Philosophy Now Forum

this thread and the next shall revolve around this
question of equality and inequality......

the first question is this, why equality as opposed to inequality?
The entire American experiment revolves around this question of
equality...but in only two aspects of equality, that of political
and legal equality... one man, one vote is political equality
and legal equality is "justice is blind".. where justice isn't influenced
by money, titles, fame, power.. we can see that justice, as practiced
in America is heavily influenced by titles, power, wealth, fame...
witness the case of IQ45 having taken classified information
that for anyone else, would have already been in jail for...
that is injustice, or inequality...and another case where
where by means fair or foul, one can escape justice because
of wealth, titles, fame, power.... that is what injustice means..
In America we have a two-track judicial system, one for the wealthy
and powerful and the other for the rest of us...and that is the
very definition of injustice.. inequality.....

and the second aspect is political equality... we vote, and on that
vote we send our representatives to do just that, represent us
in matters involving all of us...and on that track, we can also see
how injustice/inequality works as those representatives, those who
are supposed to represent us, no longer do so... they represent
those who can buy congressmen... the Koch Brothers for example,
buying up the entire Wisconsin senate and house and turning
Wisconsin into a private business of the Koch Brothers...
I have spent much time in Wisconsin, many family members,
cousins and the like, still live there.. the two states that the
Koch brothers bought, WISC and Kansas, are now total disasters,
and Kansas is now basically unlivable and Wisc is heading there...
their attempt to turn those two states into right wing utopias,
have failed... but the basic idea of the Koch brothers is to
remove equality from the state and turn those two states into
the promised land of inequality... where the people, the ones
who make up the majority of the population, are simply ignored
and the ones who dominated, rule...this domination is based upon
the right wing values of wealth and power...

so in thinking about equality vs inequality... if inequality
is the goal, the purpose of government/state..
then the focus/goal is upon the one, the individual
man... as with both Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, the focus is on
inequality, which means they both focused on the one, the individual...

whereas if the focus is on equality, then the focus is on
many, the state, the society,...

so the question becomes, do you focus on the one, the individual or
do you focus on the society/state? much intellectual writings
revolves around this question of the role of the individual within
the society/state... how do we fit into society/the state?
This question is at the heart of sociology....and where I
have been focusing on over these last few years...

the one vs the many.... the individual vs the state... what is
the "correct" relationship between the two? in fact, this very
question dominates, in a very real way, in ancient Greek philosophy...
or what do you think the book, "The Republic'' by Plato was about?

So by my focus on the larger belief in the state/society, I am
a liberal.... I don't focus on the one as much as I focus on
the group, the many, the society/state....
and one could break down the political spectrum by
how much one focuses on the one/the individual or the
how much one focuses on the state/society...

and that is how we can tell conservatives vs liberals...
the one, conservatives focus on the individual/ the one
and the liberal focuses on the state/society....

or said another way, the conservative believes in inequality
and the liberal believes in equality...

so, the question for you is this, which one do you hold to,
equality or inequality? the one/individual or the many/the state?

and the second part of this will explore other aspects of this
question...

Kropotkin

and now come part two of equality vs inequality...

what are the 4 common examples of equality vs inequality?

social, political, economic and legal....
I briefly touched on two of these in my first post,
the political and legal... the second part now talks
about the other two aspects of equality vs inequality...
the social and economic... with more of a focus on
economic equality....

and the first question is why we don't hold to economic
equality? the political/economic theory of communism focuses on
on this question of economic equality....and the economic
theory of capitalism focuses on inequality....
as communism has been "discredited" we put our emphasis
on the one, the individual person and not on the state/the society
as communism did...but the question still remains, why do we
believe in political and legal equality, but not in economic
equality?

What is the difference between the two, between political/legal
equality and economic equality?

Part of the belief in economic inequality stems from a belief in
the idea that comes economic inequality leads to a greater efficiency..
within economic inequality, comes the drive to become more efficient
and in that drive for efficiency, comes greater profits...
in other words, the drive in capitalism is profits .. to create
greater and greater profits.... which by some means, never
actually explained how, but by some means creates greater
benefits for a state/society... (recall the Adam Smith phrase,
"the invisible hand of god" which somehow benefits human beings
economically)

but for now, let us remind ourselves that all beings, all human beings
alive, have basic needs, food, water, education, shelter, health care...
that cannot be denied... and why should we deny human beings
basic needs if they do not "produce" or create profits which doesn't
benefit them? In other words, if you don't create profits for a company,
you don't work there and if you don't work, how does one provide for
themselves? in other words, you, me, everyone is incentivized to
produce, consume, work for our daily bread...

One of the questions of capitalism revolves around this idea of incentives...
at my work, the manager is given a bonus for various goals met..
and the assistant managers also gets bonuses.. supposedly,
as front end manager, I too will get bonuses... based on
what, I have no idea...but the workers , you know the ones
who actually do the work, get jack...nothing, nada....
and managers manage based on getting their bonuses, not on
what is best for the store or its workers....
and this is an example of inequality...
where the select few who gets bonuses, do everything in their
power to get bonuses, and screw everyone else...
incentives such as bonuses, allows managers to put their ''needs''
before others...I just came off of working 8 days in a row..
does the store manager know or care? nope, all he sees
is his bonus check... and where is my motivation to
kill myself for 8 days if all get is just my normal pay?
profits? which I won't see? bonuses I won't get?

Now many at this point will say, but Kropotkin,
you should be grateful to have a job... but that is
the voice of corporate propaganda in your head... why exactly
should be 'grateful?" to have the chance to kill my body and soul
for a few bucks to feed myself? and therein lies the question...
is being human, having needs, does that alone allow me to
be fed by the society/state? in other words, is being human
and having basic needs, as all humans do, must I be forced
to work for my daily bread?

Is being forced to work for my daily bread, equality or inequality?

I would submit that it is inequality because the fact is that the uber
wealthy, those who were simply born into wealth, the 1% have no
need to work, and thus allowed their basics needs
to be met without working... this is inequality.. if some can
not work to have their basic needs met, and most must work
to have their basic needs met... is this inequality, right?

justice/equality has the exact same starting point..
where everyone is treated exactly the same, regardless of
their wealth, titles, power, fame.... and if some are treated
differently, due to wealth or titles or fame, then we don't
have a just or equal system.... justice itself is denied...
and this is also true within an economic system,
inequal pay for equal work is unjust, unequal....

but Kropotkin, how do you decide how some work is
equal to other work? Isn't a boss more important than a
worker? and how do you decide which work is more important
than other work... how do you decide if a janitor is more important than
than a checker or a front end manager? and then how do
you determine pay based on that determination....

and in fact, this is, in part, where the Soviet communism floundered...
trying to establish equal pay for unequal work.....

if you believe in justice or equality, then you must think of
the group/society before the individual, and if you believe in
inequality/injustice, then you put the individual before the
state/society...

and yet, it seems clear that both positions have problems, issues...

so the question becomes, is economic equality really a goal worth pursuing?

I believe so... and why? because I believe in the group/state/society...

Kropotkin