Post a response to this discussion thread
09/02/01: Joe_Average
Posted by: grundle2600@hotmail.com (grundle)
"a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people"
That's a pretty good definition.
But I would modify it to say the following (my changes are in capital letters):
"a POLITICAL philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people THROUGH THE USE OF GOVERNMENT ACTION"
I don't want people to be equal.
I don't want to be equal to anyone else.
I want to be my own person.
I want to be my own unique individual.
I want to be free to think and to speak and to act in my own way.
The only way that everyone can be equal to everyone else is if everyone is equal to the lowest common denominator. And that would be awful.
In academia, it would mean that everyone was dumb. No one would be allowed to learn anything unless everyone else also learned it. So no one would be allowed to learn more than what the dumbest person learned.
No one would be allowed to be better at sports than anyone else. Imagine what that would be like. Boring.
In the areas of art, music, and literature, no one would be allowed to be better than anyone else. There would be no new great works in these fields.
In the areas of scientific invention, no one would be allowed to be more creative than anyone else. So there would be no new inventions.
In terms of money, it would mean that no one was allowed to earn more than what the least productive person was able to earn. This isn't a guarantee of minimum income. Instead, it's a gurantee of maximum income. It's a guarantee of poverty for everyone.
Hmmm. This type of society sounds a lot like Cuba. No one is allowed to excel at anything. No one is allowed to be better than anyone else at anything. No one is allowed to have any more money than anyone else.
Actually, even Cuba has a couple exceptions to this: baseball players and cigars. These are the two things that Cuba produces in superior quality. These are the two areas where Cuba avoids the lowest common denominator.
A society where everyone was equal to everyone else would be bland, boring, and dull. It would be hell on earth.
And the only way that you could create such a society would be through the existence of totalitarian government on a massive scale.
Having everyone be equal to everyone else doesn't improve conditions or quality of life for anyone. On the contrary, it guarantees that everyone will live equal to the lowest common denominator. I can't think of many worse ways to force people to live.
I want something different.
I want a society where each person tries to be the best person that he can be.
I want a society where each person is free to use his talents and skills to the maximum of his abilities.
I want a society where each person is free to be his own unique individual.
And if some people are better off than me, so what? I won't hold it against them. If some people are better than me at sports, or are better looking than me, or make more money than me, or are better than me at baking cookies, or can create a better painting that what I can make, or are faster runners than me, or have bigger muscles than I do, or can type faster than I can, so what? Why should it bother me? Why should I want that person to lower himself to my level?
I want everyone to be different from everyone else.
I want each person to try to be the best person that he can be.
I want each person to be free to use his skills and talents to the best of his abilities. I don't want to hold anyone back. I don't want to prevent anyone from achieving greatness.
Post a response to this discussion thread
Go to: Summer Catch | Message | Previous Response | Next Response
Post a response to this discussion thread