Why are we all supposed to be equal?

[dtq123]

(Recommended for actual atheists... And yes, I've been watching what's up with Randy.)

I propose the idea that we are not all equal, and though this will involve plenty of nuance, exceptions, and just flat out stupid statements that may be recanted due to the nature of this question. Now, on to the actual evidence.

1. People cannot, and have never been EXACTLY the same.
This is what started this little sprout. There is simply too many possibilities for types people to create a person that is exactly like someone else. This is further compounded by the fact that both time, geography, and even a name of a person will make people both act, and respond differently to that person.

2. People are not perfectly equal in strengths.
Strength is what an individual has that is "a good or beneficial quality or attribute of a person or thing." However, some of us can already point out some instances of inequality in strengths. For instance, Some Machiavellian forum dwellers will agree that a strong amount of kindness in a person is a strength, but does not compare to the strength of high levels of charisma or intellect.

Now, I will add my own opinions into the matter, which will likely be subject to a level of scrutiny that is greater than normal due to the nature of this dialogue. "Give it your best shot," but do mind that we can always disagree or simply drop a specific subsection of this discussion. Onto my opinions and what they mean.

1. Personal Values.
Remember my Venn Diagram? That's basically it. TL;DR? I prefer people who work, are good at work, and have that work benefit others in some way.

2. Expansion of Personal Values.
What I can conclude from my value of work is that work ethic is (at the very least), an important trait, (and at most), the most important trait. For this topic I will assume the former and not the latter. Work ethic is an important trait because without it, people could not have survived to this point. For example, Say there was a lazy ape and a diligent ape. Who is going to get more food for their group?

3. Expansion of Work Ethic.
My largest assumption will be that Work Ethic can be quantified, if not at least put into a spectrum. However, Work Ethic is an almost universal good, and the majority of goods in the world can be quantified to a fair extent. For instance, just as we measure happiness through one's self-opinion in addition to other behaviors such as lifestyle, we can measure work ethic by the ratio of hours worked to hours used for recreation.

4. Spectrums.
My second largest assumption is that this system would be ethical. My only evidence, which is much more like rhetoric, is as follows. "Why give a lazy person equal rights to one who is diligent?"

[Nonsensei]

Its not about being equal. Its about being treated equally. Its about the presumption of equality.

[dtq123]

Its not about being equal. Its about being treated equally. Its about the presumption of equality.

Ah, thank you for pointing that out.
Here's what I posted before at the end: "Why give a lazy person more rights than one who is diligent?"
And After: "Why give a lazy person equal rights to one who is diligent?"

Alright. Now, after that revision... Counter that example?

Seriously. This is an instance where I think it is perfectly ethical to give less rights to a person: When they cannot muster enough will to work, or even worse... Absolutely refuse to.

[Baruch]

Everyone is totally unequal.  You today are not equal to you ten years ago.

The presumption is life is like a fair card game, and while we are dealt the same number of cards, we aren't dealt equal hands.  And the rules of the game don't depend on what cards you have (other than that some cards are better than others) or who you are.  That is egalitarianism. not equalitarianism.

The other influence is tribal values.  In the tribe, everyone gets a piece of the deer, no matter who brings it back to camp.  The food or resources are shared equally at least family to family, if not adult individual to adult individual, with appropriate adjustment for how many children you have to feed.  Society for the last 2500 years, in the civilized part of the West, isn't like that.  Back then the people partlally moved to the city (10%) and established a new city way of doing things.  The other 90% stayed on the farm, in bucolic paradise.  These country folk in Latin were called "pagani".  Of course back then, and all the way to today, the city folk exploit the agricultural folk.  They expropriate an disproportionate amount of resources, per capita, in return for certain services.  Often this consisted of "protection".  This system is the one that still makes it possible for Americans to consume 4x per capita compared to the world average ... partially because we are now 90% city and 10% agriculture ... and there just aren't enough agriculturalists to vampire on.

[Baruch]

Ah, thank you for pointing that out.
Here's what I posted before at the end: "Why give a lazy person more rights than one who is diligent?"
And After: "Why give a lazy person equal rights to one who is diligent?"

Alright. Now, after that revision... Counter that example?

Seriously. This is an instance where I think it is perfectly ethical to give less rights to a person: When they cannot muster enough will to work, or even worse... Absolutely refuse to.

In the early Roman republic, this was taken care of by the "pater familias" aka god-father.  If you didn't work, you didn't eat, and if necessary you were beaten until you did work.  No goldbricking in early Rome.  Ma-fia = my family.  The "pater families" was also responsible for suppressing or conducting vendettas.  If you did something to another clan, that the "pater familias" didn't like, then he might punish you, to preclude retaliation by the other clan, or might turn you over to the other clan for punishment (less likely).  If the other clan wasn't sufficiently satisfied, they might declare a vendetta to get their pound of flesh.

So, you are looking for a job as a task master on a plantation?  Why not be the cotton picker.  The man dignifies the work, the work doesn't dignify the man.

[dtq123]

In the early Roman republic, this was taken care of by the "pater familias" aka god-father.  If you didn't work, you didn't eat, and if necessary you were beaten until you did work.  No goldbricking in early Rome.  Ma-fia = my family.  The "pater families" was also responsible for suppressing or conducting vendettas.  If you did something to another clan, that the "pater familias" didn't like, then he might punish you, to preclude retaliation by the other clan, or might turn you over to the other clan for punishment (less likely).  If the other clan wasn't sufficiently satisfied, they might declare a vendetta to get their pound of flesh.

So, you are looking for a job as a task master on a plantation?  Why not be the cotton picker.  The man dignifies the work, the work doesn't dignify the man.

What are you getting at here? I approve of "Pater familias" if that's how it worked. As for your second statement, I have a quote for you.

"Individual commitment to a group effort - that is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work."
-Vince Lombardi

(A friend at school told me about him. He was a good person.)

I am not dismissing the end of slavery. If you prove yourself diligent and not given equal rights, you take those rights for yourself. However, we are talking about the present, where countless of people in the first world are wasting resources that people who work hard just to get to the next meal could use.

[dtq123]

Everyone is totally unequal.  You today are not equal to you ten years ago.

The presumption is life is like a fair card game, and while we are dealt the same number of cards, we aren't dealt equal hands.  And the rules of the game don't depend on what cards you have (other than that some cards are better than others) or who you are.  That is egalitarianism. not equalitarianism.

First off, pardon the odd order, I have last post as first because it feels more natural that way.

Anyway, I guess it's time to just say it. I don't believe in equal rights. There.

I believe that one's rights should be proportional to the amount of work ethic a person has combined with the actual work a person does in relation to recreational time, and how many people it benefits.

[Mike Cl]

"Why give a lazy person equal rights to one who is diligent?"

At first blush, I would agree.  The problem arises when one tries to pin down what 'lazy' means.  Who determines what that is?  What may appear to be 'lazy' may be a disability that is uncontrollable.  Or the lack of a certain skill.  Or any number of other things.  Who gets to make up the definition of what lazy is?  The same with 'diligent'--who gets to determine what that is exactly?

[Baruch]

What are you getting at here? I approve of "Pater familias" if that's how it worked. As for your second statement, I have a quote for you.

"Individual commitment to a group effort - that is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work."
-Vince Lombardi

(A friend at school told me about him. He was a good person.)

I am not dismissing the end of slavery. If you prove yourself diligent and not given equal rights, you take those rights for yourself. However, we are talking about the present, where countless of people in the first world are wasting resources that people who work hard just to get to the next meal could use.

I strongly approve of your OP.  There is too little reality and too many ideals in such discussions.

Yes, we are conspicuous consumers.  This was part of the Cold War strategy.  See the Robin Williams movie, Moscow On The Hudson.  But today, there is no Soviet Union ... so all consumers are useless eaters, since they are no longer necessary for propaganda.  Of course in socialist countries today, like Venezuela ... there is on overly lean consumer situation.  Standing in lines for hours to get your allocation of toilet paper.  Communism is the modern version of tribalism.  Everyone is equal in a sense, but society can't make everyone rich, so it makes everyone poor.  This is very unfortunate.  I really wish the idealists were right, and would stop smoking all that ganja.

Of course we are only talking about sharing in small geographic areas, between the more and less fortunate.  Food will quickly spoil when shipped to Africa from N America.  American trash dumpsters have it better than most Africans.  Of course racists will claim this is because the Africans are unworthy.  But the real reason is we have the biggest military, and like the Mafia we are ... make others pay "protection".

[gentle_dissident]

So, this thread is about welfare reform? I'm glad it's not trashing equal rights or opportunity. Working retail, I know some ppl are taking advantage of the system. I surmise that most these ppl had a rough life. I know it's hard to overcome my bizarre past, so I understand. It's a cycle of abuse.

[stromboli]

Equal opportunity and/or equal ability. There are too many variables in both for true equality. Smart ambitious people can succeed from small beginnings, children born rich can squander it.

[dtq123]

At first blush, I would agree.  The problem arises when one tries to pin down what 'lazy' means.  Who determines what that is?  What may appear to be 'lazy' may be a disability that is uncontrollable.  Or the lack of a certain skill.  Or any number of other things.  Who gets to make up the definition of what lazy is?  The same with 'diligent'--who gets to determine what that is exactly?

I agree, but there is some things that people agree that is lazy. Let's try to use that as a jumping point.

As for gentle_dissident... That's basically it. Kinda. I do think that lazy people shouldn't get the right to due process and stuff like that, but you're talking hard working people here so I'ma let it slide.

[Hydra009]

I do think that lazy people shouldn't get the right to due process and stuff like that, but you're talking hard working people here so I'ma let it slide.

"No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."

Unless he's lazy.  As determined by me.

[Mr.Obvious]

In my line of work, i solely have clients living of mother government's teat.
Do a numbers of them scam society be being too lazy to really get out of their empoverished situations. I'd say yes.
However, i frequenly come across countrymen who label all of them or, if they are generous, 90% of them as lazy parasites. Which is just wrong. So i'm not keen on

I agree, but there is some things that people agree that is lazy. Let's try to use that as a jumping point.

Vote of popularity does not make something true.

I also often think people confuse poverty with lazyness. If you don't have any options, live in slums, got a deadbeat alcoholic dad mooching off you and bailifs and lawyers keep sucking you dry; yeah i don't think you're going to get much done. But on The surface, from our relatively in control lives and decent appartments, it's easy to say; (s)he Should just get a job. It's harder if that only gets you a hundred euro's more a month and raised your expenses a little an cuts The time you need to handle all that non-work shit.

[Baruch]

So, this thread is about welfare reform? I'm glad it's not trashing equal rights or opportunity. Working retail, I know some ppl are taking advantage of the system. I surmise that most these ppl had a rough life. I know it's hard to overcome my bizarre past, so I understand. It's a cycle of abuse.

I take it, this OP is about resource wasting away inefficiently and unfairly.  Particularly food supplies.  This is easy to solve.  Know a poor person, don't hide from them in your gated community.  Assist him/her if they will let you.  The best way to assist is to hire them to do something, not give them a handout.  Even handicapped people can work, and they do ... stop making excuses for not hiring people because they aren't Superman.  You need to stop acting like Batman.

Yes, we are all abused ... and we cycle the abuse generation to generation, community to community, individual to individual.  But you are responsible for your own actions now, not what people did to you in the past.  Wife beaters need a bullet to the head ... not commiseration over their prior child abuse.

I am not concerned so much about poor people or even kleptos doing a little shop lifting.  The company president stealing millions is doing more damage.