On equality:destroying one of the favorite arguments by the liberals

When you criticize some of the foundational beliefs of liberals, beliefs that serve as pillars that support the framework of their ideology, for example, equality, they would immediately recoil back and act completely innocent while retorting:"Oh but no one wants an absolute equality?! What are you talking about! Strawman! Strawman!" Like this liberaltl,dr: just an example, you don't have to really watch it)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXLWd_avNT8

After that, they feel rather relieved, smiling snobbishly nodding their heads thinking to themselves:"Boy, that was a killer! I totally dodged that cannonball there, how do you like them apples?"

Let's begin by saying that it's perhaps one of the least powerful, and perhaps one of the most, completely and utterly easily destroyable argument that would ever have the chance to be put forward by any human being. It can easily be destroyed by asking back simply:

Then how much percent of equality do you want? And how much percent of inequality will you be willing to preserve? 50%? 25%? 15%? 5%? None? How do you quantify it? And above all, who are you to decide 25% is OK? or 15% is the best for society?

And since we are talking about not what the end result will be, but what you do or do not want, let's draw a vector, with the starting point at where you are, and the arrow pointing where you are going, what do you see? No matter how much you are willing to wiggle, you will find that the arrow is pointing almost exactly where "absolute equality" is. In other words, you can not find one liberal/leftwing in the world that does not, intentionally or unintentionally, want or work for a perfect equality.

This is a more conservative/libertarian (not assuming all conservatives/libertarians agree with this) position: inequality isn't necessarily a bad thing. Diversity in society, sometimes manifested in the form of differential income is a driving force of propelling a society forward. There is no need to artificially regulate or attempt to eliminate such a phenomena. After all, as Karl Popper famously put:

"It's the attempt to make heaven on earth invariably produces hell."

 

So where is the line drawn? Quick question then to Conservatives, where is the line drawn when it comes to government involvement in the economy? After all, Conservatives do want the government involved, just not as much as liberals. So where is that line drawn? The answer is simple, the needs of society will dictate it. If people want more government involvement without sacrificing conservative ideals, it is possible, they just have to take a bit to the left, if not, then to the right. Society says where the line will be drawn between what is allowable and what is not. Liberals do the same thing on equality, there will be a line drawn somewhere. Think about it, we don't deal with absolutes in society, we have wiggle room. If I shoot someone in self defense, it is treated differently then if I shot someone in cold blood.

 

The needs of the society do not outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

 

That is either a meaningless statement or it is just plain wrong.

The needs of the society do need to be justified, but when society has legitimate needs, the objections of the few or the one have a big hurdle to meet.

The police have a right to break down your door on the basis of suspicion regardless of your need for security in your person.

The government has the right of eminent domain that impinges on the rights of the few.

Etc.

 

Actually if you ask anyone with half a brain " what percent of inequality you're willing to accept" those confused looks you are getting are because it is not a question that can be answered. It is ill defined. Percent of what? Income? Over all wealth? By individuals or groups?

 

The needs of a society is important yes, but it does not outweigh the needs of the individual.

And here in America we have the constitution. The police do NOT have a right to just enter your house on a whime. First, they need probable cause, and they need a search warrant, or they need your consent.

They can search what they see.

But they just can not stop you on a whim.

 

regrettably this ain't the star trek universe.

 

I completely agree with that sentiment.

But the saying itself, while it may have come from fiction, is a real philosophy, where some people treuly believe the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

Sorry, but I think that is one of the most incredibly asinine things Spock has ever said.

 

Like all binary statements its true until it isn't.

There are examples of the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few.
Likewise there are examples of the needs of the few(one) outweighing the needs of the many.

that is why individual rights are entrenched in modern democratic society to ensure that the needs of the many do not outweigh the needs of the few.

 

The same can be said when conservatives start talking about Christianity.

 

Liberals don't want perfect equality your thinking of communists, who hate liberals far more than you

 

"As little as possible". Or put it in a more understandable, layman's term: If it can be solved by one person, do not get his friends involved. If it can be solved by two persons, do not get the local community involved. If it can be solved within a local community, do not take it to the city hall. If it can be resolved within a townhall meeting, do not carry it to the county or state level. If it can be disposed at state level, do not get the feds into the picture. Down up, bottom to the top.

Liberals on the other hand, work almost exactly the opposite way. They love to scream for help from the federal government on the first sight of trouble.

Not a conservative, though. Independent.

 

haha they vote for the leftist parties all the time. The left will take them closer than anyone else.

 

I have a hard time figuring out what is worse....those who complain and want the Governement to fix things....or those who complain but have absolutely ZERO viable Plan to fix things.

AboveAlpha

 

Please, do read my OP before posting.

And to your statement, actually the communists are very much in love with or even indistinguishable from average liberals before a Bolshevik revolution, after that? Well there is little use for tread-stones who helped a nation embarked on the journey to serfdom...

- - - Updated - - -

Now now, let's not get too carried away...

Although I failed to grasp your meaning... absolute Christianity?

- - - Updated - - -

Making too much assumption there aren't we?

 

Because I often find conservatives struggling to explain why their religion should dictate our governing.

 

Especially if the few or the one is a big corporation who wants a taxpayer bailout or wants to spend as much money as they want to win a candidate's election campaign.

 

Communists want economic equality they don't want anyone too have more money than anyone else in fact they don't believe money should exist

Also left/ right wing is a subjective term meaning too a hardcore right wing militant almost all of us are left wing.

Therefore Communists consider liberals to be right wing and do not like them.

A fascist would consider mitt Romney a left winger. A Communist would call Obama a right winger.

Also, Communists consider liberals people who help protect the rich feom the poor by lying pretending too be their representatives and by giving the poor a "few crumbs of the table" in order too prevent what Communists call a social revolution

 

Well....neither party has provided any viable plan to help Small Businesses the largest employer in the U.S. and comprising over 90% of all companies.

AboveAlpha

 

I accept no inequality of opportunity. Outcome is out of anyone's hands other than the person given the opportunity. That is the only inequality that I see as unjust and correctable.

I'll let all others that want to frame the inequality debate in terms of poor vs rich fight their own battles.

 

But that's only one person's perspective on it. People will think differently about how many people are actually needed. One person might be able to lift something up, but at the same time it could require 10 weaker people to do the same thing. In the end, society has to come together to explain roughly where the line must be drawn.

 

If society dictates as such, then yes. If not, then that's what that society values.

 

As you state correctly, most liberals that I know do not want everyone to be exactly equal with regard to income or wealth. They just feel that inequality has gotten too extreme in our current economy.

You, however, see the problem very one sided, because the whole argument could be turned around back into the libertarian court by asking the analogous question:

At which point do libertarians/conservatives start seeing inequality as a problem? Clearly, when all assets end up to be in the hand of one person (the opposite, and equally unlikely extreme to the projection of conservatives that all liberals want fully equal distribution of wealth) the economy will come to a halt. Will that start to be a problem when the 1% have 50% of all wealth? 90%? 99% Having asked that same question to the liberals, please answer the question for yourself.

As to my answer to the OP's question to the ideal wealth distribution: We know that the extreme points, the top 1% having 1% of wealth (perfect equality) and the top 1% having 100% of all wealth (perfect inequality) won't work, so the optimum has to be somewhere inbetween.

Being a natural scientist, I tend to look at natural laws to predict the outcome of complex systems, such as our economy. A law that explains the distribution of energy (wealth) of molecules at equilibrium is the Boltzmann distribution. Since we don't want the economy to be at equilibrium, we may have slight deviations from that distribution, but not too much to prevent too much loss from inefficiency. So, here it is:



It is interesting to see that the Boltzmann distribution comes very close to what Americans thinks the wealth distribution is, but is much more unequal to what they think it should be, and much more equal to what it actually is. So, here we go, my two cents and food for thought and discussion.

 

I'll go for original intent of the constitution before progressives infected government.

 

ironically (or perhaps not so) your post number is 3,666



All that you and others of the far right need to do now is to read the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus Christ. Then you will see that all Christians are commanded to do just that. Only an antichrist like Ayn Rand and her followers disagree.