Equality is a logical impossibility

[zarus tathra]

I understand why you'd think that denigrating those things that make people "better" seems like a solution idea, but I think it's a necessary part of any system that would call itself "egalitarian." Which again makes people who are "better" "worse," which still keeps the classifications of "better" and "worse." The inversion of values is basically necessary for any "egalitarian" system.

And things like "democracy" and "the rights of man" don't need a fundamentally egalitarian basis. They could just as easily arise from an insistence on having truth confirmed by the group and a fear of violence.

[The Fly]

BAM! Individual rights, disbelief in established norms, rank and privilege, egalitarianism and democracy.

"Go right now, walk straight then turn left after the big yellow house...continue walk for 30 minutes...then again turn left, by the way I heard that there are really some interesting pieces in that yellow house you turned left from. Yeah the one you passed half an hour ago. They would provide you the information that should help you finding the mall and that mall is wrong."

Wow that was a solid analysis. I was trying to find the words to express how I felt about his OP. There was something off about it and I couldn't quite articulate. My original response was quite lengthy, but when I re-read my writing it didn't make a lick of sense. So I erased it and just put a broad suggestion hoping it might spark something.

You are quite skilled at breaking down problematic thinking.

You'd be a useful consult to have for a paper.

[Xerographica]

Not only is equality a logical impossibility...but it's a stupid thing to strive for...

... an increase in the power of the State ... does the greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality which lies at the heart of all progress...    - Gandhi

To recommend the market, in fact, is to recommend letting millions of creative people, each with different perspectives and different bits of knowledge and insights, each voluntarily contribute his own ideas and efforts toward dealing with the problem. It is to recommend not a single solution but, instead, a decentralized process that calls forth many competing experiments and, then, discovers the solutions that work best under the circumstances. - Donald J. Boudreaux, A Simple Rule for a Complex World

It is not by wearing down into uniformity all that is individual in themselves, but by cultivating it and calling it forth, within the limits imposed by the rights and interests of others, that human beings become a noble and beautiful object of contemplation; and as the works partake the character of those who do them, by the same process human life also becomes rich, diversified, and animating, furnishing more abundant aliment to high thoughts and elevating feelings, and strengthening the tie which binds every individual to the race, by making the race infinitely better worth belonging to. In proportion to the development of his individuality, each person becomes more valuable to himself, and is therefore capable of being more valuable to others. There is a greater fullness of life about his own existence, and when there is more life in the units there is more in the mass which is composed of them.   - J.S. Mill, On Liberty

So far as this is the case, it is evident that government, by excluding or even by superseding individual agency, either substitutes a less qualified instrumentality for one better qualified, or at any rate substitutes its own mode of accomplishing the work, for all the variety of modes which would be tried by a number of equally qualified persons aiming at the same end; a competition by many degrees more propitious to the progress of improvement than any uniformity of system.   - J.S. Mill, Principles of Political Economy with some of their Applications to Social Philosophy   

The public collectively is abundantly ready to impose, not only its generally narrow views of its interests, but its abstract opinions, and even its tastes, as laws binding upon individuals. And the present civilization tends so strongly to make the power of persons acting in masses the only substantial power in society, that there never was more necessity for surrounding individual independence of thought, speech, and conduct, with the most powerful defences, in order to maintain that originality of mind and individuality of character, which are the only source of any real progress, and of most of the qualities which make the human race much superior to any herd of animals.   - J.S. Mill, Principles of Political Economy with some of their Applications to Social Philosophy   

Individuals differ, one from another, in important and meaningful respects.  They differ in physical strength, in courage, in imagination, in artistic skills and appreciation, in basic intelligence, in preferences, in attitudes toward others, in personal life-styles, in ability to deal socially with others, in Weltanschauung, in power to control others, and in command over nonhuman resources.  No one can deny the elementary validity of this statement, which is of course amply supported by empirical evidence.  We live in a society of individuals, not a society of equals.  We can make little or no progress in analyzing the former as if it were the latter. - James M. Buchanan, The Limits of Liberty

In a totalitarian State or in a field already made into a State monopoly, those dissatisfied with the institutions that they find can seek a remedy only by seeking to change the Government of the country. In a free society and a free field they have a different remedy; discontented individuals with new ideas can make a new institution to meet their needs. The field is open to experiment and success or failure; secession is the midwife of invention.   - Lord Beveridge, Voluntary Action

Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live. And unselfishness is letting other people's lives alone, not interfering with them. Selfishness always aims at creating around it an absolute uniformity of type. Unselfishness recognizes infinite variety of type as a delightful thing, accepts it, acquiesces in it, enjoys it. It is not selfish to think for oneself. A man who does not think for himself does not think at all. It is grossly selfish to require of one's neighbor that he should think in the same way, and hold the same opinions. Why should he? If he can think, he will probably think differently. If he cannot think, it is monstrous to require thought of any kind from him. A red rose is not selfish because it wants to be a red rose. It would be horribly selfish if it wanted all the other flowers in the garden to be both red and roses. - Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man and Prison Writings

The generation to which we belong is now learning from experience what happens when man retreats from freedom to a coercive organization of their affairs.  Though they promise themselves a more abundant life, they must in practice renounce it; as the organizational direction increases, the variety of ends must give way to uniformity.  That is the nemesis of the planned society and the authoritarian principle in human affairs.   - Walter Lippmann

Development happens thanks to problem-solving systems. To vastly oversimplify for illustrative purposes, the market is a decentralized (private) problem solving system with rich feedback and accountability. Democracy, civil liberties, free speech, protection of rights of dissidents and activists is a decentralized (public) problem solving system with (imperfect) feedback and accountability. Individual liberty in general fosters systems that allow many different individuals to use their particular local knowledge and expertise to attempt many different independent trials at solutions. When you have a large number of independent trials, the probability of solutions goes way up. - William Easterly, The Answer Is 42!

[zarus tathra]

It's really, really strange that people would associate the idea of equality with the idea of state power. Like, the state is inequality of power in its purest form, how the fuck does it have anything to do with equality?

[Xerographica]

It's really, really strange that people would associate the idea of equality with the idea of state power. Like, the state is inequality of power in its purest form, how the fuck does it have anything to do with equality?

When I was in boot camp...I frequently heard the expression..."one solider's not like the others".  

There's individuality...and then there's uniformity...conformity.  

Think about an Easter Egg hunt.  You can tie the kids all together...or you can let them run free.  

The government ties all the kids together.  It's centralization...a top down approach...a visible hand...a command economy.  Less ground is covered...so less Easter Eggs are found.

It's like Chinese foot binding...or bonsai...or some other example that J.S. Mill didn't already use.

Have you read J.S. Mill?

[zarus tathra]

No, I've never even heard of him.

edit: Actually, I've heard of him. John Stuart Mill. right. No, I tried reading some for English class, and I quickly grew bored. But I know that he's basically the inventor of utilitarianism, which has a great deal of value. But nothing in his philosophy really justifies why one person would sacrifice for all the rest.

[Xerographica]

No, I've never even heard of him.

edit: Actually, I've heard of him. John Stuart Mill. right. No, I tried reading some for English class, and I quickly grew bored. But I know that he's basically the inventor of utilitarianism, which has a great deal of value. But nothing in his philosophy really justifies why one person would sacrifice for all the rest.

If you want to see farther than most...then you have to stand on tall shoulders.  J.S. Mill has some of the tallest shoulders you could possibly stand on.  

It's definitely not easy to read him...just like it's not easy to lift heavy weights.  But you do so if you want to develop in strength.  

At least read Chapter III of On Liberty...Of Individuality, as One of the Elements of Well-Being

[darsenfeld]

OP doesn't understand the common context of equality in a political sense.

Equal rights, equal opportunities.  That's about it.

[zarus tathra]

I see.

I guess that makes sense that the primary outcome of the French Revolution would be the creation of a new military doctrine, one that circumvented the feudal chain of command. I mean, that's all the feudal/monarchical system ever was, a way to organize the military. If you're attacking the feudal system in the hopes of creating "equal opportunity" in its primary institution, then what you're doing in essence is reforming the military into something more destructive and modern.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

All kinds of realities are illogical, nothing new there. it's illogical to have teeth that rot or fingernails not capable of ripping through flesh enough to take down a buffalo. It's illogical to have hair only on our heads, armpits and crotch, but nowhere else of any consequence. it's illogical for me to have nipples, but I do. And it's rather illogical to think pure logic works in an illogical world.
So take your pick. Either the filthy rich get all the pussy or perhaps only the good looking or the most brutish. Well which is logical? Hmmm? If it's the filthy rich then we go extinct for sure, the most brutish you get your ass kicked and the best looking nobody is good looking because we all look alike.
I'm sorry you can't have your cake and eat it to because it's illogical to stick such a beautiful cake in your mouth merely for flavor when certainly a side of buffalo would fulfill your hunger much better.  

[zarus tathra]

The problem with "equality" is that any notion of hierarchy and equality can only exist within a given social context. To demand equality to the exclusion of all other things is generally to preserve the institutional forms that gave birth to inequality in the first place. This can only have two outcomes:

1. Success, in which case the undesirable patterns of behavior that turned people against the system in the first place are made worse, like in Maoist China or the USSR under Stalin or Napoleonic France.

2. Failure, in which case the reactionaries win and roll back all the changes and the bums lose. See: the Paris Commune, Fascist Spain, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Russia after the USSR.

You can't just add rules to the game to make it more "fair." Not if you hate the game to the point that you don't really care about winning, which a lot of people do. You have to change the game, or refuse to play, and very few people have the imagination or the willpower to do that.