No One Actually Wants an Equal Society

[Anomalocaris]

Considering it is a valid criticism that represents scoobys postings fairly to mock it, your response is puzzling. It's as if you cannot grasp ridicule for what it is and instead resort to reacting mindlessly.

Sad.

No. I prefer letting people speak for themselves rather than allowing third parties to set up caricatures.

See, I like dealing with people as people, not stereotypes, cliches, or strawmen. Your mileage seems to vary.

But only if they are people, not puppets animated by a ghostly Jesus.

[Thumpalumpacus]

No. I prefer letting people speak for themselves rather than allowing third parties to set up caricatures.

See, I like dealing with people as people, not stereotypes, cliches, or strawmen. Your mileage seems to vary.

But only if they are people, not puppets animated by a ghostly Jesus.

If it please the court, I rest my case.

[Anomalocaris]

But only if they are people, not puppets animated by a ghostly Jesus.

If it please the court, I rest my case.

You are no fun anymore.

[Thumpalumpacus]

If it please the court, I rest my case.

You are no fun anymore.

Maybe you should stick to Tiddlywinks?

[InquiringMind]

I have two more thoughts on this.  

If we could create a society that had full equal opportunity for everyone in every way, do you think people would finally stop complaining that they were being treated unfairly?  Would people finally attribute their failures to their own shortcomings instead of to a system that is rigged against them?  Would financially unsuccessful people concede that maybe they weren't as talented and hardworking and lucky as those who were successful? Would students who got poor grades in a class finally stop complaining that the tests were unfair?  Would the losers of sports games finally stop complaining about "bad calls" by the referees?  

I think not.  I think that it's natural for people to blame things outside themselves for their failures.  It's much easier to blame a personal defeat on a rigged system or an unfair game than to take an honest look at one's own objective performance, talent, and contribution.  Even when the system is fully fair - as in athletic competition or games of chance like gambling - losers will still tend to believe that they are being treated unfairly.  

And another thought.  In a society of equality of result, like a Marxist society, there would still be gradations in status.  A university professor will enjoy more status that a janitor, even if they are paid the same salary.  Even in a society of equal financial distribution, status is still distributed unequally.

[Regina]

The distinction is that equality of opportunity is different from equality of outcome

I absolutely support equality of opportunity. I think there needs to be more emphasis on improving education for people, teaching younger people to develop their employability skills, to find work and to become more rounded independent individuals. I think that's been lacking in education in recent decades, which is why you now have a generation of lost young individuals, who want the thrill of independence but haven't been taught how to actually be self-sufficient and employable. There needs to be an increase in social mobility, basically. I also (naturally) support higher taxation for wealthier people to alleviate taxation from poorer people, as well as a decent livable minimum wage.

Equality of outcome is not realistic though in any society. You can't expect everyone to just be paid the same for whatever work they do. If that was the case, nobody would ever work hard for anything and you'd completely lose all sense of competition. It's competitiveness and work ethic that drives economic growth.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think not.  I think that it's natural for people to blame things outside themselves for their failures.  It's much easier to blame a personal defeat on a rigged system or an unfair game than to take an honest look at one's own objective performance, talent, and contribution.  Even when the system is fully fair - as in athletic competition or games of chance like gambling - losers will still tend to believe that they are being treated unfairly.  

Well, people do like to bitch and moan.  However, it's just as easy to imagine that people are bitching and moaning rather than expressing a legitimate concern.  They could be doing both...and at least in context, very often are.  The person bitching could be a talentless hack with no work ethic..but it still doesn't help that the game is rigged either against him, or in someone else's favor, nor would his bitching alter the fact that it was.  There are plenty of harder working and more talented people than myself who are richer than myself, but even more are poorer.  Go figure.  If it all went away and we woke up in utopia I;m willing to bet that people would still bitch...but a least then their bitching would be unfounded, lol.  

And another thought.  In a society of equality of result, like a Marxist society, there would still be gradations in status.  A university professor will enjoy more status that a janitor, even if they are paid the same salary.  Even in a society of equal financial distribution, status is still distributed unequally.

Status isn't a fixed number.  Some societies are inculcated with different notions of a professions relative status.  Doctors, for example...were once the lowest form of life on the social status rung.  I think that a society which either affords equal "status" or simply does not adhere to notions of "status" is probably more within our reach than a financially equal society.  At least the metrics of the former are wholly set by ourselves and variable.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Of course people will still blame others. It's What We Do ®.

[InquiringMind]

Well, people do like to bitch and moan.  However, it's just as easy to imagine that people are bitching and moaning rather than expressing a legitimate concern.  They could be doing both...and at least in context, very often are.  The person bitching could be a talentless hack with no work ethic..but it still doesn't help that the game is rigged either against him, or in someone else's favor, nor would his bitching alter the fact that it was.  There are plenty of harder working and more talented people than myself who are richer than myself, but even more are poorer.  Go figure.  If it all went away and we woke up in utopia I;m willing to bet that people would still bitch...but a least then their bitching would be unfounded, lol.  

Status isn't a fixed number.  Some societies are inculcated with different notions of a professions relative status.  Doctors, for example...were once the lowest form of life on the social status rung.  I think that a society which either affords equal "status" or simply does not adhere to notions of "status" is probably more within our reach than a financially equal society.  At least the metrics of the former are wholly set by ourselves and variable.

And my point is that even if there really is equality of opportunity, the losers will often complain that there was not equality of opportunity, while the winners will feel that there was equality of opportunity.  The one metric where large inequality of opportunity does exist is wealth - having rich parents gives one a huge advantage.  But whatever inequalities of opportunity do exist because of race, gender, sexual orientation etc. are much smaller than the differences in talent, intelligence, hard work, and luck between individuals.  I assert that a person's success in our society's competition for money and status is much more dependent on that individual's talent, intelligence, hard work, and luck than on their race or gender.  

But beyond that, even if we consider talent and intelligence, equality of opportunity is impossible.  Some people, because of genetics, are still going to naturally be more talented and intelligent than others.  And if we created a society that really did have complete equality of opportunity based on race, gender etc., then the people who were less genetically well-off and who were less talented and intelligent because of genetic factors could still legitimately complain that society unfairly favored individuals who had better genes.   

And yes, status judgments are indeed relative and subjective.  I can't think of a way to measure an individual's status in a way that we can all agree on.  And the symbols of status do change over time. But status is still very real in that people respond to it.

[The Grand Nudger]

And my point is that even if there really is equality of opportunity, the losers will often complain that there was not equality of opportunity, while the winners will feel that there was equality of opportunity.

Right, so your point is that people bitch and moan and don't always agree..especially where their own achievements and abilities are concerned.  Agreed, and?  

The one metric where large inequality of opportunity does exist is wealth - having rich parents gives one a huge advantage.  But whatever inequalities of opportunity do exist because of race, gender, sexual orientation etc. are much smaller than the differences in talent, intelligence, hard work, and luck between individuals.  I assert that a person's success in our society's competition for money and status is much more dependent on that individual's talent, intelligence, hard work, and luck than on their race or gender.  

You can assert that, if you like.....but people will bitch regardless of it's truth....so, in what way does one inform the other?  

But beyond that, even if we consider talent and intelligence, equality of opportunity is impossible.  Some people, because of genetics, are still going to naturally be more talented and intelligent than others.  And if we created a society that really did have complete equality of opportunity based on race, gender etc., then the people who were less genetically well-off and who were less talented and intelligent because of genetic factors could still legitimately complain that society unfairly favored individuals who had better genes.  

Society -does- favor people with better genes, even if their idea of what constitutes or demonstrates better genes is mistaken, lol.  For some people, the white genes are better..for example..lol.

And yes, status judgments are indeed relative and subjective.  I can't think of a way to measure an individual's status in a way that we can all agree on.  And the symbols of status do change over time. But status is still very real in that people respond to it.

Sure, very real, people respond to it...and entirely variable and subject to change.   Even if we couldn't create a society in which..for example....a man born with no legs could place first in a sprint or a black person could overcome their inferior genetics as seen by a racist interviewer...we could create a society that values a principle of equality not tied to their individual talents or abilities.  A bare minimum ideology of human equality.  OFC..we can..currently, create a society where "inferior genetics" can be overcome....and maybe one day someone will figure out how to grow some legs..and then we'll be able to create both.  

What do you think....should your inferior genetics or lack of some specific ability y that I posess be referred to as the reason that you are not my equal, and thus do not enjoy the status that I enjoy? How about you...do -you- wish that we lived in an equal society? Maybe we don't...but do you want to? Maybe you can't make society equal the way you want to...does that mean you don't want it?