NationStates Jolt Archive

Equality

Now in case all you people are wondering i'm not talking about racial or gender equality.


I'm talking about Communist/socialist philosophy.

In my opinion people are not equal and do not deserve to be treated equally. Should someone who works hard pays taxs and does his best every day be treated the same as a lazy scrounger who's never done a days work in his life.


People are not equal some are better than others and this needs to be accepted

People should be treated equally under law but in any other respect people are not equal at all.

People should be judged by their merits such as how hard they work and how much they contribute to society(and whatever other qualifiers are necessary). I could see the communist philosophy being reasonable if everyone did work that was about equal(no slackers) or if we were a society of ascetics(no consumer goods) but neither of those are true in this world so unequal distribution of wealth makes some sense.

Equality

Now in case all you people are wondering i'm not talking about racial or gender equality.


I'm talking about Communist/socialist philosophy.

In my opinion people are not equal and do not deserve to be treated equally. Should someone who works hard pays taxs and does his best every day be treated the same as a lazy scrounger who's never done a days work in his life.


People are not equal some are better than others and this needs to be accepted

Ah, but what of the lazy scrounger who doesn't do a days work for many years, until it finally dawns on him that in order to keep the generous society that he leeches off intact, he's actually got to do something - 'cause it sucks living a life where everybody looks down their nose at you for being a complete and utter failure and general deadweight on the rest of the community?

All people are equal, some just take longer to grow up and shoulder responsibility, and this needs to be accepted.

Communisim thinks like that. That is one of the many reasons it doesnt work as a political or economic system.

Socialisim seeks to create a society where everyone can ahieve his or her potential without being restricted by the government. This philosophy is very promenent within the US, so in that respect, you could call the Us a socialist society. But of course it isnt in many other ways.

People are different, but all humans have the desire to achieve something. Some just know what they want to achieve better than others.

Ah, but what of the lazy scrounger who doesn't do a days work for many years, until it finally dawns on him that in order to keep the generous society that he leeches off intact, he's actually got to do something - 'cause it sucks living a life where everybody looks down their nose at you for being a complete and utter failure and general deadweight on the rest of the community?

All people are equal, some just take longer to grow up and shoulder responsibility, and this needs to be accepted.


Dobbsworld do you really believe this? Not being attacking in anyway, I just question whether you believe what you are saying. If there are two groups of people: one that works hard, pays taxes on their earnings, and benefits society as a whole, and the other who plays around, is generally lazy, and makes no contribution to society, they definitely should not be treated as equals. You see, there is no incentive for the lazy one to start doing anything, as I can only imagine the "looking down the nose at you" treatment doesnt really phase the true leaches on society in any way. your thoughts?

Ah, but what of the lazy scrounger who doesn't do a days work for many years, until it finally dawns on him that in order to keep the generous society that he leeches off intact, he's actually got to do something - 'cause it sucks living a life where everybody looks down their nose at you for being a complete and utter failure and general deadweight on the rest of the community?

All people are equal, some just take longer to grow up and shoulder responsibility, and this needs to be accepted.
I would say that he is not equal until he grows up to shoulder his responsibility. What gives people societal value is what they do for society, that is why the lazy scrounger is not equal to the industrious whatever.

Not all people necessarily evolve and even then they do not all rise to the same level. Some are ambitious and seek to get the most accomplished that they can, others are laid back and will only do what is required. These 2 people are not by their nature worth the same amount in an economic sense so they should not have the same value in the same economic sense.

Ah, but what of the lazy scrounger who doesn't do a days work for many years, until it finally dawns on him that in order to keep the generous society that he leeches off intact, he's actually got to do something - 'cause it sucks living a life where everybody looks down their nose at you for being a complete and utter failure and general deadweight on the rest of the community?

All people are equal, some just take longer to grow up and shoulder responsibility, and this needs to be accepted.

Whilst capitalism bypasses the years, or even decades, of this and causes people to make their own way from the word go.

And what about those people who won't care about their standing in the community? Because in the end, there will be people who just don't care in any system.

But at any rate, I'll cut Communism some slack. I have to; any attempts of injecting reality is met with the most forceful of rhetorics about how there has never been real Communism, and how idyllic a system it is.

Anyways, no people should not be treated equally. They should have the same legal rights, and that's it.

This entire discussion seems to be predicated on there being just two
types.
Hard workers who earn money and pay taxes and lazy scroungers
who don't work and expect everything handed to them.

While that might be how you would define people in what capitalists
seem to think of as a communist system it isn't how people are in
capitalist society.
There are very highly paid people who do considerably less actual
work than some very poorly paid people.
There are whole groups of people falling within the range between those
two types and then there are people who aren't working for one reason
or another, often people with poor education but also people with physical or
mental health problems of varying degrees of severity.

It is an interesting definition, to assign as socialism; that the government
doesn't hinder people achieving their potential.
Is this redefinition of words, by Americans, to mean in some cases the polar
opposite of what they actually mean going to continue much longer?

A hard worker should get praise and some sort of treat, a lazy person should be told they should have helped the harder worker and how they could have helped him, too.

That's how you treat them differently:rolleyes::p

For example, the people across the street from my house sometimes don't cut the grass in their ditches, once my dad cut the grass, another time I believe he cut it right in front of them to show them how to do it too :gundge: My mom scolds him for being a bit of a snob/brat but somewhat treats him for cutting the grass on our property by letting him be in control of the TV or something about there.
The End, people!

In my view, the principle of equality in Socialism is that everyone has the opportunity to be equal by contributing their work to society. In Capitalism some people never get the chance to contribute because of poverty and Capitalism, some never get an adequate education while the children of the rich have unfair advantages.

In my vision of a socialist society everyone would start on an equal playing field and everyone who worked hard would be respected and treated as equals, all who sqaunder the opportunity they are given through apathy and laziness would be scorned and viewed with contempt. Obviously those who are physically or mentally incapable of work would be an exception to this rule as their failure to contribute is no fault of their own. Thanks to anyone who took the time to read the entire post.

*gets off soapbox*

And what about those people who won't care about their standing in the community? Because in the end, there will be people who just don't care in any system.
Well, if their stated intent in life is to simply live off of other's largesse, they're pretty obviously mentally ill, aren't they? And doesn't the same follow for those born into largesse, who strive for nothing whatsoever? Of course, we downplay the idle rich because the financing is in place to accomodate their mental illness. We instead tend to focus on the 'welfare bum' in their place, who after all, isn't financed privately, and is then a drain on the community.

Were we to treat the ailment rather than the symptom, perhaps we could realize the potential in all of us. To have as a goal in life the unfettered ability to do nothing at all is to be completely unhinged. Who on earth would truly aspire to such an empty goal? A vanishing few, in need of medical or psychological assistance. That's who.

The myths of the happy-go-lucky welfare mom, the boozehound scroungers, etc., are just that, for the most part: myths. Or molehills made over into mountains, tempests in teacups, however you care to think of it. Who honestly would choose to be of no consequence? Anybody? In honesty?

While it may in fact be true that there are people who will subvert, pervert, or corrupt any system going - that's a long way away from saying that this forms any significant portion of a given population's choice of lifestyle. The degree of self-importance and self-concern required, the lack of empathy for the burden one places on ones fellows, are all signposts to some form of pathology. Sociopathy, anyway.

I refuse to beieve that my community is rife with sociopaths. And I would think it best that people displaying these symptoms be given the medical/pschological assistance they need to thrive and survive. I would want no less for myself were I so afflicted.

In my view, the principle of equality in Socialism is that everyone has the opportunity to be equal by contributing their work to society. In Capitalism some people never get the chance to contribute because of poverty and Capitalism, some never get an adequate education while the children of the rich have unfair advantages.

In my vision of a socialist society everyone would start on an equal playing field and everyone who worked hard would be respected and treated as equals, all who sqaunder the opportunity they are given through apathy and laziness would be scorned and viewed with contempt. Obviously those who are physically or mentally incapable of work would be an exception to this rule as their failure to contribute is no fault of their own. Thanks to anyone who took the time to read the entire post.

*gets off soapbox*

Yaay, someone who shares my ideals!

Yaay, someone who shares my ideals!

Yaay, someone who reads my posts!

Yaay, someone who reads my posts!

I read your posts...

I believe in the context presented that meritocracy is acceptable.

<snip>

Well spoken.

I read your posts...

So everyone's happy!

Well, if their stated intent in life is to simply live off of other's largesse, they're pretty obviously mentally ill, aren't they? And doesn't the same follow for those born into largesse, who strive for nothing whatsoever? Of course, we downplay the idle rich because the financing is in place to accomodate their mental illness. We instead tend to focus on the 'welfare bum' in their place, who after all, isn't financed privately, and is then a drain on the community.

Mentally ill? Mentally sound. The highest echelon of Human endeavour is to remove all need for effort and to maximize personal time, whether that be for entertainment, pursuing one's own projects, or something else. Besides which, someone who has the power/means to do whatever they like can do whatever they like, so long as it doesn't infringe upon others doing the same. Someone who requires the resources of others for the same ends is infringing on others, they're commiting theft.

Were we to treat the ailment rather than the symptom, perhaps we could realize the potential in all of us. To have as a goal in life the unfettered ability to do nothing at all is to be completely unhinged. Who on earth would truly aspire to such an empty goal? A vanishing few, in need of medical or psychological assistance. That's who.

Absolutely incorrect. The opposite is not true either, there is dignity and worth to be found in manual labor, but there is a reason for the last ten thousand years of technological innovation.

The myths of the happy-go-lucky welfare mom, the boozehound scroungers, etc., are just that, for the most part: myths. Or molehills made over into mountains, tempests in teacups, however you care to think of it. Who honestly would choose to be of no consequence? Anybody? In honesty?

Nobody is of any inherent consequence anyway. People build their own worth; if they can find that without the need for financial strength or to be living without the aid of the welfare of others, then they will likely not care about it. However, I do agree that a large proportion of the unemployed are happy and determined to work, and the problem is either lack of jobs or poor screening on behalf of employers.

While it may in fact be true that there are people who will subvert, pervert, or corrupt any system going - that's a long way away from saying that this forms any significant portion of a given population's choice of lifestyle. The degree of self-importance and self-concern required, the lack of empathy for the burden one places on ones fellows, are all signposts to some form of pathology. Sociopathy, anyway.

Oh, so it's sociopathic not to throw oneself headlong into the support of people you don't know, probably will never meet or even hear of, and who's worth you cannot judge. The thing is that Communism can work perfectly well on a local scale, but on a larger scale, with today's diversity in culture and beliefs, it is unenforcable and ridiculous to believe it is workable.

I refuse to beieve that my community is rife with sociopaths. And I would think it best that people displaying these symptoms be given the medical/pschological assistance they need to thrive and survive. I would want no less for myself were I so afflicted.

Good, your community isn't rife with sociopaths. It is, however, rife with people who put theirselves, their friends, their families, and those they believe to be worthwhile over people they never met who they have no ability to judge.

BTW, if you had made it more subtle I would commend you for condemning everyone who disagrees with your ideology as mentally ill. For my part, I think anybody who puts the state before the individual suffers from an evolutionary and instinctual flaw of the highest magnitude, but I also think they have the right to those flaws.

<snip>
Come on! Do you really think that people would prefer a purposeful life over one filled with sex and drugs? I knew some people who only loved to talk about sex, drugs, parties and their masculine areas. They did not have any real goals, they did not make anything of themselves, their mentallity however extreme is not rare by any extent. Many people in society are hedonists, they only want pleasure and not the pain of "working to help society", yes some people grow out of this idea of all pleasure and no pain but they only do so because some outside force forces them to do so(parents kick them out and/or force them to get a job). If people had the ability to not work then they would not work, this can be seen in basic human nature.

Everyone is equal, just some more than others.

Mentally ill? Mentally sound. The highest echelon of Human endeavour is to remove all need for effort and to maximize personal time, whether that be for entertainment, pursuing one's own projects, or something else. Besides which, someone who has the power/means to do whatever they like can do whatever they like, so long as it doesn't infringe upon others doing the same. Someone who requires the resources of others for the same ends is infringing on others, they're commiting theft.

But the 'idle rich' are infringing on the lives of hard-working people, they drain the products of industry, agriculture and civilisation but put nothing in, I fail to understand how you can't recognise this as theft.

Let us take as an example a family of heridatry land-owners who own vast tracts of farmland. They don't even employ the people who work the land but the farmers, who are contributing a most valuable service to the community, must pay the lazy landowner for the privilege of working hard for the common good. This shows that the idle rich are not merely unneccessary, they are harmful. If the land was nationalised and the farmers were state employed then the farmers could be paid more, as no money would be drained by the landowner, and on a large scale, food would be cheaper as it would be cheaper to produce.

Absolutely incorrect. The opposite is not true either, there is dignity and worth to be found in manual labor, but there is a reason for the last ten thousand years of technological innovation.

The ultimate aspiration of human life should be to do your fair share of work and then spend the rest of your life in pursuit of happiness in whichever form you choose. Currently though a few do no work, some too little work and many do too much work. Ironically it is usually the most idle who are best able to seek happiness, is this fair?

Nobody is of any inherent consequence anyway. People build their own worth; if they can find that without the need for financial strength or to be living without the aid of the welfare of others, then they will likely not care about it. However, I do agree that a large proportion of the unemployed are happy and determined to work, and the problem is either lack of jobs or poor screening on behalf of employers.

I agree with much of this statement except that you avoid the obvious conclusion: that there are people willing to work and as a country everything we need can be produced by a fraction of the population. If you take the unemployed and those doing useless work such as advertising and put them all into important jobs then everybody could work shorter hours and retire earlier for the same pay.

Oh, so it's sociopathic not to throw oneself headlong into the support of people you don't know, probably will never meet or even hear of, and who's worth you cannot judge. The thing is that Communism can work perfectly well on a local scale, but on a larger scale, with today's diversity in culture and beliefs, it is unenforcable and ridiculous to believe it is workable.

I don't know about Dobbsworld but I'm Socialist, not Communist. By believing yourself to be more important than others for no good reason is clear proof of your inferiority. In my view, nobody should be compelled to work but all industry is run by the state and if someone who is capable of working refuses to contribute there is no reason why they should be supported, this includes the previously mentioned 'idle rich'.

Good, your community isn't rife with sociopaths. It is, however, rife with people who put theirselves, their friends, their families, and those they believe to be worthwhile over people they never met who they have no ability to judge.

In my opinion, as I said just above, nobody would be forced to contribute but they can't expect support if they refuse. A Socialist state would not prevent anyone from caring for their loved ones more than strangers and there is no way it could, it would merely prevent people from doing others harm through love for their family.

bump

one last bump

I believe in the context presented that meritocracy is acceptable.

Yes I agree with that. Although equality is a nice principle, human nature rejects it. Also I cant get to grips with the idea that a chav is equal to me. Damn chavs dont deserve rights, they are barely human.

wouldn't a meritocracy be nice, a goverment in which everyone is judged and acted upon by how much they are worth (not in an economical sense nesacarily)

Equality

Now in case all you people are wondering i'm not talking about racial or gender equality.


I'm talking about Communist/socialist philosophy.

In my opinion people are not equal and do not deserve to be treated equally. Should someone who works hard pays taxs and does his best every day be treated the same as a lazy scrounger who's never done a days work in his life.


People are not equal some are better than others and this needs to be acceptedDon't confuse division of labour and inequality in needs with equality.

Division of labour. From each according to his or her abilities.

Some people are better at certain things. A fantastic shoe maker would be wasted as a garbage sweeper, no? Some people are great poets. Some should never, ever try to compose poetry.

Inequality in needs. To each according to his or her needs.

A person who needs a wheelchair needs the damn wheelchair. A person who can walk, doesn't. We wouldn't go around giving everyone a wheelchair, just to be 'equal' now would we? And we're talking needs, not wants. I may want to fly to Paris and Rome on the weekend, but I don't need to. And neither does some guy who just happened to be born into money.

Equality != the same for everyone. Use instead the concept of equity = fairness. Equal opportunities, equal voice, equitable treatment. People are not little paper cutouts of one another, and nothing in communism says they should be.

People should be treated equally under law but in any other respect people are not equal at all.

People should be judged by their merits such as how hard they work and how much they contribute to society(and whatever other qualifiers are necessary). I could see the communist philosophy being reasonable if everyone did work that was about equal(no slackers) or if we were a society of ascetics(no consumer goods) but neither of those are true in this world so unequal distribution of wealth makes some sense.
The problem is determining what is “good “ and “bad” and finding some objective way to then reward “good”

Though you could go with the objective contribution to society … the more someone contributes the more someone gets out

But that does not take in account INTENT so someone that works every day of their life but does not contribute a necessary component to society would not get back as much as someone who works moderately hard but was more productive from a societal stand point

And if you want to reward intent how do you
A) Test for true intent to do something or contribute
B) Choose which attributes should be rewarded
C) Determine what a fair reward for that intent would be
D) Justify giving them non proportional rewards to their input to society when you are trying to make things more “fair”

Ah, but what of the lazy scrounger who doesn't do a days work for many years, until it finally dawns on him that in order to keep the generous society that he leeches off intact, he's actually got to do something - 'cause it sucks living a life where everybody looks down their nose at you for being a complete and utter failure and general deadweight on the rest of the community?

All people are equal, some just take longer to grow up and shoulder responsibility, and this needs to be accepted.


Those who are able to work and don't should be forced into servitude to those of us who will. There is no excuse for leeching off the rest of us.

Ah, but what of the lazy scrounger who doesn't do a days work for many years, until it finally dawns on him that in order to keep the generous society that he leeches off intact, he's actually got to do something - 'cause it sucks living a life where everybody looks down their nose at you for being a complete and utter failure and general deadweight on the rest of the community?

All people are equal, some just take longer to grow up and shoulder responsibility, and this needs to be accepted.

and what about those people who continue to sit on their asses... their entire lives?

there are those who, if given the chance, will continue to take the free ride.

that is why we should put strict limits for welfare, in the cases of those who are able, in body and mind, to work. there must be welfare for those who are nuts/retarded or handicapped, and there should probably be some available for those who've recently been fired.

but we shouldn't allow able people to become dependant on it. at some point, able people need to begin relying on themselves.

Well, if their stated intent in life is to simply live off of other's largesse, they're pretty obviously mentally ill, aren't they? And doesn't the same follow for those born into largesse, who strive for nothing whatsoever? Of course, we downplay the idle rich because the financing is in place to accomodate their mental illness. We instead tend to focus on the 'welfare bum' in their place, who after all, isn't financed privately, and is then a drain on the community.

Were we to treat the ailment rather than the symptom, perhaps we could realize the potential in all of us. To have as a goal in life the unfettered ability to do nothing at all is to be completely unhinged. Who on earth would truly aspire to such an empty goal? A vanishing few, in need of medical or psychological assistance. That's who.

The myths of the happy-go-lucky welfare mom, the boozehound scroungers, etc., are just that, for the most part: myths. Or molehills made over into mountains, tempests in teacups, however you care to think of it. Who honestly would choose to be of no consequence? Anybody? In honesty?

While it may in fact be true that there are people who will subvert, pervert, or corrupt any system going - that's a long way away from saying that this forms any significant portion of a given population's choice of lifestyle. The degree of self-importance and self-concern required, the lack of empathy for the burden one places on ones fellows, are all signposts to some form of pathology. Sociopathy, anyway.

I refuse to beieve that my community is rife with sociopaths. And I would think it best that people displaying these symptoms be given the medical/pschological assistance they need to thrive and survive. I would want no less for myself were I so afflicted.



I think 1/24 people are sociopaths if I remember correctly.

From an NS "issue:" "Some people still have more money than others. Need I say more?" Groan!

Those who are able to work and don't should be forced into servitude to those of us who will. There is no excuse for leeching off the rest of us.

While I agree with the general principle of punishing lazy people I feel it is both easier and more morally justified to refuse them food and the other products of industry, nobody deserves slavery.

Now what do you thin about Equal work for Equal pay. I know people busting their humps at two jobs & don't make as much as some desk jockeys who play on the internet for a living. Is that right?

While I agree with the general principle of punishing lazy people I feel it is both easier and more morally justified to refuse them food and the other products of industry, nobody deserves slavery.



Personally, I'd take slavery above starvation :D

Botswombata']Now what do you thin about Equal work for Equal pay. I know people busting their humps at two jobs & don't make as much as some desk jockeys who play on the internet for a living. Is that right?
How bout busting my hump at two “desk jockey” jobs and a third security job?

Personally, I'd take slavery above starvation :D

Stop typing and get back to work!

-edit-

Oh, and on a serious note, the idea is that someone who doesn't want to contribute to society could probably scrape a living from fishing, foraging etc. They have a choice (well, sortof).

Botswombata']Now what do you thin about Equal work for Equal pay. I know people busting their humps at two jobs & don't make as much as some desk jockeys who play on the internet for a living. Is that right?

I think Sinuhue addressed this with 'From each according to their ability, to each according to their need'. I personally feel this to be a very good viewpoint.

How bout busting my hump at two “desk jockey” jobs and a third security job?



You're a security guard too!?

I think Sinuhue addressed this with 'From each according to their ability, to each according to their need'. I personally feel this to be a very good viewpoint.
But how do you decide whose job is the greater need.
For example a trash collector does much to curb sickness & disease before it happens where a Dr for the most part evaluates & treats sickness.

Both of these jobs are vital to the survival of an individual community but right now Dr's make on the average about 200-300% more theb your average trash collector.

Even taking into consideration time & cost of education their is still an extreme gap.

Now on the same tolken I believe free enterprise is important. It gives us a greater incentive not to be lazy. To aim for higher goals.

I don't believe a gov body should set pricing. I think a govs responsibility is to educate the public on what is fair pricing & let society as a whole enforce it. through barter.

I think we have set ourselves up with a system where people accept that the price on the tagis the price you pay. It's led to a lot of corruption.

You're a security guard too!?
Yup :) it is my night time job (10 pm to 6 am) LOL

Botswombata']Now what do you thin about Equal work for Equal pay. I know people busting their humps at two jobs & don't make as much as some desk jockeys who play on the internet for a living. Is that right?

No. People deserve pay based upon the amount of education and skill they have in a field that requires it. You cannot pay based upon the amount of work someone does, but rather the value of it and the training it takes to produce it.

people are equal. the only divisions that exist are man made, therefore we only seperate ourselves. jobs should pay based on the work it entails. everyone should be treated equal but a little moral coaxing couldnt hurt in the process

people are equal. the only divisions that exist are man made, therefore we only seperate ourselves. jobs should pay based on the work it entails. everyone should be treated equal but a little moral coaxing couldnt hurt in the process
You are saying there are no biological inequalities … I beg to differ

Why as a man can I not give birth? If we were all equal I would be able to

People's equal treetment should be earned through EFFORT. If someone is UNABLE to work, they should not be further punished for it. I mean if say I had to have an arm amputated, I couldn't do the heavy-lifting eork that I had ben doing. Should I be punished further by being fired from my job getting a blemish on my work history making it harder to find another?

You are saying there are no biological inequalities … I beg to differ

Why as a man can I not give birth? If we were all equal I would be able to

Feel free to try to give birth in the name of equality if you want to, I won't stop you. Anyway, that is a biological difference, not an inequality; you need a man and a woman to get a child (yes I have heard of the new science which allows two women to have a child but it's incredibly unreliable). You are not superior by virtue of having a penis in the same way that a woman isn't superior by virtue of being able to give birth, you're equal but different.

In England we have the NHS and everyone gets free treatment, if I had a defective kidney and my friend was in depression if we are both cured then we have been treated equally, they don't have to give me happy pills as well and remove one of my friends' kidneys as well to make it fair.

Botswombata']But how do you decide whose job is the greater need.
For example a trash collector does much to curb sickness & disease before it happens where a Dr for the most part evaluates & treats sickness.

Both of these jobs are vital to the survival of an individual community but right now Dr's make on the average about 200-300% more theb your average trash collector.

Even taking into consideration time & cost of education their is still an extreme gap.


People who are capable of becoming doctors are obviously rarer, and so should be doctors as few others could do the job, 'from each according to his/her ability'. A persons need isn't defined by their job and can only be determined on an individual basis.

Feel free to try to give birth in the name of equality if you want to, I won't stop you. Anyway, that is a biological difference, not an inequality; you need a man and a woman to get a child (yes I have heard of the new science which allows two women to have a child but it's incredibly unreliable). You are not superior by virtue of having a penis in the same way that a woman isn't superior by virtue of being able to give birth, you're equal but different.

In England we have the NHS and everyone gets free treatment, if I had a defective kidney and my friend was in depression if we are both cured then we have been treated equally, they don't have to give me happy pills as well and remove one of my friends' kidneys as well to make it fair.
If they are different they are NOT equal

I am not basing an argument off of that fact just pointing out the error in the statement that the ONLY inequalities are man made

People who are capable of becoming doctors are obviously rarer, and so should be doctors as few others could do the job, 'from each according to his/her ability'. A persons need isn't defined by their job and can only be determined on an individual basis.

I think their are more people then you think that could pass the clinicals to become a Dr. Many just have no chance to prove it because they are not afforded the luxury of an education.

Botswombata']I think their are more people then you think that could pass the clinicals to become a Dr. Many just have no chance to prove it because they are not afforded the luxury of an education.
And that’s where the “according to his need” part comes in with state based student loans and such

Its plenty easy to get that education even now if you work for it and make it a priority

People who are capable of becoming doctors are obviously rarer, and so should be doctors as few others could do the job, 'from each according to his/her ability'. A persons need isn't defined by their job and can only be determined on an individual basis.

Just a side note to this. There are many who have a good intellect for test taking and school/academic performance. This does not necessarily make them a good doctor. There are some doctors you wonder how they ever got through school because their application skills are atrocious. Seriously... If I have to have surgery I guarantee you I would be mightily tempted to have "Don't let Dr So and So near me" tatooed across my chest :D.

I think eveyone is equal, but not in the way that you are saying, I think that everyone should be on the same playing feild. 1% of the world controls 99% of the money. If you work hard at whatever you do, you should move up, likewise, if you really suck at what you do, even if you are bill gates, you culd live in a cardboard box on the street. So even if your on top, you should still have to work to saty there, and the rich family would be abolished. :)

I think eveyone is equal, but not in the way that you are saying, I think that everyone should be on the same playing feild. 1% of the world controls 99% of the money. If you work hard at whatever you do, you should move up, likewise, if you really suck at what you do, even if you are bill gates, you culd live in a cardboard box on the street. So even if your on top, you should still have to work to saty there, and the rich family would be abolished. :)
Bill gates was and is not all that brilliant of a designer at all but he managed to be LUCKY (right time at the right place with the right product) but yet he gained a MASSIVE amount of money for sheer luck
It had not all that much really to do with “hard work” and progression in a field.


I see what you are getting at … a completely capitalistic society format where everyone has the right to work as hard as they can

And to an extent I agree … but with complete freedom like that we have to understand that to an extent some monetary and social gain is luck/placement
And we also have to understand that in the real world some of the disadvantaged are also because of luck/placement not necessarily work , learning , or ability to contribute if given a chance

I think eveyone is equal, but not in the way that you are saying, I think that everyone should be on the same playing feild. 1% of the world controls 99% of the money. If you work hard at whatever you do, you should move up, likewise, if you really suck at what you do, even if you are bill gates, you culd live in a cardboard box on the street. So even if your on top, you should still have to work to saty there, and the rich family would be abolished. :)

The problem with meritocracy is nepotism. Even if you set up a meritocracy, leveled the playing field and gave everyone the same chances,it would most likely disolve because of the notion of family first.

Also you can not always level the playing field because money is not the only factor that would need to be delved out equally.

there must be welfare for those who are nuts/retarded or handicapped...

As someone who suffers from a mental disorder, I'd like to thank you for your sensitive choice of language. :rolleyes:

As for the original topic, as others have said, the imagined dichotomy between the hardworking laborer and the lazy bum is far too simplistic. The vast majority of people fall somewhere in between, and ranking them in a meritocracy would thus be practically impossible.

Then, of course, there's the whole problem of deciding who works "harder" and whose work is more "valuable" in non-comparable jobs. How does an author compare to a construction worker? A mortician to a teacher? A plumber to a surgeon? Who works harder? Whose work is more valuable? How on earth can you know?

If they are different they are NOT equal

wouldn't this depend on the domain being discussed? things do not have to be identical to be equal, particularly when the equality in question isn't ever used to mean equal as in sharing every single property.

The problem with meritocracy is nepotism. Even if you set up a meritocracy, leveled the playing field and gave everyone the same chances,it would most likely disolve because of the notion of family first.

Also you can not always level the playing field because money is not the only factor that would need to be delved out equally.
Read a short story on this once

To level the playing field they had to level backgrounds and intelligences

Since we have no way to bring UP (at least to an equally high level) so they brought Down intelligence performance through drugs

In my opinion people are not equal and do not deserve to be treated equally. Should someone who works hard pays taxs and does his best every day be treated the same as a lazy scrounger who's never done a days work in his life.

People are not equal some are better than others and this needs to be accepted

arbeit macht frei, eh?

Read a short story on this once

To level the playing field they had to level backgrounds and intelligences

Since we have no way to bring UP (at least to an equally high level) so they brought Down intelligence performance through drugs

Oh that just sounds dandy. Hopefully no one would consider that as a viable option. If they were than I would have to start getting good at looking like I am swallowing pills I am not. :)

Or possibly convincing others the pills made them stronger or tasted better than candy lol.

Botswombata']I think their are more people then you think that could pass the clinicals to become a Dr. Many just have no chance to prove it because they are not afforded the luxury of an education.

Ok, I probably played down the number of people who could become doctors but a good education can only do so much *cough*Prince Harry*cough*. Still, you must admit there are more potential garbage-collectors out there than there are potential brain surgeons. :)

If they are different they are NOT equal

Equality is a social state of affairs in which certain different people have the same status in a certain respect. There are different forms of equality, depending on the persons and social situations in question. For example, one may consider equality of the sexes in opportunities for employment; the people in question are men and women (contrasted) and the social situation is the search for a job. As another example, equal opportunity refers to the idea that all people should start out in life from the same platform (i.e. all should have equal opportunities in life, regardless of where they were born or who their parents were).

A fight for social and legal equality was seen during the sixties in the United States in the Civil Rights movement.

In my opinion the part in bold shows that, in the dictionary definition of equality, not all qualities must be the same, only some.

As an example of things which are equal but not the same take washing. Taking a bath and taking a shower are different but they both get you clean.

Well I'm going to bed, see you guys tomorrow. :)

I believe all people are born equal, and that's where it ends.

I would have to say that Einstein was better than Hitler, and I am better than a bum who contributes nothing to the world but an extended, expectant cup. It's harsh, yes, but it's reality.

Some people are better than others.

To rephrase an excellent point from The Incredibles, When people say that everyone is special, they're really saying nobody is.

I believe all people are born equal, and that's where it ends.

I would have to say that Einstein was better than Hitler, and I am better than a bum who contributes nothing to the world but an extended, expectant cup. It's harsh, yes, but it's reality.

Some people are better than others.

To rephrase an excellent point from The Incredibles, When people say that everyone is special, they're really saying nobody is.
ok so we get into a situation where 1% of population have 50% of wealth like in U.S. .... poore people work very very hard but have very little to show for it! and also rich white person will not be equal to the poore black man in the court of law either...

I believe all people are born equal, and that's where it ends.

I would have to say that Einstein was better than Hitler, and I am better than a bum who contributes nothing to the world but an extended, expectant cup. It's harsh, yes, but it's reality.

Some people are better than others.

To rephrase an excellent point from The Incredibles, When people say that everyone is special, they're really saying nobody is.

So long as you are quoting from the Incredibles, however, you also need to point out what they were complaining about: a materialistic capitalist system that didn't value what the Incredible family contributed (defense against supervillians) and didn't care that it was what the Incredible's were both best at and most loved doing. Instead, they system preferred that the Parr's remain average, law-abiding paper pushers or stay-at-home moms.

This plays into a larger discrepancy I see between what people think about communism, and what communism is. People seem to think that communism equals giving everyone a level paycheck no matter how much or little they actually contribute to the economy. It is not, nor has it been the case that any communist theoretician ever endorsed this idea. Instead, Marxists have traditionally argued that people should be allowed to do the things 1) they are best at, and 2) they love doing, instead of what the market dictates. In exchange for doing this, every citizen will be provided, from the surplus of the goods other people have constructed with their labor, with precisely what they need.

So for a functional example, say Henry is an artist living in a communist society. Henry loves to paint, and he is exceptionally good at it. In a capitalist society, Henry probably wouldn't be able to do that, because artists are rarely able to make a living unless they shill for whatever is popular at the moment, rather than doing true art, which comes from the soul and not the market. Instead, Henry would probably be an unhappy burger flipper, since art school doesn't give you liscense to do most things. However, since Henry lives in a communism, Henry is able to spend his time and energy doing what he loves. In the process, he enriches the city by providing it and the citizens with beautiful murals. In exchange for this service, as well as dutifully taking his turn as a garbage handler (a job that no one really "loved" to do but nevertheless needs to be done), the people at the local factory who love to come up with new clothing designs keep him clothed, the farmers who love the peace of working the fields keep him fed, and the engineers who love to build have constructed a snug studio apartment to keep him warm.

That's pretty much how a Marxist view of the economy would work. Say what you will about whether that could work in the real world, but two things are obvious: that system is nothing like the "communism" that people critique by saying that do-nothings will run rampant, and it doesn't really sound like all that bad place to live. As a side note, you'll notice I didn't mention the government, because Marxism has a great deal in common with anarchism, in that after the revolution, the state was supposed to wither away for lack of anything to do.

Its easy to put everyone on an equal playing field if children arn't given advantages. I realise a lot of you will call be a "crazy facist" or something along those lines but how about state daycare in which everyone starts at the bottom, those smarter move into better classes. No more private schools everyone starts off the same.

Its easy to put everyone on an equal playing field if children arn't given advantages. I realise a lot of you will call be a "crazy facist" or something along those lines but how about state daycare in which everyone starts at the bottom, those smarter move into better classes. No more private schools everyone starts off the same.
Even if noone is given extra advantages some people will still take them. If the smart people are not given better classes at the very least they will get more out of them. But I do think that we should not be too afraid of the natural distribution of ability, all men were not created equal. I could have gotten the smart gene while those next to me got the dumb gene. Not all men are equal except under law.

Yes I agree with that. Although equality is a nice principle, human nature rejects it. Also I cant get to grips with the idea that a chav is equal to me. Damn chavs dont deserve rights, they are barely human.

[Dalek voice]

They are inferior!!! They must be EXTERMNATED!!!

well, technically, they are, as all living things are from the same ancestor, so there's no difference between them.

but in governmental standards, i agree with the current system, equal in opportunity.

just because we come from the same ancestor does not make us equal merly similar

bump

In my view, the principle of equality in Socialism is that everyone has the opportunity to be equal by contributing their work to society. In Capitalism some people never get the chance to contribute because of poverty and Capitalism, some never get an adequate education while the children of the rich have unfair advantages.

In my vision of a socialist society everyone would start on an equal playing field and everyone who worked hard would be respected and treated as equals, all who sqaunder the opportunity they are given through apathy and laziness would be scorned and viewed with contempt. Obviously those who are physically or mentally incapable of work would be an exception to this rule as their failure to contribute is no fault of their own. Thanks to anyone who took the time to read the entire post.

*gets off soapbox* *Applauds heartily*

I believe that is called a "meritocracy" and its biggest stumbling block is complacency.

Equality is a sneaky little word that people like to use so they can get the same benefits as the most hard working people and not have to do the vast majority of the work to get it.

Even if noone is given extra advantages some people will still take them. If the smart people are not given better classes at the very least they will get more out of them. But I do think that we should not be too afraid of the natural distribution of ability, all men were not created equal. I could have gotten the smart gene while those next to me got the dumb gene. Not all men are equal except under law.
As it should be ... we cant do too much about the biological differences we just have to minimize the social ones

ok so we get into a situation where 1% of population have 50% of wealth like in U.S. .... poore people work very very hard but have very little to show for it! and also rich white person will not be equal to the poore black man in the court of law either...

Yes 1% of the population does have 50% of the wealth, but they've had to have worked for it somewhere along the line or just got lucky. Anyone even from the poorest family can work their way up if they try hard enough. Maybe the rich should share part of their wealth with poorer families but only if they at least tried to make it on their own but couldn't. I don't know, no matter what inequalities will exist no matter how hard you try to smooth them out. But its these inequalities and differences that make us diverese and life not so bland and dull.

Equality is a sneaky little word that people like to use so they can get the same benefits as the most hard working people and not have to do the vast majority of the work to get it.
That or they like to use it so they have equal protection under the law :rolleyes: