To seek equality is to condone injustice. For example, to give to the poor, you must rob the rich. The world is naturally unequal - this doesn’t bother the animal kingdom but humans impose an unnatural order. Equality denies morality, justice, and fairness.
We now return to our scheduled progamming.
What is your point?
To generate discussion… On topics a little more interesting than how do we spell Tie-bay, or how our Taiwanese g’friends make our life hell… I know, some of these topics are a little… errr… esoteric (poncy) but, every so often, someone answers and we get a good discussion going: Terrorism, anti-Globalisation, religion (almost got started)
I believe that Trent Lott subscribes to this viewpoint. He apparently considers it most unjust that people should enjoy equality regardless of the colour of their skin. Will he be allowed to continue as the Senate’s Republican Leader and flag bearer of GOP values?
Omnispecious: I meant economic equality. Inequality based on race is a “man-made” aberration, just as economic equality is a “man-made” aberration. Interesting assymetry. In juxtaposition to the absurd Mr Lott, what of so-called “affirmative action.” Is this justified? I tend to think not.
This program has been bought to you by the letter H and the number 7 and is a production of the Children’s Television Network
I’m no fan of affirmative action. I’d rather see efforts focused on leveling playing-fields.
But I wonder how Taiwan’s Aboriginal people feel about the issue? Would they wish to be the recipients of affirmative action programs? Or would they rather just be given the same chances as their Han compatriots? Are there any Aboriginal Taiwanese here, or their spouses or close friends, who would like to express an opinion on this subject?
See, Imyourbiggest, I’m trying hard to inject some life into this thread of yours, though I fear it may be a losin’ proposition.
Omnitenacious: I feel the life force ebbing, too. Its christmas - people don’t wanna think about this stuff. Trouble with no affirmative action is that existing prejudices fade slowly; but aff. act. may make long term disappearance of prejudice harder to achieve, all for a short term gain.
LOL ! Haven’t heard that for a loooooooong time ! (Isn’t it children’s television workshop ?)
Surely that is the purpose of taxation. So the rich can be robbed and the wealth redistributed to society without anyone having to go to jail over it. It’s a system that’s worked since biblical times. That reminds me, have I paid my tithe this year?
Interestingly in Islam, where taxes are unislamic, it’s every Muslim’s duty to pay 10% of their income to charity. Zakat as they call it, avoids the need for money to pass through the hands of corrupt government officials.
Mr M. Yes - that’s taxes. We are all willing to pay them to some extent but we are forced to at gunpoint (or at least the threat of jail.) This Islamic idea is fascinating. I guess it is similar in the US/Europe, where you can write-off chartiable donations against tax… But to cut the tax burden by say 10% and force charitable donations instead - even better, perhaps?
Of course, from a point of view of justice, it may be best to cut government spending to essential services and rely totally on voluntary charitable donations for the rest - much like pre-War UK… or even (to a lesser extent) Hongkong in more recent times.
Poor and rich are points of view.
I say the world is equal at all times.
The humans imposed a natural order.
When you (anyone) gains one thing they lose something else. And how do you know it doesn’t bother the animal kingdom?
So are you taking a traditional libertarian/objectivist viewpoint on economic equality?
Mr C. Not sure what you mean. But let me express myself more abstractly. (I have to do this in a series of short posts - can’t seem to post much text at a time.) I propose that we will all gain according to our innate abilities. That a free-market society exacerbates income equality.
So long as we are all treated as the utility-maximising individuals of free-market economic models, there can be inequality without injustice. Now, people have prejudices that impinge on others’ rights but to see to offset this effect by imposing "positive discrimination’ is merely to condone the same type of prejudice.
I admit that this view hits problems if individuals are rewarded not by abilities but by luck (read “The Winner Takes All Society” for a theoretical justification of this view. But, to a large extent, it seems, individual workers are rewarded according to their productivity. Do we redistribute too much income by taxation (in the West). Should we be more like HK?
In the end, I guess, I am looking for some kind of moral justification for such income redistribution by taxation. “They are poor, we are rich” does not seem to cut it (logically or morally), from my point of view. But, as always, would welcome debate on the issue.
"Gains from trade"are mutual. I get (your unwanted) tobacco, you get (my unwanted) guns.
Hierarchical structures in herds, Darwinism, its a “dog-eat-dog” world.