Equality of opportunity, i.e. being left alone to your own devices to succeed or fail on your own.
We have understood the difference between equality of opportunity (i.e. true equality) vs. equality of outcome (i.e. equity, communism, etc.) for thousands of years.
The first allows the cream to rise to the top and built the western world.
The second stifles excellence out of a desire for everyone to end up equal because no matter how hard you try, you can't make dumb lazy people successful, so the only way to force equality is to punish the successful.
He's talking about equal outcomes there. If earth and humanity were not flawed, all would be equal in a divine sort of way, but since that's not the case, it's not possible in reality.
You misunderstood that line. He's saying the only way true equality would work is if an all powerful god were in charge of it. Since thats not gonna happen, its never going to work.
Equal opportunity rather than equal outcomes is what I think is the only workable kind of equality.
With equal opportunity , everyone starts at the same start line and has the same chance to get ahead , but if they fail to do so then that is on them, not the system , nor the people who managed to get ahead. This is actual equality (or as close as we are likely to be able to get)
Equal outcomes which is the path western society is heading down is a fatally flawed philosophy , the lazy and talentless will get into positions that they are not competent for and cause incredible damage to society , while the talented will grow resentful that less talented people are getting the rewards they worked hard for and they will rebel and kick the politicians that think this is a good idea out of office.
Equality of opportunity is just a Trojan horse for equality of outcome. Most opportunities are outcomes.
Take, for example, two kids gunning for college. The first kid's parents aggressively budgeted and saved to afford tuition at a good school. The second kid's parents lived at or above their means, racking up debt.
Why should these kids have the exact same opportunities? The disparity between them is just. It was paid for with sacrifice and effort. If you pave over that disparity with government handouts, then you are incentivizing shiity behavior. Why should good parents save money for their childrens' educations if bad parents are just handed the same opportunities?
A society should strive to provide reasonable access to a good middle class lifestyle for as many people as possible. Equality of outcome is impossible nonsense, and equality of opportunity is almost equally evil.
The problem with your argument is that you're at the wrong point in the process. Both of those children had equal opportunity when they were born. Along the way, their parents squandered those opportunities or took advantage of them.
The point of equality of opportunity isn't that everything is equal at all points in time, it's that, all other factors being equal, people have the same opportunities.
Most importantly, it's about the government not playing favorites in any way.
You are treating children as trophies of their parent's value. Nothing more than an endless cycle of parental failures being taken out on their kids.
I agree, society should strive for that reasonable access to middle class life. But burdening people with the sin's of the father is the exact opposite of that. It perpetuates endless cycles of poverty with often few chances to escape.
I'm not pro-college and especially not free college, but offering kids a chance to become better than their failure parents is that reasonable access to middle class.
Someone has to carry the burden. It's either the children of bad parents, or the children of good parents.
Being a bad parent is hereditary to a huge degree, which means that punishing children of good parents to make up for bad parents' faults is clearly a terrible idea. The people you're trying to help will more than likely just squander it anyway, so all you're doing is take away resources and opportunities from people likely to multiply those for the next generation and giving them to people who will flush them down the shitter and complain they weren't given even more.
If its hereditary to the extent you are saying we have almost no amount of free will to become better.
The idea of equality of opportunity is impartiality. Not making moral decisions nor judgements. Utilitarian logic. Once we start saying "bad parents make bad seeds, no point helping them" we have created a cycle where they have no reason to not be the worst people possible. They will live up to those expectations because it doesn't matter, the stigma will hang over their heads forever.
The thing is, I agree with what you are saying in theory. The problem is building a society like that just creates a caste system, and becomes a rat race to the bottom.
Even worse, your enemies will be in power one day. Letting this loophole be open just opens it up to be used on you. Wokesters would consider "having guns" or "voting Trump" to make you a "bad parent" with all the consequences therein.
What I'm suggesting is impartiality. Nobody should be forced to uplift (or finance the uplifting of) anyone else. If someone wants to flush their own money down the drain by spending it on ghetto rats, well, go knock yourselves out, but I refuse to participate in fruitless waste. I'm convinced that we could have been terraforming Mars right now if it wasn't for the welfare state. Instead... https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/732/227/6c4.png
A "caste system" is perfectly normal and healthy as long as it's not enforced by the state. Hierarchies form naturally. People aren't clones, some people are, by nature, worse than others, and it's good that these people are scrounging for food in dumpsters and sleeping under bridges. It's more just than fruitlessly trying to help them by taking from better people and wasting it on them.
Don't worry, I'm perfectly familiar with the "imagine if your enemies were in power" line of thought, and I understand how important it is. My line of thought works perfectly fine if my enemies are in power, because I'm not asking for any preferential treatment, I'm asking for the exact opposite. It's fine as long as they abide by the same rules; the eternal problem is that they will never do that, because my rules are based on inescapable, objective reality, and their philosophy goes directly against that - which is why, in a sane country, of which there are currently none as far as I'm aware, someone like Augusto Pinochet would be considered a centrist. Because that's what he was, really; throwing belligerent pinkos out of helicopters is simply the sane thing to do.
It's true, equal opportunity was the camel getting it's nose in the tent, towards it's full body and full bore equal outcomes. No one starts off the same, we all have different genetics, different families who did or did not prepare the way for us. All you can do is give people the same rights. In fact, forcing others to give opportunities, grossly violates rights, like with affirmative action. Yes, equal opportunity was the gateway that sounded so good to equal outcomes.
Free education would make more money than it would cost in the long term , and this is all that is really needed for equal opportunity. have the start line at the same place , and the talented will rise to the top , rather than having mediocre aristocrats who's only real talent is that they were born rich. A meritocratic system would depend on this. And this is the true path ideal philosopher king system envisioned by Plato, with the enlightened natural elite rising to the top and making a better society for all.
You believe education directly translates to or promotes talent? Our present system is good for very little other than teaching compliance and memorization.
enlightened natural elite rising to the top
I do support the idea of a meritocracy, but it should be acknowledged that it is in the best interest of corrupt elites to suppress the rise of talented elites (or anyone else that doesn't "play ball"). So most pre-existing elite class will actively hinder approaches towards meritocracy. This does include the elites of foreign nations unless you can pull off a miracle isolation for your new society.
I don't recall if Plato bothered with the real methods by which his republic could be developed - rather, I don't remember him considering how to solve the problem of bad actors.
I'm sorry, but whenever someone busts out Plato, the first thing that comes to mind is "Leftist". There's a reason the real Plato's Republic has never been tried.
I'm a true believer in his ideal king solution. The best king is a man who leads not because he wants to, but because he fear that if he doesn't someone worse than him will rule. It's a bit like internet janitors; the worst people for the role, are the people who want it most.
Plato was also a believer is supremacy and hierarchy, hence why he created the gold, silver, bronze structure of society. The gold being the leaders, the silver being the warrior, the bronze being the working man. Evola used these structures to argue for what the left calls "fascism" and what they also call the "caste system", so I don't get the leftist connection you speak of.
So what is the second kind he means? It's easy to assume "equality under the law" as classical liberals believe, but somehow I doubt it.
Equality of opportunity, i.e. being left alone to your own devices to succeed or fail on your own.
We have understood the difference between equality of opportunity (i.e. true equality) vs. equality of outcome (i.e. equity, communism, etc.) for thousands of years.
The first allows the cream to rise to the top and built the western world.
The second stifles excellence out of a desire for everyone to end up equal because no matter how hard you try, you can't make dumb lazy people successful, so the only way to force equality is to punish the successful.
The male ideal of equality vs the female ideal of equality
He's talking about equal outcomes there. If earth and humanity were not flawed, all would be equal in a divine sort of way, but since that's not the case, it's not possible in reality.
You misunderstood that line. He's saying the only way true equality would work is if an all powerful god were in charge of it. Since thats not gonna happen, its never going to work.
Gotcha
Equal opportunity rather than equal outcomes is what I think is the only workable kind of equality.
With equal opportunity , everyone starts at the same start line and has the same chance to get ahead , but if they fail to do so then that is on them, not the system , nor the people who managed to get ahead. This is actual equality (or as close as we are likely to be able to get)
Equal outcomes which is the path western society is heading down is a fatally flawed philosophy , the lazy and talentless will get into positions that they are not competent for and cause incredible damage to society , while the talented will grow resentful that less talented people are getting the rewards they worked hard for and they will rebel and kick the politicians that think this is a good idea out of office.
Equality of opportunity is just a Trojan horse for equality of outcome. Most opportunities are outcomes.
Take, for example, two kids gunning for college. The first kid's parents aggressively budgeted and saved to afford tuition at a good school. The second kid's parents lived at or above their means, racking up debt.
Why should these kids have the exact same opportunities? The disparity between them is just. It was paid for with sacrifice and effort. If you pave over that disparity with government handouts, then you are incentivizing shiity behavior. Why should good parents save money for their childrens' educations if bad parents are just handed the same opportunities?
A society should strive to provide reasonable access to a good middle class lifestyle for as many people as possible. Equality of outcome is impossible nonsense, and equality of opportunity is almost equally evil.
The problem with your argument is that you're at the wrong point in the process. Both of those children had equal opportunity when they were born. Along the way, their parents squandered those opportunities or took advantage of them.
The point of equality of opportunity isn't that everything is equal at all points in time, it's that, all other factors being equal, people have the same opportunities.
Most importantly, it's about the government not playing favorites in any way.
You are treating children as trophies of their parent's value. Nothing more than an endless cycle of parental failures being taken out on their kids.
I agree, society should strive for that reasonable access to middle class life. But burdening people with the sin's of the father is the exact opposite of that. It perpetuates endless cycles of poverty with often few chances to escape.
I'm not pro-college and especially not free college, but offering kids a chance to become better than their failure parents is that reasonable access to middle class.
Someone has to carry the burden. It's either the children of bad parents, or the children of good parents.
Being a bad parent is hereditary to a huge degree, which means that punishing children of good parents to make up for bad parents' faults is clearly a terrible idea. The people you're trying to help will more than likely just squander it anyway, so all you're doing is take away resources and opportunities from people likely to multiply those for the next generation and giving them to people who will flush them down the shitter and complain they weren't given even more.
If its hereditary to the extent you are saying we have almost no amount of free will to become better.
The idea of equality of opportunity is impartiality. Not making moral decisions nor judgements. Utilitarian logic. Once we start saying "bad parents make bad seeds, no point helping them" we have created a cycle where they have no reason to not be the worst people possible. They will live up to those expectations because it doesn't matter, the stigma will hang over their heads forever.
The thing is, I agree with what you are saying in theory. The problem is building a society like that just creates a caste system, and becomes a rat race to the bottom.
Even worse, your enemies will be in power one day. Letting this loophole be open just opens it up to be used on you. Wokesters would consider "having guns" or "voting Trump" to make you a "bad parent" with all the consequences therein.
What I'm suggesting is impartiality. Nobody should be forced to uplift (or finance the uplifting of) anyone else. If someone wants to flush their own money down the drain by spending it on ghetto rats, well, go knock yourselves out, but I refuse to participate in fruitless waste. I'm convinced that we could have been terraforming Mars right now if it wasn't for the welfare state. Instead... https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/732/227/6c4.png
A "caste system" is perfectly normal and healthy as long as it's not enforced by the state. Hierarchies form naturally. People aren't clones, some people are, by nature, worse than others, and it's good that these people are scrounging for food in dumpsters and sleeping under bridges. It's more just than fruitlessly trying to help them by taking from better people and wasting it on them.
Don't worry, I'm perfectly familiar with the "imagine if your enemies were in power" line of thought, and I understand how important it is. My line of thought works perfectly fine if my enemies are in power, because I'm not asking for any preferential treatment, I'm asking for the exact opposite. It's fine as long as they abide by the same rules; the eternal problem is that they will never do that, because my rules are based on inescapable, objective reality, and their philosophy goes directly against that - which is why, in a sane country, of which there are currently none as far as I'm aware, someone like Augusto Pinochet would be considered a centrist. Because that's what he was, really; throwing belligerent pinkos out of helicopters is simply the sane thing to do.
It's true, equal opportunity was the camel getting it's nose in the tent, towards it's full body and full bore equal outcomes. No one starts off the same, we all have different genetics, different families who did or did not prepare the way for us. All you can do is give people the same rights. In fact, forcing others to give opportunities, grossly violates rights, like with affirmative action. Yes, equal opportunity was the gateway that sounded so good to equal outcomes.
Free education would make more money than it would cost in the long term , and this is all that is really needed for equal opportunity. have the start line at the same place , and the talented will rise to the top , rather than having mediocre aristocrats who's only real talent is that they were born rich. A meritocratic system would depend on this. And this is the true path ideal philosopher king system envisioned by Plato, with the enlightened natural elite rising to the top and making a better society for all.
You believe education directly translates to or promotes talent? Our present system is good for very little other than teaching compliance and memorization.
I do support the idea of a meritocracy, but it should be acknowledged that it is in the best interest of corrupt elites to suppress the rise of talented elites (or anyone else that doesn't "play ball"). So most pre-existing elite class will actively hinder approaches towards meritocracy. This does include the elites of foreign nations unless you can pull off a miracle isolation for your new society.
I don't recall if Plato bothered with the real methods by which his republic could be developed - rather, I don't remember him considering how to solve the problem of bad actors.
I'm sorry, but whenever someone busts out Plato, the first thing that comes to mind is "Leftist". There's a reason the real Plato's Republic has never been tried.
I'm a true believer in his ideal king solution. The best king is a man who leads not because he wants to, but because he fear that if he doesn't someone worse than him will rule. It's a bit like internet janitors; the worst people for the role, are the people who want it most.
Does Putin qualify?
Plato was also a believer is supremacy and hierarchy, hence why he created the gold, silver, bronze structure of society. The gold being the leaders, the silver being the warrior, the bronze being the working man. Evola used these structures to argue for what the left calls "fascism" and what they also call the "caste system", so I don't get the leftist connection you speak of.
Cause it was never intended as a serious proposal for an actual state.