Equality as an Evil: The Moral Scourge of Modernity

[Mister D]

The dominant ideology of modern Western societies upholds equality as an absolute moral good, which must, therefore, be pursued for its own sake. The morality of egalitarianism is never questioned by the establishment power structure or by the vast majority of citizens; it is, in fact, a taken-for granted assumption that exists outside the scope of acceptable debate. Predicated on the arbitrary assertion that all humans are born equal in dignity and rights, and bearer of such rights by the mere fact of being human, able to reason, or endowed with dignity (note the circular reasoning) it makes of anyone questioning the moral goodness of equality into an individual of questionable humanity. Even conservatives dare not question the moral goodness of equality, focusing instead on critiquing the methods of application. Yet, equality, despite the high-flown rhetoric surrounding it, is far from an absolute moral good. On the contrary, when we examine the consequences of equality, it is an evil. This article will first explore some of the ways in which equality is an evil and will then put forth an alternative paradigm, founded on a theory of difference.

Continues...

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/equality-as-an-evil/

[dsolo802]

While I agree with many of the conclusions of this article, I take issue with the underlying premise. Equal opportunity to look after oneself and family and to live a life of dignity is the good to which I believe virtually all people ascribe.

Based upon this observation, my view is our predominant political and socio-economic concern should neither be about what are characterized as "entitlements" nor about equal distribution of wealth, but rather about producing a society that distributes equality of opportunity.

I'd like to ask a few questions that I believe to be relevant to the current arc of our Society:

As a practical matter, is it as easy for kids today to get the education they need to compete for today's jobs as it was for us when we were looking to make our way in the world? Or is it more difficult?
Do our people today, have more or less opportunity to make something of themselves?
How does the percentage of households both parents working to make ends meet compare with that percentage 30 years ago? Percentage-wise, do we fewer children living with less adult supervision at home today than we did when we were growing up? or greater?

People are unique, with unique gifts, potentials and shortcomings. Yes, it is therefore absurd to speak of people as being equal. That said, we should hold tight to the notion that our society is most good and most just when it functions to produce and distribute equal opportunity to all.

[Conley]

While I agree with many of the conclusions of this article, I take issue with the underlying premise. Equal opportunity to look after oneself and family and to live a life of dignity is the good to which I believe virtually all people ascribe.

Based upon this observation, my view is our predominant political and socio-economic concern should neither be about what are characterized as "entitlements" nor about equal distribution of wealth, but rather about producing a society that distributes equality of opportunity.

I'd like to ask a few questions that I believe to be relevant to the current arc of our Society:

As a practical matter, is it as easy for kids today to get the education they need to compete for today's jobs as it was for us when we were looking to make our way in the world? Or is it more difficult?
Do our people today, have more or less opportunity to make something of themselves?
How does the percentage of households both parents working to make ends meet compare with that percentage 30 years ago? Percentage-wise, do we fewer children living with less adult supervision at home today than we did when we were growing up? or greater?
People are unique, with unique gifts, potentials and shortcomings. Yes, it is therefore absurd to speak of people as being equal. That said, we should hold tight to the notion that our society is most good and most just when it functions to produce and distribute equal opportunity to all.

I agree that equal opportunity is a noble goal to strive for, even though we know some kids have the odds stacked against them at the moment of conception, others due to exposure in utero like FAD, etc. Even if every child were born identically, with differences in parenting, economics, and other environmental factors it would be impossible to truly 'level' the playing field. With those caveats, sure, I'll play along.

Question 1:

I believe it is more difficult to get the education they need mostly because 1 - jobs have become much more specialized, and 2 - K-12 schools haven't changed with the times. With the internet and other resources, education itself is easier to find than ever before. Additionally, good, well paying jobs do exist and there are sectors that can't find applicants to fill these positions. The days of coasting through school and winding up with a manufacturing or service job that will let your spouse stay home, pay for your kids' college, house, etc. - that world is gone and it's not coming back

Question 2:

This is a hard one to measure. Do you mean make something of themselves financially? I'd argue it's easier to become megawealthy now than it used to be, but a person is far more likely to be poor. The middle class is shrinking, no doubt about it.

Question 3:

This ties into what I said before in the other thread where I was complaining about bad parenting. There have to be more double income families now than ever before. Is this a result of our economy failing, or is it that everyone wants the tricked out SUV, the suburb house with the great school system, the flat screen tv in every room, and to pay for little Jenny to study art history at Bowdoin? Ok, that last one was a bit much, but I think it's a combination of depressed wages and rampant, out of control consumerism.

[Mister D]

Glad to see this started a discussion. Going to happy hour soon but I will contribute by morning.

[dsolo802]

I agree that equal opportunity is a noble goal to strive for, even though we know some kids have the odds stacked against them at the moment of conception, others due to exposure in utero like FAD, etc. Even if every child were born identically, with differences in parenting, economics, and other environmental factors it would be impossible to truly 'level' the playing field. With those caveats, sure, I'll play along.

Question 1:

I believe it is more difficult to get the education they need mostly because 1 - jobs have become much more specialized, and 2 - K-12 schools haven't changed with the times. With the internet and other resources, education itself is easier to find than ever before. Additionally, good, well paying jobs do exist and there are sectors that can't find applicants to fill these positions. The days of coasting through school and winding up with a manufacturing or service job that will let your spouse stay home, pay for your kids' college, house, etc. - that world is gone and it's not coming backWhat about meaningful access to higher education - something without which getting those good, well paying jobs might be impossible? It costs a fortune to get that education today, yes?


Question 2:

This is a hard one to measure. Do you mean make something of themselves financially? I'd argue it's easier to become megawealthy now than it used to be, but a person is far more likely to be poor. The middle class is shrinking, no doubt about it.I meant to make it in the world in whatever way one wanted to. My folks always told me, if you apply yourself, if you study and work hard, this is America, you can write your own ticket. If you ask me, that thinking hasn't yet died, but experiences to back that up are becoming more and more scarce. The shrinking of the middle class is my exhibit "A" on this point. Not everyone wants or needs to be mega wealthy. We all need to be able to put a roof over our heads, food in our mouths, and to receive medical care when we are sick.


Question 3:

This ties into what I said before in the other thread where I was complaining about bad parenting. There have to be more double income families now than ever before. Is this a result of our economy failing, or is it that everyone wants the tricked out SUV, the suburb house with the great school system, the flat screen tv in every room, and to pay for little Jenny to study art history at Bowdoin? Ok, that last one was a bit much, but I think it's a combination of depressed wages and rampant, out of control consumerism.Hey, I know Jenny too!

When I look at the data, what I see is essentially two parents today both working to bring home essentially the same wages that one parent earned back 30 years ago - with crazy education and food inflation. I do NOT downplay the significance of the consumerism you mention either. Our economy is not healthy unless we succumb to levels of consumption that are really bad for us!

[Conley]

What about meaningful access to higher education - something without which getting those good, well paying jobs might be impossible? It costs a fortune to get that education today, yes?

It costs a lot, but there are smart ways to manage it. Let's assume it's a four year degree in comp/math/sci/engineering. Do the first two at a community college, transfer in junior year to the big state school. In state tuition and loans covering basic expenses...I worked in college, it's doable and there are plenty of student jobs. Loans will not be a problem provided you are majoring in something that will give you a job right away - back to the fields listed above. I'm not saying it's as easy as it was, no way, but it is doable without costing a fortune. If you're not interested in one of those kinds of fields, you can find often cheaper schools and learn whatever skills you need at community / junior college levels. There's usually a way to make it work.


I meant to make it in the world in whatever way one wanted to. My folks always told me, if you apply yourself, if you study and work hard, this is America, you can write your own ticket. If you ask me, that thinking hasn't yet died, but experiences to back that up are becoming more and more scarce. The shrinking of the middle class is my exhibit "A" on this point. Not everyone wants or needs to be mega wealthy. We all need to be able to put a roof over our heads, food in our mouths, and to receive medical care when we are sick.

It's harder than it was to take a relatively easy working path and end up middle class. No doubt about it. It's hard to speak on these topics without bringing in my own bias - I think a balanced life is a healthy life, the nose-to-the-grindstone lifestyle isn't for me. I'm not sure that if you choose that path it is harder to become one of the wealthy in America. It takes a lot of work but if you go in the right fields you can become the 1%. At what cost though? I agree we all need roofs, food, and medical care...the spending exists for those programs but they are woefully mismanaged.


Hey, I know Jenny too!

Jenny wouldn't go out with me because I didn't make enough money. She married an I-banker. :sad: :grin:


When I look at the data, what I see is essentially two parents today both working to bring home essentially the same wages that one parent earned back 30 years ago - with crazy education and food inflation. I do NOT downplay the significance of the consumerism you mention either. Our economy is not healthy unless we succumb to levels of consumption that are really bad for us!

Your last line is the truth, and a real kick in the jewels. That's the crux of it, we're constantly pressured to buy crap we don't need, heck the government even go so far as to give us subsidies on SUVs while they try to kill more economic cars. As for the wages, yes they haven't kept pace with inflation but the amount of stuff we have has also been inflated. It used to be only rich people had cars...then everyone had cars...only the rich had TVs...now everyone does. Remember car phones? Early cell phones? The point is we really don't need all this junk, it's just society that tell us we do. Food is more expensive but still manageable in my opinion (and the food stamp program should be cleaned up). Health care costs are out of control and bankrupting the nation on every level - fed, state, and individuals. Education is expensive, but not as dire of an issue. So I would say you probably could have a single income family and have much the same lifestyle and possessions, or better, that the single income family had back in the time period you're referencing.

[Conley]

Great discussion, BTW. Thank you for it.

[Mister D]

Looks good. I will add my two cents tomorrow. I didn't think anyone would touch this.

[Conley]

Looks good. I will add my two cents tomorrow. I didn't think anyone would touch this.

We've waited days now. Look who's not touching it. :rollseyes: :grin:

[Mister D]

While I agree with many of the conclusions of this article, I take issue with the underlying premise. Equal opportunity to look after oneself and family and to live a life of dignity is the good to which I believe virtually all people ascribe.

Based upon this observation, my view is our predominant political and socio-economic concern should neither be about what are characterized as "entitlements" nor about equal distribution of wealth, but rather about producing a society that distributes equality of opportunity.

Liberals (by which I mean almost all of you) often speak of "equality of opportunity" as opposed to equality of outcome but I would posit that no such equality exists. A man like myself simply has not had the same opportunities that the children of more successful parents have had. Likewise, their are millions of folks who have not had the opportunities I have had. Worse still, our system breeds gross economic inequality. Those observations make the notion of equality of opportunity seem like an empty phrase.

How would define equality of opportunity?

[Mister D]

We've waited days now. Look who's not touching it. :rollseyes: :grin:


Dick :laugh:

[dsolo802]

Liberals (by which I mean almost all of you) often speak of "equality of opportunity" as opposed to equality of outcome but I would posit that no such equality exists.Well Mister D, my point is the likelihood of people like you and me making it based on getting ourselves educated and by the sweat of our brow used to be much, much greater than it is today. Today, i would agree with you, with the high cost of education, and the extraordinarily poor bargaining power of the working man, if you or your family standing behind you don't have significant money or power, you are not likely to experience much upward mobility if any.


A man like myself simply has not had the same opportunities that the children of more successful parents have had. Likewise, their are millions of folks who have not had the opportunities I have had. Worse still, our system breeds gross economic inequality.Here you are preaching to the choir: See my thread on income inequality. Maximizing profit for shareholders does not equate with promotion of the common good for our citizenry. It is, in fact, at the expense of the common good. Private corporate interest and the public interest are not perfectly aligned, and almost never will be.


Those observations make the notion of equality of opportunity seem like an empty phrase.

How would define equality of opportunity?I would define it is the genuine prospect for upward mobility - and agree with you that there is precious little of it today.

[Mister D]

Well Mister D, my point is the likelihood of people like you and me making it based on getting ourselves educated and by the sweat of our brow used to be much, much greater than it is today. Today, i would agree with you, with the high cost of education, and the extraordinarily poor bargaining power of the working man, if you or your family standing behind you don't have significant money or power, you are not likely to experience much upward mobility if any.

If all we mean by equality of opportunity is opportunity for social mobility than we are talking about different things. The idea that individuals can be said to have the access to the same resources and genuinely start on a level playing field, so to speak, is just nonsense. As for social mobility, I'd have to see data on it before expressing an opinion. I couldn't say.


Here you are preaching to the choir: See my thread on income inequality. Maximizing profit for shareholders does not equate with promotion of the common good for our citizenry. It is, in fact, at the expense of the common good. Private corporate interest and the public interest are not perfectly aligned, and almost never will be.


I sort of agree. Profit can be tremendously positive but it does not mysteriously translate into a "common good" of any kind.


I would define it is the genuine prospect for upward mobility - and agree with you that there is precious little of it today.

I had something else in mind but we have found some agreement.

[dsolo802]

If all we mean by equality of opportunity is opportunity for social mobility than we are talking about different things. The idea that individuals can be said to have the access to the same resources and genuinely start on a level playing field, so to speak, is just nonsense. As for social mobility, I'd have to see data on it before expressing an opinion. I couldn't say. I sort of agree. Profit can be tremendously positive but it does not mysteriously translate into a "common good" of any kind. I had something else in mind but we have found some agreement.I like the phrase upward mobility because we have implicit in it certain core values that our society has promoted in the past, and I believe should promote in the future:

discipline
work
responsibility
initiative
Of course, each of these things means nothing if there is little to no possibility of getting jobs that will enable one to adequately care for self and family.

We agree that already accumulated wealth means that people set out hoping to improve their social position from very different starting points.

[Mister D]

I like the phrase upward mobility because we have implicit in it certain core values that our society has promoted in the past, and I believe should promote in the future

discipline
work
responsibility
initiative

I'm not disagreeing with you but I don't think there is anything wrong with a man who does not desire to change his station in life. The values you list above can be cherished in and of themselves rather than as a means to an end.

[dsolo802]

I'm not disagreeing with you but I don't think there is anything wrong with a man who does not desire to change his station in life. The values you list above can be cherished in and of themselves rather than as a means to an end.True.

Unfortunately, i sent out my post before I meant to. I have now finished it - after you responded to it. It has been that kind of day :(

[Mister D]

True.

Unfortunately, i sent out my post before I meant to. I have no finished it - after you responded to it. It has been that kind of day :(

Mister D will spread his happiness this Sunday! :smiley: Take your time. I will happily post again later.

[dsolo802]

Mister D will spread his happiness this Sunday! :smiley: Take your time. I will happily post again later.Thank you.