NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, you heard me right - absolute equality is oppression. Now discuss

What's to discuss. You know it's true.

What's to discuss. You know it's true.
I'm just throwing it out to all the lefists here on the board for a reaction

Uhhh...I don't think most leftists support absolute equality...it just doesn't make sense. Your statement was kind of broad and obvious to me...

Yes, you heard me right - absolute equality is oppression. Now discuss
You say absolute equality, I hear enforced mediocrity (http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html).

You say absolute equality, I hear enforced mediocrity.
It is mediocrity - "equality" has been hijacked by the politcally correct (*cough*Newspeak-ing*cough*) left. I can seriously envision a world a la Harrison Bergeron emerging in the future

You say absolute equality, I hear enforced mediocrity (http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html).

Not far enough Eichen. It has to be enforced incompetence. There are totally incompetent people, so absolute equality would drag all the rest down to their level.

It is mediocrity - "equality" has been hijacked by the politcally correct (*cough*Newspeak-ing*cough*) left. I can seriously envision a world a la Harrison Bergeron emerging in the future

That is an interesting argument. I have read Harrison Bergeron, and understand where you're coming from.

In order for there to be absolute equality, everyone would have to be on the same level, which is impossible. You'd have to drag down the strong in order to help the weak.

I don't know anyone who would want absolute equality. That would be utter craziness. I for one just want equality of opportunities and basic rights.

I don't know anyone who would want absolute equality. That would be utter craziness. I for one just want equality of opportunities and basic rights.
Me too - just throwing this out to the (large) far left on NS here for a reaction

Not absolute equality. However, as John Rawls argued, inequality within society should only be in place to promote the needs of the poorest. (read up about Rawls' idea of the 'veil of ignorance' - makes so much sense)

I think what you're missing is the necessarry distinction between the kind of equality that I would actually strive for - equality of opportunity - with the extremist, socialist equality of results - I think if took a poll right now of everyone on the left, you'd find that the number supporting the first would dwarf the number supporting the second in the same way that the Earth dwarfs a marble.

Not absolute equality. However, as John Rawls argued, inequality within society should only be in place to promote the needs of the poorest. (read up about Rawls' idea of the 'veil of ignorance' - makes so much sense)

Rawls, however, presumed a society where concern for the long term future was significant and where everyone was rational and there were no risk takers. The veil of ignorance only gives the result you, and he, pointed to, under these presumptions.
Real people are not rational, and most are risk takers. As always happens, with this type of theoretical original position type argument, the outcome depends upon the assumptions made concerning the likely behaviour of the individuals ynder those circumstances.
Hobbes deduced the need for a class heirarchy from a set of presumptions about people. Rawls deduces a socialist ideal. Which one is right. Neither. People are not uniform and predictable. We are not all absolutely equal even in our ideals.

I don't want absolute equality as I personally don't think I deserve as much as others. I do think the range is far too big now, as I think many people are getting more than they deserve and many are getting less. There should be no super rich and no poverty, and that's all a good society needs for everyone to be reasonably happy.
It's because I believe people should be rewarded fairly for their effort that I am against capitalism and support socialism. Capitalism is unfair and often means people aren't properly rewarded for their efforts.

To quote Iain Benson...

Complete equality isn't compatible with democracy, but it is agreeable to totalitarianism. After all the only way to ensure the equality of the slothful, the inept and the immoral is to suppress everyone else.

There should be no super rich and no poverty,.
Without risk there can be no responsibility, and without responsibility there can be no freedom.

Capitalism is unfair and often means people aren't properly rewarded for their efforts.
LOL, that shows a complete disregard for any understanding of the subject you are discussing. Capitalism is more than about 'effort' (oh, he didn't finish painging your house, but he really tried!) It is about supply, demand and marketability. A plumber makes $40/hour because he has a skill that a lawnmower does not. They both work hard, but the plumber has developed something the lawnmower hasn't - a skill.

I love oppression. It's sooo hot.

It is mediocrity - "equality" has been hijacked by the politcally correct (*cough*Newspeak-ing*cough*) left. I can seriously envision a world a la Harrison Bergeron emerging in the future


This entire thread does a nice job of agreeing that a strawman is wrong.

Well done.

You say absolute equality, I hear enforced mediocrity (http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html).
Was thinking the same thing

Absolute equality is not so much oppression as FORCED equality

I think my dad had a pretty good stance on this issue; the job of the govenrment and society is to provide equality of opertunity, not equality of outcome

Why has nobody thought of killing everyone below the highest level, rather than bringing down everyone above the lowest level?

Yes, you heard me right - absolute equality is oppression. Now discuss
This reminds me of a short story called Harrison Bergernon, now that was absolute equality at its worst. This threads pretty open and shut.....*coughs*.

i'm gonna have to agree, Ekland. Equality can only be given to those who deserve it.

Why has nobody thought of killing everyone below the highest level, rather than bringing down everyone above the lowest level?
The proper way to do it is just wipe out everybody. No more ineqality, and no more chance for it.
:D

Equality under the law is something I agree with.

Yes, you heard me right - absolute equality is oppression.

Any type of equality is oppression, technically, because somebody will always feel as though their thoughts, feelings and actions are being oppressed by someone, whether majority or minority thought is represented.

Any type of equality is oppression, technically, because somebody will always feel as though their thoughts, feelings and actions are being oppressed by someone, whether majority or minority thought is represented.

If you are going to take into account what people feel as being what counts, then all possible forms of society are oppressive. There is always someone who is going to believe that they are being cheated.

True, that's why I like Constitutional Dictatorships, though they don't exist in the world.

Yes, you heard me right - absolute equality is oppression. Now discuss

Yes, but there is a difference between "Absolute Equality" and a Right to absolute Equality, right?

Regards,
Gaar

If you are going to take into account what people feel as being what counts, then all possible forms of society are oppressive. There is always someone who is going to believe that they are being cheated.

That's the point. Most societies are oppressive to someone who lives in them or someone observing them. That's just a matter of opinion.

That's the point. Most societies are oppressive to someone who lives in them or someone observing them. That's just a matter of opinion.

However enforced equlaity actually is oppressive as opposed to just feeling to be oppressive to some. Equality is noit subjective hewre, it is a matter of how many calories a day you get to eat, how many minutes you can spend in the public bathroom, how many minutes of public service TV you have to watch etc. These and many other such activities are quantifiable matters, and the majority, if not everyone will actually be prevented from doing something that they want to do, that would not have been prevented if absolute equality was not being enforced. This is oppression.

Absolute equality isn't possible anyway, since everyone is different.

What has to be is absolute equality in front of the law.

Though

There actually is absolute equality... in one case.

Everyone dies one day. You can be rich, you can be poor, you can be the president of the USA, or just some bum. You WILL die.