This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Egalitarianism Without Equality Is Tyranny
Submitted by Logan Albright via Mises Canada,
Egalitarianism is the favorite religion of the left.The idea of equality has always been cherished, from the French revolutionary cry of egalite, liberte, fraternite, to the modern obsession with income inequality being the source of all the world’s evils. It has gotten to the point that no one even bothers to question whether equality is in fact a desirable goal for society. It is taken as given.
The problem is that “equality” is a very, very broad term, with myriad meanings and interpretations. When conservatives and libertarians talk about equality, they usually mean equality of rights, of treatment under the law, and to a certain extent, of opportunity. By contrast, when progressives talk about equality, they mean it in a much more sweeping sense. Everyone should be given equal medical care, men and women should be paid the same amounts, and the fact that CEOs make more than factory workers is somehow to be decried.
Both of these approaches have their problems, the most important being that it only makes sense to treat things as equals if they actually are equal, a condition that is rarely met in the real world. A perfect example is the continual harping on “equal pay for equal work” when it comes to women’s wages. Defenders of the idea claim that women make 70 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men. This is a flat out lie. The statistic being cited comes from the Bureau of Labot Statistics, and is calculated by averaging all wages of women across the entire economy, and then comparing them to all wages of men. Nowhere in this number is anything said about “equal work” and the assumption that the average woman is performing exactly the same job as the average man is pure fantasy,
Imagine if we were to perform the same calculation, comparing 18-year-olds to 45-year olds. Of course, we would find that the average 45-year-old makes far more money than the average 18-year-old. But it would make no sense to complain about this discrepancy and demand equality, because these two groups perform drastically different kinds of work and have drastically different levels of experience.
Similarly, women make different choices than men in the labor market. They opt for different kinds of jobs, they tend to spend less time in the workforce and take more time off for family. These choices are reflected in the pay gap. Circumstances are not equal, so it makes no sense to apply equal outcomes.
Another example can be seen in a new push to achieve equal treatment in American public schools. The U.S. Department of Education is trying to eliminate racial disparities between suspension and other disciplinary rates in public schools, arguing that it is unfair to punish black students more heavily than white students. There would be some merit to this argument if black and white students engaged in disruptive behavior and other rule violations at the same rates, but they most emphatically do not. Punishments are meted out in proportion to the offenses committed, regardless of who commits them. Trying to equalize them is a fundamentally unfair approach, require either undue leniency on one group or undue severity to another based purely on the color of their skin. What could be a more inherently racist policy than that?
Imagine if we were to apply the same standard on the basis of gender? Everyone knows that boys misbehave in schools more often than girls do. Should we punish the girls more or let the boys get away with their antics all for the sake of equality? This is obvious nonsense.
The cult of egalitarianism demands equal treatment of unequal circumstances, a model that can lead only to tyranny and oppression. We have to stop thinking of equality as a necessary feature of a healthy society. The only sense in which people are truly equal is in their right to life and the control of their own actions. Any interference with these must be closely guarded against, but the politically correct imposition of equal outcomes on diverse personalities destroys individualism and abolishes freedom.
»
- 10436 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Electric vehicles and the promise of higher EPS is what keeps the machine moving.. we all die sometime.. until then.. here is an electric LR.
http://hedgeaccordingly.com/2014/12/farm-in-snowdonia-wales-tests-electr...Oh heavenly day! (wiping a tear from my eye).
A thousand thumbs up.
There is hope for the world (and ZHers).
The liberal idea of "equality" is to take money from those that have it,
and give it to those who don't, until everyone has an "equal" amount of money.
We have spent the last 50 years dismantling our society to give them an equal "opportunity",
without ever explaining success would require an equal "effort".
Debt, money, and the epitome of hyperbole
http://y2u.be/tOW5eljyjms
Vegan recipes suck.
Hunter-gatherer liberals believe that everyone in the tribe should have access to what nature produces.
The people who came after them, conservatives, mostly believed that you should have what you produce - except for government's claim.
Those who came after them, anarchists, claim that a person's output is his own.
When everyone is a superhero, no one is a superhero. And when everyone is finally dirt poor, no one will be dirt poor.
Even I have yet to see a chicky work as a car mechanic in to her 40's or 50's.
It just aint there sister, we are two different people inside, and if you can't see it, it don't mean that it still aint there, and if you assume we are the same, then most all decisions made after that period of time, will be mostly wrong ones. Kinda like the Fed, always wrong, but never in doubt.
Until i see a woman hit 50 homeruns in the MLB, throw 40 TDs in the NFL, Run a sub 10 sec 100m, win the PGA Masters, get a triple double in the NBA, or get a hat trick in the NHL, they will never get equal pay. How can they demand equal pay. Is government gonna have professional sports teams pay men amd women the same?
On a side note, they will not tamper too much with pro sports because how else are they gonna implement bread and circuses. They need sports to occupy the men and they need the Kardashians to occupy the women (and also the men too).
bread and circuses worked in Rome why cant it work here.
A government is necessary to ensure that private property (and the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of private property) is protected. Conservatives/libertarians understand this; anarchists do not.
As James Madison said, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
Um,..the basic tenets of anarchism are respect for private property and the non agression principle.
I think you are confusing anarchists with the black block hooligans.
Statist FAIL.
Anarchist:
"a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed."
The nobler aspects of anarchy (respect/non agression) are imagined by you.
A little bias in your selection of a definition? It basically means without a ruler but .gov and its MSM are working on it. You too?
anarchist
(?æn?k?st)
n
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a person who advocates the abolition of government and a social system based on voluntary cooperation
2. a person who causes disorder or upheaval
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anarchist
>>>dismantling our society to give them an equal "opportunity",
without ever explaining success would require an equal "effort".
The rational responses include 1) exerting less effort oneself, and 2) removing oneself from said society; both resonses are happening, and will intensify.
If I can't get the carrot, I can always lie down in the road. I have this real bad back....
The idea that egalitarianism is responsible for the tyranny and oppression we sometimes see reported in the lapdog press is about as convincing a claim as the claim Con Edison in New York City made some 50 years ago, blaming high levels of asthma not on air pollution from power plant smoke stacks but on bird droppings from pigeons ("pigeon fever"). Tyrants are responsible for tyranny.
If Zero Hedge wants to maintain its credibility, it will need to drop these kinds of guest post articles. Urgently. A statement as "We have to stop thinking of equality as a necessary feature of a healthy society" isn't consistent with advocating for a society where the 1% no longer wields a disproportionate influence in politics, society or media.
There is only one way the human equality of outcome can be achieved and that is through force. Every tyrant seeks to force his or her will onto others. The ideal of society should be voluntary actions reinforced by ample transparency. That thought alone scares the panties off of any liberal. In a democracy the majority seeks dominance over the minority, which is why we were provided a constitution that would limit that ability by limiting the force applying element, our government. Now we see a government clearly pursuing the interests of the majority and laying claim that democracy gives them this right to power, completely ignoring and negating our constitution. A tyranny of democracy, of the majority, of the empowered leadership, of the massive bureaucracy of government employees on all levels doing God's work.
Equality of opportunity = democracy
Equality of outcome = socialism
Please signal if someone has forced you to read this article or the Hedge for that matter.
I'm just spit balling here but maybe you should try thinking in more than one dimension. Credibility is not lost because the authors point of view doesn't fit your own narrow view, on the contrary, if the Hedge begins to offer echos in a chamber then it's credibility would be in question.
Equality is a bullshit term used for political power. A cheap, tired promise to make you whole or a chicken in every pot, just give me the power. In human terms, equality does not exist even on our most basic level. Assuming you're not a psychopath, is the BTK killer equally human to you? I think not. Are you as selfless as Mother Teresa was? Probably not.
Until you realize that this equality non-sense gives rise to more centralization of power, two wolves, one with sharper, longer teeth than the other, we're just moving deck chairs around.
Don't bother trying to polish that turd. That person would complain if given a free bottle of bourbon and a free prostitute.
The fact that ZH is free to read and visit, much less comment on, means little to that whiny douche.
"A statement as "We have to stop thinking of equality as a necessary feature of a healthy society" isn't consistent with advocating for a society where the 1% no longer wields a disproportionate influence in politics, society or media."
lol...apparently your idea of "equality" is for the welfare mom PowerBall winner (thus becoming a member of the 1% financially) is to have the state come in & confiscate 99% of her new wealth to be redistributed...to you.
Equality of opportunity does not mean equality of outcomes.
Nmewn +1000 or more!
Everyone here misses it. They pefer to debate and call each other names this fine morning. It is all about opportunity and not outcomes. We do not have that and never will these days. Just look at the comments this fine morning.
There ya go, everyone has the same opportunity to make of it what they will. Just because some have different priorities, family, career, leisure, entertainment, charity, hobbies (whatever) they can't then turn and say they were treated unfairly by their own actions.
Life decisions have consequences both negative & positive to what is being measured.
Myself, I'm not the least bit interested in working 24/7 to accumulate more wealth but the opportunity is always there. There's more to life ;-)
Have to disagree with equality of opportunity. With the inherent biases in all humans does anyone think the fat short ugly girl has any chance of winning the Ms Universe beauty contest? Much less Homecoming Queen?
Our genome forces us to seek out the best, the brightest, the most fair, etc.
Does the stunted mongoloid retard have the same opportunity to become a brain surgeon? A physicist? A star NFL football player? President of the United States?
Or is it just society holding them down with their evil thoughts and name calling?
The universe, much less Planet Earth provides no guarantees of any sort. Just because we live in a civilized society doesn't mean the Law of the Jungle still doesn't apply when dealing with our fellow human beings.
Its a fair & valid point you make but I take the stance of "all things being equal" regarding the general discussion. Its pretty clear a midget doesn't have much opportunity (or potential) to be a basketball star.
But him being "vertically challenged" (lol) doesn't prevent him from owning the team ;-)
Pure Evil opportunity is what you or I make it. You will never get an argument out of me over bias or perceptions. Opportunity is based on your skillset to do what you can not what you want. The problem is we now set up protected classes and preferencial treatment of protected classes of people.
Opportunity is lost in many places now. I agree there should be no guarantees in life. But that does not mean in my small mind that the governent or for that matter you or I be stymied or stopped from realizing our dreams based on our abilities. The problem is we can no longer do this in many parts of the country.
I hold it to be a self evident truth that no two people are equal by any measure at all.
Justice demands that all are treated unequaly.
Equality is an invention of the Price of Light to befuddle and confuse.
The Price of Light is measured by power consumption. Watt are you talking about? The Chinese game show "The Plice is Light"?
Equality? Who the f*ck wants equality? Everybody who talks about equality is planning to take some of my stuff and give it to the FSA.
I want freedom. And I want to have MORE stuff than average. Because I deserve it.
I'll be damned! What with all this "anything goes" new world we live in today, I guess when I go back to the boat I can just say I feel like a real bitch this hitch and command a 30% pay raise!
Unclear writing. Reeducation camp for you if you don't clear this up.
Unclear writing. Reeducation camp for you if you don't clear this up.
In Tyler's perfect egalitarian society everybody would be equal. And EVERYBODY would be above average. Peace and justice would prevail. And pigs would fly on gossamer butterfly wings over the frozen wasteland of hell while lions and lambs laid down and fornicated together without shame.
You have to BELIEVE!!
That's why I'm richer than you. -- Jamie Dimon.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/12/05/george-w...
Welcome to Pottesrville!
And Biff's World! Amurika!
https://www.bullionstar.com/blog/koos-jansen/belgium-investigating-to-re...
`VTM-nieuws has just reported the Belgium central bank has confirmed it's investigating to repatriate all its gold reserves.''
The author does not appear to understand what the word "egalitarian" means.
Nice straw man.
Changing channel back to adult programming....
Ah yes, the Libertarian War against the Straw Man. It's all they ever do.
It seems you know about as much.
Was that the LAST STRAW manTO BREAK THE CAMEL'S BACK?
Don't bother to get your definition from wikipedia. They have Islam down as a very egalitarian religion. WTF?
Who in hell is inisting that everyone is absolutely "equal?" Not one word here about proportionate rewards, of course. Anyone who complains about mega-wealth and rule by the plutocrats is an absolute equality zealot, and thus can be safely ignored.
This country is turning into a Hobbesian jungle of selfishness and savagery, and ridiculous sophistries like this post are tools in the hands of those who would crush the weak to serve the strong.
Equality is tyranny. War is peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is strength. We have heard this all before.
“[I]t has always been true that intellectuals, not the poor, have been the chief advocates of egalitarianism. Most poor people want to become richer. It is the intellectual class that is so often obsessed with envy and hatred of people who are more financially successful than they are. That they can manipulate survey questions that are used to make it appear that this view comes from ‘the poor’ and not themselves does not make this statement untrue.” – Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Organized Crime: The Unvarnished Truth About Government (p. 189)
Greak quote from DiLorenzo.
George Bernard Shaw, who described himself as a “Communist,” confirms DiLorenzo's observation. Shaw, one of the small group of English intellectuals who formed the Fabian Society in 1884, differed with Marx only over how the revolution would be accomplished in 1901. Wrote Shaw:
“Marx’s Capital is not a treatise on Socialism; it is a jeremiad against the bourgeoisie…it was supposed to be written for the working class; but the working man respects the bourgeoisie and wants to be a bourgeoisie; Marx never got hold of him for a moment. It was the revolting sons of the bourgeoisie itself, like myself, that painted the flag Red. The middle and upper middle classes are the revolutionary element in society; the proletariat is the conservative element.”
On that basis, writes Stormer in None Dare Call It Treason, “Shaw and the Fabians worked for world revolution not through an uprising of the workers but through indoctrination of young scholars. The Fabians believed that eventually these intellectual revolutionaries would acquire power and influence in the official and unofficial opinion-making and power-wielding agencies of the world. Then, they would quietly establish a socialistic, one-world order.
“(Sidney) Webb called it the ‘doctrine of the inevitability of gradualness’ – each change so gradual that the masses never awaken in time to stop the ‘inevitable.’”
Rejecting all suggestions of a political movement, the Fabians “planned to spread their influence by penetrating existing educational institutions, political parties, the civil service, etc. As a starting point, the Webbs established the London School of Economics…the intellectual center of the Fabian Socialist Movement…”
Obviously what we need are more laws to punish the rich and redistribute to the poor and more effort to educate people to understand how their need for material things and financial security offends others who have made diffferent choices in their life, like people who have quit their jobs to pursue being a drummer or artistic basket weaver, or just sit at home and contemplate the meaning of life. Its unfortunate that so many will sacrifice their lives for money when they could have chosen to become a world champion video gamer or social worker happily distributing the discretionary earning of others.
The only real problem with redistributing the wealth is that it takes a middle man, the government, which manages to siphon off the majority of the wealth for itself.
In order to forcibly redistribute the wealth the government needs a bureaucracy to manage the redistribution of wealth which requires ever expanding budgets to steal and manage the process.
They more they steal the more the bureaucracy grows resulting in an infinite feedback loop until the country looks like Cuba or N. Korea.
"Egalitarianism Without Equality Is Tyranny"
This is tyranny.
http://parrishmiller.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/kelly-thomas-be...
RIP Kelly Thomas
An American, not US subject.
Tyranny as it happens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xg9ASTy4t5Q
No, that's murder... the worst kind of murder,,, murder by those paid to protect and serve.
fret not, we'll all be equal diggin' for shoots to eat under 12 inches of radioactive soil.
What to do when this is the modern American 'man'?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB3M3zKjG4E
I'm suing the NBA, NFL, Pro Baseball.
White guys are discriminated against and not allowed to play in-proportion to their racial mix within society.
The day whites are fairly represented in the NBA, NFL, Baseball, etc. is the day we will have solved racial inequity.
Exactly!
And why are half the principal owners of the National Basketball Association teams Jewish (14) when there are only three Jewish players in the NBA? And roughly a third of the NFL owners are Jewish while 73% of NFL players this year are black?
But, hey, most cops are white.
How bad is this diversity profiling becoming in the USA? The Milwaukee Journal’s Bob Wolfley wrote in September 2011 in “Considering the NFL in black and white numbers”:
Richard Lapchick's Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport issued its annual racial and gender report card for the National Football League.
The NFL received an A grade on racial hiring practices, a C grade on gender hiring, for a combined grade of B.
The annual report breaks down every imaginable group in terms of race: players, head coaches, assistant coaches, owners, league management and even referees, team physicians, head trainers, and radio/TV announcers.
In 2010, 67% of all NFL players were black and 31% were white. In 2011, a total of 74.8% of the NFL's league office management is white. A full 100% of the majority owners in the league are white. A total of 22% of the head coaches are black, while 31% of the assistant coaches are black.
Winston Moss of the Packers is one of seven black assistant head coaches in the league. In 2010, Packers director of football operations Reggie McKenzie was one of 16 black vice presidents of teams…
Ad Nauseam Update:
The 2014 Racial and Gender Report Card: National Football League
http://www.tidesport.org/
Touche!
At least you didn't mention hockey, thanks,
Actually this is a valid strategy: use their laws of plunder against them.
They have been loading up the "system" with, and using against us, one law of plunder after another. Time to turn it around on them--Let them stare down the barrel of their own gun.
It's called "jamming," as in clogging. Gulag prisoners did it, and if they can, then we can as well.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/03/gary-north/how-to-bring-down-the-system/
All reading this should be going through all of the treasonous ones' laws, not just those on race, gender, etc., from the local on up, and filing suit after suit demanding they comply with, and pay, with their own laws of plunder.
This is one org. that is: http://edgarcountywatchdogs.com/ They even citizen arrested a county park board.
An American, not US subject.
"When all else fails, guillotine."
awesome post. i also propose we ZHers and/or all true libertarians (not leftists who pose as libertarians or even neocons who do the same)... anyways, I also propose we must mount the campaign to take back our word - Liberal. The leftists co-opted the word in the mid- 1900s i believe.
But von Mises himself wrote a book called Liberalism defining what being liberal actually means. libertarians and conservative thinkers are actually more waaaaaay more "liberal" in the true sense of the words then leftist, statist "liberals" ever have been or will be.
for too long we have allowed the left to co-opt and sully the true concept behind the word, for they are liers, and deceivers.
I keep telling you guys to come to Australia but you don't listen. Here, 'liberal' still means liberal. Our main conservative party is called the 'Liberal party'.
Since many Aussie expats who return report the same thing - ''This country is a police state"" - due to the constant regulations, signs, and nanny-statism, I will take a pass. Will make a visit, though.
Why the fuck would I want to live in Australia? And yes I've been there.
+1 more
"...all true libertarians (not leftists who pose as libertarians or even neocons who do the same)"
Spot on.
The Left is a master of disguise, presenting itself as libertarian when in truth it's nothing of the sort. Give them a chance in power and before long they're spewing out ever more prescriptive laws & regulations to control the genuine freedom-lovers and successful people on the Right. All in the name of "equality" of course.
The Left is one gigantic con-trick which has nothing to do with "equality" or "fairness" as its rhetoric would have us believe. It's all about getting control of the levers of power to impose "their" preferred model of society onto us all and, via taxation, to share our hard-earned wealth with their true believer followers. When people rebel against their statist tyranny, they soon introduce the militarised police jackboots as we are seeing across America , UK and elsewhere. The rest is history.
The other thing I notice about the 'egalitarians' is their uncanny ability to feather their own nests by gaining well-paid sinecures in various publicly funded quangos and 'think tanks', as 'human rights' lawyers and such. These posts always seemed to include continuous travel to conferences, access to plush offices.....and all funded by the unfortunate taxpayer whom they spend their lives afflicting.
This is true. The term 'liberal' has been utterly corrupted, and transformed into the polar opposite of what it really means. Today's so-called liberals are intolerant totalitarian adherents of a religion in the truest meaning of that word.
Take back Liberty, and the word "liberal" will follow.
An American, not US subject.
This is a lie. Boys and girls are disruptive in the same quantity but over different time frames and different levels per incident. A boy will make noise and knock something over. A girl will giggle, pass notes, and undermine her classmates. Both are deserving of discipline and telling the girls, explicitly, that being a girl does not mean you are good and the boys are bad, is a necessary teaching tool.
Girls are just as bad as boys - this sexist notion is dead dead dead after 20 years of the internet. Everyone knows better, now.
Generally speaking, it's true that boys have more discipline problems in school. Ask any parents of both boys and girls and they will tell you the same thing. Boys and girls develop and behave differently. Girls can have just as many discipline problems as average boys or more but statistically have far less school discipline problems.
And sexist? A brain washed comment that has nothing to do with reality.
That's why boys and girls need to be separated, men's brain and women's brain are totally different, today our education system favor girls because their are calm (or considered like), for boys it's natural: they are more disruptive in nature, but today being disruptive (ie questioning your entourage, society and authority) is considered as bad, that's why boys are on Prozac at 12 and fucking up their brain, more anti-male policies in our societies. Societies that fail their sons are headed to total collapse.
The Left’s assault on men and boys was disguised as the new feminism. And these changes in our culture, wrought by gender politics that attack the roles and relations of men and women, have left young boys without a raison d’etre in American society.
In gender politics, the male has no role; he’s mocked, discriminated against and penalized. And that includes the school room.
America has become a tragic place for many white males, young and old. The male school boy, two years behind girls in his early maturity, has no defense against this governmental assault except to strike back or withdraw.
Schools even have equal sporting opportunities for girls in boys' natural territory. The sports opportunities for boys in schools, such as football, were minimized and neutralized deliberately by Title IX. It was a body blow to the one extracurricular activity in which boys could excel as they were growing up to assume the roles for which nature intended them.
Thus, white males comprise by far the greatest number of suicides in the land of opportunity, targeted by government-instituted societal hatred that is destroying their very souls.
Here is the statistical carnage from Suicide.org: white male suicides in 2005 at 19.5% (22,328 suicides per 100,000 white males), with the rate for white women increasing to 5.1 Black men stayed the same, dropping to 9%, with black females at 1.8.
http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html
An American society that gives privileges in government only to Jews, women, minorities and homosexuals will not long endure the world's competition.
And achieving equallity of outcomes weakens the motivations of all.
The changes needed for humans to continue existing are so much more involved that what this article is about and we must face these changes soon. Social adjustments necessary for survival have never come in a connected world as we live in today except by complete collapse. This is due to a necessary threat, one sufficient to affect the whole of humanity, that must be overcome. A threat that must include the prospect of death if it is to be conquered. It won't be able to be outmaneuvered by some NWO and it won't be able to be avoided by intellectual or philosophical means. The destruction will come. Those with money and power will be the targets of the destruction and in their fight to keep the opposition from succeeding most everyone will become toast. Then a new period of social democracy, an evolution away from money and centralized power, a society based on distributed resources that are collectively owned and operated through open source software and managed by referendum and not governments, where every person must take on the responsibility of upholding the law, will ensue. The NWO is destined to fail. They can't fight their own people as well as nations like Russia and China. They can't fight the real world with FRAUD. Once they begin to fall they will be pummeled like Germany at the end of WWII so they won't stand a chance of rising again. Out of that destruction people may have another chance. Alienation, loss of identity for individuals as well as society, exists today as it has in the past. We are near the precipice and can't turn away or back but only forward into what awaits.
BTFD and head for the hills bitchez.
In the interst of equality, I downvoted everyone with too many up votes, and upvoted everyone with too many down votes.
Junked you because green was not equal to red, and it made us cry.
Junked myself to even it out.
Hey, this is fun!
Egalitarianism WITH equality, like what we've had in Scandinavia for a hundred years, is the best system humanity's ever come up with. Innovative, free, wealthy and equal - and yet the world doesn't follow the example.
We will wait to see how your changing population mix effects your voluntary egalitarian equality. People with shared values and cultures can thrive under just about any system that allows freedom bounded by a voluntary set of rules. Most nations of the world have very diverse populations making a cohesive social structure difficult without force. Japan is another exception and their nationalistic culture may well see them fall off the edge of the planet. We shall see.
.
Egalitarianism IS tyrrany, period.
Authoritarian societies (oligarchies) are also the most unequal. According to a Princeton study, America has now effectively drifted towards oligarchy:
http://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oliga...
The US simply needs to follow its constitution, which is an exercise in egalitarianism. It brings ruling class down to middle class level - just like the Magna Carta. You have an amazing base for freedom, but you've been hijacked by oligarchs.
"Egalitarianism" is a term hijacked by socialists to justify the ongoing redistribution of wealth that goes on across much of Europe, coupled to welfare systems that incentivise people not to pull their weight and to live on the backs of others.
I do not believe the American Constitution was drafted to usher any of that in. It was aimed at equality under the law and equality of opportunity etc. Not the same thing. The article author admirably explains these differences.
The ongoing transfer of wealth in both Europe and America is towards the oligarchs, not towards the bottom. Austerity and bank bailouts do not save the poorest, they take from the poorest and give to the wealthiest. Every wealth chart shows a trickle up, not down.
Sure, but you're referring to relatively recent events and especially since the 2008 crash and all the bank bail-outs and QE etc.
Prior to that for many decades, wealth was redistributed via taxation to poorer classes to impose socialist egalitarianism, but mainly to buy their votes. Now it's more like you say.
The interesting point to note is that in both models it's the middle classes who are fleeced.
I don't necessarily see a correlation between social benefits and fiscal crises. In countries like Greece, your point would certainly be valid. But in others, like Ireland and America, lower social benefits and lower corporate taxes, actually produce worse fiscal results than places like Germany and Scandinavia, which are welfare states.
It's counter-intuitive, but I can think of several possible reasons off the top of my head:
- strong production and exports vs. a consumer mentality
- In America's case, a large part of the budget is eaten away by 1) the Pentagon, 2) oligopoly prices of medicine 3) Bailouts and debt servicing
- Free, high-quality education, such as we have in Germany and Finland, in the long term actually pays for itself - you end up with a smarter, debt-free workforce than can spend money on something other than debt service.
"I don't necessarily see a correlation between social benefits and fiscal crises."
I never said there was a correlation.
I simply pointed out ... er ... what I pointed out.
My point was that this whole narrative about welfare and wealth redistribution is meaningless, because the real problem is oligarchy. A country can have zero wealth redistribution, zero corporate taxes and zero workers' rights, but if it's an oligarchy, all that wealth will still get siphoned off. The best system in my opinion is simply an effective, liberal, fiscally responsible welfare state, like Scandinavia or Germany.
And my point is that redistribution used to be towards the poorer people and it came from the middle classes. Now the redistribution is towards the banksters and it's still the middle classes paying. Yes, the rich have always got richer but since the financial crash - with bail outs, QE, Zirp - that process has taken a sharp curve upwards.
No, I don't favour a welfare state, at least not one like we currently have, because it gets abused by politicos to buy votes and inexorably reaches for the sky.
I read the intro blurb and knew the Evil Mises had risen from the pits of hell.
Want equality, how about eliminate government ? There is the source of all inequality they pick winners and losers everyday. They never do itch less and they always get what they think that they are due.
Government exists to protect the most feeble minded among us and ensure that they are employed despite the fact that they do not posses any functional ability
There's just one flaw in this argument. Wealth and power tends to conglomerate, not divide, regardless of whether there is a government or not. There's very little difference between a powerful government and a powerful corporate oligarchy, and history has demonstrated this over and over. In most cases, like in America, the two tend to become one.
The main flaw in the argument is that government is human nature. It has always existed, and it will always exist. Your only hope is to have a say in what kind of government you have. "Eliminating government" just ensures that a government will arise over which you have no control and in which you have no say. Under such circumstances, I guarantee you will not be sovereign to any extent whatsoever.
This is the the most rediculous argument I have ever seen posted on this site. Here is another one of the Haves trying to justify abuse. Perhaps one day the writer of such a rediculous argument will find him/her self on on the other side of the coin, singing a different tuen.
Given that you've only been registered on ZH for 39 weeks and your Biography says: "I am on a mission.", should I conclude that you're a socialist?
For Info: when I read the article I saw a lot of solid logic in the author's analysis.
Thought police alert!
Your statement is "rediculous" I think. Not much rational argument there I see. Must be wearing the jackboots, and you want the haves stuff I guess.
That the premise of Disparate Impact ever got a moment's consideration, let alone become enshrined in legislation simply beggars belief. Because it comes down to some court or quango making technical/professional judgements for which they have no experience or qualifications. The notorious NY Fire Department examinations being a case in point. It was decided that because the exams were too difficult for blacks and Hispanics they had to be dumbed down irrespective of the impact on the Department's fire fighting capabilities.
Where does this end? Should courts decide that exams for airline pilots, brain surgeons and bridge designers be similarly dumbed down? And if not why not?
And never forget that the main victim in all of this is the White male. Which was the intention all along.
Want Equality ? Go to my country France where the producer is just producing for the gubernment and the legion of the FSA, Immigrant and those 53 % who don't pay tax.
You earn better at doing nothing on the government tits than finding a job...
The tyranny of the majority
Show me one country with high income and/or wealth inequality that is not a fascistoid police state.
Egalitarianism amounts to tall poppy syndrome, or the levelling out of inborn differences. Some are born with more talent than others, more brains, better looks, etc. There is nothing anyone can do about that, and every attempt to level people out is bred by jealousy, frustration or a misplaced sense of justice.
It has nothing to do with equality at birth, that states every human being (black, white, yellow, red, rich, poor and even dirt-poor) is entitled to the same opportunities to make the best of himself-herself. That every human being should be born free and have the same access to a healthy family environment, a sound education system, a proper health system, and a free choice of career, is the basis for a healthy society.
In that respect, America is not out of the woods.
The old USSR and Mao's China were very egalitarian: everyone was equally MISERABLE-except for the connected few at the top.
Look at America under 0baMao and we're getting there fast-"fundamental transformation" ya know.
I was in the Soviet Union for a while in 1990. The Russians and Ukrainians had a saying: "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us." Also, the pay received by a taxi driver was not much different from what a doctor received, and scale was set by the State. Of course, they did have a lively black market. They did things like add herbal grasses or black pepper to a bottle of vodka, then sell it for cost plus "value added".
That's where we are headed. After they take everything away from us, we'll end up resorting to sticking some peanuts in a shit-ball, tying a ribbon around it, and selling it as an "organic truffle".
They were not. Don't mix state capitalism with socialism.
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2014/12/05/wall-street-moves-to-put-taxpaye...
Don't know about Canada, but in the U.S., equal treatment under the law is required. Not equal outcomes, but equal treatment under the law.
The writer should be happy, we don't have equality and don't live in an egalitarian society.
Since when equality means SAME.
The "Liberté Egalité Fraternité" adopted by the French revolution, originates from the Free Masonry. As far as I know Lafayette and Georges Washington were members of this movement.
Liberty and Equality cannot function without the third part "Fraternité". That means considering the other person as a brother (fraternité) and therefore giving him all the dignity and respect he deserves, even if he has followed a wrong path.
The present systems in any country nowaday are very far from these principles. Alexis de Tocqueville described very well in his wrinting called "De la Démocratie En Amérique" the dangers in which unfortunately all democratic systems have fallen nowaday. It is in Book 2, 4th Part Chapter VI (sorry i only have it in French but sure that many of you can find it in English.
Quote
Quelle espèce de despotisme les nations démocratiques ont à craindre
Je pense donc que l’espèce d’oppression, dont les peuples démocratiques sont menacés ne ressemblera à rien de ce qui l’a précédée dans le monde/…/Je veux imaginer sous quels traits nouveaux le despotisme pourrait se produire dans le monde: je vois une foule innombrable d’hommes semblables et égaux qui tournent sans repos sur eux-mêmes pour se procurer de petits et vulgaires plaisirs, dont ils emplissent leur âme. Au-dessus de ceux-là s’élève un pouvoir immense et tutélaire, qui se charge seul d’assurer leur jouissance et de veiller sur leur sort. Il est absolu, détaillé, régulier, prévoyant et doux. Il ressemblerait à la puissance paternelle si, comme elle, il avait pour objet de préparer les hommes à l’âge viril; mais il ne cherche, au contraire, qu’à les fixer irrévocablement dans l’enfance; il aime que les citoyens se réjouissent, pourvu qu’ils ne songent qu’à se réjouir. Il travaille volontiers à leur bonheur; mais il veut en être l’unique agent et le seul arbitre; il pourvoit à leur sécurité, prévoit et assure leurs besoins, facilite leurs plaisirs, conduit leurs. principales affaires, dirige leur industrie, règle leurs successions, divise leurs héritages, que ne peut-il leur ôter entièrement le trouble de penser et la peine de vivre ?
C’est ainsi que tous les jours il rend moins utile et plus rare l’emploi du libre arbitre; qu’il renferme l’action de la volonté dans un plus petit espace, et dérobe peu à peu à chaque citoyen jusqu’à l’usage de lui-même. L’égalité a préparé les hommes à toutes ces choses : elle les a disposés à les souffrir et souvent même à les regarder comme un bienfait.
Après avoir pris ainsi tour à tour dans ses puissantes mains chaque individu, et l’avoir pétri à sa guise, le souverain étend ses bras sur la société tout entière; il en couvre la surface d’un réseau de petites règles compliquées, minutieuses et uniformes, à travers lesquelles les esprits les plus originaux et les âmes les plus vigoureuses ne sauraient se faire jour pour dépasser la foule ; il ne brise pas les volontés, mais il les amollit, les plie et les dirige; il force rarement d’agir, mais il s’oppose sans cesse à ce qu’on agisse; il ne détruit point, il empêche de naître; il ne tyrannise point, il gêne, il comprime, il énerve, il éteint, il hébète, et il réduit enfin chaque nation a n’être plus qu’un troupeau d’animaux timides et industrieux, dont le gouvernement est le berger.
Unquote
The French Revolution was a socialist revolution. One of the most prominent, non-socialist figures in history was George Washington. Frederic Bastiat, writing in opposition to the French Revolution of 1848 in The Law, explains how you can’t have liberty with enforced fraternity.
He wrote:
“Mr. de Lamartine once wrote to me thusly: ‘Your doctrine is only the half of my program. You have stopped at liberty; I go on to fraternity." I answered him: "The second half of your program will destroy the first.’
“In fact, it is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot
“Legal plunder has two roots: One of them, as I have said before, is in human greed; the other is in false philanthropy.
“At this point, I think that I should explain exactly what I mean by the word plunder.” …
“…When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it — without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud — to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed. “
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
If fraternity has to be enforced, it is not Fraternity.
I do not believe in systems which are taking funds from one side to give it to the other side.
I agree that this is plunder. Likewise i call plunder any manipulation (whether on regulated markets or otherwise) which leads to unjustified and unnecessary transfer of wealth.
Fraternity can only come from education, so that each person feels respect to others. By respect i mean making sure that every person surrounding us is not lacking its essentials needs (housing, food and health) and not living in constant fear of losing what is essential to live in Society with dignity.
We are very far from it, and the system we are living in presently is a system of continuous plunder .
Equality is the central issue of the day, and you have done a nice job of distinguishing the opposing views - thanks. However, you only lightly touch upon the most critical aspect of equaity. The founders embraced equality because they well understood that it offered the only effective check agains faction. Faction, in turn, is fundamentally responsible for the downfall of all governments. If equal, individual rights are rigorously defended, then no group will usurp individual rights or opportunities. This is a key notion that seems to have faded from our national conscious.
Thanks you for the piece.