Equality vs. Inequality

[Democles]

This essay is posted as a continuation of the forum discussion Were All Men Really Created Equal.

 

There are a few concepts of political philosophy that have affected mankind’s development since pre-historic times, but have remained unresolved to this day and are contributing to the present slide of America.

For example one important concept is as follows: Are all men equal? If yes, then in what way? Men do not seem so in terms of their performances, their capabilities, productive outputs, intelligence, hard-work, ambition etc. All religions say they are equal because all are God’s children. But that in itself is one instance of religion’s cheating, because simultaneously, based on their inequality, all religions have a standard structure of social division, which corresponds to Plato’s social pyramid and division of men into Men of Gold, Men of Silver and Men of Bronze. (Surprisingly, in the long history of the rule of religion, not many people have pointed out this simple contradiction about equality and gradation.) Christians had this division as Clergy, Nobility and ordinary citizens. Similar division in India is four-layered, Brahmins (priests), Kshatriyas (Noble-men, men of sword), Vaishya (traders) and Shudras (lowest workers, slaves). Muslims have Ulema (scholars) as their men of gold to rule Islamic societies. Communism’s cheating also starts with the tenet of equality of men (as rebellion against inequality perpetuated by religion and capitalism), but they finally ended in the classes of rulers and slaves. Calling lowest strata as God’s children, talk about emancipation of proletariat etc is a means of grabbing power, after which equality turns into political inequality and God’s children are crushed under the boot. (The issue of equality and inequality of men, capitalism versus socialism, returns to men out of their efforts, etc is so ancient that it is referred to in Homer, centuries prior to classical Greek civilization. Achilles is an example when he decried: “I do the maximum work, but the booty is shared equally”. Also, do not think I am referring to some ancient issues of by-gone ages like Greek, Roman and Dark Ages. As shown herein the Dem-libs’ love for the poor (expressed by raining productive peoples’ money on them while taking commission) supported by their evil interpretation of men’s equality is a major contributor to America’s slide today. The solid, strong, united Doles Vote Block they have created for themselves, is by showering doles on lowest strata of society, and now they are increasing the immigrants which is their final blow to destroy America!)

If men were unequally graded (in a pyramid) then how was the society to be ruled? Universally the answer turned out to be the one described at length by Plato in The Republic, viz. that ordinary men were to submit themselves (i.e. their ego) to the Men of Gold, who would look after everybody’s welfare.                         

No matter how much Plato talked of an ideal society in The Republic, no matter how many volumes religion wrote about salvation of souls, welfare of all, and establishing a society of brotherhood and love – they all ended in Dark Ages, a real heartless, cruel rule with a very few rulers using remaining society as lower than cattle. While rebelling against this inequality of religion, the communists also ended with the same structure, inequality and injustices – continuous flow of society’s blood was needed to satisfy the ruling monsters. Plato’s men of Gold and all their counterparts in every other society turned out to be far worse than beasts of prey. It took several centuries or thousands of years for mankind to draw the inference that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Anybody who gets power over others mostly misuses it for corruption and vested interests and to turn others into his slaves. (For those who have not understood: this is what the priests all over earth did to mankind – and Christianity will again do to Americans if they allow GOP to get away with their cowardice and inability to answer Dems’ communist onslaught.)  One notable exception in human history was George Washington described ahead.

One reason why all religious systems ended similarly with the rulers crushing the ruled under their boots is that all men are only politically equal, otherwise they are unequal, have different capabilities. Because of the deception of imposing equality on them by calling them as God’s children, and considering ego to be the root of all evil (i.e. allowing rulers to use ego but not the ruled, which means curbing the freedom of thought of the ruled), men’s differences manifested in the forms of physical power of kings and intellectual deception of priests.

The Greeks also came up with the idea that all men were equal, but implemented it differently from rest of the world by means of the Greek Democracy based on majority opinion – all citizens had the same right to govern society as the Men of Gold. Majority opinion is a big progress over the animal like capricious rule of the tribal chief or of Plato’s Men of Gold, but since it continued the same contradiction with reality (though in a milder form), that all men do not have as good thinking capacity as the best men, Greek civilization itself collapsed. (The major difference between the democratic rule versus Plato’s Men of Gold is epistemological – first one is based on the tenet that whatever the majority decides is right for society including the people better at thinking, the second one says whatever the elite decide is right even for all others. Even today this remains an unresolved issue that highly influences human societies.)

The Greek system was adopted and improved by neighboring Romans, who borrowed intellectuality and intellectuals from the Greeks, and who restored democracy into the hands of a small upper strata of society (the Patricians), but knowing that power corrupts and is almost always misused, they put in place several checks and balances so that the rulers could not become dictators like Plato’s Men of Gold. They called it a Republic as against Greek democracy. This civilization lived for long time (around 500 years) as the mightiest in a large area around. But at a later date two important points emerged which most of mankind have not studied: One, that no matter how much the Patricians were superior, yet they also depended on the Plebeians, and when the latter became restive as well as suspicious of the former, rights had to be spread to the lower strata of society. Second point was that as rights spread to the lower strata of society and they got more and more involved into ruling the society, the Republic got reduced to the same as Greek democracy – and then the rule was taken over by internal fighting, plutocracy and so on, till dictators emerged and society collapsed in the historic Dark Ages of Christianity. (See the relevance of these points to today’s America just ahead, viz. that starting from British aristocracy (i.e. Patricians), rights were ensured to the lowest strata (Plebeians) to the extent of ensuring emancipation of Af-Ams, and now it is the lowest stratum (the DVB) that is overturning FFs’ republic by means of its vote! Also note that the above point was discussed in Intro II as hi-fi calling ordinary Americans as Christian-nutters, Libertarian-hippies etc – that no matter how much the heroes may be great, Washington may be a great general etc, but they still need the ordinary people, have to correctly take them into account, which is what Washington did by means of behavior described ahead. Problem occurs from one side (dictatorship) if ordinary people are not given any importance and their thinking is not taken into account at all; but problem also occurs from other side (democracy) when, because of their large numbers, their thinking is allowed to overshadow that of the best men in society which is the position in America today! And part solution also consists of giving higher weightage to the upper strata of society, the Patricians or the aristocrats, albeit with checks and balances over misuse of power – and devising this without injustice to ordinary citizens will be a test of wisdom!)

After Dark Ages, rediscovery of Aristotle by Aquinas from the Muslims, and some reason (i.e. some human-ness, some civilized-ness) being pumped into society, all the above steps were repeated in America – abhorrence of concentration of power, a constitution of checks and balances (i.e. a Republic to control misuse of power), spreading rights to lower strata to the extent of emancipating the slaves, and so on. Thomas Jefferson’s statement “All men were created equal” was in reality continuity of the same drama, except for the strong Aristotelian atmosphere of the days, due to which it was interpreted and implemented in a totally different manner than all previous history. It became highly celebrated just because it was against British (and European) aristocracy, who were the enemies then. Their big progress over religion was that their rule was based on the sanctity of the human mind, i.e. they did not consider ego and selfishness to be evil – only flaw was that, as said earlier, they did not declare this explicitly, but went in a roundabout manner using words like pursuit of happiness, right to life (a substitute for rational selfishness), first amendment for freedom of mind (i.e. right to usage of ego) etc, i.e. they left scope for return of religion.

Continue reading the rest of the essay on the blog: Equality vs. Inequality.

[anthony]

"They left scope for return of religion". Right, except religiosity in a broad sense never really left, it just assumed a secular face.

To take your phrase, "God's children" - or: the State's children - no essential difference.

I'm wholly convinced of the 'taken for granted' proposal; men complacently forget what's most important for life and liberty, as if done once was enough and one has no need to continuously revive and maintain the early efforts. Or worse, tinker with and reject them for the superficial sake of novelty or for "our different age". (Even here I think is a touch of the neo-mystical, it is definitely anti-conceptual).

Thanks for your comprehensive background study.

[Democles]

Thanks for some good observations Tony – Religiosity will almost never leave mankind totally; it’s a sort of a curse which Dr. Peikoff called in The DIM H as “the ineradicable in the specie”! But the founders came out with a tremendous solution – All Men Were Politically Equal (i.e. unequal in terms of returns) except that they did not highlight the word politically the way Mr. Spencer has done on his blog. The phrase 'taken for granted' has to be qualified a bit; it should not be used to disrespect them because the fight between good and evil is a forever process that never ended with the founders – if it did then we would have been parasites living on their efforts / achievements.

 

Please see my next OP on Republic vs Democracy which will again show how much people take for granted. Michael Spencer has really very nicely brought out these issues in his blog, and merits wider reading amongst anyone who cares to preserve / protect America.

[BaalChatzaf]

It should be obvious that people -by nature-  are  not equal.  Some are smarter, some are more focused, some of more beautiful, some are stronger and so on and so on.  Humans  were never equal.  Each of us has a unique  genetic  code and each of us has a unique path we followed through the physical universe. To an extent  the relation -alike-  or -similar-  might be be established.  But never equality or sameness.  

[Brant Gaede]

13 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

It should be obvious that people -by nature-  are  not equal.  Some are smarter, some are more focused, some of more beautiful, some are stronger and so on and so on.  Humans  were never equal.  Each of us has a unique  genetic  code and each of us has a unique path we followed through the physical universe. To an extent  the relation -alike-  or -similar-  might be be established.  But never equality or sameness.  

"More," "more," "more" than who? A human being is a total package of many attributes. There is always someone "more" this or that. If you start comparing yourself to another piece by piece you're going to give yourself an inferiority complex. Do you want to regret not being a William Shockley? The man was something of a louse. He was also admittedly not a first-tier genius.

--Brant

(I have a picture of him paddling a canoe on Lake George circa late 1930s with his daughter and my sister up front)

[moralist]

Everyone is created equal in that they are each personally answerable to exactly the same objective moral law...

...and each person's different answer creates a different outcome.

It's not the hand you're dealt... it's how you play that hand which distinguishes a man from the males.

 

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

4 hours ago, moralist said:

Everyone is created equal in that they are each personally answerable to exactly the same objective moral law...

...and each person's different answer creates a different outcome.

It's not the hand you're dealt... it's how you play that hand which distinguishes a man from the males.

 

Greg

Equal means equal in ALL respects.  This is clearly not the case.  And we should rejoice. If we were all the same  the world would be a boring place.

[moralist]

7 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Equal means equal in ALL respects.  This is clearly not the case.

...then it obviously does NOT mean equal in ALL respects does it, Bob.

The only equality is that everyone is accountable to exactly the same moral law... and the only difference is how everyone responds to that law.

 

Greg

[Alexander Warner]

4 hours ago, moralist said:

...then it obviously does NOT mean equal in ALL respects does it, Bob.

The only equality is that everyone is accountable to exactly the same moral law... and the only difference is how everyone responds to that law.

 

Greg

You are right Greg -- every one should be accountable to the same moral law -- but as the OP says, the Dems have used a totally inverted meaning of equality, viz. all men are equal in terms of consuming the products of what they call as "society's wealth" which in reality is individual producers' wealth. That is the start of America's descent to today's state. With that idea they have created such a huge vote-block for themselves that they are almost unbeatable.

If we want to undo this deterioration we have to start with such basic ideas. else we are playing in the dark. That also is the reason why nobody has been able to stop America's slide so far.

[moralist]

5 hours ago, Alexander Warner said:

You are right Greg -- every one should be accountable to the same moral law -- but as the OP says, the Dems have used a totally inverted meaning of equality, viz. all men are equal in terms of consuming the products of what they call as "society's wealth" which in reality is individual producers' wealth. That is the start of America's descent to today's state. With that idea they have created such a huge vote-block for themselves that they are almost unbeatable.

If we want to undo this deterioration we have to start with such basic ideas. else we are playing in the dark. That also is the reason why nobody has been able to stop America's slide so far.

 

Alexander, I didn't use the term "should be" because in my view this moral accountability is exactly like the law of gravity, and that everyone is answerable to both has absolutely nothing to do with our choice. Our only choice is in our response to it.   Everyone is exposed to the results of their responses to both laws whether they like it or not. 

It's Paradise for those who love it... and a living hell for those who hate it.

And concerning the "Democrats inverted meaning of equality"... today we are all witness to the just and deserved consequences their violation of that moral law to which everyone is accountable.

America is in decline solely because there are no longer enough Americans living in America... so my advice is:

Save yourself.

This is why right now more than ever it's so important to uphold that moral law in our own lives so as to set into motion a different set of just and deserved consequences for ourselves which will PROTECT us from becoming collateral damage from the consequences of those who violated moral law, when their chickens come home to roost.

 

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Don't tell Greg "You're right." You can't have any fun with him by telling him that.

--Brant

[moralist]

3 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Don't tell Greg "You're right." You can't have any fun with him by telling him that.

--Brant

It's a matter of "what's right"... not "who's right", Brant.

I'm only subjectively agreeing with what's objectively right. It's impossible for me to be what's objectively right, because I'm a totally subjective being.

 

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

3 minutes ago, moralist said:

It's a matter of "what's right"... not "who's right", Brant.

I'm only subjectively agreeing with what's objectively right. It's impossible for me to be what's objectively right, because I'm a totally subjective being.

Greg

Yeah. I noticed.

--Brant

wish I knew that "totally subjective being" trick

[moralist]

7 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Yeah. I noticed.

--Brant

wish I knew that "totally subjective being" trick

It's not a trick, Brant. If anything, you've tricked yourself if you believe you're not. In my view, everyone is subjective whether they like it or not. There is no choice involved in the matter as I see it. Everyone is absolutely equal in this regard. However, each of us is not equal in our widely varied responses to the truth of this objective reality.

So this defines the place where our two views differ. Your view is that you can be objective reality... and my view is that I can only either subjectively agree or subjectively disagree with objective reality.

These two antithetical views are utterly irreconcilable.

 

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Everything physical about you and me is objective fact.

[moralist]

38 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Everything physical about you and me is objective fact.

...but we each subjectively respond to that objective fact in different ways. 

 

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

All it means is we are not "totally subjective beings"--assuming I agree with your statement here.

--Brant