January 17, 2009
-
Equality
Something quick since I don’t have time to write a full entry today.
There’s this really bad argument I’ve heard a lot in my life and weirdly more often now than in the past. It goes like this: “Programs that promote equality are sutpid because there is NO SUCH THING AS EQUALITY. People are naturally different… blah blah blah… something about genetics…. blah blah blah… maximizing society by developing skills and talents… etc. etc.”
The argument is usually leveled at things like Welfare programs, affirmative action, medicaid, aide to foreign countries, or anything that actually helps someone in this sad messed up world we have.
It’s so STUPID.
There’s such an insane disconnect here. They are using equality as in being identical to state a tautology and then using that as “proof” that programs that use the term equality in an entirely different sense are wrong. OF COURSE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS EQUALITY. Nobody in their right minds promotes Equality. If you mean by that sameness, identicality, 1=1, equality, you’d have to be brain dead or flat out evil to promote it. Indeed I find it hard to imagine what kind of a system WOULD promote equality? I think it would entail like giving mandatory labotomies to the top 49% of the population intelligence-wise and execution of hte bottom 49%. And who knows what for physical capacities.
But welfare systems and all the rest were never ever meant to be vehicles to promote equality in the sense of sameness. They promote what pretty much everyone who isn’t a self-serving sonofabitch or completel deluded moron understands that people mean when they say they are fighting for “equality:. Fairness. Fairness is not about exactly identical circumstances or exactly identical anything. It’s about giving everyone the same rules. As long as those rules are fairly applied and all are aware of them, it’s perfectly fair for a person to not fall under the jurisdiction of a certain rule. That doesn’t make something unfair.
Think about it this way, if in playing a Chess tournament or any other game, we give everyone who loses a certain amount against higher ranked players a handicap, that’s not done to make them “equals” of you, that’s just done to make it so that all players can enjoy the game. But fairness doctrine isn’t even about giving out that handicap. It’s about giving it out fairly to EVERYONE who loses at the same ratio against the same ranked players. That’s fair. If you give the handicap out to only a few players and not others, that’s wrong. That’s all most of these programs try to do. They level the playing field.
So whether you think these programs are Just or Not is one question. But arguing that they are unjust because equality is sameness and that’s evil is just BULL. Don’t waste my time with that crap argument.
Comments (10)
“Something quick since I don’t have time to write a full entry today.”
Ha. It turned out being a full entry anyways. =P
Nice post, I like the chess analogy.
Nice post.
I love your tangents.
@huginn - lol. true. but i churned it out in 15 minutes instead of my usual hour+
I absolutely agree with every word of this. Though I haven’t heard that argument nearly as often as, “As long as we continue to acknowledge our differences, we’ll never have true equality.” Which, is sort of related to the argument you talked about here. I guess those people would be the other side of this one, actually — strive or sameness, never acknowledge that something is different from you or what you’re used to. Which is complete shit, really. The problem is not that people are different and have been dealt different circumstancecs. It’s that among these differences, some are considered better than others. Like you said, equality doesn’t come from everyone being the same, but rather from fairness, and seeing everyone as equally valid.
hm… I don’t know if I articulated that very well, but I hope you got my point.
Have to say I agree with you. It’s pretty fucking stupid.
it sounds like something the rich that want to just keep getting richer would say. it’s dumb i agree.
i also think though there is a problem with a lot of people taken advantage of some of these programs which is what I think a lot of people are mad about. like i’m willing to give whatever the gov takes from my paycheck to help out people that have a deseire to get out of the situation they are in and they are just a little down on their lucky right now, because that can happen to anyone, those people will get on the feet and pay into these programs when they pay taxes too, and who knows some day i might be down on my lucky and need some that money someday also.
But i’m a little peeved about those people that take the money when they don’t need it and are being just lazy, they need to stop taking the money away from people that actually need it to feed their childern and prove health care for them.
@elvesdoitbetter - Oh yes, that argument is VERY common, especially in this “Obama” era. I keep hearing people using the Colbert-like proclamation of “I don’t see race” an absurdity of course. And ironically usually an absurdity contradicted by the very thing they are discussing… race.
Weirdly I see people sometimes stating both arguments though they are contradictory. Like when dealing with race they’ll say don’t acknowledge differences, and then when talking about corporate welfare they’ll say “differences are natural”. It’s quite suspicious. Sounds like the believe in differences only when it suites them.
@raindrops23 - Yeah I agree with that actually. There are people who take advantage and it isn’t right. Free riders do hurt the system’s fairness, but I don’t think programs should be dismantled just because some people take advantage of them. Rather they should be reworked so people can’t take advantage or to minimize the ability of people to take advantage of them. You should only dismantle a program if a majority of the people who use it are just taking advantage of it. I don’t think that’s ever been demonstrated.