NationStates Jolt Archive

What is your ideal level of egalitarianism, and why do you feel this way?

I just want my fair advantage same as everybody else.

true equality of opportunity.

only a fair beginning can lead to fair ends.

Everyone is equally below me.

Total egalitarianism, because that's just what I think should happen. People should be given an equal chance in life regardless of any factors whatsoever, and the only way that can be done is by making everyone equal right from the start to the finish.

The only equality should be access to public education and aid money for college. People should only be given the educational tools to succeed; their success or failure should depend only on what they do with those tools and nothing else.

Difficult...without equal outcomes, equality of opportunity is almost impossible given the impact of material advantages on educational achievement, moral values etc which then influence how much you achieve later in life. But absolute equality of outcome requires an all-controlling state. Id personally follow the broad idea that inequality of outcome should only be allowed to grow to the extent that the poorest benefit due to the extra money in the economy, but not so far that the living standards of the poor start to drop. I think that is called the "difference principle" and was proposed by Rawls (im forgetting my A-level politics already:eek: )

Difficult...without equal outcomes, equality of opportunity is almost impossible given the impact of material advantages on educational achievement, moral values etc which then influence how much you achieve later in life. But absolute equality of outcome requires an all-controlling state. Id personally follow the broad idea that inequality of outcome should only be allowed to grow to the extent that the poorest benefit due to the extra money in the economy, but not so far that the living standards of the poor start to drop. I think that is called the "difference principle" and was proposed by Rawls (im forgetting my A-level politics already:eek: )

Material advantages on educational acheivement are not necessary. There exist excellent schools with excellent outcomes in poor areas. It's just that the skilled administrators who run those schools are often less willing to work in depressed areas.

But in order to learn this sort of thing you need to measure the schools objectively against each other, and that's getting harder and harder with the growing opposition to standardised testing.

Everyone should be equal, or at least supported despite their wealth. A world where noone starves or dies from lack of medical care are possible, but of course comfortable profit margins and good buisness practice are mosr important. When it comes down to it the which side of the poor/rich divide you end up on comes down to luck anyway.
Socialism FTW!

Naturally I'm all for legal equality. All people should be treated equally before the law, regardless of any other factors. Furthermore, I believe strongly that there should be a baseline level of equality in education. Given that equality in such an area is impossible, there must be minimum standards which must be met. Beyond that, I feel that everyone should be free to succeed or fail in the world by their own abilities and merits.

Liasia']Everyone should be equal, or at least supported despite their wealth. A world where noone starves or dies from lack of medical care are possible, but of course comfortable profit margins and good buisness practice are mosr important. When it comes down to it the which side of the poor/rich divide you end up on comes down to luck anyway.
Socialism FTW!
Rich/poor divide has virtually nothing to do with luck. It has everything to do with ability and motivation.

But in order to learn this sort of thing you need to measure the schools objectively against each other, and that's getting harder and harder with the growing opposition to standardised testing.

Measuring schools against with each other should be a good idea. Measuring it in the form of "value added" e.g how much better/worse the student does in final tests compared to assessments before joining the school i mean. Trouble is, even when thats done, the raw grades are also included, and everyone goes "oh, look, although this school has an intake who were already geniuses (genii?) when they joined the school, but they got higher raw grades than this other school who improved poor performing students remarkably". School A must be FAR better. Then everyone says "i want my children to go to the school with the higher raw grades". Everyone goes for that school, the other schools are undersubscribed and receive the rejects from the other schools who are less intelligent, and the gap between different schools grows as middle class parents move to be able to get their children into the supposedly best schools. And a logical and sensible system collapses due to the inherent stupidity of humanity:headbang:

I cant remember how this all began and how to relate it back to the original topic, but dammit, im tired!

Rich/poor divide has virtually nothing to do with luck. It has everything to do with ability and motivation.
Sure- because the Royal family or Rupert Murdoch's kids will be rich because of their skills:rolleyes: Getting a job in a law firm or company depends on who your family knows and has connections with, something they are more likely to have if rich.

Measuring schools against with each other should be a good idea. Measuring it in the form of "value added" e.g how much better/worse the student does in final tests compared to assessments before joining the school i mean.

You're right. You need to measure student progress over time. You might not always be able to tell the quality of the students when they arrived, but if you test them every second year or so then you can spot a trend.

There have been attempts made to do just this in some places. The larger Canadian provinces have this information available.

Rich/poor divide has virtually nothing to do with luck. It has everything to do with ability and motivation.

But if your dady is a millionare then you will be a millionare, and that´s plain luck.
If you are born poor, then, ability and motivation can help, but it will be MUCH more difficult compared to the "pretty boy".
So luck (the same luck which determines if your parents will be poor or rich) determines how much ability and motivation you will need to succed.

Rich/poor divide has virtually nothing to do with luck. It has everything to do with ability and motivation.
that's, frankly, stupid.

it would be true if the world were actually a meritocracy. it is not.
as it stands, luck has everything do do with it.


plus, the actions of others cannot be discounted in the fortunes of an individual. i'm sick of hearing "the poor are poor because of their own choices" - sometimes that may be the case, but certainly not always, and probably relatively infrequently

Liasia']Sure... Rupert Murdoch's kids will be rich because of their skills:rolleyes:

Murdoch doesn't have to give them money. He chooses to give them money.

Getting a job in a law firm or company depends on who your family knows and has connections with, something they are more likely to have if rich.

Not always. It's possible to succeed on merits. I got my job because I was working somewhere else (an entry-level position I got just out of University) and someone else called me up and offered me one. And all because I'd developed skills on my own, and someone heard about them.

Murdoch doesn't have to give them money. He chose to give them money.
And jobs. And you can be pretty sure any kid with massively rich parents will get a better education than a poor one.
Don't see what that has to do with the luck thing anyway.

Not always. It's possible to succeed on merits. I got my job because I was working somewhere else (an entry-level position I got just out of University) and someone else called me up and offered me one. And all because I'd developed skills on my own, and someone heard about them.
And you never saw people with rich daddies get a position just because of the family they were coming from?

Not always. It's possible to succeed on merits. I got my job because I was working somewhere else (an entry-level position I got just out of University) and someone else called me up and offered me one. And all because I'd developed skills on my own, and someone heard about them.
right place, right time. luck.

that job could have gone to someone else. but now we're getting hypothetical and going into pointless potential discussions on causality...

and just because a particular idiom has held true for you (sounds like you got your 'lucky break'), it doesn't mean it works that way for most other people.

Rich/poor divide has virtually nothing to do with luck. It has everything to do with ability and motivation.

Hey, I'm an evil capitalist and even I know that statement is silly.

Ability and motivation will get you places; no doubt. A helping hand will open doors that ability and motivation alone might not.

Equality of process. Everyone to be given the same opportunities...what they do with them is a personal issue after that.

Total egalitarianism, because that's just what I think should happen. People should be given an equal chance in life regardless of any factors whatsoever, and the only way that can be done is by making everyone equal right from the start to the finish.
Can you say "Bland, colorless, motivationless society," boys and girls?

Can you say "Bland, colorless, motivationless society," boys and girls?
But equally 'utopian, just, idyll' all apply too

Rich/poor divide has virtually nothing to do with luck. It has everything to do with ability and motivation.
I disagree.

A total level of egalitarianism is unfair and impossible. There's no motivation to work because the next, lazy guy gets absolutely the same benefits than you do without lifting a finger. Work is supposed to develop the nation and improve everyone's quality of life in the long run, but there's no immediate personal benefit.

Some might say they'd work selflessly for the common good, but we humans are inherently selfish. It's in our nature, and even the most determined individual will get sick of working for nothing for two years when many people around him enjoy life without doing anything at all for society. Without a motivated workforce, the country would literally crumble before its own inefficiency.

I follow the order of rank.

I say treat your equals equally and your unequals unequally.

And I say fuck "equal rights for all"

Liasia']But equally 'utopian, just, idyll' all apply too

Just, perhaps, but I don't see how we could classify a society where nothing ever gets done as utopian or idyll.

Just, perhaps, but I don't see how we could classify a society where nothing ever gets done as utopian or idyll.
If nothing needs to be done, why do it?

Just, perhaps, but I don't see how we could classify a society where nothing ever gets done as utopian or idyll.
depends whether you think economic growth is the true achievement of mankind

Liasia']If nothing needs to be done, why do it?
Cavemen needn't do anything. Modern societies are quite different. Who maintains every building, vehicle and piece of equipment? Who keeps the factories running? Who distributes the goods around the populace? Who maintains the crops and cattle fields that feed the nation? There are countless more necessities every modern nation needs to fulfill, and all of them require motivated workers or you've absolutely nothing.

Cavemen needn't do anything. Who maintains every building, vehicle and piece of equipment? Who keeps the factories running? Who distributes the goods around the populace? Who maintains the crops and cattlefields that feed the nation? There are countless more necessities every modern nation needs to fulfill, and all of them require motivated workers or you've absolutely nothing.
Meh. Robots or sumthin. Jesus can do all the work for us. *shrugs*

Liasia']If nothing needs to be done, why do it?

Hell, not only can't I imagine a world where nothing ever needed to be done, I wouldn't want to live in that world. Talk about monotonous and unfulfilling.

Liasia']Meh. Robots or sumthin. Jesus can do all the work for us. *shrugs*
Open your mind, people. Hardly anything gets done by itself, and a nation such as this one would certainly be unable to develop robots to do all the work its unmotivated populace won't do.

Hell, not only can't I imagine a world where nothing ever needed to be done, I wouldn't want to live in that world. Talk about monotonous and unfulfilling.
Says someone posting on NS general, where everything is pointless. People only go to work to make money so they can have fun. So why not have a society where you have fun ALL the time? Makes sense if you ask me.

Open your mind, people. Hardly anything gets done by itself, and a nation such as this one would certainly be unable to develop robots to do all the work its unmotivated populace won't do.
Dunno.. i still think jesus would do it. But only the lesbian jesus.

Liasia']Says someone posting on NS general, where everything is pointless. People only go to work to make money so they can have fun. So why not have a society where you have fun ALL the time? Makes sense if you ask me.
Yeah, if you consider throwing rocks into a pond while starving to be fun. That's all you'd be able to do. FUN TIME!

Yeah, if you consider throwing rocks into a pond while starving to be fun. That's all you'd be able to do. FUN TIME!
You don't? What a looser!
You say that, but that's exactly what me and some friends where doing for an hour or two at a party the other day. And it was fun, just talking and throwing rocks.

*sigh*
*sigh*+1

Liasia']Says someone posting on NS general, where everything is pointless. People only go to work to make money so they can have fun. So why not have a society where you have fun ALL the time? Makes sense if you ask me.
You certainly have a sad, sad opinion of human nature. :(

Liasia']Sure- because the Royal family or Rupert Murdoch's kids will be rich because of their skills:rolleyes: Getting a job in a law firm or company depends on who your family knows and has connections with, something they are more likely to have if rich.
It also depends even more heavily on your own personal ability. Sure, having connections makes it easier to know the people who would be doing the hiring, if you totally suck at life, they're not going to hire you. Meanwhile, a dedicated and hardworking person can start from nothing, and rise to the Presidency, if they so desire. That's one of the reasons I respect Bill Clinton.

Legal equality only. All men are to be treated equally by the law (and men here, includes women OK). Equality of opportunity, while nice in its idealised form, is impossible to obtain without imposing equality of outcome which is a concept that I find intolerable.

Liasia']Says someone posting on NS general, where everything is pointless. People only go to work to make money so they can have fun. So why not have a society where you have fun ALL the time? Makes sense if you ask me.
Of course, my idea of fun would result in nothing being accomplished.

depends whether you think economic growth is the true achievement of mankind

Forget growth. What about subsistence?

If we're all forced to be equal all of the time regardless of our inputs, I'm not going to bother growing food, because I'm guaranteed an equal share of yours. It's a classic free-rider problem.

It also depends even more heavily on your own personal ability. Sure, having connections makes it easier to know the people who would be doing the hiring, if you totally suck at life, they're not going to hire you. Meanwhile, a dedicated and hardworking person can start from nothing, and rise to the Presidency, if they so desire. That's one of the reasons I respect Bill Clinton.
When people say ability determines position, i tell them to look at boris johnson. They let that man run a magazine!
I read somewhere that a billionare in the 30s or something ran for the presidency, and despite being certified clinically insane he got above 10% of the vote because he was rich. I'd appreciate someone googling this for me.

You certainly have a sad, sad opinion of human nature. :(
Well why else go to work, unless you run a charity? To make money.

Of course, my idea of fun would result in nothing being accomplished.
Same:p
Probably why i'll never be in charge. that and not being born in the right family.

Liasia']Well why else go to work, unless you run a charity? To make money.

That might be the question to "why work at all?", but once you're working you may well find something you genuinely enjoy doing.

Incidentally, I do work for a charity.

That might be the question to "why work at all?", but once you're working you may well find something you genuinely enjoy doing.

Incidentally, I do work for a charity.
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:
If only we all did. Unfortunately, KFC is closer.

at least hadza-level egalitarianism, if not more.

Liasia']When people say ability determines position, i tell them to look at boris johnson. They let that man run a magazine!
I read somewhere that a billionare in the 30s or something ran for the presidency, and despite being certified clinically insane he got above 10% of the vote because he was rich. I'd appreciate someone googling this for me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_of_1928
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_of_1932
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_of_1936

Doesn't look like it.

And I have no clue who Boris Johnson is. Although the wikipedia article makes it sound like most of his persona is staged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_of_1928
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_of_1932
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_of_1936

Doesn't look like it.

And I have no clue who Boris Johnson is. Although the wikipedia article makes it sound like most of his persona is staged.
*shrugs* you never know with theses politicians. As for the billionare thing- meh.

Equality of process, I'd say. Of course, I don't have much brainpower left to think about it. So, who knows.

Liasia']Same:p
Probably why i'll never be in charge. that and not being born in the right family.
Your family's standing doesn't have an awful lot to do with where you wind up, espescially if it's power and decision making authority your after. Sure, you could be born into a rich family, and dither your days away playing games in Monaco, but you'll never have any real authority. The competent will rise to the top.

Your family's standing doesn't have an awful lot to do with where you wind up, espescially if it's power and decision making authority your after. Sure, you could be born into a rich family, and dither your days away playing games in Monaco, but you'll never have any real authority. The competent will rise to the top.
I hate to bring it up, but there is one prominent political figure i can think of who was born into the right family- leading directly to his later sucess, cause it certainly wasn't is competence. But i know someone will call me on bush-bashing if im too direct.

Forget growth. What about subsistence?

If we're all forced to be equal all of the time regardless of our inputs, I'm not going to bother growing food, because I'm guaranteed an equal share of yours. It's a classic free-rider problem.
agricultural technologies have meant food is no longer a scarce resource (dispite the millions starving around the world - that's a matter of terrible, terrible distribution)

and what about non-pecuniary benefits?


but also that is your personal benefit-driven view. some people enjoy growing food and working with the land (i know many farmers). you may not do it for no extra benefit because its not something you desire doing, but for someone else it may be a dream job.



That might be the question to "why work at all?", but once you're working you may well find something you genuinely enjoy doing.

Incidentally, I do work for a charity.
i work for a not-for-profit cooperative *nods* :)

Your family's standing doesn't have an awful lot to do with where you wind up, espescially if it's power and decision making authority your after. Sure, you could be born into a rich family, and have the rich-person ability to go to a top school, get a better class education, have access to better resources and generally speaking have a more educationally-supportive home life, all the while making friends and connections with other soon-to-be rich people. and then either way, you can just inherit the family business and flunk school, so its really only ability that matters, yeah.
fixed.


are you being sarcastic with these posts? :confused:

fixed.


are you being sarcastic with these posts? :confused:
Certainly not.

Do you need anything beyond a willingness to work and a requisite amount of knowledge, motivation and character to truly succeed in the world? Certainly not. Once again, I reference the obvious and readily available instance of President Bill Clinton, who went from the childhood he experienced to becoming President of the United States.

That's certainly not a fixing.

Certainly not.

Do you need anything beyond a willingness to work and a requisite amount of knowledge, motivation and character to truly succeed in the world? Certainly not. Once again, I reference the obvious and readily available instance of President Bill Clinton, who went from the childhood he experienced to becoming President of the United States.

That's certainly not a fixing.
And then reference all the other presidents who have come from established political families or Rich ones.

I believe that a person can make their lives better all on their own. It's not easy, but nothing worth doing ever is.

I believe that a person can make their lives better all on their own. It's not easy, but nothing worth doing ever is.
Wanking. Fun and easy. You can, if you're lucky- some people aren't, and society takes a dump on them.

Liasia']And then reference all the other presidents who have come from established political families or Rich ones.
Well, in recent times we can see the Bush name as prominent in that arena, but otherwise not really. Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford and Nixon all came from fairly average backgrounds.

Liasia']Wanking. Fun and easy. You can, if you're lucky- some people aren't, and society takes a dump on them.
I do not believe in luck.

Certainly not.

Do you need anything beyond a willingness to work and a requisite amount of knowledge, motivation and character to truly succeed in the world? Certainly not. Once again, I reference the obvious and readily available instance of President Bill Clinton, who went from the childhood he experienced to becoming President of the United States.

That's certainly not a fixing.
just because it can be achieved by a few doesn't mean that's the way things work, or that those are the only things you need to succeed - or are the only factors of success - in reality.
christ man, social mobility (at least in the UK, and i wouldn't be surprised if this were the case in the US) has gone backwards since the 1970s (evil thatcher :mad: )

I do not believe in luck.
How? Chance is a proven mathematical concept.

Well, in recent times we can see the Bush name as prominent in that arena, but otherwise not really. Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford and Nixon all came from fairly average backgrounds.
But none of them are either black, poor or a woman eh? ALL middle-aged relatively attractive white males. Lucky eh.

I do not believe in luck.
so its your choice as to which parents and family you are born to? the economic class you are born to? the country you are born in? the talents or handicaps you may have?


ah yeah, i forgot about that, yeah...

just because it can be achieved by a few doesn't mean that's the way things work, or that those are the only things you need to succeed in reality.
christ man, social mobility (at least in the UK, and i wouldn't be surprised if this were the case in the US) has gone backwards since the 1970s.
Social mobility in the UK has never been what it should be. Too many vestiges of the arbitrary aristocratic system.

It's becoming increasingly harder to become super-rich in the US, becuase of the incredibly high bar that is set to be counted as super rich. And beyond that, if they are super-rich and still working regularly, why shouldn't they have their money. Their desire is clearly for more than just luxury under those conditions. They want to work, and be rewarded for it.

On the other hand, the bar to fall prey to the Alternative Minimum Tax isn't all that high. My parents have to pay it, and my family is certainly not wealthy.

None because the idea is silly.

Liasia']But none of them are either black, poor or a woman eh? ALL middle-aged relatively attractive white males. Lucky eh.
Of course they're not going to be poor. They might have once been poor, but to have put in the effort that is required to be able to become President is also sufficient to drag you out of poverty.

Statistically a President is quite likely to be white, as per the fact that the country is primarly white. Statistically speaking, if we had the level of equality of opportunity we have now throughout the entirety of US history, there should be four Presidents who were black. But, given that slavery prevailed through the 1860's, and illegal and inhumane laws of segregation stayed in effect until the 1960's, we should barely expect more than than one black President. Segregation and slavery are certainly not capitalist. Besides the obvious moral problems racism is horrendously inefficient.

A societal change from the ancient patriarchal society of the past is currently underway, and has been for many years. A woman will be president soon enough. Sexism shares the same problems as racism, both as a moral and an economic efficiency problem, and society will throw out inefficiencies if it is allowed to.

Attraction is something that requires more than just physical looks. An attractive personality is necessary, and you can have one of those if you aren't bitter about your external appearance.

so its your choice as to which parents and family you are born to? the economic class you are born to? the country you are born in? the talents or handicaps you may have?


ah yeah, i forgot about that, yeah...
That's why increasing globalization and the proliferation of the market is vital. If less developed countries can make use of their advantages they can catch up to the developed world. The market is the solution, not the state.

Of course their not going to be poor. They might have once been poor, but to have put in the effort that is required to be able to become President is also sufficient to drag you out of poverty.

and, of course, huge amounts of money is needed to run for political office in the US, which rules out any poor people
Statistically a President is quite likely to be white, as per the fact that the country is primarly white. Statistically speaking, if we had the level of equality of opportunity we have now throughout the entirety of US history, there should be four Presidents who were black. But, given that slavery prevailed through the 1860's, and illegal and inhumane laws of segregation stayed in effect until the 1960's, we should barely expect more than than one black President. Segregation and slavery are certainly not capitalist. Besides the obvious moral problems racism is horrendously inefficient.
Remains to be seen eh? I very much doubt a black man would be able to get the vote of the red states

A societal change from the ancient patriarchal society of the past is currently underway, and has been for many years. A woman will be president soon enough. Sexism shares the same problems as racism, both as a moral and an economic efficiency problem, and society will throw out inefficiencies if it is allowed to.
Does clinton even count as a woman?

Attraction is something that requires more than just physical looks. An attractive personality is necessary, and you can have one of those if you aren't bitter about your external appearance.Look at the leaders of other countries. Maggie thatcher was certainly a powerful leader, but she sure as hell wasn't attractive.

Responses in bold

That's why increasing globalization and the proliferation of the market is vital. If less developed countries can make use of their advantages they can catch up to the developed world. The market is the solution, not the state.
that still avoids the issue of inequalities of wealth creating disparities in opportunity, and it being pure 'luck' as to what social and economic standing you will be born into.


granted that the world should be more equal, as a whole :)

Equality of legality is the only feasible one. It would nice if the other ones were possible, but truly intelligent people will always find a way to cheat any system and rise above others. We’re just better at life.

I do not believe in luck.

Oh, so what you say is: God chosed me to have that job?
While you just said: It's all about will and motivation and stuf like that?!

Well all these people contradicting you may sound kind of 'not cool' but with these ideas.... no wonder!

Equality of legality is the only feasible one. It would nice if the other ones were possible, but truly intelligent people will always find a way to cheat any system and rise above others. We’re just better at life.
And so modest, too:rolleyes:

that still avoids the issue of inequalities of wealth creating disparities in opportunity, and it being pure 'luck' as to what social and economic standing you will be born into.
And I'm saying that those inequalties in wealth can be overcome by hard work and efficient behaviors. And in the end, a person who works their way up will have more authority and respect than someone who was gifted their wealth from their parents.


granted that the world should be more equal, as a whole :)
And there should be more Pesto sauce in a bottle. I love the stuff.

And I'm saying that those inequalties in wealth can be overcome by hard work and efficient behaviors. And in the end, a person who works their way up will have more authority and respect than someone who was gifted their wealth from their parents.
You're both wrong. It's all about innate ability. Although education and opportunity helps, the reason successful (I’m talking upper middle class, lower upper class not the obscenely wealthy here) people produce successful children is that they pass on that innate ability.

You're both wrong. It's all about innate ability. Although education and opportunity helps, the reason successful (I’m talking upper middle class, lower upper class not the obscenely wealthy here) people produce successful children is that they pass on that innate ability.
Ahahaha yeh, cause that works. Genetically, that is complete bullshit.

Liasia']Ahahaha yeh, cause that works. Genetically, that is complete bullshit.
I don’t see how you can deny it. Intelligence, appearance, talent, athleticism all the things that matter in achieving any real life goal are a part of our genetic code. Even the ability to teach a strong work ethic or instill a sense of personal pride is inherent in certain individuals, as is the ease at which the ones they are teaching learn it.

Really, most people don’t stand a chance.

Liasia']Well why else go to work, unless you run a charity? To make money.
Nope. Lots of people work because they love what they do. And I'd be willing to bet you don't have any children; they provide an almost incredible level of motivation.

I don’t see how you can deny it. Intelligence, appearance, talent, athleticism all the things that matter in achieving any real life goal are a part of our genetic code. Even the ability to teach a strong work ethic or instill a sense of personal pride is inherent in certain individuals, as is the ease at which the ones they are teaching learn it.

Really, most people don’t stand a chance.
Intelligent people are not more likely to produce more intelligent children. In fact i read somewhere it is less likely, for some reason.
I do deny it, but we will have to wait for someone who knows about genetics to settle it.

Nope. Lots of people work because they love what they do. And I'd be willing to bet you don't have any children; they provide an almost incredible level of motivation.
I'll take your word for it:)

I don’t see how you can deny it. Intelligence, appearance, talent, athleticism all the things that matter in achieving any real life goal are a part of our genetic code. Even the ability to teach a strong work ethic or instill a sense of personal pride is inherent in certain individuals, as is the ease at which the ones they are teaching learn it.

Really, most people don’t stand a chance.

And what qualifies you?

And what qualifies you?
My interaction with others convinces me that I’m better than them on some level.

My interaction with others convinces me that I’m better than them on some level.
Man, you deserved to be deleted.

My interaction with others convinces me that I’m better than them on some level.

As an unbiased observer, I have my doubts about your conclusion.

As an unbiased observer, I have my doubts about your conclusion.
I’d question your observation, but then again, it’s possible that you are better than me. After all, I’m not better than everyone. There are about five people I can think of that are superior to myself that I know personally.

I’d question your observation, but then again, it’s possible that you are better than me. After all, I’m not better than everyone. There are about five people I can think of that are superior to myself that I know personally.

I am not going to claim to be better than you, as that word (along with worse) is probably the most ambiguous term in the english language.

Well, the people I personally know that claim to be better than a lot of people are all pretentious shitheads.

agricultural technologies have meant food is no longer a scarce resource (dispite the millions starving around the world - that's a matter of terrible, terrible distribution)

and of course this food just appears out of nowhere, its not like an awful lot of people have to work their asses off anywhere in the entire supply chain that is responsible for putting food on the table. :rolleyes:

while there are some people who greatly enjoy farming, they are not nearly numerous enough to properly feed everyone. Same goes with garbagemen, or the guys that clean out the sewers - do you really think there are thousands of people who would love the chance to get up before dawn and work all day, day in day out, in a pile of garbage or a river of shit?

While it would be nice, nay, utopian to have a society where people only did what they loved to do, it just is not possible (not yet - when we have robots to do everything for us, then it might be possible, but for the next 200 years no chance).

equality is a myth. people should abolish this myth, realize people are different and unique and live accordingly. And yes, I love the free market and individualism. It is the only thing proven to preserve western society.

...
Do you need anything beyond a willingness to work and a requisite amount of knowledge, motivation and character to truly succeed in the world? Certainly not. Once again, I reference the obvious and readily available instance of President Bill Clinton, who went from the childhood he experienced to becoming President of the United States.


If you happen to have not been born in the US, you'd need one more little thing to succeed to that extent. A constitutional ammendment. But don't let that stop anyone ...

Individual character is formed very early in life, and skirting around the nature/nurture minefield, I think it's pretty safe to say that who your parents were is hugely important to who you are! Egalitarianizing that would look like: banning families (and probably motherhood,) removing genetic diversity (clones,) strictly controlling the environment of every individual from birth, and removing all the opportunities for diversification (like professions, fashion, imagination and ego.) Dystopia!
EDIT: Not just fashion, but culture. Pol Pot, anyone?

People are born with different levels of ability, intellectually and physically, so we are not born equal. But the person with the i.q. of 80 should have as much opportunity to reach their potential as the person with the i.q. of 180. And we should all be equal before the law.

People are born with different levels of ability, intellectually and physically, so we are not born equal. But the person with the i.q. of 80 should have as much opportunity to reach their potential as the person with the i.q. of 180. And we should all be equal before the law.
why?

People are born with different levels of ability, intellectually and physically, so we are not born equal. But the person with the i.q. of 80 should have as much opportunity to reach their potential as the person with the i.q. of 180. And we should all be equal before the law.

There's people with IQs that high?

There's people with IQs that high?

I scored 174 on a professionally administered test early in High School. Mainly because I was doing IQ tests as a hobby, and found most of the questions easily recognizable. Taking IQ seriously, even saying its the most important criterion for success, never seemed like a good idea after that.

I once read a book where the governement forced people to be physically and inellectually equal.
It was disgusting.

I scored 174 on a professionally administered test early in High School. Mainly because I was doing IQ tests as a hobby, and found most of the questions easily recognizable. Taking IQ seriously, even saying its the most important criterion for success, never seemed like a good idea after that.

My IQs just like... 135ish....

My IQs just like... 135ish....
There is even a woman with an IQ over 200.

My IQ is 145.

But seriously, I believe legal equality is all that should be afforded. Any further forms of egalitarianism require the coersion of those who are "above" the rest. Though I agree that, of course, a person born into a rich family has a much higher chance to succeed, this possibility, in todays society, truly is open to anyone. Look at people like Bill Gates or Sergey Brin. Both men came from reasonable families (not poor, mind you, but not upper crust either), and have transformed themselves, through Microsoft and Google, respectively, into some of the richest men in the world. While it can be argued that these are exceptions to the rule, there are thousands of self-made millionares and billionares in the world. The poor can advance socially with effort. Being poor does not always exclude one from education, and neither does it prevent one from landing a good job. Success is what you make it.

I appologize if the above makes little sense, it's 3 AM and I'm really tired.

I once read a book where the governement forced people to be physically and inellectually equal.
It was disgusting.

The short story "Harrison Bergeron"! A must read for those who demand full equality. It can be found here (Its quite short)

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html

Here are some excerpts for the lazy:

It was tragic, all right, but George and Hazel couldn’t think about it very hard. Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn’t think about anything except in short bursts. And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a government transmitter. Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains.
--------
“If I tried to get away with it,” said George, “then other people’d get away with it and pretty soon we’d be right back to the dark ages again, with everybody competing against everybody else. You wouldn’t like that, would you?”
--------
“Ladies and gentlemen” said the ballerina, reading the bulletin. She must have been extraordinarily beautiful, because the mask she wore was hideous. And it was easy to see that she was the strongest and most graceful of all the dancers, for her handicap bags were as big as those worn by two-hundred-pound men.
--------
It was then that Diana Moon Glampers, the Handicapper General, came into the studio with a double-barreled ten-gauge shotgun. She fired twice, and the Emperor and the Empress were dead before they hit the floor.

You should really read the whole thing. It is very good.

The short story "Harrison Bergeron"!
You should really read the whole thing. It is very good.

Absolutely. We read it in school, IIRC. Off to read it again :)
It's by Kurt Vonnegut. A bit strained at times, but it's got laughes, even the second time thru.

Legal only.

If that don't do it for you - tough luck.

some people enjoy growing food and working with the land

Some, sure, but enough? The free market guarantees we have enough food because if we didn't the price would go up and encourage more production.

I have a friend who loves to point out, though, that no country with a free press has ever experienced famine.

People are not equal and never will be. Not economically. Not intellectually. In no way. This is not bad. People should be treated equally but it is absurd to attempt to make everyone equal.