Vile equality and the despicable filth that dares propagate it.

[fartyface]

While I am happy to report that many people realise the fact that equal distribution of wealth, rights, and authority is a bad idea, there still seems to be a disgraceful portion of the human population who preach these suicidal ideals. They are like weeds in the glorious cabbage-patch garden of humanity, sprouting up from the ground like disgusting beanstalks of pure stupidity, spewing forth a multitude of vile seeds that infect young vegetables who are yet to rise into the political wilderness, causing them to think that notions of equality are desirable, or even sustainable.

Undeniably, the bringing about of genius from ignorance is a glorious endeavour, and it is one I intend to embark upon in this thread. To do this, I will begin by explain what makes man the most beautiful creature on this planet, and then I will end by showing how a desirable level of equality is derived from glorious inequality. If you disagree with me, it goes without saying that you're a complete idiot and don't deserve my guidance, but I will deign to brutally slaughter and violently rape your misguided doubts. Verily, if I were an impatient man I would call for the ignorant to be rounded up and shot, then thrown into the wild to be devoured like a harpy's afterbirth; but I have decided to perform a kinder service.

An oft-asked question is, "what makes man better than beast," and it is a valid question (if you're a moron). While the answer is obvious, I will give it to you, and it will be in the form of a hierarchy. It has been said many thousands of years ago that at the bottom of the ladder we have fire and water, which burns and trickles, showing energy - yet no life. Then we have vegetation, which certainly lives and has energy, but no intellect to speak of. Next come beasts, who exhibit a limited intelligence and sometimes even a basic form of social order, as well as the previous attributes. Lastly comes Man, who has all these attributes, and has a final ability not shown in any of the other creatures. He has the power of order and education to a degree never exhibited in any other creature - the power of progress. This is why we are superior, and it is foolish to deny it, unless you are so backward as to value the crude social chaos of beasts over the refined state of mankind. No other creature exhibits the genius of man, who alone has the power to sustain worldly order, and this gives him the right to subjugate and eat those wicked and chaotic creatures beneath him (hippies are part of this group), especially if it should help perpetuate human society. It is our capacity for order and our intellectual superiority that places us head and shoulders over the competition. It is our most precious treasure.

Now that we have established that order and education is the foundation of our excellence, I shall show now the words of the sage Xunzi, who clearly states as to why equality strips away the attribute of order:

When all ranks are equal, there will not be enough goods to go around for all of humanity. When power is equally distributed, there will be a lack of unity. Where there is equality among the masses, it will be impossible for anyone to be employed.

Mencius has said that it is not the duty of equals to govern one another, nay, it is impossible, and that equals shall not punish one another. I will merely supplement by pointing out the obvious - if all are of equal rank, then we shall suffer until Churchill's words ring true, that we shall have an "equal share of misery". If all the masses are equal, then no one can employ another and boss him around, and progress shall be slain, never to rise again until the barbed yoke of equality has been cast aside. If all power is equally distributed, then law may never be enforced, as an equal cannot punish one who has the same power as him, and order shall dissolve until the strangle-hold of equality-driven oppression is destroyed, or unity disappears and we walk upon all fours like damned demon-folk.

This is why we must appreciate inequality. Ranks give us order, with love and nurture flowing down through the hierarchy. For order to be sustained, authority must be unevenly distributed, so as to crush quarrelling and chaos. This is the basis on which society is maintained, and it has been true in every lasting, stable society. With this order, the authorities at the top of the hierarchy have the capacity to assure certain rights to those beneath them, and thus a respectable society is sustained and chaos is avoided. True equality is wholly undesirable, and unsustainable, because it manifests itself as chaos and disorder. This is why the Marquis of Lue said "equality is based upon inequality".

[RASPUTIN]

Fuck you ramble on a lot. You must be such a joy at dinner parties :). Anyway I totally agree with what you say. If everyone had equal intelligence and thought the same you may be able to have equality in everything but since we are all different.. the world is like it is.

[kyuss]

Well, yes and no.

Your post is valid, however equality would have existed before the ego which therefor created capatilism, and no doubt before this downfall some kind of utopia would have been the order.
Once the ego was created the 'communities' land become 'my' land and fences where drawn to mark boundaries, and the comminities children become 'my' children, then families where created.
Hence some families produced more goods of their land than others therefor a capatilist hierarchy was formed.
The downfall of this utopia into the capatilist ego dominated society was caused by alcohol, which was discovered when eating the foods which had been preserved underground by the use of honey.
However if equality was to be the agenda of our society (HUH, like thats gunna happen), i think the ego would be much to hard to leave behind for pretty much everyone, resulting in society entering some kind of state of chaos.

When all ranks are equal, there will not be enough goods to go around for all of humanity. When power is equally distributed, there will be a lack of unity. Where there is equality among the masses, it will be impossible for anyone to be employed.

This statement is frighteningly true, simply because of the world inequality has created. In an equal society there is no use of money hence no use for a job, your work is gathering food for the community, and no, not from your local supermarket.

[dozer]

if only our intelligence defined our socail standing or 'place' in the hierachy. nepotsim is clearly the defining factor. if it were ego you would certainly be a king.

[kyuss]

Originally posted by dozer
if only our intelligence defined our socail standing or 'place' in the hierachy. nepotsim is clearly the defining factor. if it were ego you would certainly be a king.

Nepotism obviously took it's hold after the ego and capatilsm was created, resulting in wealth spreading through family and occasionally, friends.

edit: misunderstanding corrected

[dozer]

it was grumblefart's ego i was talking about

[RASPUTIN]

I am trying to find one instance in any form of sub/intelligent life where there is equality. All mammals have a leader. In saying there once existed equality before the ego... is a bit hard for me to comprehend. I suggest you are talking about primative man which followed the apes which is where we are supposed to have come from. If we are to suppose that they in turn followed the laws of nature there would always have been a leader.

[Scythe]

Originally posted by fartyface
It has been said many thousands of years ago that at the bottom of the ladder we have fire and water, which burns and trickles, showing energy - yet no life. Then we have vegetation, which certainly lives and has energy, but no intellect to speak of. Next come beasts, who exhibit a limited intelligence and sometimes even a basic form of social order, as well as the previous attributes. Lastly comes Man, who has all these attributes, and has a final ability not shown in any of the other creatures. He has the power of order and education to a degree never exhibited in any other creature - the power of progress. This is why we are superior, and it is foolish to deny it, unless you are so backward as to value the crude social chaos of beasts over the refined state of mankind.



I'm leaving asside the rest of the argument about equality, some of which I agree with, and some I don't, but I had to say something about this.

First off, while I personally think that the value of something, especially of a living thing, is directly proportional to its complexity, that's only something I believe, rather than something I can prove.

The belief that humans are more valuable than other animals and plants, or for that matter, rocks and water, is something that lacks any sort of independant justification. To prove it, you would have to draw upon some form of authority that has more backing than human belief or opinion, because otherwise there is no way of saying one opinion is any more valid than any other. It's quite possible to show that some things are more complex, evolved, etc, than some other things, but the flaw is when people leap from that conclusion to the belief that this makes them somehow "better" without giving any reason for this assumption.

I don't value social chaos over order, it's just that i've never seen anyone give any sort of reasoned, rational explanation as to why one is any better than the other in the larger scheme of things.

[requiem]

They are neo-communist or socialist revisionists born out of wedlock in some hippie communes. None of them lived in one of those so-called "socialist paradises" which were utterly corrupt.
I did. It was shit.

As to the meaning of existence - dream on. We need Earth, Earth doesn't need us.

[brotherkrusty]

I did not realise I had stumbled across the intellectual wank forum.

I like some before me both agree and disagree.

Equality is a having the same quantity of some thing, Rights, length, intellegence and so forth. But to determine equality you must be using the same method of measurement for both quantities of what you are measuring. Therefore the rant about what makes man better than beast is irrelevant because the entities listed could not be compared to each other in a manner to determine equality. Paragraph discarded.

The last two paragraphs is where i choose to agree and disagree.

I agree that inequality is an inevitability due to ego. It is human nature to climb over others to get to the top and no philosophy or teaching will curb that primal instinct.

I disagree with the extremes you betray as the only other logical option. Just because equality isn't the answer does not mean that extreme inequality is. I realise that at no stage these exact words were posted but one can read between the lines.

The question should not be should we have equality but how much inequality is tolerable? Just because a stronger person manages to climb higher than another does not mean that the weaker should experience the pain of extreme poverty. I believe it is possible to feed the world yet maintain enough inequality to keep a productive capitalist society. In fact the inequality could fuel this exact point.

If the extreme rich out did each other trying to donate more that the last guy then would go a long way to fixing world hunger. Ego would dictate that the rich would not give all their money away but what they could afford to loose. If Kerry Packer can afford to loose a few hundred thousand on the poker table he could afford to donate it if it would better his tax breaks.

I have said my piece and counted to three!

[fartyface]

Originally posted by dozer
if only our intelligence defined our socail standing or 'place' in the hierachy. nepotsim is clearly the defining factor. if it were ego you would certainly be a king.

I would make an awesome king. You could be my favourite seneschal, and we could go hunting together. I would always catch bigger animals than you, however, and all my loyal ministers would remark on how much better they taste compared to yours.

[durus]

Got halfway through that first post and got bored and jumped ahead. ADD anyone?
Regardless just to address something that a lot of people have mentioned in this.
Most groups have a leader. The reason is that in a society of different people you need someone to make quick decisions while the rest of the group makes up it's mind. This is important for group survival. Later on the group can make up it's mind on how it feels. But this is after the critical issue of survival has been addressed.
A leader is not necessarily better than any other member of the group in an absolute sense. For example a leader without hunters of gatherers could still starve.

So there's equality in inequality.

ALL HAIL PIRATE (who isn't better than me or you, he's just our leader pirate).

[tikdoph]

Would have made more sense if you'd explained yourself clearly. This whole "Why use one word when ten will do?" thing wears thin after a while.