Equality, Fairness, and Other Utopian Myths

[Boss]

For many years now, the liberal left has been on a crusade. Emotively pleading for "equality" and "fairness" by constantly pointing to all the assorted "injustices" around us. Black and brown people are disadvantaged because they lack equal opportunity in education. Women and minorities are disadvantaged because of discriminatory practices ingrained in society. The poor can never get ahead because of the greedy capitalists taking advantage of them at every turn. All of our problems are couched in the argument that we need more equality and fairness, and if we can achieve that, our problems will subside. This is a myth, and a dangerous proposition.

Freedom and personal liberty cannot exist in a Liberal Utopian world. This seems odd, you'd think Utopia would be the ultimate in freedom and liberty, but when we take a closer look it becomes apparent that absolute "equality and fairness" is anathema to freedom and liberty. Boss? How can you possibly make such an outrageous statement? Well, because it is true. You see, Life... is never fair.

Let's examine some aspects of this idea liberals have adopted as their mantra. The foremost aspect to making everyone "equal" has to be education. We must all be equally educated in order for us to expect each other to perform equally. Now, there is no way for everyone to obtain equality in education, some people are smart and some are dumb. Because of this, some people will have a better education than others. In order for everyone to have a truly "equal" education, the process of education must adhere to the lowest common denominator. Knowledge must be limited to what can be universally understood and comprehended, because to have some people know more than others would be inequality in education. So right off the bat, the idea of universal equality fails because it means everyone must be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. But, for sake of our argument, let us assume that we somehow accomplish a total equality in education... all people now have the same identical educational background.

The next aspect we come to is employment. In order for everyone to be "equal" we will need to establish that no job is more or less important than another, and all jobs will pay the same rate. This will be problematic because some jobs require specific skill sets, while other jobs are relatively easy to do. In order to achieve true "equality" we will have to pay skilled and difficult jobs less than they deserve and unskilled easy jobs more than they deserve. But again, for the sake of this argument, let's assume we do this, and now every job regardless of how hard or easy, pays the exact same rate for everyone.

Now we have established a society where everyone has the same education and all jobs are equal in remuneration. Education and knowledge has ceased to have value, because everyone has the same education. How do we decide who gets to do the hard jobs and who gets to do the easy jobs? It would be unfair to expect someone with the same education as everyone else to do an undesirable job while others with the same education get to do the easy jobs. Our freedom to have the job we are happy doing must be curtailed in fairness to others. We will have to establish some kind of rotation, where you may get to do a desirable and easy job for a while, then you have to take your turn doing an undesirable and difficult job. Now, this too is problematic because we all have different talents and abilities. A piano player and a shoveler of feces is paid the same, and we all must take our turn at each, because that is fair and equal. However, some of us will excel at playing the piano while others will do better shoveling feces. Doesn't matter, we will be paid the same rate regardless of the performance. The quality of what our jobs produce will descend to the lowest common denominator, as the feces shoveler attempts to bang around on a piano with no talent whatsoever, and the piano player attempts to shovel feces with no enthusiasm at all for the job. But... this is equality and fairness in Utopian society.

The next aspect is wealth status. Some people are wise with money and perform well in money matters, while other people are frivolous and inept at finances. In order to keep things equal and fair, we will need to redistribute all wealth each month. Of course, again, what happens is the person who is smart with money is no longer inclined to be diligent with money matters, it doesn't matter to them, at the end of the month their wealth will be confiscated and redistributed. The person who is inept at finances will continue their ways, not worrying how much they blew money because at the end of the month, all will made equal again. Under this Utopian system of fairness and equality, we've effectively rendered money irrelevant, it simply doesn't matter because it has no real value.

Then we come to capitalism and profit. These no longer exist in a "fair and equal" Utopian society because it's not fair or equal to have one entity gaining profit at the expense of another. Without the ability to capitalize and make profit, there is no business or industry. But there has to be, people deserve jobs and pay, it's only fair. So the freedom for a capitalist to make determinations based on profits is replaced with the mandate of having to provide for the Utopian society. Competition no longer drives capitalism because everything being equal and fair means there can be no competitiveness. Without competition and profit, the former capitalist becomes complacent and simply provides the bare minimum required by the authority. Over time, the bar is lowered more and more.

Next, let's look at the aspects of social freedoms and liberties. Some people would like to sit around and smoke pot all day, others would like to jog and eat health food. In order to maintain "fairness and equality" neither of these could be permitted. We would need to find an activity that could universally be appreciated by all, and this would be very problematic. However, it's not fair or equal if some people get to enjoy things that others can't or don't. Relationships with others would also have to be sacrificed, it's not "fair and equal" for some to enjoy love and companionship while others can't. In the name of "fairness and equality," virtually all social freedoms would have to go. Replaced with your daily allotment of "pleasure" allowed by the authority.

And finally... WHO is this "authority" which decides matters regarding fairness and equality? Well, again, we will have to take turns at the helm in order to be fair and equal. Therefore, each month a new group would be appointed to determine what "freedoms" could involve for the masses. There would be no litigation or recourse on their decisions because it wouldn't be "fair and equal" for one group to not have authority where another group was able to have it unfettered and uninterrupted. Decisions of the authority would be final.

As you've probably realized by now, the institution of Liberal Utopian society would essentially END freedom. It would also effectively end progress of society. Innovation and creativity would be stifled and snuffed out, all in the name of keeping things "fair and equal" to all. Life is not fair, things are not always fair and equal in life. To try and create these conditions requires extinguishing of freedom. The liberal myth that this can be something we can achieve and should strive for, is the most dangerous idea man has ever fooled himself into believing.

 

[Moonglow]

Can you condense this version?

 

[hazlnut]

For many years now, the liberal left has been on a crusade. Emotively pleading for "equality" and "fairness" by constantly pointing to all the assorted "injustices" around us. Black and brown people are disadvantaged because they lack equal opportunity in education. Women and minorities are disadvantaged because of discriminatory practices ingrained in society. The poor can never get ahead because of the greedy capitalists taking advantage of them at every turn. All of our problems are couched in the argument that we need more equality and fairness, and if we can achieve that, our problems will subside. This is a myth, and a dangerous proposition.

Freedom and personal liberty cannot exist in a Liberal Utopian world. This seems odd, you'd think Utopia would be the ultimate in freedom and liberty, but when we take a closer look it becomes apparent that absolute "equality and fairness" is anathema to freedom and liberty. Boss? How can you possibly make such an outrageous statement? Well, because it is true. You see, Life... is never fair.

Let's examine some aspects of this idea liberals have adopted as their mantra. The foremost aspect to making everyone "equal" has to be education. We must all be equally educated in order for us to expect each other to perform equally. Now, there is no way for everyone to obtain equality in education, some people are smart and some are dumb. Because of this, some people will have a better education than others. In order for everyone to have a truly "equal" education, the process of education must adhere to the lowest common denominator. Knowledge must be limited to what can be universally understood and comprehended, because to have some people know more than others would be inequality in education. So right off the bat, the idea of universal equality fails because it means everyone must be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. But, for sake of our argument, let us assume that we somehow accomplish a total equality in education... all people now have the same identical educational background.

The next aspect we come to is employment. In order for everyone to be "equal" we will need to establish that no job is more or less important than another, and all jobs will pay the same rate. This will be problematic because some jobs require specific skill sets, while other jobs are relatively easy to do. In order to achieve true "equality" we will have to pay skilled and difficult jobs less than they deserve and unskilled easy jobs more than they deserve. But again, for the sake of this argument, let's assume we do this, and now every job regardless of how hard or easy, pays the exact same rate for everyone.

Now we have established a society where everyone has the same education and all jobs are equal in remuneration. Education and knowledge has ceased to have value, because everyone has the same education. How do we decide who gets to do the hard jobs and who gets to do the easy jobs? It would be unfair to expect someone with the same education as everyone else to do an undesirable job while others with the same education get to do the easy jobs. Our freedom to have the job we are happy doing must be curtailed in fairness to others. We will have to establish some kind of rotation, where you may get to do a desirable and easy job for a while, then you have to take your turn doing an undesirable and difficult job. Now, this too is problematic because we all have different talents and abilities. A piano player and a shoveler of feces is paid the same, and we all must take our turn at each, because that is fair and equal. However, some of us will excel at playing the piano while others will do better shoveling feces. Doesn't matter, we will be paid the same rate regardless of the performance. The quality of what our jobs produce will descend to the lowest common denominator, as the feces shoveler attempts to bang around on a piano with no talent whatsoever, and the piano player attempts to shovel feces with no enthusiasm at all for the job. But... this is equality and fairness in Utopian society.

The next aspect is wealth status. Some people are wise with money and perform well in money matters, while other people are frivolous and inept at finances. In order to keep things equal and fair, we will need to redistribute all wealth each month. Of course, again, what happens is the person who is smart with money is no longer inclined to be diligent with money matters, it doesn't matter to them, at the end of the month their wealth will be confiscated and redistributed. The person who is inept at finances will continue their ways, not worrying how much they blew money because at the end of the month, all will made equal again. Under this Utopian system of fairness and equality, we've effectively rendered money irrelevant, it simply doesn't matter because it has no real value.

Then we come to capitalism and profit. These no longer exist in a "fair and equal" Utopian society because it's not fair or equal to have one entity gaining profit at the expense of another. Without the ability to capitalize and make profit, there is no business or industry. But there has to be, people deserve jobs and pay, it's only fair. So the freedom for a capitalist to make determinations based on profits is replaced with the mandate of having to provide for the Utopian society. Competition no longer drives capitalism because everything being equal and fair means there can be no competitiveness. Without competition and profit, the former capitalist becomes complacent and simply provides the bare minimum required by the authority. Over time, the bar is lowered more and more.

Next, let's look at the aspects of social freedoms and liberties. Some people would like to sit around and smoke pot all day, others would like to jog and eat health food. In order to maintain "fairness and equality" neither of these could be permitted. We would need to find an activity that could universally be appreciated by all, and this would be very problematic. However, it's not fair or equal if some people get to enjoy things that others can't or don't. Relationships with others would also have to be sacrificed, it's not "fair and equal" for some to enjoy love and companionship while others can't. In the name of "fairness and equality," virtually all social freedoms would have to go. Replaced with your daily allotment of "pleasure" allowed by the authority.

And finally... WHO is this "authority" which decides matters regarding fairness and equality? Well, again, we will have to take turns at the helm in order to be fair and equal. Therefore, each month a new group would be appointed to determine what "freedoms" could involve for the masses. There would be no litigation or recourse on their decisions because it wouldn't be "fair and equal" for one group to not have authority where another group was able to have it unfettered and uninterrupted. Decisions of the authority would be final.

As you've probably realized by now, the institution of Liberal Utopian society would essentially END freedom. It would also effectively end progress of society. Innovation and creativity would be stifled and snuffed out, all in the name of keeping things "fair and equal" to all. Life is not fair, things are not always fair and equal in life. To try and create these conditions requires extinguishing of freedom. The liberal myth that this can be something we can achieve and should strive for, is the most dangerous idea man has ever fooled himself into believing.

 

[g5000]

Let's examine some aspects of this idea liberals have adopted as their mantra. The foremost aspect to making everyone "equal" has to be education. We must all be equally educated in order for us to expect each other to perform equally.

Um...no. The idea is equal access to education, not equal education.

 

[g5000]

Then we come to capitalism and profit. These no longer exist in a "fair and equal" Utopian society because it's not fair or equal to have one entity gaining profit at the expense of another. Without the ability to capitalize and make profit, there is no business or industry. But there has to be, people deserve jobs and pay, it's only fair. So the freedom for a capitalist to make determinations based on profits is replaced with the mandate of having to provide for the Utopian society. Competition no longer drives capitalism because everything being equal and fair means there can be no competitiveness. Without competition and profit, the former capitalist becomes complacent and simply provides the bare minimum required by the authority. Over time, the bar is lowered more and more.

The current problem is that the legislative field is tilted in favor of bloated, incompetent, and inefficient businesses. They are stealing from the common man's pockets and are given police protection while they do so.

For example, a financial institution creates a highly toxic derivative product, sells it under fraudulent circumstances to a client, then bets against the client with another derivative product through a third party. When such crimes are occasionally caught, no one goes to jail and the fine levied against the crooks is less than the profit they made from their crimes.

This is like a thief stealing from your house, and if the cops catch him, he pays a small fine and gets to keep your stuff.

Where the Right is failing today is in its denial such crimes are taking place.

Where the Left is failing today is in the belief that making the guy who lives in a bigger house than you pay more taxes will make life more fair. The reality is that raising taxes will do absolutely nothing to mitigate the crimes being committed by the thieves. Taxing every rich person more is punishing the innocent with the guilty.

 

[KNB]

"the idea of universal equality fails because it means everyone must be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator"

Americans are being dumbed down to the lowest common denominator by FOX News, not public education.

 

[Boss]

Let's examine some aspects of this idea liberals have adopted as their mantra. The foremost aspect to making everyone "equal" has to be education. We must all be equally educated in order for us to expect each other to perform equally.

Um...no. The idea is equal access to education, not equal education.

But we have equal access now. It's neither fair or equal to have some people gain more from their education than others. This is what has prompted Liberal Utopian ideas like Common Core.

 

[g5000]

Let's examine some aspects of this idea liberals have adopted as their mantra. The foremost aspect to making everyone "equal" has to be education. We must all be equally educated in order for us to expect each other to perform equally.

Um...no. The idea is equal access to education, not equal education.

But we have equal access now. It's neither fair or equal to have some people gain more from their education than others. This is what has prompted Liberal Utopian ideas like Common Core.

Common Core was created on the state level, with no federal funding or input. It was created with the support of the business community to provide the necessary skills to our children to survive in the marketplace.

Common Core was enacted by 44 states. Are there 44 blue states?

Jan Brewer supported Common Core. Mike Huckabee supported Common Core. Bobby Jindahl supported Common Core. Jeb Bush supported Common Core. Are these people Liberal Utotpians?

You see how stupid you are sounding yet?

Then one day...Barack Obama threw his support behind Common Core. The next thing you know, tards like yourself are drinking the Orwellian piss that "We have always been at war with Common Core."

 

[g5000]

Let's examine some aspects of this idea liberals have adopted as their mantra. The foremost aspect to making everyone "equal" has to be education. We must all be equally educated in order for us to expect each other to perform equally.

Um...no. The idea is equal access to education, not equal education.

But we have equal access now.

Key word: now. Thanks to classical liberals in the GOP and Democratic parties. It was not always that way. Minorities were denied access. Think George Wallace standing at the door of the Foster Auditorium. A literal denial of access.

 

[kaz]

Let's examine some aspects of this idea liberals have adopted as their mantra. The foremost aspect to making everyone "equal" has to be education. We must all be equally educated in order for us to expect each other to perform equally.

Um...no. The idea is equal access to education, not equal education.

You're not familiar with the No Child Gets Ahead initiative I take it?

 

[kaz]

Um...no. The idea is equal access to education, not equal education.

But we have equal access now.

Key word: now. Thanks to classical liberals in the GOP and Democratic parties. It was not always that way. Minorities were denied access. Think George Wallace standing at the door of the Foster Auditorium. A literal denial of access.

Classic liberals in the Democratic party? LOL, name one.

 

[kaz]

Common Core was created on the state level, with no federal funding or input

Not true, the Federal government is paying States to adopt it

 

[g5000]

Let's examine some aspects of this idea liberals have adopted as their mantra. The foremost aspect to making everyone "equal" has to be education. We must all be equally educated in order for us to expect each other to perform equally.

Um...no. The idea is equal access to education, not equal education.

You're not familiar with the No Child Gets Ahead initiative I take it?

The aim of NCLB was to improve the quality of education being provided.

 

[kaz]

Um...no. The idea is equal access to education, not equal education.

You're not familiar with the No Child Gets Ahead initiative I take it?

The aim of NCLB was to improve the quality of education being provided.

The aim of No Child Gets Ahead was Federal government power under the principle that equal poor performance is better than better but uneven performance. It's fair, and the role of government is to make life fair. Equal, poor healthcare is superior to unequal better healthcare. It's a universal view of the left.

 

[emilynghiem]

Let's examine some aspects of this idea liberals have adopted as their mantra. The foremost aspect to making everyone "equal" has to be education. We must all be equally educated in order for us to expect each other to perform equally.

Um...no. The idea is equal access to education, not equal education.

But we have equal access now. It's neither fair or equal to have some people gain more from their education than others. This is what has prompted Liberal Utopian ideas like Common Core.

Dear Boss and G5000:

Was it Boss who posted that the OPPORTUNITY had to be equal not the outcome.
This is like saying government can ensure the right to petition for redress of grievances,
but not ensure the actual successful redress.

I happen to disagree.

I believe that because of the concept of Equal Protection of the Laws under the Fourteenth Amendment, along with EQUAL EXERCISE of rights/freedoms in the First Amendment,
the outcome or conclusion MUST equally represent and include all people to be fair.

Too much hijacking, blackballing and other manipulation can take place
if the only requirement is to "give the appearance of equal access".

ANYONE can argue "we have equal access to govt" when this is not true in reality.

It must be results-based to guarantee equal inclusion or protection.

So I disagree on practical grounds.

By the letter of the law, of course, the laws only mention having equal
rights and freedoms and don't guarantee results.

In reality, people need to have equal results to be equal in the "right to security"
and "right to assemble peaceably to petition the govt."

It is not just "trying to get the same out of education"
but making sure the education is effective.

If people DON'T learn or understand the laws IN PRACTICE, then they are NOT equal citizens in legal competence and defense/protection of their rights.

You can say the laws do not require govt to provide this.
But for people like me who believe PEOPLE should be responsible for
enforcing laws equally, then it is the social responsibility of the PEOPLE.

So in essence, if the people and government are one, then it is
our responsibility to make sure people have equal access to education
and experience to become equally empowered citizens, or else if people
are not legally competent to take equal civic responsibility, then such residents
should be sponsored by someone who is competent and legally able
(similar to having legal guardians for minors or disabled persons).

Everyone should be required to know enough of the laws and process
to prevent from imposing a legal or financial burden on other taxpayers.

Otherwise, if the system is backlogged with abuses and violations no one
takes responsibility for, the resulting bureaucracy abridges everyone else's
"right to petition to redress grievances," so everyone's rights to justice/due process gets violated and nobody has equal protection of rights, freedoms and interests under law.

That is what we are facing now, because of lack of education and training on laws, and failure to require people to take equal responsibility for the costs of their own violations.

 

[g5000]

You're not familiar with the No Child Gets Ahead initiative I take it?

The aim of NCLB was to improve the quality of education being provided.

The aim of No Child Gets Ahead was Federal government power under the principle that equal poor performance is better than better but uneven performance. It's fair, and the role of government is to make life fair. Equal, poor healthcare is superior to unequal better healthcare. It's a universal view of the left.

I agree that NCLB was a government expansion. That is but one of many, many things which indicate the GOP is no longer about small government and small budgets.

I also agree that NCLB was unsuccessful.

I also happen to believe the last entity I want to decide what is "fair" is the government.

 

[g5000]

When George Wallace stood at the schoolhouse door, he was doing so as an agent of the government.

When George Bush signed No Child Left Behind, he was doing so as an agent of the government.

See how that works?

 

[g5000]

When some assholes use the force of government to create or sustain a harm to society, then unfortunatey it sometimes take a bigger stick of bigger government to right that wrong.

Too often, though, that bigger stick stays around longer than is necessary, becoming a means unto itself.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

For many years now, the liberal left has been on a crusade. Emotively pleading for "equality" and "fairness" by constantly pointing to all the assorted "injustices" around us. Black and brown people are disadvantaged because they lack equal opportunity in education. Women and minorities are disadvantaged because of discriminatory practices ingrained in society. The poor can never get ahead because of the greedy capitalists taking advantage of them at every turn. All of our problems are couched in the argument that we need more equality and fairness, and if we can achieve that, our problems will subside. This is a myth, and a dangerous proposition.

Actually this perception is a myth – as well as ignorant and dangerous.

Liberals don’t seek ‘equality,’ they seek acknowledgement of the principles enshrined in the Constitution, where all persons are entitled to due process and equal protection of the law, entitled to individual liberty absent interference by the state, and entitled to exercise their inalienable rights as protected by the Constitution and its case law.

For over sixty years liberals have fought for the civil liberties of all Americans, opposed by conservatives every step of the way; a review of the history of the Warren Court alone confirms this fact.

Consequently, black and brown people are disadvantaged by conservatives hostile to their fundamental right to vote, women are disadvantaged by conservatives hostile to their right to privacy, immigrants are disadvantaged by conservatives hostile to their right to due process, and gay Americans are disadvantaged by conservatives hostile to their right to equal protection of the law.

Liberals don’t seek ‘equality,’ they seek a consistent application of the Constitution and its case law, where liberals fully understand and agree that all individuals are not ‘equal,’ rather they are entitled to equal treatment under the law.

 

[Boss]

For many years now, the liberal left has been on a crusade. Emotively pleading for "equality" and "fairness" by constantly pointing to all the assorted "injustices" around us. Black and brown people are disadvantaged because they lack equal opportunity in education. Women and minorities are disadvantaged because of discriminatory practices ingrained in society. The poor can never get ahead because of the greedy capitalists taking advantage of them at every turn. All of our problems are couched in the argument that we need more equality and fairness, and if we can achieve that, our problems will subside. This is a myth, and a dangerous proposition.

Actually this perception is a myth – as well as ignorant and dangerous.

Liberals don’t seek ‘equality,’ they seek acknowledgement of the principles enshrined in the Constitution, where all persons are entitled to due process and equal protection of the law, entitled to individual liberty absent interference by the state, and entitled to exercise their inalienable rights as protected by the Constitution and its case law.

For over sixty years liberals have fought for the civil liberties of all Americans, opposed by conservatives every step of the way; a review of the history of the Warren Court alone confirms this fact.

Consequently, black and brown people are disadvantaged by conservatives hostile to their fundamental right to vote, women are disadvantaged by conservatives hostile to their right to privacy, immigrants are disadvantaged by conservatives hostile to their right to due process, and gay Americans are disadvantaged by conservatives hostile to their right to equal protection of the law.

Liberals don’t seek ‘equality,’ they seek a consistent application of the Constitution and its case law, where liberals fully understand and agree that all individuals are not ‘equal,’ rather they are entitled to equal treatment under the law.

Everyone is treated equally under the law, that has been the case for the past 60 years. You fuckwits have gotten more mileage out of the Civil Rights era than the generation who fought for it. You wrap these silly arguments in the notion of "fairness and equality" all the time, and here you simply deny you do so, while actually doing so!

There is no way to have a completely fair and equal world without removing ALL freedom! There is always going to be some injustice, some unfairness, some inequality. That's life. We can make laws to provide for equal opportunity, and we have done so. Beyond that, people have to be responsible for their own fate and destiny, and it won't always be "fair and equal" no matter what you do.