diseases? Personally I would give up my (very interesting) job any day, if I could attain even one of these. I know someone has these opportunities so unless you specifically say "equal opportunity of getting good jobs" I cannot agree with you: Equalisation is a process where some are promoted and others are crippled - and by applying it to only one cause of human happiness, it will be an unfair deal.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Well how did they get there in the first place? Did they come from the "shitter"? Or were they born into privilage? Some I do not doubt came from the shitter but the majority will have been born into families that could afford to send them to university etc. Therefore, they have had more of an oppertunity to get into that "wealthy/privilaged" position that most working class people do not have. Equality would mean, in this example, that all people would get (free) university education (if they want it!) and therefore, they would all have had the same (equal) oppertunity...

I work within education and can assure you that not all people are equally qualified for learning all topics. So, while I agree that rejecting students because of social status, wealth, etc. is ridiculous, I think that some educations should be confined to those who demonstrates ability within that field. So even though a system, based on my opinion, would be encompassing "equality of opportunity" as you define it, there would definately be some people who would find it skewed or biased.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Arbiter, do you believe that equal oppertunity (as I have described throughout the thread, ie none of that identical physical appearence stuff) is bad, or good?

Not being Arbiter, but so far agreeing on most of his points, I venture to answer: The question would require different answers depending on the context/some elaborations. If by "equal opportunity" you mean a "lower bound" on opportunity - even for poor people (as I gather from your posts) then it is a very good thing. If, on the other hand, the phrase means actively pursuing the eradication of class differences in society, then I say no.