• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What would equality look like?

Integrityrespec

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
26,139
Reaction score
11,686
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In America what would equality look like? I hear complaints all the time about equality but what does that really mean. I've seen complaints that there are not enough black NFL head coaches, not enough black Congressmen, not enough Women CEO's or women Congressmen. Not enough people of color on a particular Presidents cabinet. Not enough minorities in medical schools, or as generals in the military. Just what does equality look like.
 
For a start minorities and women being represented at top jobs at the same ratio, they are nationally would help.

Then we can start with income inequality which affects everyone. This can be solved as Holland has the lowest gap between top and bottom earners in Europe and the top earners aren't all fleeing or losing all motivation to carry on.
 
In America what would equality look like? I hear complaints all the time about equality but what does that really mean. I've seen complaints that there are not enough black NFL head coaches, not enough black Congressmen, not enough Women CEO's or women Congressmen. Not enough people of color on a particular Presidents cabinet. Not enough minorities in medical schools, or as generals in the military. Just what does equality look like.
It would totally make me puke. And, it could never be done. There is no way to make life just for every single person in the country.
 
Make smart people wear special glasses so they can't read very well. And beautiful people wear masks when they leave the house.
 
Oddly enough, look to the military for an example.
 
For a start minorities and women being represented at top jobs at the same ratio, they are nationally would help.

Then we can start with income inequality which affects everyone. This can be solved as Holland has the lowest gap between top and bottom earners in Europe and the top earners aren't all fleeing or losing all motivation to carry on.
Being represented ad the same ratio? As what? Income inequality? Tougher jobs, jobs requiring more skill or education, or better performance outcomes, deserve more money than jobs not requireing those things. Try again, what is equality going to look like.
 
You can't equalize talent, experienc, hard work, effort, outcome, and all these determine pay in most cases.
 
It can't happen at once. We have made great strides since I have been alive (66 years) but there is a long way to go and it will take more generations.
Things we can do:
Give everyone the best most equal start we can. Guaranteed income to families with children. Starting at a very early age (infant) access for everyone to the best, most equal schools and day care possible regardless of where you live or your economic class. Stop generational transfer of wealth. Discourage legacy preferences and nepotism as much as possible. We will need the money to implement those things I have already described. This is absolutely required to create an equal opportunity society that has a more uniform distribution of wealth and power.
 
For a start minorities and women being represented at top jobs at the same ratio, they are nationally would help.

Then we can start with income inequality which affects everyone. This can be solved as Holland has the lowest gap between top and bottom earners in Europe and the top earners aren't all fleeing or losing all motivation to carry on.
Nonsense to both.
 
In America what would equality look like? I hear complaints all the time about equality but what does that really mean. I've seen complaints that there are not enough black NFL head coaches, not enough black Congressmen, not enough Women CEO's or women Congressmen. Not enough people of color on a particular Presidents cabinet. Not enough minorities in medical schools, or as generals in the military. Just what does equality look like.


Not necessarily appearance-wise, but equality might somewhat resemble that fleeting time in the late Sixties/Early Seventies when we all got together on a cultural level. The music scene was literally bursting at the seams with tons of bands that were all mixed up together, and not just rock, but also Motown and the R&B stars, too.

I remember how it felt, and while words may fail me in trying to describe it, I know that the feeling is still there.
Best part is, I can feel it beginning to come back again right now, not only with the old farts like me but with the younger ones, too. If we get past this time of plague and tribulation, I guarantee you that you will see it too.
 
Oddly enough, look to the military for an example.
I somewhat agree. I was in the Army. The enlisted ranks start pretty much all the same and advancement is mostly by merit. The military has done a good job of wringing out of the sexism and racism. Not so true for the officer class. Economic class, education, nepotism can all affect how fast you advance. Getting into a military academy can be a huge advantage and merit is only a small factor to entry.
 
In America what would equality look like? I hear complaints all the time about equality but what does that really mean. I've seen complaints that there are not enough black NFL head coaches, not enough black Congressmen, not enough Women CEO's or women Congressmen. Not enough people of color on a particular Presidents cabinet. Not enough minorities in medical schools, or as generals in the military. Just what does equality look like.
That depends on what you think the inverse of inequality is. Personally, I don't believe the inverse of inequality is equality. I believe the inverse of inequality is quality.

I think the modern deracinated masses work aimlessly toward some absolutely equal ideal which has never existed. This identity-less mass works through or for its demagogic leadership and manipulates the good nature of the productive sectors to uncover this hidden knowledge which says that quality exists even where the law bans it and the common man rebukes it. Once the good natured folks lose their faith in the charade established by the deracinated mass, however, a more accurate and honest - perhaps even sinister - impulse reveals itself. It turns out that they do not fight against inequality... they fight against quality. They have a certain quality-hatred about them that infects every part of their psychology.

Ultimately, I think there are two breeds of zealots who fight blindly toward equality. There is the good natured and productive individual who is manipulated by the dogma of demagogues and charlatans of the modern age, and there is the quality-hater who will only be content with a society that is *equally* as miserable and self-hating as they are.
 
Equality would be a tax of about $14,000 being billed and paid by each and every citizen regardless of age.
 
You can either have equal opportunity or equal outcomes -- you can't have both.
I would argue that equal outcomes are how you measure how equal the opportunities actually are
 
You can either have equal opportunity or equal outcomes -- you can't have both.

But we currently have neither. Equal opportunity is the goal.

Inequality of outcome can be a symptom of inequality of opportunity. If you evaluate the cause of inequality of outcome, and it leads to the discovery of inequality of opportunity, that is a problem.

The goal of the fight for racial equality and gender equality is not to artificially impose an equality of outcome, but rather to expose inequalities of opportunity and correct them.

We have achieved a pretty decent level of equality when it comes to hair color. It isn't a perfect equality of outcome, but there isn't a huge body of scientific research that has determined a mechanism of unequal opportunity leading to this inequality of outcome in regards to hair color, so nobody cares. If you want to see what equality looks like, look to hair color, and then apply that to skin color and gender.

To answer the titular question, equality would look like initial conditions of inequal opportunity no longer being an accurate predictor for any a given metric of outcome.
 
In America what would equality look like? I hear complaints all the time about equality but what does that really mean. I've seen complaints that there are not enough black NFL head coaches, not enough black Congressmen, not enough Women CEO's or women Congressmen. Not enough people of color on a particular Presidents cabinet. Not enough minorities in medical schools, or as generals in the military. Just what does equality look like.
It would look like a system of gulags where former members of the white cisheteronormative patriarchy receive continuous sensitivity training from bigendered transblack otherkin.

Anything less than that will be deemed oppression.
 
It would look like a system of gulags where former members of the white cisheteronormative patriarchy receive continuous sensitivity training from bigendered transblack otherkin.

Anything less than that will be deemed oppression.

Ok. Suppose the Democrats put you in this gulag and give you sensitivity training. Also, suppose they take away your home and give it to a black lesbian couple who they decide need it more. The couple dies and their new home is inherited by their adopted children. Later John Galt and his friends go on strike and return the world to sanity.

Should you get your home back in this new Objectivist Utopia? Or should the kids get to keep it?
 
But we currently have neither. Equal opportunity is the goal.

Inequality of outcome can be a symptom of inequality of opportunity. If you evaluate the cause of inequality of outcome, and it leads to the discovery of inequality of opportunity, that is a problem.

The goal of the fight for racial equality and gender equality is not to artificially impose an equality of outcome, but rather to expose inequalities of opportunity and correct them.

We have achieved a pretty decent level of equality when it comes to hair color. It isn't a perfect equality of outcome, but there isn't a huge body of scientific research that has determined a mechanism of unequal opportunity leading to this inequality of outcome in regards to hair color, so nobody cares. If you want to see what equality looks like, look to hair color, and then apply that to skin color and gender.

To answer the titular question, equality would look like initial conditions of inequal opportunity no longer being an accurate predictor for any a given metric of outcome.
It is a process with a feed back loop. You tune (encourage equal opportunity) until you get equal outcomes.
 
In America what would equality look like? I hear complaints all the time about equality but what does that really mean. I've seen complaints that there are not enough black NFL head coaches, not enough black Congressmen, not enough Women CEO's or women Congressmen. Not enough people of color on a particular Presidents cabinet. Not enough minorities in medical schools, or as generals in the military. Just what does equality look like.

Thats really an impossibility. Individuals are not equal. Equality would look like a society of exact robotics and even then they cant occupy the same physical space, so they would be equal. As soon as we exist, we deviate in experience, and so are not equal.

But lets say everyone were white, there was no other race. Would we be equal? What if everyone was a man. Would they be equal?
 
The main reason we have inequality to the degree we do, is LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION. Those in upper class digs, want THEIR special bastards, to have a leg up on all that riff raff. So education is according to the taxes paid for THAT area.
 
That depends on what you think the inverse of inequality is. Personally, I don't believe the inverse of inequality is equality. I believe the inverse of inequality is quality.

I think the modern deracinated masses work aimlessly toward some absolutely equal ideal which has never existed. This identity-less mass works through or for its demagogic leadership and manipulates the good nature of the productive sectors to uncover this hidden knowledge which says that quality exists even where the law bans it and the common man rebukes it. Once the good natured folks lose their faith in the charade established by the deracinated mass, however, a more accurate and honest - perhaps even sinister - impulse reveals itself. It turns out that they do not fight against inequality... they fight against quality. They have a certain quality-hatred about them that infects every part of their psychology.

Ultimately, I think there are two breeds of zealots who fight blindly toward equality. There is the good natured and productive individual who is manipulated by the dogma of demagogues and charlatans of the modern age, and there is the quality-hater who will only be content with a society that is *equally* as miserable and self-hating as they are.
Ah but equality has a quality all its own.
 
Ok. Suppose the Democrats put you in this gulag and give you sensitivity training. Also, suppose they take away your home and give it to a black lesbian couple who they decide need it more. The couple dies and their new home is inherited by their adopted children. Later John Galt and his friends go on strike and return the world to sanity.

Should you get your home back in this new Objectivist Utopia? Or should the kids get to keep it?
I am not an Objectivist and do not know the criteria for their utopia.

In the real world, adverse possession would likely apply.
 
Oddly enough, look to the military for an example.

Hmm... one’s employer should be able to dictate where/how they live, different standards based on age (those over 34 need not apply) and retirement is offered after 20 years of work regardless of age.
 
Back
Top Bottom