The idol equality

[jayem]

I think a certain level of understanding about government/politics would do. I am not saying we should make even a high school diploma a requirement. I also think it would be a good idea to have taxpaying/property owning requirements and also take away the right to vote from those on welfare among other things.

Virtually everyone pays sales taxes. That wouldn't be much of a requirement.

How about unemployment? Isn't that welfare? Good luck telling a construction worker he should lose his right to vote if he collects unemployment.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Why should equality be rejected completely?

Sorry. I meant "putting equality above liberty" should be rejected. Not equality itself.

How are equality and liberty opposed to each other?

They can be when applied to some things. When the Founding Fathers enshrined equality they meant it as everyone being in the same class legally. Before that you had laws that applied to nobles and laws that applied to serfs. When you want everyone to be equal in everything, particularly wealth, then that destroys liberty. We see that is socialist countries like the USSR, N. Korea, etc.

 

[cow451]

I think a certain level of understanding about government/politics would do. I am not saying we should make even a high school diploma a requirement. I also think it would be a good idea to have taxpaying/property owning requirements and also take away the right to vote from those on welfare among other things.

Then you need to find a country where feudal classes remain. American values don't seem to be for you.

 

[jayem]

I definitely understand that much of the South was underdeveloped and poverty stricken due to forced equality.

The South is still poor, relative to the rest of the country. In terms of per capita income (2012 data) all the deep southern states rank in the lower half. And Alabama, Ark., Miss., Georgia, and So. Carolina are in the last quintile. TX (with oil and gas revenue) is #25.

Per Capita Personal Income U.S. and All States

But if enforced equality leads to poverty, then why are states like Conn., NY, Mass., and NJ in the top 10? These states also have egalitarian policies--probably even more so than the South. So why are their populations prospering?

 

[mpok1519]

When one citizen is treated as a second class citizen, are they really free?

 

[morningstar2651]

Sorry. I meant "putting equality above liberty" should be rejected. Not equality itself.

They can be when applied to some things. When the Founding Fathers enshrined equality they meant it as everyone being in the same class legally. Before that you had laws that applied to nobles and laws that applied to serfs. When you want everyone to be equal in everything, particularly wealth, then that destroys liberty. We see that is socialist countries like the USSR, N. Korea, etc.

There is no getting rid of class systems. No matter the form of government, the Pareto principle still applies - 20% of the population controls 80% of the wealth/land. The Occupy Wall-Street movement talks about the 1%, but they're really referring to the 20% of the Pareto princple.

Different forms of government justify this distribution in different ways, but it exists whether we're in a democracy, a socialist state, or even back in feudalism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFmCZKq3o58

 

[cow451]

The South is still poor, relative to the rest of the country. In terms of per capita income (2012 data) all the deep southern states rank in the lower half. And Alabama, Ark., Miss., Georgia, and So. Carolina are in the last quintile. TX (with oil and gas revenue) is #25.

Per Capita Personal Income U.S. and All States

But if enforced equality leads to poverty, then why are states like Conn., NY, Mass., and NJ in the top 10? These states also have egalitarian policies--probably even more so than the South. So why are their populations prospering?

Using one statistic doesn't accurately reflect anything. When one looks at home prices and income in relative fashion, then the South comes out very well. And the same laws about voting, taxes, proprty ownership, etc. apply there as well.

Some of the "rust belt" cities that have declined once attracted blacks from the South before integration and other "equality" laws were being enforced in the deep South. Over time, the trend has reversed as the South is no longer the place for the "legalized" racism that some still support.

 

[morningstar2651]

The South is still poor, relative to the rest of the country. In terms of per capita income (2012 data) all the deep southern states rank in the lower half. And Alabama, Ark., Miss., Georgia, and So. Carolina are in the last quintile. TX (with oil and gas revenue) is #25.

Per Capita Personal Income U.S. and All States

But if enforced equality leads to poverty, then why are states like Conn., NY, Mass., and NJ in the top 10? These states also have egalitarian policies--probably even more so than the South. So why are their populations prospering?

Because when we refer to equality, we don't mean everyone gets the same amount of stuff - we mean that everyone has equal rights and equal opportunity.

That everyone has a fair chance to improve their lot in life through hard work. The fewer barriers to progress there are at the lower end of the economic spectrum, the easier it is for the poor to raise themselves up out of poverty.

We know that a widening gap between the wealthy and the poor is usually a bad thing. The countries with the greatest disparity between the wealthy and the poor are generally the countries with the worst poverty rates.

That gap between the wealthy and the poor can never be closed, but we certainly don't want it to keep getting wider.

 

[jayem]

Using one statistic doesn't accurately reflect anything. When one looks at home prices and income in relative fashion, then the South comes out very well. And the same laws about voting, taxes, proprty ownership, etc. apply there as well.

Some of the "rust belt" cities that have declined once attracted blacks from the South before integration and other "equality" laws were being enforced in the deep South. Over time, the trend has reversed as the South is no longer the place for the "legalized" racism that some still support.

My point is just this: it's preposterous to claim that people being equal in terms of citizenship is associated with economic failure. I'd think most all of us would agree.

 

[cow451]

My point is just this: it's preposterous to claim that people being equal in terms of citizenship is associated with economic failure. I'd think most all of us would agree.

"Preposterous" is the perfect description for such a line of thought. Legalized discrimination is inconsistent with Liberatrian, Capitalistic, Conservative or Democratic ideals.

 

[KarateCowboy]

There is no getting rid of class systems. No matter the form of government, the Pareto principle still applies - 20% of the population controls 80% of the wealth/land. The Occupy Wall-Street movement talks about the 1%, but they're really referring to the 20% of the Pareto princple.

Different forms of government justify this distribution in different ways, but it exists whether we're in a democracy, a socialist state, or even back in feudalism.

OK. That's very interesting and all, but that doesn't mean that there is a class system in US law. The same laws apply to everyone. That does not seem to have anything to do with cause and affect trends.

Your response kind of speaks to what I am getting at: equality as the Founding Fathers saw it did not mean that every 1% of the population should have 1% of the collective wealth of the nation, respectively. The tenet that such a situation is somehow ideal is the very perversion of equality we should guard against. When the Founding Fathers spoke of equality they meant that everyone plays by the same rules, not that everyone has the same belongings.

 

[Creech]

The South is still poor, relative to the rest of the country. In terms of per capita income (2012 data) all the deep southern states rank in the lower half. And Alabama, Ark., Miss., Georgia, and So. Carolina are in the last quintile. TX (with oil and gas revenue) is #25.

Per Capita Personal Income U.S. and All States

But if enforced equality leads to poverty, then why are states like Conn., NY, Mass., and NJ in the top 10? These states also have egalitarian policies--probably even more so than the South. So why are their populations prospering?

States like Mass. and Conn. have a far more educated and civilized populace where equality is not AS harmful.

 

[Creech]

Then you need to find a country where feudal classes remain. American values don't seem to be for you.

American values? Who gets to decide what values are "American"?

 

[Avniel]

American values? Who gets to decide what values are "American"?

America is a capitalistic society, capitalism and classism go hand and hand. I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying. I'm a home owner, college educated, in law school and I own my own business which I pay taxes for. It doesn't seem morally right that I pay for someone ebt card to have them then turn around and enjoy the same privileges as me, a person that worked their but off.

Classism is part of the American dream.

 

[Joykins]

I definitely understand that much of the South was underdeveloped and poverty stricken due to forced equality.

That would be true if you could prove that the South was backwards starting in the 1950s and continuing to get worse. But that would be contrary to fact.

The South was backwards due to forced INequality. Inequality breeds ignorance and lack of education, so certainly it is important to get causality in the right place.

 

[cow451]

American values? Who gets to decide what values are "American"?

The Constitution and the Amendment do have these inconvenient references to equality, liberty for all citizens, freedom of expression, etc. You don't approve of them but they are the law. You enjoy them but don't want others to have them unless they are approved by you.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

How are equality and liberty opposed to each other?

This was addressed by the OP. I expounded further upon it in post #24.

 

[abdAlSalam]

They can be when applied to some things. When the Founding Fathers enshrined equality they meant it as everyone being in the same class legally. Before that you had laws that applied to nobles and laws that applied to serfs. When you want everyone to be equal in everything, particularly wealth, then that destroys liberty. We see that is socialist countries like the USSR, N. Korea, etc.

On the flip side, we have laws that impact people differently solely based on social class. Capital gains tax for instance favors the wealthy, in that it is not taxed like normal income. So it in effect means that the wealthy make more money, disproportionate of their actual wage.

I would also argue that what you are referring to is legal coercion. Well, in absence of legal coercion we also have economic coercion. I would argue that more lax laws that you say increase liberty, I say they decrease liberty by making it easier for private entities to exert economic coercion on others.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Since I was a young man in high-school(way back 20 something year ago) I was always interested in the war between equality and liberty. Many people think these are the same thing but they are not.

Most societies have tried to reach a balance between liberty and equality, but few do this. One will serve the other, either liberty will trump equality or equality will trump liberty.

In communist and socialist societies equality always trumps liberty. You can only have freedom in as much as it does not produce or cause inequality in these societies.

As America was originally founded, Liberty always trumped equality. Equality is never mentioned in the original constitution. Freedom is mentioned extensively. The more free men are, the more inequality will exist. The more equality is mandated by the state, the less free men will be.

In my opinion, since the civil rights era, America has begun the turn to having equality trump freedom leading us down the path to socialism. People no longer have complete control over their property and businesses. Take for instance the baker who was sued for not baking a wedding cake for a gay couple. In that case and many others in the last 30 years or so, equality always trumps freedom. We have to wake up as nation and ask ourselves, how much of our freedom are we willing to sacrifice on the altar to the idol of Equality?

I read an excellent article entitled "The idol of Equality" - one of the best articles I have ever read on this subject. Read it here

I would have to disagree. I think in many ways equality creates liberty, and in other ways liberty creates equality. Even in your gay wedding cake example, you can witness this effect. The problem is that you're only looking at it from the baker's perspective. By recognizing the gay couple as equals...they are then afforded the liberty to shop for wedding cakes like anyone else.