Equality

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

Discussion in the Feminism thread caused me to trip and fall over, onto one of my favorite topics, equality. Part of my post there outlined my ideals on it, but I thought I'd expand on it here, and maybe spark up some discussion on the topic.

Equality is something most human beings don't want. Feminists want "equality," which I really don't agree with. Here's the thing about equality, is it's completely non-discriminatory. It doesn't matter if you're white, black, Cuban, Asian, Mexican, British, Australian, male, female, or several of the above. You get the same thing everyone else gets.

Separate bathrooms? Denied. Scholarships? Denied. Maternity leave? Hell no. Honestly, it's not that great a thing, this whole equality subject. I like the fact that students have certain rights that can't be trumped, or the fact that women can get maternity leave, or that minors have to get breaks after a certain point.

I like the idea of non-equality, so it's fair for everyone, especially those with disabilities.

Feminists aside, I personally think the concept of definition-strict equality is very bad. It would undermine just about every useful discriminatory law in place in the United States (and likely elsewhere, although I'm unfamiliar with the laws, so I'm unsure). If there was perfect equality, yes "discrimination" and corrupt policies like Affirmative Action would cease, but a lot of highly useful objects would cease too.

Maternity leave would be out of the question, because it's an unfair task that allows for women to get paid time off that men are physically incapable of receiving. Aside from that, sexual harassment policies and laws would be thrown out the window, for the exact same reason.

Men or women who've been injured on the work place will either be forced to work or unemployed. There will be no special positions for those with disabilities, and either they find what jobs they can do, or they don't work.

Even out of the work place, scholarships would dry up between the schools, majors, and races of students. Rights that protect minors in the student sector and work force will also vanish. Every criminal will be tried as an adult, which could land 8-15 year old children in jail for life, or on the injection slab.

Lost children would turn into missing persons. Militants would no longer get military pension or payment for college, removing any perks of joining the military.

Racism would become an archaic concept, as the law views all subjects as equal, human or otherwise.

Personally, a world that's equal, in the strictest sense of the word, is a very unfair world. I really wouldn't want to live in that world. Would you?

 

[Zio666]

No but thats not what anyone wants (and if they do they're stupid) people want equal RIGHTS.

 

[John Galt]

Equality makes Baby Nietzsche cry. I'd hate to live in a world where I was treated just the same as everyone else. Ain't nothin' better than class mobility in a free-market. Also, try reading Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut if you want one of those equality gone awry scenarios.

 

[fulano]

Good Topic.

First, about your notion of feminism: From your argument I gather that for you feminism preaches equality between men and women, but in my understanding that is not the case. From my occasional misshap with feminists, they to me seem to demand equality "in principle," meaning that as individuals women are no less worthy than men, and demand even treatment in society, but to me that never really transplanted to wanting everything the same for both sexes and throwing our differences out the window.

Continuing from my last paragraph, I wouldn't like to live in a homogeneous whole where everything is the same and has the same value, but there are some very important aspects like recognizing basic rights and situations. Seeking equality as individuals in principle does not equate, in my mind, to negating basic givens from nature. It just states that one doesn't come into this world with more or less rights than others.

 

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

Good Topic.

First, about your notion of feminism: From your argument I gather that for you feminism preaches equality between men and women, but in my understanding that is not the case. From my occasional misshap with feminists, they to me seem to demand equality "in principle," meaning that as individuals women are no less worthy than men, and demand even treatment in society, but to me that never really transplanted to wanting everything the same for both sexes and throwing our differences out the window.

Continuing from my last paragraph, I wouldn't like to live in a homogeneous whole where everything is the same and has the same value, but there are some very important aspects like recognizing basic rights and situations. Seeking equality as individuals in principle does not equate, in my mind, to negating basic givens from nature. It just states that one doesn't come into this world with more or less rights than others.

No but thats not what anyone wants (and if they do they're stupid) people want equal RIGHTS.

I'm going to have to politely disagree because in the (feminist's) hunt for equal rights,then you lose the vote for equality. It would then be unfair toward women instead of unfair toward men. Some may argue that would be fair since men had the unfair advantage for countless years, but I don't feel it's just for men of this generation should be blamed, or shafted, for the actions of men in previous generations.

I personally think if any crusading should go on, then it should be in equal in terms of everything, not just rights.

If I'm not being clear on this, women still have and receive perks that men do not. Just as any racial minority will receive a job over me, even if we have the same credentials, due to Affirmative Action. This isn't a fair world for that reason, and while equality would level that, I think those who hunt for it would lose any of my support because they wouldn't want to lose what advantages they have, while also gaining the advantages we have as well.

It'd be an unfair world, and one I can't get behind.

But, that's another topic for another thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.70439]. What this thread is mostly concerned with is solutions to this inequality crusade being turned into an equal crusade. What perks do you think would have to be lost from which parties, which perks would be gained by which parties, and what regulations in place would be changed to ensure that the world is a positive equal place, instead of a negative one.

Equality makes Baby Nietzsche cry. I'd hate to live in a world where I was treated just the same as everyone else. Ain't nothin' better than class mobility in a free-market. Also, try reading Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut if you want one of those equality gone awry scenarios.

I may have to give that one a shot. Can it easily be found in a bookstore, or is that one online-only?

 

[JMeganSnow]

There is a film studio making a short movie out of the Harrison Bergeron story called 2081 [http://www.finallyequal.com/index-flash.html]. You can read the short story here. [http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html]

There is only one type of equality that matters for individuals and that's equality *before the law*, which grants each person the power and privilege of seeking their own level. This is sometimes called "equality of opportunity", which means that no one is able to stop you from seeking the very best that you can find--and no one is required to help you, either. Equality of results is impossible. You cannot turn an idiot into a genius. You can only destroy genius--and the idiot, at the same time.

As for questions like maternity leave--did you ever consider that this sort of thing makes it more expensive to employ women of childbearing age. What are you going to do next? Force companies to hire X number of women in all positions? This will force prices up. Are you going to institute price controls next?

Government controls breed more controls. The only solution is to get rid of government interference in such matters altogether. I'm a woman, and I'm perfectly capable of deciding who I want to work for and what job conditions I'm willing to accept. Since I never intend to have kids, I find the idea of being forced to pay for the maternity of other women to be unfair in the extreme.

 

[Erana]

Sounds like an interesting place, but we all know that Communism wound up in bloodshed worse than the Holocaust.
Anyhow, the big problem is that humans are designed for self-preservation. Pain, fear, etc. are too big of a factor for us to live as an equal society. If we were designed like ants, who evolved with the only key factor being the survival of the colony, then humans would have already conquered the Solar System.

 

[fulano]

Government controls breed more controls. The only solution is to get rid of government interference in such matters altogether. I'm a woman, and I'm perfectly capable of deciding who I want to work for and what job conditions I'm willing to accept. Since I never intend to have kids, I find the idea of being forced to pay for the maternity of other women to be unfair in the extreme.

Ehm. Why is it unfair? If you are a tax payer that means that you pay for the fire department, police department, depending on where you are you pay for medical, the prison systems. All that is preventive. Now, about actually paying for a little ease when perpetrating the species, well...let's just say I don't agree with you.

 

[HSIAMetalKing]

As I said in the Feminism thread--

"Equality does not exist-- deal with it."

 

[anti_strunt]

All funky collegiate argumentation aside - equal pay for equal work would be a good start...

 

[meatloaf231]

As I said in the Feminism thread--

"Equality does not exist-- deal with it."

And look, it still applies just as well!

Hooray!

 

[Maet]

I'll support equality when people stop running faster than me.

Seriously, equality stifles greatness and promotes mediocrity. I completely disagree with it.

 

[meatloaf231]

I'll support equality when people stop running faster than me.

Seriously, equality stifles greatness and promotes mediocrity. I completely disagree with it.

Equality is just another way of saying "everyone has to go as slow as the slowest person, otherwise the slowest person gets offended."

 

[John Galt]

. If we were designed like ants, who evolved with the only key factor being the survival of the colony, then humans would have already conquered the Solar System.

Technically we already have, seeing as how the lone man on the mountain is king of the hill.

 

[bad rider]

On a slim offset of the thread, is it possible to be racist against racists?
(Yes i see the irony.)

 

[fulano]

On a slim offset of the thread, is it possible to be racist against racists?
(Yes i see the irony.)

It is possible. Say, all white people hate all black people, then you decide to hate all white people because they hate all black people.

There you have it.

 

[JMeganSnow]

Ehm. Why is it unfair? If you are a tax payer that means that you pay for the fire department, police department, depending on where you are you pay for medical, the prison systems.

It's not "fair" that I'm forced to pay for any of that crap whether I want to or not, either, so what use is that argument? You may as well say that it's my responsibility to pay for a million dollar penthouse and a yacht for every man, woman, child and abortion in the entire world. Why can't they demand that from me, if I still have the ability to have not collapsed? They can't? Then why can they demand that I go without cream for my coffee until they've finished nursing their brat?

No one can support the unlimited desires of an indefinite number of other people. If you want ANYTHING, be it food, shelter, health care or children, you have to pay for it YOURSELF.

TANSTAAFL.

 

[Ace of Spades]

This topic makes me think of the sci-fi story Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut that I read in middle school, in which, people had created a society that was for all intents and purposes equal. This seems like a good idea going into it, but it made me realize that a society in which everyone is treated equally badly, is still an equal society. I say that things are fine the way they are.

 

[fulano]

It's not "fair" that I'm forced to pay for any of that crap whether I want to or not, either, so what use is that argument? You may as well say that it's my responsibility to pay for a million dollar penthouse and a yacht for every man, woman, child and abortion in the entire world. Why can't they demand that from me, if I still have the ability to have not collapsed? They can't? Then why can they demand that I go without cream for my coffee until they've finished nursing their brat?

No one can support the unlimited desires of an indefinite number of other people. If you want ANYTHING, be it food, shelter, health care or children, you have to pay for it YOURSELF.

TANSTAAFL.

At first I thought I only respectfully disagreed with you. Now, after reading THAT, let's just say I just disagree with you.

It's called solidarity with your species.

Somehow you put the actual perpetration of your own species at the same level of whims like yachts, penthouse and the like. Please, I'm not even gonna go there...

Again, it's called solidarity. I'm not gonna apologize for actually being willing to pay for someone else's chance of not dying in a fire, or being medically treated, etc. if they would do it for me. Just a selfish existence in pursuit of self interest doesn't do it for me.

Meh...

 

[anti_strunt]

It's not "fair" that I'm forced to pay for any of that crap whether I want to or not, either, so what use is that argument? You may as well say that it's my responsibility to pay for a million dollar penthouse and a yacht for every man, woman, child and abortion in the entire world. Why can't they demand that from me, if I still have the ability to have not collapsed? They can't? Then why can they demand that I go without cream for my coffee until they've finished nursing their brat?

No one can support the unlimited desires of an indefinite number of other people. If you want ANYTHING, be it food, shelter, health care or children, you have to pay for it YOURSELF.

TANSTAAFL.

What unabomberman said. Letting children starve just because you think it's an infringement on your rights to pay to feed them, is simply ogrish. Sorry.

Also, some issues are actually most efficiently dealt with using collective (usually tax-financed) action. That's an economic fact. Claiming that individual action will always lead to the best/most efficient result is an ideological fantasy - an oft-repeated fantasy, but a fantasy nontheless.

Another fun fact: a scientific study from 2006 compared rates of social mobility across the Western world (it got a full page article in the Economist, so it wasn't some fringe lunacy). Which region was the most socially mobile? Laissez-faire America? Actually, it was socialist Scandinavia. Heck, the UK turned out to have a higher rate of poor children rising from poverty than the US...