A 'disgusting' question

[New Tolerance]

Here's an interesting mental exercise (this question is not aimed at a particular set of people ie socialists or capitalist or anarchists etc), what would your answer be to the following?:

- Do you believe that people are 'created' (whether literally or metaphorically is a different problem, but if you can tie this in that would be good too) equal?? Why or why not?

and as a follow up:

- Should different things be treated the same way despite the fact that they are not the same? Why or why not?

or

- If two things were equal shouldn't they be treated the same way? Why or why not?

[Connolly]

- Do you believe that people are 'created' (whether literally or metaphorically is a different problem, but if you can tie this in that would be good too) equal?? Why or why not?

I have two ways to answer this (however wrong they are)

Relative to particular characteristics and circumstances of another - No.


I believe we are equal when objectivly independent of personal qualities and strengths. Making us on par with a rock or dog or any other piece of matter.


- Should different things be treated the same way despite the fact that they are not the same? Why or why not?

:lol: yes and no.

I must put my own personal circumstance in place to say NO, they cannot be treated the same.

Objectively - Why the fuck not.


- If two things were equal shouldn't they be treated the same way? Why or why not?

Yes they should.




This is a tricky one, and I cant but help answer it in two ways...............Its kinda like........Do I think rape is wrong................personally and morally yes..........independent of my feelings I cant say its wrong................ask a rock the same question :lol:

Sorry for being so blunt

[JKP]

Anarchists are dedicated to social equality because it is the only context in which individual liberty can flourish. However, there has been much nonsense written about "equality," and much of what is commonly believed about it is very strange indeed. Before discussing what anarchist do mean by equality, we have to indicate what we do not mean by it.

Anarchists do not believe in "equality of endowment," which is not only non-existent but would be very undesirable if it could be brought about. Everyone is unique. Biologically determined human differences not only exist but are "a cause for joy, not fear or regret." Why? Because "life among clones would not be worth living, and a sane person will only rejoice that others have abilities that they do not share." [Noam Chomsky, Marxism, Anarchism, and Alternative Futures, p. 782]

That some people seriously suggest that anarchists means by "equality" that everyone should be identical is a sad reflection on the state of present-day intellectual culture and the corruption of words -- a corruption used to divert attention from an unjust and authoritarian system and side-track people into discussions of biology. "The uniqueness of the self in no way contradicts the principle of equality," noted Erich Fromm, "The thesis that men are born equal implies that they all share the same fundamental human qualities, that they share the same basic fate of human beings, that they all have the same inalienable claim on freedom and happiness. It furthermore means that their relationship is one of solidarity, not one of domination-submission. What the concept of equality does not mean is that all men are alike." [The Fear of Freedom, p. 228] Thus it would be fairer to say that anarchists seek equality because we recognise that everyone is different and, consequently, seek the full affirmation and development of that uniqueness.

Nor are anarchists in favour of so-called "equality of outcome." We have no desire to live in a society were everyone gets the same goods, lives in the same kind of house, wears the same uniform, etc. Part of the reason for the anarchist revolt against capitalism and statism is that they standardise so much of life (see George Reitzer's The McDonaldisation of Society on why capitalism is driven towards standardisation and conformity). In the words of Alexander Berkman:

"The spirit of authority, law, written and unwritten, tradition and custom force us into a common grove and make a man [or woman] a will-less automation without independence or individuality. . . All of us are its victims, and only the exceptionally strong succeed in breaking its chains, and that only partly." [What is Anarchism?, p. 165]

Anarchists, therefore, have little to desire to make this "common grove" even deeper. Rather, we desire to destroy it and every social relationship and institution that creates it in the first place.

"Equality of outcome" can only be introduced and maintained by force, which would not be equality anyway, as some would have more power than others! "Equality of outcome" is particularly hated by anarchists, as we recognise that every individual has different needs, abilities, desires and interests. To make all consume the same would be tyranny. Obviously, if one person needs medical treatment and another does not, they do not receive an "equal" amount of medical care. The same is true of other human needs. As Alexander Berkman put it:

"equality does not mean an equal amount but equal opportunity. . . Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the forced equality of the convict camp. True anarchist equality implies freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the very reverse in fact."

"Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is equal opportunity to satisfy them that constitutes true equality.

"Far from levelling, such equality opens the door for the greatest possible variety of activity and development. For human character is diverse . . . Free opportunity of expressing and acting out your individuality means development of natural dissimilarities and variations." [Op. Cit., pp. 164-5]

For anarchists, the "concepts" of "equality" as "equality of outcome" or "equality of endowment" are meaningless. However, in a hierarchical society, "equality of opportunity" and "equality of outcome" are related. Under capitalism, for example, the opportunities each generation face are dependent on the outcomes of the previous ones. This means that under capitalism "equality of opportunity" without a rough "equality of outcome" (in the sense of income and resources) becomes meaningless, as there is no real equality of opportunity for the off-spring of a millionaire and that of a road sweeper. Those who argue for "equality of opportunity" while ignoring the barriers created by previous outcomes indicate that they do not know what they are talking about -- opportunity in a hierarchical society depends not only on an open road but also upon an equal start. >From this obvious fact springs the misconception that anarchists desire "equality of outcome" -- but this applies to a hierarchical system, in a free society this would not the case (as we will see).

Equality, in anarchist theory, does not mean denying individual diversity or uniqueness. As Bakunin observes:

"once equality has triumphed and is well established, will various individuals' abilities and their levels of energy cease to differ? Some will exist, perhaps not so many as now, but certainly some will always exist. It is proverbial that the same tree never bears two identical leaves, and this will probably be always be true. And it is even more truer with regard to human beings, who are much more complex than leaves. But this diversity is hardly an evil. On the contrary. . . it is a resource of the human race. Thanks to this diversity, humanity is a collective whole in which the one individual complements all the others and needs them. As a result, this infinite diversity of human individuals is the fundamental cause and the very basis of their solidarity. It is all-powerful argument for equality." ["All-Round Education", The Basic Bakunin, pp. 117-8]

Equality for anarchists means social equality, or, to use Murray Bookchin's term, the "equality of unequals" (some like Malatesta used the term "equality of conditions" to express the same idea). By this he means that an anarchist society recognises the differences in ability and need of individuals but does not allow these differences to be turned into power. Individual differences, in other words, "would be of no consequence, because inequality in fact is lost in the collectivity when it cannot cling to some legal fiction or institution." [Michael Bakunin, God and the State, p. 53]

If hierarchical social relationships, and the forces that create them, are abolished in favour of ones that encourage participation and are based on the principle of "one person, one vote" then natural differences would not be able to be turned into hierarchical power. For example, without capitalist property rights there would not be means by which a minority could monopolise the means of life (machinery and land) and enrich themselves by the work of others via the wages system and usury (profits, rent and interest). Similarly, if workers manage their own work, there is no class of capitalists to grow rich off their labour. Thus Proudhon:

"Now, what can be the origin of this inequality?

"As we see it, . . . that origin is the realisation within society of this triple abstraction: capital, labour and talent.

"It is because society has divided itself into three categories of citizen corresponding to the three terms of the formula. . . that caste distinctions have always been arrived at, and one half of the human race enslaved to the other. . . socialism thus consists of reducing the aristocratic formula of capital-labour-talent into the simpler formula of labour!. . . in order to make every citizen simultaneously, equally and to the same extent capitalist, labourer and expert or artist." [No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, pp. 57-8]

Like all anarchists, Proudhon saw this integration of functions as the key to equality and freedom and proposed self-management as the means to achieve it. Thus self-management is the key to social equality. Social equality in the workplace, for example, means that everyone has an equal say in the policy decisions on how the workplace develops and changes. Anarchists are strong believers in the maxim "that which touches all, is decided by all."

This does not mean, of course, that expertise will be ignored or that everyone will decide everything. As far as expertise goes, different people have different interests, talents, and abilities, so obviously they will want to study different things and do different kinds of work. It is also obvious that when people are ill they consult a doctor -- an expert -- who manages his or her own work rather than being directed by a committee. We are sorry to have to bring these points up, but once the topics of social equality and workers' self-management come up, some people start to talk nonsense. It is common sense that a hospital managed in a socially equal way will not involve non-medical staff voting on how doctors should perform an operation!

In fact, social equality and individual liberty are inseparable. Without the collective self-management of decisions that affect a group (equality) to complement the individual self-management of decisions that affect the individual (liberty), a free society is impossible. For without both, some will have power over others, making decisions for them (i.e. governing them), and thus some will be more free than others. Which implies, just to state the obvious, anarchists seek equality in all aspects of life, not just in terms of wealth. Anarchists "demand for every person not just his [or her] entire measure of the wealth of society but also his [or her] portion of social power." [Malatesta and Hamon, No Gods, No Masters, vol. 2, p. 20] Thus self-management is needed to ensure both liberty and equality.

Social equality is required for individuals to both govern and express themselves, for the self-management it implies means "people working in face-to-face relations with their fellows in order to bring the uniqueness of their own perspective to the business of solving common problems and achieving common goals." [George Benello, From the Ground Up, p. 160] Thus equality allows the expression of individuality and so is a necessary base for individual liberty.

From the FAQ:
http://infoshop.org/faq/secA2.html#seca25

[New Tolerance]

Does any self-proclaimed capitalists want to reply???

[Jimmie Higgins]

- Do you believe that people are 'created' (whether literally or metaphorically is a different problem, but if you can tie this in that would be good too) equal?? Why or why not?

The following does not apply to people who are born with certain mental of physical deffciencies... if you are born with no arm, you will never be able to build mussle on that noexistant arm.

I believe that there are variations between different induviduals - like height for example - but environment is a muh more important factor in determining the differences between induviduals we observe every day.

When someone is born, they may have the potential to grow to be 6'6, but the height they actually grow to is depandent on their diet and acess to certain types of food and their health as they are growing up and so on. Consaquently people average a much taller height now than 100 years ago when diets were different and so on. Now production in the west has made protein and carbs abundent and so people are generally taller. In communism, more people might be able to reach their height potential since they will not be dead of starvation or limited acess to medical treatment and so on and everyone will be able to get the food they need.

Some people might be born with the ability to build mussle faster than others, but that potenial is meaningless compared to the environmental factors... a person with a mussle growing aptitude will not be able to beat up someone with a lower aptitude if that person sits around watching TV all day and the second person lifts weights 3 times a week.

The same is true with mental abilities. You might be born with an apptitude for math, but if you are a poor kid who can't focus on school because you have to take care of sibblings and start working at a young age you willnever be a better at math than a kid who went to a private school and wasn't naturally very adept at math but had acess to tutors and better instructors with the time to explain things well - not to mention just the opportunity to take math to a much higher level in high school (calc and so on).


- Should different things be treated the same way despite the fact that they are not the same? Why or why not?

or

- If two things were equal shouldn't they be treated the same way? Why or why not?This question is too abstract: should a person treat fire and water the same, well I wouldn't try and drink a glass of fire.

Or do you mean should different people be treated the same way?

[New Tolerance]

Or do you mean should different people be treated the same way?

Well, technically, people are things.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

well im a capitalist so ill give it a try..


Do you believe that people are 'created' (whether literally or metaphorically is a different problem, but if you can tie this in that would be good too) equal?? Why or why not?

people born equal? humm, thats actually very tricky question, i would say yes and no.....physically we are all different, but we are alike to one another , like we all have eyes, ears etc. and we belong to a race which we are alike many others etc.. mentally we are alike in that we can think etc. we have probably the same capacities and some might be brighter than others etc..racially no one is superior to one another thats for sure , physically and mentally , but we all have our similarities and our differences both physically and mentally again...physically by our features, and mentally by cultural conditioning..


Should different things be treated the same way despite the fact that they are not the same? Why or why not?

i feel like these are yes and no questions. When you catagorize humans as one of the "things", obviously you should treat them the same, and when you catagorize materials as "things" i believe you shouldn't treat them the same, unless they are obviously the equal.

racial equality is an example of the way humans should be treated the same, BUT!when we talk about humans i have an exception. If, for example you graduated from high school, and there is someone who graduated from the University with a PHD, than obviously i don't think you should be treated the same as the guy who payed his dues and graduated from the University with a PHD.....of course many leftist might argue with that and say that you did not get a chance to go to that University and get a PHD, but guess what!? i haven't gotten the chance to be a millionare actor either, its called LIFE, its not fair, something you might have found out by now, so DEAL WITH IT!

and materially, for example, you just can't compare a Ferrari to a Mitsubishi Eclipse.....but when you compare a Ferrari to another Ferrari the gap really closes, and it's like comparing a pen to another pen...



If two things were equal shouldn't they be treated the same way? Why or why not?

if they are equal in every aspect possible, than the only rational anwser is obviously yes of course they should be treated the same..but there are things that are the same, that is that they look the same etc. like for example 2 hamburgers, but one is slightly bigger than the other, than thats when the matter of preference and the human nature kicks in, and also it depends on the person, if you personally like big hamburgers, or in the circumstance, if your really hungry!? etc...

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I think that the people who awnser this question should be grouped in two groups. The Fascists, and everyone else.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

:blink: why is that? are you calling me a fascist? :blink: that would be the most ridiculous statement iv ever heard :rolleyes:

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 25 2006, 07:45 PM
- Do you believe that people are 'created' equal?? Why or why not?
Yes. Or at least that is the way I act towards the people around me.

I consider the entire human race my equals. Now maybe I know that a certain person is not very good at speaking French, so I wouldn't ask that person to translate a French document for me. Not everyone is equal in their ability to speak French. But in terms of social status - whether someone is a greater or lesser person than me - I consider both ideas to be irrelevant. I will never crawl to a "superior" or patronise an "inferior" because I do not believe they exist.

[overlord]

Everyone is equal in terms of their ability, but not their resources. Hence this prevents people from being completely equal. Is this the fault of capitalism? No, captalism is the only way to lift these people out of poverty.

If I was a scumdweller from the turd-world, than, quite frankly, I would be just as able as my pears from the first world, but disabled by my corrupt non-capitalist government. Thus I would languish in poverty until there was some kind of regime change from the U.S.A or I got lucky and was able to leave my hell-hole for the first world.

IF alternately, I was a poor guy from the U.S.A. I would be far superior to Mr Africa and Mr North Korea in my material wealth. Thanks to the trickle down of capital from the rich, I could build up a portfolio over time, buy my own industry and become an elite. Thus capitalism makes me more of a long term 'equal' of the rich.

In fact, I forgot to add that if anyone lives their lifetime in the U.S. without making at least 10 million they are a waste of flesh and are not living up to their full potential allowed by the grace of the forefathers.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

- Do you believe that people are 'created' (whether literally or metaphorically is a different problem, but if you can tie this in that would be good too) equal?? Why or why not?

No. For the simple fact that humans are not born equal. Some will be tall, others will be shorter. Some will have birth defects like spina bifida, myopia or a cleft palate. Some will be naturally thin, others will have a more rounded figure. Some unfortunate people will even be born ginger.

However, every human being should have the same opportunity as everyone else to live the life they want and not what others dictate to them.


- Should different things be treated the same way despite the fact that they are not the same? Why or why not?

"things" whatever they are should be judged on their individual merits, just like people.


- If two things were equal shouldn't they be treated the same way? Why or why not?

If two "things" are of equal utility then it only makes sense to treat the same way.

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 09:39 AM
IF alternately, I was a poor guy from the U.S.A.
I assume you're not and never have been, am I correct?


Thanks to the trickle down of capital from the rich, I could build up a portfolio over time, buy my own industry and become an elite.

What "trickle down"? Would that be the "trickle down" that still pays workers the bare minimum required to live for back-breaking work? Or the "trickle down" that, with impunity, allows people to die if they can't afford health insurance?

Trickle is the right word, because a trickle of cash is exactly what America's workers get compared to the mighty Niagara coming the way of anyone fortunate enough to be born rich.


Thus I would languish in poverty until there was some kind of regime change from the U.S.A

At which point you would die.

Honestly, does anyone really still believe in "trickle-down" economics? I thought by now everybody would have grown out of a theory which states, basically, that the solution to poverty is to make the rich richer.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

"things" whatever they are should be judged on their individual merits, just like people.

:rolleyes: lol quite frankly i dont understand how you can be a communist and believe this, this is so contradictory to the leftist believe, but don't get me wrong it's exactly what i believe because it's the only rational, like i explained you cant expect to have the same opportunities if you have a high school diploma than a guy with a PHD... ;) but of course most leftist here believe that the guy with a high school diploma should be earning the same as the guy with a PHD... :lol:

[overlord]

Hereunder lies one of the main reasons I love capitalism so much:

University of his Overlordship,

Department of Libertarian Economics,

Trickle-Down 101 - A step-by-step primer for Revolutionary Leftists,

Consider the divide between rich and poor something of a 'lever' which leverages scientific and technological development.

Rich people desire luxuries to increase the ease and pleasure of their lives. By 'luxury' I mean product which makes people's lives easier.

Naturally these rich buy those luxuries they consider to be of the highest quality, instantly eliminating all the rubbish by artificial selection. Initially, very few such products are available. The high prices paid justify the production of more. Inventors and entrepreneurs join forces, marketing these products to rich people. By now, the entrepreneurs have enough money to simplify the production process, allowing mass production at cheaper prices to the underclasses. The entrepreneurs get rich, (not always - there are more failures than successes), and everyone's lives are enriched.

Now that the middle classes can afford the washing machine, car, dishwasher, etc, etc, the time spent walking 15 miles, rubbing and scrubbing, etc can be more productively employed in selling sercives and designing products for others, enriching people's lives even more.

If you don't beleive in this, consider space travel. Ordinary people cannot afford the $90,000 or whatever which will be charged by Branson for orbital flights. The rich can. Without the rich, Branson would not be pursuing this line of business. The rich allow the business to take off in the first place. Eventually, mass replication of the idea with associated improvement of efficiencies and technologies and competition will slash prices to those of current airline tickets. Capitalism will soon ensure the conquest of the universe if it is allowed to proceed unimpaired.

Even your immortal Marx said capitalism fascilitated the industrial revolution. Do you have any idea how bad things would be today if it weren't for capitalism?? We would be in the stone age like Cuba or North Korea.

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by overlord
Rich people desire luxuries to increase the ease and pleasure of their lives. By 'luxury' I mean product which makes people's lives easier.

But who decides who gets to be the rich people, enjoying their luxuries while others work to produce the means to their luxurious lives. Already, you have eliminated the idea of equality - are you starting to see why leftists hate this so much?


Now that the middle classes can afford the washing machine, car, dishwasher, etc, etc, the time spent walking 15 miles, rubbing and scrubbing, etc can be more productively employed in selling sercives and designing products for others, enriching people's lives even more.

Sorry, did I miss the part where the comfort of "the middle classes" was supposed to be our main priority?


Capitalism will soon ensure the conquest of the universe if it is allowed to proceed unimpaired.

Do you have any idea what your "libertarian capitalism" would do if allowed to "proceed unimpaired"?

http://www.danheller.com/images/LatinAmerica/Cuba/People/Men/homeless-man-3.jpg

Libertarian capitalism decrees that those who can't make enough money to live are to be allowed to starve. Even the capitalist system we have now is not that savage, but if you argue for Lib. Cap., that is what you arguing for.


Even your immortal Marx said capitalism fascilitated the industrial revolution. Do you have any idea how bad things would be today if it weren't for capitalism?? We would be in the stone age like Cuba or North Korea.

Great, hip hip hooray. Capitalism has helped us. It is now obsolete. Let's heave it down.

EDIT: Just found this on the Newswire, might be relevant:
Rich kids 20 times more likely to stay rich (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060426/us_nm/economy_mobility_dc)

[Tungsten]

patrickbeverley

But who decides who gets to be the rich people,
No one decides, it happens through catallaxy.

enjoying their luxuries while others work to produce the means to their luxurious lives. Already, you have eliminated the idea of equality - are you starting to see why leftists hate this so much?
Stuff equality. It's unfair to those who work harder and would require oppression to enforce.

Sorry, did I miss the part where the comfort of "the middle classes" was supposed to be our main priority?
Which section of society should be our main priority, then? Should any section? I don't think so.

Do you have any idea what your "libertarian capitalism" would do if allowed to "proceed unimpaired"?
You mean if we left people alone? Heaven forbid we should do that. By the way, when you start posting pictures, it's a sure sign that you're losing the argument.

http://www.danheller.com/images/LatinAmerica/Cuba/People/Men/homeless-man-3.jpg
Correction, not so much "losing the argument", more like "losing the plot". Is Cuba your idea of unfettered capialism?

Libertarian capitalism decrees that those who can't make enough money to live are to be allowed to starve.
And what do you do? Start rolling out the pork barrel?

Even the capitalist system we have now is not that savage, but if you argue for Lib. Cap., that is what you arguing for.
I don't think trying to chastise him or any other libertarian in the name of some phony left wing "morality" is going to work. I, for one, am quite aware that there are only two options when it comes to feeding the starving- 1)let them rely on charity, or 2) rob Peter to feed Paul. You sound like you'd opt for #2 (robbery) without hesitation and regardless of the consequences. How much of a moralist are you now?

Great, hip hip hooray. Capitalism has helped us. It is now obsolete. Let's heave it down.
And replace it with what? I've already got a pretty good idea. And what it'll eventually degenerate into.

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by Tungsten
Stuff equality. It's unfair to those who work harder and would require oppression to enforce.

Oh, please, will the cappies just shut up with this stupid idea that "equality" means "everyone has the same amount of everything". It doesn't. It means everyone has an equal opportunity for advancement, and that, Tungsten, is neither "unfair" (how could it be?) or requiring of oppression.


Which section of society should be our main priority, then? Should any section? I don't think so.

As long as the proletariat is oppressed by the system, it's pretty obviously a priority.



http://www.danheller.com/images/LatinAmerica/Cuba/People/Men/homeless-man-3.jpg

Correction, not so much "losing the argument", more like "losing the plot". Is Cuba your idea of unfettered capialism?

Bugger. Didn't see the Cuba thing. However, these people
http://www.fjm.org/Images/Graphics-1/Sleepingbag.jpg
are guaranteed 100% American.
I don't apologise for posting images to illustrate my point.


I, for one, am quite aware that there are only two options when it comes to feeding the starving- 1)let them rely on charity, or 2) rob Peter to feed Paul. You sound like you'd opt for #2 (robbery) without hesitation and regardless of the consequences. How much of a moralist are you now?

Yes, I would rob Peter to feed Paul. Because, to use your analogy, Peter is the selfish bastard hoarding enough food to feed a hundred Pauls, yet keeping it to himself and claiming it's the right thing to do.

When there are people so rich their grandchildren will never have to work, in a country where people die on the streets, why the hell shouldn't they have some of that money taken to help people who need it more than they do? Forget morality, this is simple common sense.

[Tungsten]

patrickbeverley

Oh, please, will the cappies just shut up with this stupid idea that "equality" means "everyone has the same amount of everything". It doesn't. It means everyone has an equal opportunity for advancement, and that, Tungsten, is neither "unfair" (how could it be?) or requiring of oppression.
And if they fuck up and end up on the streets anyway? Are you just going to leave it at that and say "oh well, he had his chance"? I doubt it. More than likely he'll get another "chance". And another. And another...

Who pays for these "chances"?

As long as the proletariat is oppressed by the system, it's pretty obviously a priority.
Now there's a surprise

Yes, I would rob Peter to feed Paul. Because, to use your analogy, Peter is the selfish bastard hoarding enough food to feed a hundred Pauls, yet keeping it to himself and claiming it's the right thing to do.
Why? What gives the Pauls a right to it? What gives you the right to redistribute nonetheless?

When there are people so rich their grandchildren will never have to work, in a country where people die on the streets, why the hell shouldn't they have some of that money taken to help people who need it more than they do? Forget morality, this is simple common sense.
You haven't explained why. I should imagine you'd do this so you could achieve the same feeling you'd readily denounce as "selfish" in others. Besides, wasting resources trying to combat selfishness instead of using it to good effect doesn't strike me as being common sense. We capitalists accept selfishness as a given and use it as an energy source to drive productive efforts. You socialists explicitly reject selfishness and waste time, energy and resources trying to resist it, and only pursue production (of this stuff you intend to redistribute) as a secondary goal. Which is why you screw up every time.

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 07:20 PM
Why? What gives the Pauls a right to it?
The fact that they need it, and the fact that the Peters don't need it.

What is the point in all this excess money mouldering in banks, when it could be put to good use? If you hoard your money, because you "earned" it and therefore have the right to do what you want with it, you might as well burn it. Money that is not used is useless.

Of course we should cherish ideals of fairness, such as those you seem to be arguing from, but not to the extent that we allow money and resources to go to waste by not getting them to the people who need them. I can't believe anyone could be hard-line enough not to support some redistribution of wealth, when it can do so much good.

In any case, there's nothing fair about modern society under capitalism.


I should imagine you'd do this so you could achieve the same feeling you'd readily denounce as "selfish" in others.

Explain, please.


Besides, wasting resources trying to combat selfishness instead of using it to good effect doesn't strike me as being common sense.

Not combating poverty is a waste of resources!

[Tungsten]

patrickbeverley

The fact that they need it, and the fact that the Peters don't need it.
Who needs something and who doesn't is presumably determined by someone carrying a gun.

What is the point in all this excess money mouldering in banks, when it could be put to good use? If you hoard your money, because you "earned" it and therefore have the right to do what you want with it, you might as well burn it. Money that is not used is useless.
It's use should be at the disgression of the person who owns it, otherwise you've just got a system with the government spending money it doesn't own. Can you imagine the room for corruption?

[red team]

It's use should be at the disgression of the person who owns it, otherwise you've just got a system with the government spending money it doesn't own. Can you imagine the room for corruption?

And how is profit not corruption? Everything comes from either direct labour or machines performing labour. Money is a fiction. Labour is spent upon items being consumed. Money is never spent which makes it not correspond to reality, or in other words a fraud.

[Publius]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 25 2006, 06:51 PM







- Do you believe that people are 'created' (whether literally or metaphorically is a different problem, but if you can tie this in that would be good too) equal??

No.

But do I think we, a society should treat them as such, yes.


Why or why not?


Comparing to things as different as individual human beings is impossible.

'Equality', as some human or otherwise objective characteristic, is absurd.

Equality exists only as a result and consequence of human society.


- Should different things be treated the same way despite the fact that they are not the same? Why or why not?

Of course not.

Unless they have similarities.

Which leads us to...


- If two things were equal shouldn't they be treated the same way? Why or why not?

Well, it depends entirely on what you mean by 'equal'.

Saying 'all humans are equal' means you are equal to Adolf Hitler, which is self-evidently absurd.

I for one would prefer to drop bullshit notions of 'equality' that have no bearing to reality and instead look to see what designations and societal concepts are useful.

Is, then, equality 'useful'? Most of the time, so I choose to employ it.

[Publius]

I consider the entire human race my equals.

Well, you're wrong.


Now maybe I know that a certain person is not very good at speaking French, so I wouldn't ask that person to translate a French document for me. Not everyone is equal in their ability to speak French. But in terms of social status - whether someone is a greater or lesser person than me - I consider both ideas to be irrelevant. I will never crawl to a "superior" or patronise an "inferior" because I do not believe they exist.

Good for you.

But of course, other people do, so, in reality, people are not socially equal, are they?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by New Tolerance
Do you believe that people are 'created' (whether literally or metaphorically is a different problem, but if you can tie this in that would be good too) equal? Why or why not?

As far as we know, every human is genetically unique...except for "identical twins, triplets", etc. And even they show some differences due to what happens to them while they are in their mother's womb.

The answer is no.


Should different things be treated the same way despite the fact that they are not the same? Why or why not?

Depends...what are the "differences" and what are the "similarities"?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

That's really the problem with "philosophical" questions...without a real world context, they are "unanswerable".

For example, should every living human receive an "equal" portion (assuming that can be accurately determined) of his/her society's "wealth"?

That seems reasonable to me...but with certain obvious exceptions.

An infant does not need an automobile. An adult does not need a supply of baby food.

And so on. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Tungsten]

red team

And how is profit not corruption?
Because even workers profit- and have bank accounts.

[Red Axis]

This is retarded. Why don't you capitalists go get a life?

[Publius]

This is retarded. Why don't you capitalists go get a life?

I can't speak for the other capitalists, but I defy you to prove anything I said wrong.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

why dont capitalists go get a life? we have one, and we are very clear of it and of the world, something i must say you and most of your "comrades" are not....

and yeah, like publius said, why dont you give your side of your story to these questions porving how our responses have been retarded? :rolleyes: hahahaha i doubt he'll show around lol

[Zingu]

It depends on what you mean by the context of equality.

On terms of humans being "equal" to each other, then no, we're all different.


The real question is if humans in society should be equal to each other.

[Oh-Dae-Su]

yeah Zingu, we agree on that, equal in terms of how they are! racially, handicapped, or homosexuals or any of those things...but in terms of skills and knowledge, sorry you just can't expect a guy with a high school diploma to have the same opportunities as one with a PHD, i mean it's obvious so?? i don't know what the hell this Red Axis guy is battling about...

[New Tolerance]

The real question is if humans in society should be equal to each other.

what exactly does "in society" mean in this case?

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by New [email protected] 6 2006, 10:23 PM

The real question is if humans in society should be equal to each other.

what exactly does "in society" mean in this case?
I think he means we should all have a level playing field.

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 10:14 PM
I can't speak for the other capitalists, but I defy you to prove anything I said wrong.
Can't be done, Publius, since you didn't actually post any concrete assertions.

Airy philosophical waffle cannot be proved or disproved.

[Publius]

Can't be done, Publius, since you didn't actually post any concrete assertions.

Airy philosophical waffle cannot be proved or disproved.

I concretely answered all of his questions.

[New Tolerance]

I think he means we should all have a level playing field.

Well, this is the question. If we are all different anyways, then why is it injust to not to have a "level playing field"?

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 11:59 PM
Comparing to things as different as individual human beings is impossible.

Abstract.


'Equality', as some human or otherwise objective characteristic, is absurd.

Abstract.


Equality exists only as a result and consequence of human society.

Abstract.



- Should different things be treated the same way despite the fact that they are not the same? Why or why not?

Of course not.

Unless they have similarities.

Abstract.


Saying 'all humans are equal' means you are equal to Adolf Hitler, which is self-evidently absurd.

I for one would prefer to drop bullshit notions of 'equality' that have no bearing to reality and instead look to see what designations and societal concepts are useful.

Is, then, equality 'useful'? Most of the time, so I choose to employ it.

Abstract.

The lack of concrete assertions means that your comments cannot be proved or disproved.