Equality is king

[Peron]

Capitalism:

 

"Imagine.

 

Can you imagine what would be the result of a society where the initiation of force is banned from all relationships?

 

It would not make every man moral, nor would it prevent every injustice. But, think what it could do?

 

It would result in: a society of good will and benevolence, where each man sees his neighbor not as part of a gang ready to rob him, but as a potential trader, from which he can gain immense values.

 

A society where each man is prepared to judge and be judged -- not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character.

 

A society where each man can worship his own god, in his own way -- even if that god is the greatest of all gods: "I".

 

A society of free-thinking and free- acting individuals, and not a society of one muddy collective, ruled by a despot who has monopolized the title of the "voice of the people."

 

A society where each man is free to pursue his own happiness, wherever it may take him."

 

The problems with capitalism is here:

 

Value is nothing. Because humans don't want money or diamonds, they want food, water and shelter.

Commodity is nothing in mans eyes, its just blinding humans form what they can achieve.

 

Everyone has a opinion. But why judge, judging leads to violence and anger. Human character is built on rules

if someone steps out of line he is judged to the point where he cannot take the pressure.

Kindness is what is needed in society, not ones free thinking self. Because man has the capacity to change how he or she behaves.

 

Man worships god. This leads to a idea that some how you are gods chosen people. You see yourself as Superior.

 

A society that can think anything and do anything, will pervert reality and make people drift apart.

 

Capitalists see themselves as individuals and heroes. They believe in one man and themselves.

 

But this goes against everything science has found over the years, humans are not freethinking, we are slaves to our emotions and nature.

 

Humans are social creatures. Humans are evolving. Humans don't need money for survival.

 

Equality is the key to a society. Humans have traits, and instincts. Humans are all part of nature, they live depending on nature as nature depends on them. We must accept this and move on. We cannot toss natural law aside and invent new rules that contradict reality.

Socialism and capitalism will not work because it goes against how the human mind works.

All humans don't think alike, and all humans don't want money.\

 

In other words we need everything to be equal.

[john5746]

In other words we need everything to be equal.

 

Not my experience. I think most people want to be above average. If they achieve a certain level, then they may provide some help to those below average.

[Peron]

Not my experience. I think most people want to be above average. If they achieve a certain level, then they may provide some help to those below average.

 

There should be no below average. Everyone should be equal.

[insane_alien]

you are arguing two contradictory things you cannot have everybody being equal and have them as individuals.

 

i forsee your idea failing

[Sisyphus]

There should be no below average. Everyone should be equal.

 

You should move to Lake Woebegone

[ParanoiA]

There should be no below average. Everyone should be equal.

 

But everyone is not equal. And you can't support any notion that they are.

 

Instead, we invest this notion in laws, so that everyone is equal in the eyes of the state, legally. This allows society to negotiate equality in any method they choose, if they are truly free. Capitalism is free trade between free people and attempts to allocate resources by merit, as opposed to a judgement by the state. To allow the state to "judge" and allocate resources, is a direct conflict to equality.

 

Individuality is more important, and even more important than that, is diversity of individuality. The more diverse we are individually, the more ideas are contributed to the whole, the more innovative and successful society can be.

 

Of course, this embraces the idea we are not equal. It accepts this reality and uses it to make us better. We can become equal. But not if you lie to yourself and pretend we already are.

[Mokele]

To allow the state to "judge" and allocate resources, is a direct conflict to equality.

 

Except, in a democratic society, the 'state' is really 'us'. When 'the state decides' something, what's *actually* happening is that, according to the rules, the people agreed on a course of action. We pay taxes and use those to fund various projects by collective agreement - it's no more a conflict of equality than a group of people deciding where to go to dinner.

[padren]

As much as I dislike the generalizations in your post, you may personally find this site rather interesting:

 

http://www.thevenusproject.com/

 

As to your post, I have to at last pick some things apart in it:

 

1) We cannot all be equal as we cannot agree on what would be equal - different things are valued differently to different people. People don't all want to avoid suffering, many are more than willing to suffer for their passions. Food and shelter are good enough for livestock, but their guarantee is never worth the things you are passionate about.

 

2) Your litany against capitalism is not against capitalism at all - but the reflection of human weakness through the filter of capitalism. The same weaknesses are visible through any filter of any human created social structure. Greed, corruption, ego, derision... they all crop up no matter the model, and changing the model does not change humanity's nature - only humanity can change that over time. We can be as good as capitalists as we can be under any other form and I'd even argue we are more free to be that as capitalists.

 

3) No one has the right to "annex" my only years on this planet to some great morally self righteous cause of their own great social experiment, and I'll resist any such endeavor and work to actively undermine it. At least in a capitalist society we have less restrictions, so the "good" we do is honest and not just "moving" the human failings to an area out of sight to rot the society away from the inside out.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Except, in a democratic society, the 'state' is really 'us'. When 'the state decides' something, what's *actually* happening is that, according to the rules, the people agreed on a course of action. We pay taxes and use those to fund various projects by collective agreement - it's no more a conflict of equality than a group of people deciding where to go to dinner.

 

It's a little more sticky than that when the majority says "lets go to that fancy restaurant" and overrules you, and then voting to have you pick up most of the tab, where the only way to skip going out to dinner at all with them is to move out of the country.

[Mokele]

It's a little more sticky than that when the majority says "lets go to that fancy restaurant" and overrules you, and then voting to have you pick up most of the tab, where the only way to skip going out to dinner at all with them is to move out of the country.

 

True, but in fairness, our system has a lot more checks and balances than the analogy.

[padren]

I probably shouldn't have picked this apart but I couldn't help myself:

 

The problems with capitalism is here:

 

Value is nothing. Because humans don't want money or diamonds, they want food, water and shelter.

Commodity is nothing in mans eyes, its just blinding humans form what they can achieve.

According to whom? I've chosen to live without shelter and very little food for long stretches for the things I am passionate about because they mean more to me than shelter and food. I see no evidence to support that it is blinding humans to what they can achieve.

Everyone has a opinion. But why judge, judging leads to violence and anger. Human character is built on rules

if someone steps out of line he is judged to the point where he cannot take the pressure.

Kindness is what is needed in society, not ones free thinking self. Because man has the capacity to change how he or she behaves.

Kindness comes from "ones free thinking self" so you can't really have one without the other. Again, people will be kind/not kind based on their nature, and society will always reflect that.

Man worships god. This leads to a idea that some how you are gods chosen people. You see yourself as Superior.

God is an excuse for those who would find a way to see themselves as Superior regardless. God is also an excuse to be compassionate - it depends on the person, not the faith or lack thereof.

A society that can think anything and do anything, will pervert reality and make people drift apart.

Where are you getting this? That's like saying "Free will" is bad. What kind of society is immune to potential "perversions of reality" and how could it be free of corruption?

 

Capitalists see themselves as individuals and heroes. They believe in one man and themselves.

Some people, not all people and not all capitalists. Far too much of a generalization.

But this goes against everything science has found over the years, humans are not freethinking, we are slaves to our emotions and nature.

If we are capable of even asking if we are slaves to our emotions and nature then we are not.

Humans are social creatures. Humans are evolving. Humans don't need money for survival.

Survival is a mediocre goal, and you have no basis for that contention. We may in fact need the invention of money to manage a global trade system of this size with population levels growing on a planet facing climate change and other factors.

Equality is the key to a society. Humans have traits, and instincts. Humans are all part of nature, they live depending on nature as nature depends on them. We must accept this and move on. We cannot toss natural law aside and invent new rules that contradict reality.

Nature is a violent nightmare of perpetual pain fear and terror. Society and all rules we invent are a side effect of the fact we are social animals. We do need to make an effort to see our impacts on the natural world accurately, but I don't see how this tangent applies to the format of society in general.

 

Socialism and capitalism will not work because it goes against how the human mind works.

They are creations of humanity, and thus reflect all the weaknesses of humanity, as all our creations do.

All humans don't think alike, and all humans don't want money.

 

In other words we need everything to be equal.

 

I want money. I find it a very usual tool to exchange for goods and services. As "equal" is a subjective term, the most equal society we can have that I know of is a socially libertarian semi-regulated free market society.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

True, but in fairness, our system has a lot more checks and balances than the analogy.

 

Very true, I just mean that is usually at least one source of political contention, which result in heated debate and the employ of our checks and balances. It's sort of what many republicans are calling the Obama plan right now (taxes + spending) even though I don't agree with them.

[ParanoiA]

Except, in a democratic society, the 'state' is really 'us'. When 'the state decides' something, what's *actually* happening is that, according to the rules, the people agreed on a course of action. We pay taxes and use those to fund various projects by collective agreement - it's no more a conflict of equality than a group of people deciding where to go to dinner.

 

Well, careful though, because in a democratic society the 'state' is not merely 'us', it's 'us, operating in the capacity of law'.

 

I say it that way, because it's important to distinguish personal opinion from legislative opinion - a distinction that I believe most americans are not making. And I blame this lack of appreciation for the distinction for eroding our civil liberties.

 

I personally do not have any use for cigarettes. My preference = no. But my democratic position = yes. Because I do not believe you'll respect my right to do silly things that you aren't in to, if I don't respect your right to do silly things that I'm not into.

 

Put in the context of the OP, the state, or "the people operating in a governing capacity; the power of law" should not make value judgements about the public. If we are to truly legislate equality, then the "state" cannot make subjective value judgements about behavior at all, but rather objective conclusions based on where one citizen's rights end and another's begins.

 

Of course, we're kidding ourselves if we were to believe we could be purely objective, even the nature of rights as I've expressed it is a subjective conclusion, in and of itself. But, if that's our mission statement, then we will be as equal as any society could possibly be in the eyes of the law. And bigotry will never enjoy the power of law.

[waitforufo]

In other words we need everything to be equal.

 

I agree as long as I am more equal than others.

[Mr Skeptic]

Equality is good, as is individuality. Getting to equality is difficult, especially when trying to preserve individuality. Is it equal that some are born with different genes (including diseases)? Is it equal that some have richer parents? Is it equal that some people become richer than others? Is it equal that those with lots of money can make more money more easily? Is it equal to tax the rich more? Is it equal for the law to treat everyone the same despite them being different?

 

It is a difficult balancing act to maximize both equality and individuality, and sometimes you have to choose one at the cost of the other.

[Peron]

Well, I believe thecnology and science can fix everything. A few hundred years ago, if you wanted to eat you had to gather the food, gather the fire wood, etc. etc. A few hundred years ago humans had to work for there survival. Now to make food you flick a switch. To heta your house another switch. Eventually thecnology will be so good, that there will be no need for money. Everything will be free. Yes I am talking about utopia.

[abskebabs]

This is a bit of a late reply, though I think the creator of this thread would do well to familiarise their self with Ricardo's law of association. It reveals how inequality is not the greatest evil on god's green earth, but actually still produces a situation with incentives on human cooperation, leading to the formation of society, and dare I say it; the free market!

 

A good rendition of it is given here:

http://mises.org/humanaction/chap8sec4.asp

 

If we were all equal in every way, there would be no incentive for us to trade or cooperate with each other. Aside of the rare feelings of "love", it is my view that this would not be a sufficient basis for any meaningful form of society. Needless to say, one does not need much empirical investigation to realise this is evidently not the world we inhabit:-)