slug.com slug.com
33 7

When is inequality just and fair? When is it not?

The core question of our time is handling inequality. Inequality of outcomes is used by Progressives today as proof that the system or its members are unfair. Many Conservatives maintain that so long as people have equal access to opportunity, the resulting differences in outcomes are fair. Is there a way other than using pitchforks to know who's right?

Admin 8 July 11
Share
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

33 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

24
  1. The natural world is not fair.. and never will be... else there would never have been extinctions and no animal would eat another.
  2. We as humans can attempt to make things fair by ensuring everyone gets an opportunity to be the best human they can be given their genetic potential and the physical world we live in.
  3. Every individual does and needs to have the right to chose how they apply their own potential.
  4. Any fair system will always lead to unequal outcomes. A system that attempts to have equitable outcomes necessarily needs to be unfair.
Hanno Level 8 July 11, 2020

Great points.

15

Back when I went to college I was a friendly acquaintance to Anthony Davis, at that time USC's tailback superstar. We were both five foot ten. That's where the similarities ended. He had muscles everywhere and he did awesome things with them. Anybody who has multiple four-touchdown games against Notre Dame does awesome things. Heck, there are whole football programs that don't have that.

We were not equal. For good reason. I was a mediocre swimmer, he was a stellar football player. Anthony Davis went on to the CFL and then NFL. Today he's a successful businessman in Southern California. My swimming was really useful in Recon work in the Corps. Different strengths led to different ends. Not equal but equally satisfying.

13

The left are masterful at manipulating language. They conflate "Just / Justice" with "fairness". They are not the same thing at all.
They do the same with the words "gender" and "sex" - not the same thing - at all.

I have long believed that one major contributing factor to heated disagreement indeed civil discord and war itself, is that we (both leftist and rightists - is that a thing? ha! ) are imprecise with our words. Often unintentionally so - often not.
To win an argument seems to be of a higher priority because of sinful human pride, than coming to an objectively arrived at solution to whatever the subject of the debate happens to be.

Diplomacy is the art of using precise language while avoiding as much as possible offending the opposing party.

I believe that Western Civilization has made a grave and fatal error in the fact that we have rendered the Dictionary itself into a meaningless list of arbitrarily defined (it is a contradiction unto itself - an oxymoron in print) "culturally sensitive and diverse" words and usages. We (Western Civilization) simultaneously threw out the Bible and religiosity at the same moment "we decided that cultural diversity is our strength". This proving to be of great folly.

There are no more rules - now we are going down the proverbial drain, one and all while admiring each other our virtuous worship of the new "god" - Diversity. The god Diversity is made up of the holy trinity: Tolerance, False equivalence and Emotion.

No more rules regarding moral behavior and Truth - now every person has "his own truth" and thereby what ever he decides is moral and "fair" is so and we all are compelled to the virtue of tolerance and acceptance to the arbitrariness of it all.

iThink Level 9 July 11, 2020

"To win an argument seems to be of a higher priority because of sinful human pride, than coming to an objectively arrived at solution to whatever the subject of the debate happens to be."

I like that

@coalburned thank you

10

Good question. I used to have an easy answer for it. After psychedelic experiences, traveling the world, and re-reading the Silmarillion, the Bible, and Nietsche that made me more understanding of the value in adversity. Without challenge there can be no greatness. Without adversity there can be no test of character. Without questioning faith you cannot know if you are faithful. Maybe the point of this life, this dimension is to overcome challenges or to learn what cannot be learned in a state of perfection.

Life is not fair. Some are born stronger, smarter, more athletic, healthier, wealthier, etc. Some have a combination of desirable traits, some have none. There will never be equality of outcomes even if people have more access to scholastic, athletic, talent, and economic opportunity because every person is different. There will never be equality of outcomes even if you give both equal opportunity AND help along the way. Everyone has different motivations and aspirations.

As I got older I realized that we get in life what we value most because all of us pursue what we want. Those obsessed with money will make money to the detriment of other relationships. The same is true of fame. Those who family will have good families. Most of us want a combination and so we sink to the middle so that we can have a little bit of everything.

It is that combination that most of us don't want to admit to even to ourselves.

There are people who want a better standard of living but prefer leisure more. They would rather hang out with their friends than dedicate the time away from fun to pursuing economic advancement. I grew up in a poor neighborhood and the truth is that most of the time we had a lot of fun. We ran around, hung out with our friends, got into trouble and I didn't really understand "money" because no one had it. What we had was ride or die friendships, intense romantic relationships, drama, and generally speaking tasty food that was devoid of a lot of nutrients. There were those of us who studied like crazy because we wanted to go to college and do something else and we missed out on some of that fun.

I guess my point is that if the media didn't tell people that "A" was the ideal instead of "B" people wouldn't be disatisfied with those decisions they made for themselves. How would you know that a Mercedes was preferable to a Chevy if someone didn't tell you it was? Both of them get you to your destination. Speed limits determine how fast you get there. Are leather seats better than cloth? Not if the temperature outside is over 100.

People with smaller houses have fewer bills. People in large homes have large worries. Everything is relative. The problem isn't equal opportunity but the consumer driven propaganda that tells you which way of living is best. One hundred and fifty years ago a family with multiple kids and only one parent working was ideal. To the modern human female living in the West that way of living was trash.

I think rather than trying to fix a complex system with laws we should first fix the commercial-driven society that tells you what you ought to want and makes you hate your own choices if they don't match it.

Okay ... I was with you until that last paragraph. “... we should first fix the commercial-driven society...”

I’m not sure that’s “fixable” or even that its desired to “fix” it.
Commercialism that pushes the envelope of aspiration for more ... creates an incentive to desire, strive, achieve ... more. It not only presents people with a “Goal” but it pushes them to try to reach for ever higher levels.
That’s not to say its the best “Goal” for one’s life but ... for many, until people become “enlightened” (if ever), its a “Goal” which is better than none.

I think ... and have thought for a long time ... that Our Schools don’t teach stuff they really should ... life changing stuff. Like, how to recognize, and make, good choices ... whether its in choosing between brands of Frozen or canned peas or between brands of jeans or between a bigger or smaller house or ... Like how to Think Critically ... Like how to recognize and control Impulses in action, in buying, in job shopping ... Like how to recognize Needs over Wants.

Personally I would like to see classes that teach a person how to find and be at peace within themselves but ... well, I think that’s as likely as finding a Rainbow Farting Unicorn ...
Still, I think that children should be assisted in learning how to achieve a comfort level in who they are without devolving into weird useless concepts like “Gender Questions” or Biased Propaganda Angles.

@Bay0Wulf Do you support commercialism or private enterprise? They are not the same. Commercialism is a culture that tells you you are not good enough if you don't have this "stuff". "Stuff" makes you happy. "Stuff" must be acquired. Even if you have "stuff" you need new "stuff" because this model of "stuff" is better than your model of "stuff."

It has aided collectivism and in its own way has pushed for socialism. People want all the stuff. Stuff is good. They can't afford the stuff they've been told they should have. Stuff makes you privileged and part of society.

Men need makeup stuff or they are not equal to women in the beauty community. Women need to have stuff that men have or they aren't equal to men.

Capitalists are not good because they encourage people to invent stuff. People who enjoy inventing will still invent stuff without billions to market it. Without nonstop commercial propaganda only those who need the stuff will buy the stuff.

Cancel culture is based on this concept of privilege that has been built around stuff. All stuffs belong to us! We need to take back the means of stuff production from the people with all the stuff.

Character is left out of the conversation. Family is left out of the conversation UNLESS it is used as a prop to promote new types of families who can consume stuff together.

The type of education you are talking about is not in my opinion the type that should be done in schools. It should the done at home. Only there's no time for that because everyone's working all the time to buy, repair, or upgrade their stuff.

@ThomasinaPaine
I read ... and understand ... what you write.
Only, I disagree.

Commercialism can be made the “Bad Guy” because they make people “want stuff”? Oh, it certainly does ... there’s even a country song where the guy sings about “stuff” and concludes the song by saying he needs to buy a new house because the other one is too full of “stuff”.

However, God gave Us “Free Will” or, if you don’t do “God”, We live in a Country based on “Free Will”.

Commercialism plays on the fact that We have Free Will ... WE Maintain that WE Have the Right to Choose. (Choose Life or Abortion ... Choose brand of Toilet Paper ... Choose Type of Car ... Choose Lifestyle).
Commercialism simply offers CHOICE (Seriously, who needs 25 brands of deodorant ... underwear ... soap ... toilet paper ... nuts ... refrigerators?)
People’s INABILITY to Control THEMSELVES ... Their Impulses ... Their Desires isn’t the fault of “Commercialism” ... in fact, Companies DON’T Typically simply come up with yet Another ... a “NEW” Improved Version of “Stuff” out of thin air.
Somebody decides that they think they WANT “Organic” celery and suddenly an “Organic” Industry comes into being so now you Can Get “Organic” celery and milk and cereal and potato chips and ...
Commercialism is the art of finding out WHAT People THINK They WANT ... and GIVING Them an Opportunity to GET IT.

I use “Organics” as an example because I've been closely involved in its emergence and I KNOW that its Mostly a Crock of Manure. I KNOW that its Hype. BUT ... Don’t tell someone who BELIEVES in it that its nonsense ... they’ll rip your head off.

It seems that you think that if “commercialism” magically ceased to exist that people would stop “WANTING” Stuff ... but that’s simply not so

@Bay0Wulf No, I think people would still want stuff. It would be organic wanting stuff, less stuff, and less Bolshevik marketing where Hollywood and Big Tech tell you what you want to watch, who you want to vote for, what you want to listen to, and what you ought to wear.

@ThomasinaPaine
Well, I still disagree.

@Bay0Wulf Well that's alright. I've lost several loved ones and realized how ridiculous it is to worry about stuff. Don't waste time accumulating stuff. Spend it with people you love. Free fun is more fun, anyway.

8

A monkey will refuse a gift if he thinks another monkey received something of greater "value".

The instinct for fairness is deeply ingrained in primates. You see it children when they expect everything to be equally divided but will not hesitate to take more than their share of they feel they can dominate. You see the same pattern in primitive hunter gathers where sharing is often a fairly strict set of more's. In an easy but unstable environment it is an excellent fitness strategy for the group. That is the environment we are evolved to inhabit. Wherever there is no resource production and little that requires unwavering defense fairness makes sense. That is not the environment that civilization creates and requires.

Civilization begins with agriculture. With agriculture comes the need for unwavering defense of a piece of land. It also requires planning competence which in terms creates a hierarchy of competence. Property rights become essential as to prevent the incompetent from squandering resources that are only produced once a year and have to be carefully managed. The incompetent become workers and the competent managers. Over time as division of labor becomes prevalent property rights and competence hierarchy become more complex. Armies are set up to defend property with their own rigid division of labor and authority and eventually the most competent warriors become kings.

Everything good about civilization stems indirectly from competency hierarchies and property rights that produce an excess of necessities. What has always plagued civilization is that competence hierarchies tend to become tyrannies. The left's answer to tyranny is to flip the hierarchy on it's head and put the incompetent in charge of resource distribution. To return to the primitive instinct for fairness. To recreate the easy but unstable environment we are evolved for. What will follow is unfortunately the fast lifestyle that such an environment favors.

To be fair many experiments in communalism are highly think selected. Examples would be some religious communities and experimental colonies such as in Amana Iowa. They tend to expelled anyone inclined towards a fast lifestyle. Even with strict rules they tend to fail over time because they are stagnant and lack the kind of dynamic that creates new wealth.

It will never be the case that the instinct for fairness will disappear. Capitalism manages it by making fairness not a matter of distribution but of production. It fosters the necessary hierarchy of competence that civilization requires. Our instincts rebel against it at some level but capitalism is a voluntary game. Those that lack discipline or skill will be at the bottom of the hierarchy. It becomes a tyranny when the rules of competition are unfair.

Rules or laws are a substitute for fairness. Properly applied they punish those inclined towards a fast lifestyle. They break down under luxus because abundance obscures the connection between production and social status. When resources are so abundant that an easy but unstable environment is created. We see this pattern in Rome where bread and circus buys exceptions to the equal applied rule of law.

Laws are not fair in the primitive sense. They are written to encourage an unnatural slow lifestyles. They encourage institutions such as marriage to reduce conflict, promote reproduction, maximize think selection, encourage planning and individual voluntary responsibility. Everyone gets the best mate they can attract and are guaranteed some level of protection against cuckoldry. Females are guaranteed their mates resources and commitment.

The stability civilization requires is what it creates. Stability is a trade-off for near equality or fairness. For most people stability is a better deal than equality. Only 20 percent of all the males that ever lived are represented in the gene pool. That is the genetic representation of the consequence of predominantly fast lifestyles. What makes society stable makes it secure. Unfortunately what makes it secure may also be dysgenic but that is another story.

There are many complications to the story one of the most confounding is income inequality which we know encourages criminality. The solution I would suggest is to stop the segregation of classes. People who live together will be less inclined towards alienation. As successful stable people fled are inner cities crime skyrocketed. It isn't a matter of racial segregation as much as class segregation that plagues are urban cores. Before the civil rights movement black teenagers had roughly the same illegitimacy rates as whites and lower for the same economic class. Tyrannies only exist where the tyrants can isolate themselves.

In today's world the corporatist and globalist tyrants live in almost total isolation from the rest of society. Think Nancy Pelosi and her husband. Those that cry the loudest for fairness are often the worst offenders. It is the modern version of bread and circus, bait and switch.

I have more to say but I will spare you 🙂

wolfhnd Level 8 July 11, 2020

Very nice post please give us more on this topic.

wolfhnd offered:

"What has always plagued civilization is that competence hierarchies tend to become tyrannies."

I think that a hierarchy of specific competencies does tend to become tyrannies. So blaming everyone for the actions of a few who specialize in specific competencies, if that is what is being done here, is called collective guilt, or collective punishment: all are guilty (and if so then none are innocent.)

"The left's answer to tyranny is to flip the hierarchy on it's head and put the incompetent in charge of resource distribution."

So...my guess is that ONLY the so-called "left" are incompetent in charge of resource distribution, not those who are not exclusive to the "left," according to these statements that make up this message by this individual who could be assumed to be someone competent at resource distribution and therefore not one of the exclusive members of the "left."

I can ask, are you wolfhnd competent at resource distribution and not a member of the club known as the "left?"

If one were to discover, quantify, and qualify precisely how resource distribution flows from everyone who produces anything worth stealing (by deceit, threat, or aggressive violence: crime) to the exclusive membership of the "left," then it might be discovered that those who are incompetent at resource distribution (the left) just so happen to have many mansions around the world, many cars, many jets, and many slaves, where most of the slaves are somehow loving their chains so much that they will volunteer to keep the resource distribution flowing from those who produce it to those who have these very large Bank accounts, Bank accounts that somehow mistakenly fills up so quickly despite the incompetence of resource distribution.

So much for the lefts incompetence, which is the same flow of resources flowing to those on the right, so why are right and left claimed to be two things instead of one obvious thing: incompetent at preventing crime (because they are criminals, and they have to be criminals to get in the group of criminals, and criminals lie, and as a rule: criminals don't obey laws).

"Armies are set up to defend property with their own rigid division of labor and authority and eventually the most competent warriors become kings."

"That this right of resistance was recognized as a common law right, when the ancient and genuine trial by jury was in force, is not only proved by nature of the trial itself, but is acknowledged by history.
Hallam says, “The relation established between a lord and his vassal by the feudal tenure, far from containing principles of any servile and implicit obedience, permitted the compact to be dissolved in case of its violation by either party. This extended as much to the sovereign as to inferior lords. If a vassal was aggrieved, and if justice was denied him, he sent a defiance, that is, a renunciation of fealty to the king, and was entitled to enforce redress at the point of his sword. It then became a contest of strength as between two independent potentates, and was terminated by treaty, advantageous or otherwise, according to the fortune of war. There remained the original principle, that allegiance depended conditionally upon good treatment, and that an appeal might be lawfully made to arms against an oppressive government. Nor was this, we may be sure, left for extreme necessity, or thought to require a long enduring forbearance. In modern times, a king, compelled by his subjects’ swords to abandon any pretension, would be supposed to have ceased to reign; and the express recognition of such a right as that of insurrection has been justly deemed inconsistent with the majesty of law. But ruder ages had ruder sentiments. Force was necessary to repel force; and men accustomed to see the king’s authority defied by a private riot, were not much shocked when it was resisted in defence of public freedom.” - 3 Middle Ages, 240-2.
Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury, 1852

So the lie is that "they" (nebulous legal fiction or "group" made up of stupid and servile slaves) are stupid and servile so they alone are to blame for all this incompetence in income distribution, meanwhile there are people behind the curtain of lies, and they keep the lies going century after century, hoping that people will not pull back the curtain.

If the King is good at keeping all enemies domestic and foreign from the innocent victims, a competence producing hierarchy, then people can pay for that service: OR NOT.

Unless people listen to the song of the siren, the liars telling lies; lies like "do unto others what you would never allow others to do to you," such as lie, threaten, steal, rape, torture, enslave, murder, mass murder, and distribute resources incompetently.

"To be fair many experiments in communalism are highly think selected. Examples would be some religious communities and experimental colonies such as in Amana Iowa."

Examples would be also Josiah Warren's Modern Times, or a more recent example in Worgl Austria before the Nazi Regime (Fascist/Capitalist, not "left" ) began its reign of incompetent resource distribution. See also the Modern example in New York.
[ithacahours.com]

"Even with strict rules they tend to fail over time because they are stagnant and lack the kind of dynamic that creates new wealth."

If someone looks only at the things they want to see, what is that called?

In the Josiah Warren example, the Civil War tended to disrupt experimentation, but to claim that the experiment was stagnant and lacked "the kind of dynamic that creates new wealth," would be inaccurate.

"It will never be the case that the instinct for fairness will disappear. Capitalism manages it by making fairness not a matter of distribution but of production. It fosters the necessary hierarchy of competence that civilization requires. Our instincts rebel against it at some level but capitalism is a voluntary game. Those that lack discipline or skill will be at the bottom of the hierarchy. It becomes a tyranny when the rules of competition are unfair."

I am going to agree with most of that, however the word capitailism can mean two opposite meanings at the same time, because the same word is used by gangs of criminals as well as gangs of people who do not resort to crime: voluntary association. So "capitalism" is as non-specific as is "socialism," while the principles involved in forming either group on either side are very specific.

Volunteers volunteer to be on one side.

Criminals "volunteer" victims to be on the criminal side, while those same criminals make false claims about "fairness" and "incompetence at resource distribution."

False claims might go: "I made a terrible error which just so happened to ruin millions of lives while at the same time those errors I made (and I'm sorry about my incompetence) filled up my Bank account.

"Rules or laws are a substitute for fairness. Properly applied they punish those inclined towards a fast lifestyle. They break down under luxus because abundance obscures the connection between production and social status. When resources are so abundant that an easy but unstable environment is created. We see this pattern in Rome where bread and circus buys exceptions to the equal applied rule of law."

That is at best a very selective accounting of mankind in some places at some times, but that does not explain groups of people living in abundance for many years (undisturbed by criminal influences: enemies foreign or domestic) and doing so without abiding by the rules described in the above paragraph. The above paragraph applies to where those processes described occur, but those processes described in the above paragraph do not apply in places, and times, where they do not apply.

Who decides what constitutes conduct worthy of punishment in any place at any time?

"Laws are not fair in the primitive sense. They are written to encourage an unnatural slow lifestyles. They encourage institutions such as marriage to reduce conflict, promote reproduction, maximize think selection, encourage planning and individual voluntary responsibility. Everyone gets the best mate they can attract and are guaranteed some level of protection against cuckoldry. Females are guaranteed their mates resources and commitment."

Who decides that laws are written, let alone enforced? The common law, also known as the law of the land, was around before people wrote things down, so...

"What makes society stable makes it secure. Unfortunately what makes it secure may also be dysgenic but that is another story."

Not buying into lies tends to make people more secure in their persons and their properties, so a process that helps secure people from those lies (a way to establish the truth for example) could go a long way toward security. For example, take the often repeated lie that Subsidizing Slavery is going to make America stable and therefore secure (an often repeated lie), and so the very few Slave Masters (who are often psychopaths which are mutations due to incompetent brain development) rape many women, and children, to create more wealth (more slaves) and what is that called, if one was to pick a fancy name?

"Tyrannies only exist where the tyrants can isolate themselves."

In underground bunkers, or behind thin and thinning lies? Why not call them criminals, what was wrong with the name criminal, is it similar to the change from Global Warming to Climate Change, or the change from Subsidized Slavery to "Human Trafficking?" Oh, those tyrants, tyrants will be tyrants, so they ought to get a traffic ticket this time, muddying up the gene pool and all.

"In today's world the corporatist and globalist tyrants live in almost total isolation from the rest of society."

What about the pizza parties? All work in the bubble, and no play, makes for a dull gene pool.

"Think Nancy Pelosi and her husband. Those that cry the loudest for fairness are often the worst offenders. It is the modern version of bread and circus, bait and switch."

What about Bush 1 and 2, speaking about incompetence in resource distribution and now isolation?

"I have more to say but I will spare you"

Please, go on.

@Josf-Kelley

Only the left is interested in equal distribution.

As I have said before I'm not a fan of objectivism. Just as communism has proven to work for religious societies or for short periods of time in colonies objectivism may work for small none diverse groups for short periods but that would be the exception not the rule.

@wolfhnd

I do not know what you mean when you use the term "objectivism." But I do know that individuals are both responsible and accountable for their "OWN" thoughts and actions. I also know that groups (legal fictions, collective punishment, collective blame, racism, etc.) are neither responsible, nor accountable, as entities onto themselves as in:

"Only the left is interested in equal distribution."

I can agree that a number of people who are "interested in equal distribution" are claiming to be "interested in equal distribution."

I can also agree that a number of people actually believe that there is some benefit to "equal distribution" while they resort to criminal means to gain the desired "equal distribution."

I do not agree that it is a good idea to blame everyone for the actions of a few.

I also do not agree that the so-called "right" is in any way anything other than half of a single coin called deception, so whatever someone claims to be a fault of the "left" is also a fault of the "right," and none of that has to do with anything other than deception.

What is "objectivism" according to you? And please don't hold back as if I am averse to reading the words you publish. I will read the words you publish, and I expect that those words will inspire a response from me, so thanks in advance.

7

Equality of outcomes is literally impossible to achieve because human nature won't allow it. There will always be those who seek and achieve positions of greater power, privilege, wealth, influence, happiness, comfort, etc. As others have noted, attempts to make us all the same have been disastrous. Enough is enough.

6

Inequality generates opportunity, not the other way round. Most of people confuse the causation with the correlation.

Best examples to understand it is communist Soviet. Where ALL opportunities were destroyed while establishing 'equality'

Lt-JW Level 8 July 12, 2020
6

Here is a little story:
A 15 year old girl runs away from home because of parents fighting, cooking and using Meth in her play house, ETC!!
This girl never finishes High School or obtained a GED!!!!
At age 19 she is night shift supervisor at LAX Airport!! (I won't give more info. to protect her ID).
By her early 30's, she goes on to become the CEO of a large company in the Pacific Northwest, making a solid 6 figure income, married and the mother of three children!!!! (PS, She makes more than her husband, who is also doing well on his own)
Obviously, there were NO advantages in her life!!! So, how did she get to this type of life style?????
She never asked for or receive any assistance!!!! She did it on her own!!!!!!
GUTS, SMARTS, HARD WORK, DETERMINATION IS ALL IT TAKES!!!
BOOHOOING AND BLAMING OTHERS GETS YOU NOTHING!!!
This story is a personal one, that 15 year old girl is my granddauther!!!!!!!

Serg97 Level 8 July 11, 2020

It takes a lot of luck as well. For everyone like your granddaughter there are several who manage to do little more than survive or only have modest success.

@Thasaidon I have found that successful people make their own LUCK!!!!!!!!!
You are right, not all people have ALL of the elements it takes to MAKE IT in life, but the truth is that, a lot more people have what it takes, they just do not use itl!!!!

@Serg97 Point one. It is often said the successful people make their own luch but this is often only true to a degree. Many very succesfull people have acknowledged just how much luck played in their success.
Point two. Granted.

@Thasaidon Do we call it Luck or the Hand of God???????????

@Serg97 That depends on your personal beliefs. You are entitled to your own opinion.

@Thasaidon And what a great country WE live in!!!

Great story, thanks for sharing!

5

No, pitchforks is all there is and it’s a shame. The left constantly screams for equality if outcome because they can’t see the equality of opportunity. There are more people born into shitty situations who make something of themselves because they made a choice to not end up like their parents. Now, using that argument never works against the left because they come back with some SJW argument, like systemic privilege or something like that. No one can see anybody else’s situation through any lens that isn’t racial. Any successful white person is only successful because they’re white, and any non-white person who isn’t successful is so because they’re not white. It goes back to victim mentality, if you’re constantly thinking you’re a victim you’re not going anywhere no matter what color you are.

ZyThum Level 4 July 12, 2020
5

Yes, there is a way other than using pitchforks to know who's right. We must learn from experience. We examine the numerous places, cultures, and forms that have attempted to implement equality of outcome in the past.

We ignore the adage: "Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it”, at our peril! (The Life of Reason: Reason in Common Sense, by American philosopher George Santayana)

Here is a rough estimate of the number of human beings butchered in the name of equality of outcome! Do these numbers seem "just and fair"?

"In introducing the Black Book, lead author Stephane Courtois, Director of Research at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) in Paris, offers the following rough breakdown of the numbers of people that communism killed:

USSR -- 20 million

China -- 65 million

Vietnam -- 1 million

North Korea -- 2 million

Cambodia -- 2 million

Eastern Europe -- 1 million

Latin America -- 150,000

Africa -- 1.7 million

Afghanistan -- 1.5 million

Communist movements, parties not in power -- 10,000"

[thecommentator.com]

Your numbers, especially in reference to the USSR and China, are awfully light.
It might be that those are the numbers DIRECTLY Killed by Communists but there are Many More Millions Killed by the Direct Actions of Communists.

@Bay0Wulf
Absolutely! I agree! These numbers are conservative! The truth is we will never know exactly how many uncounted hundreds of millions have died to feed the social justice beast!

@WorldSigh
20 million Russians died just in WW2.. the actual death toll of the revolution, pre-WW2 purges, WW2 and then the the post war gulags and famine is estimated to be between 40 and 60 million.

The total Chinese death toll through the civil war and subsequent cultural revolution and famine is more in the range of 100 million.

Cambodia looks OK as I understand it and the others may be fair although the total loss it live N Korea is difficult as it had been going on for so long.

@Hanno
Yes, I have seen similar estimates from other sources. I take it we agree that it is possible to show, objectively, that governments enforcing equality of outcome is a bad approach?

@WorldSigh
Yep. That is why I came to this site in the first place to learn what is going on and how to stop it.

4

“EQUALITY OF OUTCOME” is the Biggest Line of Horseshit I EVER Heard Uttered.

Life is nothing More ... or Less than a Continual Stream of Choices.
Each and Every Choice made Tends Toward an Outcome that is as Unique as the Person making that Choice.
Each Choice Opens Several Possible Paths ... More Choices to be made ...

To CHOOSE “A” over “B” results in a different outcome than had “B” been chosen over “A”.
To REFUSE to CHOOSE in itself is a CHOICE with its own “Outcome”.

How can ANYONE Possibly rank “Equality of Outcome”?

Gates is a Multi-Billionaire, Mother Theresa died with Nothing Material.
Who is/was Happier?
Who is/was more Fulfilled?
How do you compare these people and determine “Equality” of Outcome?

4

Equality of opportunity must occur, or it is unfair. Inequality of outcomes is fair, and must be allowed. The alternative is slavery of the productive. And the control of society required to enslave the productive is ALWAYS tyranny.

4

I think a major part of the problem is that Progressives swing "equality" around like a mace. Equality does not exist in nature, but balance does. Conservatives speak of equality of access to opportunity. For Progressives, this means having someone bring the opportunity to those who do not have it locally; not getting up off their asses and going to where the opportunity is. So, you bring the opportunity to the inopportune. Without equal input of work and ingenuity there will be no equality of outcomes. If lazy people don't get the same results as the more industrious or if low IQ workers don't advance as quickly as their more intelligent co-workers, this, to the Progressives, is a sign of injustice.To thinking people this is pure and simple cause and effect. Karma if you will. Where everyone is equal no one is free.

"Equality does not exist in nature, but balance does." Really like this statement. It speaks to the evolutionary creation of hierarchies throughout the natural world, not just in humankind. It also speaks to co-operation being the best way. If all talents are brought into the and shared willingly, the can be a lot more productive. But this has to be done willingly and not forced.

Of course, the willingness to do so just doesn't seem to be part of nature. Every species has some sort of leader ....

4

The problem with a meritocratic society is that if you fail it is perceived to be on merit. From there it is easier to draw people into the argument that it isn't meritocratic and infact your failure is due to other factors, see the usual suspects.

To counter this you need to push broader definitions of success, ie mothers staying home with young kids. And a more honest view of reasons people fail. Rather than the prescriptive definitions supplied by Marx, Ignatiev et al more accurate ones like wealth factors and family structure.

3

It is completely impossible to achieve anything close to equality of outcome even in an authoritarian state, thanks to the diversity so worshipped by woke-progressives.

John Locke wisely advocated for equality before the law, but noted inequality was unavoidable in things like wealth, merit and virtue.

To suggest, as leftists do, that inequity results chiefly from factors like race or gender is unsupported by evidence. Inequity is a multi-variant phenomena, with countless factors interacting to influence highly unpredictable outcomes. Importantly, the leftist theory on inequity chooses to completely to ignore personal responsibility and self-will. Any attempt to discuss accountability is rejected as unfair and judgmental.

GeeMac Level 8 July 12, 2020

And that is how you identify the true racists. They claim blacks and other non white groups are incapable of personal responsibility and hence we all need to abandon it to make things fair.

3

A desire for just and fair treatment is born from ignorance, grows with arrogance, and dies with suffering.

Would it not be fair and just for us to be brought low to the level of poverty that billions of others suffer? Only by ignoring the conditions that other humans live in and by narrowing our focus to a small selfish realm can we rationalize that we should receive even more as a reward for our ungratefulness. This inevitably leads to an attitude of greed and unhappiness.

Um? What?

When I was younger I wound up homeless in Brooklyn NY over an entire winter.
At the time I was legitimately a cripple.
I had a decent job, I had people who owed me money (substantial amounts), and ... I was homeless.
I lived in Company Work Vans, on the floor of a Locksmith Shop ...
I bathed in the shop sink.

Because of an auto accident I had not been the cause of, I had barely finished being over 4 years in hospital beds and wheelchairs ... I could ... barely ... walk or stand on my often reconstructed feet and ankles, I had not yet learned how to overcome the nerve damage in my right arm and hand and I’m right handed ...

I didn’t long for ... or desire ... “just or fair” treatment ... I was simply DAMNED if I was going to beg for anyone’s help.
Would it be “fair” for everyone to be “brought low”?
Really RB ... I truly hope that was a hypothetical question.

@Bay0Wulf - The question was posed for perspective.

Your situation was very dire but even in that situation you had blessings. My argument is not to make light of your situation (and others) but to discourage an attitude of self pity that sucks the joy and hope out of life. You resisted that attitude and I think it's important that we help others to not fall into that trap.

@RobBlair I'm confused... We should help others not to fall into the trap of self pity by making everyone poor? Do you mean that people practice self pity because they don't appreciate or take for granted the things they already have, like in this example?

"Back in 1999 the New York Times laid out the economic woes and worries of middle-class Americans—one of the most affluent groups of human beings ever to inhabit the planet.

Although the story included a picture of a middle-class family in their own swimming pool, the main headline said: “The American Middle, Just Getting By.” In essence, there is a great chasm between middle-class expectations and the reality of economics. Said another way, middle-class Americans’ desires exceed what they can comfortably afford, even though what they already have would be considered unbelievable prosperity by people in many other countries around the world—or even by earlier generations of Americans".

Why does wanting more of something make you ungrateful for the things you have? I don't think greed is learned, it is inherent in all living things on this planet, including plants and is part of our natural survival instincts. I can be aware and sympathetic of the conditions of the poor while at the same time want to create an even better life for myself than I already have.

@Lilu - I don't want to make anyone poor. In introspection I want people to move forward with gratefulness. If I put a circle around myself, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and Oprah, I could complain about how unjust and unfair my life is. This is a foolishness that I see many well off Americans fall into in some form or another.

It is not the desire for bettering yourself that causes the problem (ie I work on myself to achieve a goal), it is the desire for taking what someone else has (ie I am a victim who has been treated unfairly).

@RobBlair Ah I see what you mean now. Thanks for the clarification. =)

3

Inequality is just and fair when determining the wages of people. Different jobs require different skills, different education, and different expereiences. And different jobs have different degrees of risk and danger. A policeman has a highly dangerous and stressful job and is often risking his life. A computer nerd who makes his money off of games doesn't have to be very physical. Being a doctor needs a huge amount of education. That is what the Marsists don't tell you about when they tell you about the wage gap and inequality.

3

we have to start by equating personal accountability/responsibility with success and freedom.

whether its the basketball star that wants the ball at the buzzer, or the CEO that steps up and shoulders the burden and responsibility in times of crisis. its not just WHAT our heroes and our most successful people in society do. its that attitude with the knowledge that they took in practice, in preparation and execution that gave them the courage to be that person in life’s most critical moments that makes them want that responsibility and in turn grants their success.

not all people are born with equal abilities, but more often than not the person with the greater work ethic and accountability outperforms the person with god given talent

RobD1 Level 7 July 11, 2020

Often times the person with the “God Given” Talent is interested in things that the Basketball Star or the CEO wouldn’t comprehend.
Is interested in things very few other people understand.

3

Inequality?
Not all people are great athletes.
Not all people are great singers.
Not all people can dance.
Etc, etc, etc...
Rewards for talent etc are subjective, how do you make comparisons of various talents and abilities?
The world itself is unequal...
The Woke are irrational and these calls for Equality are in many cases ridiculous.

2

When attempting to communicate with each other we often use words that have vague meaning but feel good to use. Rights, freedom, justice, doing the right thing, love America, etc. are words and phrases that are used to rally people to your cause. Trouble is those words mean different things to different individuals. You can post all you want using those catchphrases but no one is meaning exactly the same thing. Those words require definition before using them. It's like asking if everyone wants some ice cream, people shout YES! and it turns out the only flavor you have is broccoli. Words have meaning and English is the richest language in the world but means nothing if not used properly. Level headed dialog between people is necessary so we all understand what the other person means. "If you can't say what you mean, you can't mean what you say."

Pand0ro Level 7 July 13, 2020
1

Jordan Peterson did an outstanding job defining this question and distinguishing Equality of Opportunity vs. Equality of Outcome, and why the former works and the latter is damaging for civilized society.

1

If you're just wanting to look at whether or not attempting to equalise society has helped as it was expected to in the states, or not, you could look at at the establishment of the great society and the movement in America within the period between the 1950s and today.
you had many people who had fought in wars around the world solving other people's problems with the core knowledge that America was the most advanced and beautiful place on earth, overflowing with affluence they believed it was only right that their government should look at trying to help people at home.
What happened then was this idea changed the perception of government from a very specific institution meant to solve a very specific problem, into an institution that is supposed to uphold some type of moral virtue. The welfare state was created, minimum wage was increased lots of programs aimed at helping people were established, such as, greater income support for single mothers.
These policies showed a negative backlash however despite this, instead of admitting that some policies had made problems worse politicians double down on the need for this type of welfare and virtue politics. Politicians here, realising to a great degree that the galvanization of group identity was a faster route to power with increasingly less emphasis on the normal practices expected of a government institution such as create bills and passing law.

When we look at the state of play now we see a high unemployment rate within the younger generation such that didn't exist before the development of the great society as well as high levels of imprisonment for poorer members of society something that has been specifically linked to the destruction of the nuclear family, exacerbated by policies that will pay single mothers more than if otherwise cohabitating. Policies designed to help the black community by way of reparation where massively pushed in the 60s and as a result you see unequally negative effect on the black community today.

If you would like to know more about this I suggest looking at the work of Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell. Lastly, in conclusion when a government tries to help any specific group in order to equalise outcome it creates a negative response normally because all potential consequences from action can't be predicted or accounted for. My last example will be the educational system within the States; where one person can have lower grades but be giving more favourable admission criteria because of the colour of their skin. This creates a feeling of inadequacy and puts many in a position where even brilliantly academic minds that could shine in 90% of the universities available, ones they would have gotten into without help, are instead struggling at the very bottom of institutions designed for a very specific type of ability. If you would like to solve this problem I would look at charter schools as the answer. Refer to Thomas Sowells latest book.

Thank you.

1

Outside of the legal and cultural equality guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, there will never be true equality between any two things. All values are subjective and and individual is as valuable as that individual decides to be. We all must find and determine our place in the hierarchy based on our personal preferences and circumstances. Nothing more can be legislated outside of equal deference to the law.

Facci Level 7 July 11, 2020
1

"Is there a way other than using pitchforks to know who's right?"

Lies.

If the problem is error, then the solution is to account for the error. If the problem is lies, then the solution is to account for the lies told by the liars. The law power is in place to account for the liars, and people found out in Ancient times that there can be no official truth teller, so the people gave the power of truth telling to randomly selected representatives of the whole people (as one species), and those people are then jurors on a jury.

If one individual in a group can whisper a lie into the ear of another individual in the same group, it is a proven fact that the lie told can set in motion a conflict that would otherwise never exist.

Example:

Men are bad, see that one, he is plotting to steal everything you have, and the only thing you can do to stop him is to attack him first.

That is a variation on the same basic lie that props up the dogma of a cult that has so many names that listing them all would add way too many words to a response that is neither brief nor witty. I will call all the cults variations of the one main Cult: The Cult of Might Makes Right.

Cult Dogma (lies):
"Do unto others what you would never allow anyone to do to you."

The first to the last action perpetrated according to the basic non-principles (lies) causes inequity.

Inequity is the willful transfer of power from those who produce it to those who steal it by deceit, by threat of violence combined with deceit, by threat of violence that can be backed up without deceit, and by aggressive violence that tortures as well as enslaves the targeted victims of inequity.

If the law is equal, so as to deter inequity, then who is afforded equitable access to the law power: if the law power is in place to deter transfers of power from victims to criminals?

If someone says that they are the government while they secure themselves from investigation or prosecution for crimes (pedo human trafficking for example), then some people may believe such lies, while others do not, and that means that people are unequal and unfairly subject to the lies told by criminals.

Perhaps those who are not so easily fooled into abject poverty at the hands of criminals running fake governments ought to be helped along in a cooperative effort to uncover the truth in any case where criminals use deception to transfer power inequitably from those who create it, to those who steal it criminally.

"It was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent. The Common Law knew nothing of that system, which now prevails in England, of assuming a man’s own consent to be taxed, because some pretended representative, whom he never authorized to act for him, has taken it upon himself to consent that he may be taxed. That is one of the many frauds on the Common Law, and the English constitution, which have been introduced since Magna Carta. Having finally established itself in England, it has been stupidly and servilely copied and submitted to in the United States."
Lysander Spooner, Essay on The Trial by Jury, 1852

"That mankind in a state of nature are equal, free, and independent of each other, and have a right to the undisturbed enjoyment of their lives, their liberty and property."
The Sheffield Declaration, 1773
Saturday, February 13.
BOSTON.

"It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue."

U.S. Supreme Court
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER 1788
1 U.S. 236 (Dall.)
Court of Oyer and Terminer, at Philadelphia
February Sessions, 1788

1

The fact that all people are unique and differ from each other is caused by God. He creates everyone unique and also blesses people to a different degree. He also created groups of people with different languages and cultures to prevent human pride from dominating the spiritual realm. It is good and proper that people who belong to the same cultural group care more for each other than for outgroup persons. Yet God loves every person and takes care that everyone can be saved from His wrath. In this way all are equal. Manmade equality o.t.h. is evil because it denies Gods wisdom.

Corjova Level 6 July 11, 2020

"He also created groups of people with different languages and cultures to prevent human pride from dominating the spiritual realm." Well that backfired didn't it? And why would God give us the ability to be proud, which isn't really something you can control, and then punish us for it? Seems like a strange thing to do.

Write Comment

Recent Visitors 166

Photos 127 More

Posted by Admin Does teaching "white guilt" also cultivate a "white pride" backlash?

Posted by Admin Is it time to take a knee on the Superbowl?

Posted by Admin Why not equality right now?

Posted by Admin How's Biden doing?

Posted by Admin How many good friends do you have from other political tribes?

Posted by Admin What did Trump do, if anything, to incite violence?

Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?

Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?

Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?

Posted by Admin Under what time and circumstance is the use of violence warranted?

Posted by Admin Now what?

Posted by Admin What do you expect to be achieved by this week's pro-Trump DC rally?

Posted by Admin What did you learn in 2020?

Posted by Admin Should pedophiles be allowed to have "child" sex robots?

Posted by Admin Do you have a "line in the sand" regarding political or social change?

Posted by Admin Should big tech firms hire more Blacks and Hispanics?

  • Top tags#video #media #racist #world #biden #truth #government #liberal #racism #democrats #conservatives #society #politics #community #youtube #justice #IDW #hope #friends #videos #Identity #FreeSpeech #Google #book #policy #vote #Police #conservative #evidence #culture #violence #reason #economic #USA #liberals #tech #Socialmedia #money #god #guns #gender #whites #campaign #population #laws #religion #TheTruth #equality #democrat #Christian ...

    Members 9,848Top

    Moderator