- #1
- 32
- 0
Is inequality bad for society as a whole?
Inequality of what?
Is inequality bad for society as a whole?
In the context of this forum, I took it to me social and therefore financial, but good point...
The only relevant equity is before the laws, and the rights protected by the state.
In rest inequality is natural. We are not born equal, we are not part of the same social classes. Some will achieve more than others. So why should we be equal ?
I think a distinction should be drawn between a goal of everyone being equal (yuck) in a kind of homogeneous smear, and the notion that we should strive to at LEAST see that people have equal opportunities. I don't want to have a quadriplegic fireman, and the fact that the poor man or woman was dealt a bad hand doesn't matter a bit! In our own pursuit of happiness, we don't have to be the same... that's not what equal means.
We could also say that the life of any given person is of equal value at the outset, or argue that it's not the case. This is why context matters so much.
After all, as The Onion so crudely pointed out with their sketch, would you like to get in a boxing ring with a futuristic cyborg? Equality can be an issue in sport where a particular element of competition is being isolated; hence weight-classes and a variety of forms of a given sport.
Sameness is not the same as Equality... it's just one dystopian form of it. Laws are another form of imposed equality in theory, sort of... if you really believe that. I'm an atheist, but if there is a god and I'm wrong, surely the only equality that would matter would be decided by that being, and supersede law, even nature.
No, the OP is so vague that this isn't even a Rorschach inkblot... it's just playing with words.
I
It it said that these social problems arise because countries like the USA and UK are more socially competitive places to live. This can give pose "physco social" factors- like social anxiety. Peoples feelings have a lot to do with their overall health apparently.
.
Equal opportunity dreams are utopic. If I'm born in a rich, well placed socially family, Ill afford the best education money can buy, social relationships in many places and so on. Something others persons wont have. Much more doors will open before me. That are just the way things are.
Ppl dont have equal opportunity. Because we are born in different social contexts and with different gifts. Social injustice is natural. Live with it.
In rest inequality is natural. We are not born equal, we are not part of the same social classes. Some will achieve more than others. So why should we be equal ?
Do you think you are biased in saying that? Would someone on the "losing" end make that statement?
I just got done watching a fantastic documentary from National Geographic called "Guns, Germs and Steel". It attempts to find the source of inequality in the world, historically. Obviously in a nutshell it comes down to "Guns, Germs and Steel", however the primary factor comes down to geography and how some civilizations were just lucky to be living where they were. For example the landscape and weather determined the quality and variety of farming. It's very good, I recommend it. You can find it on Nexflix Instant.
Have you seen the documentary about the moment of death?... a bit disturbing, but also a fascinating way to examine the mind.
Nope, but I just added it to my queue :)
Of course, absolutely. Why wouldn't they, unless their political beliefs are corrupted by their own single data point. Having grown up very poor and struggled raising my own family (lower middle class at best), a single data point doesn't affect legitimate political beliefs. Political beliefs just don't follow the rich/poor fictional dichotomy espoused by many on the left.Do you think you are biased in saying that? Would someone on the "losing" end make that statement?
Do you think you are biased in saying that? Would someone on the "losing" end make that statement?
It happened that the neighborhood socialist came by at noon and noticed that I had an apple, but my neighbor did not. "That's not fair." says he. So he took my apple and divided it in three equal pieces, one for my neighbor, one for me, and one for the socialist. Now we have equality.
I'm not sure the label is the problem, but for the record, he calls himself a socialist.You cant even call that being a "socialist". he is a Marxist.
Times two. He was by far the most influential man of the 20th century (while he was dead). Probably more influential than any one man since Mohammad. And not in a good way.You cant even call that being a "socialist". he is a Marxist. If there is a devil, I hope he burns Marx in a tar cauldron till the end of time :P
The most sinister aspect of that is that today, people can use "ability" to justify who government should take from, use "need" to justify who to give it to, while simultaneously denying having a Marxist political philosophy. And, at least in some cases, they actually believe that themselves."From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", there is no more misguided behavior than this one. A total ignorance of the human nature.
Times two. He was by far the most influential man of the 20th century (while he was dead). Probably more influential than any one man since Mohammad. And not in a good way.The most sinister aspect of that is that today, people can use "ability" to justify who government should take from, use "need" to justify who to give it to, while simultaneously denying having a Marxist political philosophy. And, at least in some cases, they actually believe that themselves.
Could Marx have ever predicted that socialist propaganda could be so remarkably effective?
Nope. It's not very constructive to repeatedly misrepresent the posts you respond to.So... everyone who meets that very broad criteria, even if they don't follow or share the philosophy or even execution proposed by Marx, is a Socialist.