Greed is Good!

[vetran]

Slightly racist question if put to the standards of political correctness?

who said they were natural redheads?

[DodgyAgent]

I disagree. Equality before the law derives from a more profound sense of equality, but it is not in itself the definition of equality. Other things derive from that too. I am equally polite to strangers, because how polite I should be is determined in my mind by how I value them. The only information I have to determine how I should value them is that they are human, because I consider all other factors irrelevant to how I should value them. The law does not tell me to be equally polite. Do you not act in the same way? I suspect you probably do.

The point of my reference to the Founding Fathers (Thomas Jefferson to be precise) is the profound nature of this statement.



Once you acknowledge this, many things flow from it. Yes, equality before the law, but also the way we treat people. The statement can take people in different directions. We may come to different conclusions when considering for example the support provided by society for someone who:

- Cannot find work
- Is incapable of work

Our conclusions may be different because we may have different views on:

- What is a desirable outcome
- What is economically efficient
- What is the business of society and the state

But the different conclusions do not invalidate the common view that we are equal. This is why I can agree with Sas and MTT on this, when I expect there is little else we agree on politically.

Another way of looking at this is by examining the reverse. You appear to think that we are not all equal. What do you mean by that?

Is it then about being polite to people? In a civilised world we can all expect this but it is still a loose definition. If we are going to ask for equality then we need to define equality. To some it means that there are too many people earning too much money and too many earning too little. To others it is treating people as they are irrespective of gender, race or sexuality. To me it is treating people with respect and politeness but that is as far as it goes. I sign up to the rule of law (even though I believe many laws are silly) but beyond that I treat and regard people on the merits and behaviour of their personality, status (are they my children?) and a host of other factors.

I have a problem with the word equality which is that it is a vague notion of personal prejudices rather than hard and fast and clear rules. Envy of the rich being the prime example. The word is also used to remove responsibility- It is not a lack of equality but the fault of those charged with educating and housing the poor.

I would like to see this word dropped because the problem it seems to represent is actually nothing to do with equality, it is to do with failing the poorer and weaker sections of society. If the rich should pay more tax to achieve this then say so.

To evidence this every dictatorship will have justified its brutal totalitarianism in the name of equality. it is what underpins north korea, it is what underpinned the rise of Hitler (the Jews were the rich demons) and it underpins every whining socialists view point.

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

[QUOTE=Old Greg;1848860]

I was going to add a proviso, 'All other things being equal' but thought it too obvious. My bad.

So what you are really saying then is, that if people meet your personal definition of 'normal' and the circumstances in which you meet them are 'normal' then you will treat everyone equally?

[sasguru]

That is the point the points aren't a random sample. There are 50 countries each with its own peculiarities. Just as there are 50 'random' people in the Bar.

If you went into 50 Random Bars and sampled the population in them you could then make some inferences about people in bars.

as usual you have side stepped the question you can't answer!

No one has ever accused you of having a mind like a steel trap I'll wager.
If you have data points on 50 random countries your population is all countries,
and you can draw inferences on that pop, countries as a whole.

Honestly, this is not an insult, but you don't have the intellectual chops to discuss this stuff.

[darmstadt]

who said they were natural redheads?

No-one although someone said they were Ginger and I have never seen a Ginger hair colouring...

[Old Greg]

Is it then about being polite to people? In a civilised world we can all expect this but it is still a loose definition. If we are going to ask for equality then we need to define equality.

Being polite is an example of where a view that people are equal can take you. You said it was just about the law. I gave you an example about how we treat people equally. There are others of course. I have defined my view of equality more than once for you. I am suggesting that it underpins or works alongside other intellectual positions. If you are interested in economic efficiency (and most of us are) then do we let that be our only guiding principle, or do we look at that principle alongside the principle of equality. I would suggest the latter and we will each balance them differently. If we only look at economic efficiency, that may take us somewhere unpleasant.

I have a problem with the word equality which is that it is a vague notion of personal prejudices rather than hard and fast and clear rules. Envy of the rich being the prime example. The word is also used to remove responsibility- It is not a lack of equality but the fault of those charged with educating and housing the poor.

What exactly is envy of the rich an example of?

I would like to see this word dropped because the problem it seems to represent is actually nothing to do with equality, it is to do with failing the poorer and weaker sections of society. If the rich should pay more tax to achieve this then say so.

If only you had been around to advise Thomas Jefferson that he was barking up the wrong tree about the intrinsic nature of human value. If we remove the view that a severely learning disabled adult is of equal value to others and decide that they are of less value, will we stop failing them? How does that work?

Perhaps the rich should pay more, perhaps they shouldn't. But this is not equality, but a conclusion that some people may reach and others may not reach, once we have decided that people are equal. It is certainly not a necessary conclusion. So we can talk about equality without saying that rich people should pay more tax, because that is not what equality means.

To evidence this every dictatorship will have justified its brutal totalitarianism in the name of equality. it is what underpins north korea, it is what underpinned the rise of Hitler (the Jews were the rich demons) and it underpins every whining socialists view point.

Hopefully, now we've got to the end of the post, you'll be correct this time. Oh no, you're wrong again! Hitler's view of the Übermensch and the Untermensch was not underpinned by equality but by the exact opposite. If you are so wrong on this, what else might you be utterly wrong about?

[Old Greg]

[QUOTE=LisaContractorUmbrella;1848872]

So what you are really saying then is, that if people meet your personal definition of 'normal' and the circumstances in which you meet them are 'normal' then you will treat everyone equally?

Whether or not people are 'normal' is irrelevant. Extreme circumstances will of course provoke a different response. Gald to have cleared that up.




Anyway, I have a dishonest crust to earn, so someone else can fill the cretinwatch rota for the rest of the day.

[sasguru]

Being polite is an example of where a view that people are equal can take you. You said it was just about the law. I gave you an example about how we treat people equally. There are others of course. I have defined my view of equality more than once for you. I am suggesting that it underpins or works alongside other intellectual positions. If you are interested in economic efficiency (and most of us are) then do we let that be our only guiding principle, or do we look at that principle alongside the principle of equality. I would suggest the latter and we will each balance them differently. If we only look at economic efficiency, that may take us somewhere unpleasant.



What exactly is envy of the rich an example of?



If only you had been around to advise Thomas Jefferson that he was barking up the wrong tree about the intrinsic nature of human value. If we remove the view that a severely learning disabled adult is of equal value to others and decide that they are of less value, will we stop failing them? How does that work?

Perhaps the rich should pay more, perhaps they shouldn't. But this is not equality, but a conclusion that some people may reach and others may not reach, once we have decided that people are equal. It is certainly not a necessary conclusion. So we can talk about equality without saying that rich people should pay more tax, because that is not what equality means.



Hopefully, now we've got to the end of the post, you'll be correct this time. Oh no, you're wrong again! Hitler's view of the Übermensch and the Untermensch was not underpinned by equality but by the exact opposite. If you are so wrong on this, what else might you be utterly wrong about?

Aren't you doing what you accuse me of - arguing with a cretin?

[sasguru]

Anyway, I have a dishonest crust to earn, so someone else can fill the cretinwatch rota for the rest of the day.

Can't. They're overwhelming, like zombies.

[doodab]

So, if a stranger broke into your house and threatened you with a knife would you say to yourself that you should treat him politely because he has value as a human being or do you think that your primeval instincts would kick in and you would either fight or fly?

I'd like to think I'd hit everyone equally hard with the same stick.