34 replies to this topic

[Oleg Bach]

It is a bit of a conundrum to me how the lib-left demands equality - no one can be richer than another, no one can more valuable to society than another, no one can be openly superior and no one is to be treated as inferior, yet we must celebrate diversity and tolerance.

All must be percieved as equals. I suppose the only thing looked at as intolerable is determining someone makes differentiations between individuals, groups, races, cultures, nations, etc.

I suppose all things must be equal as regards superiority and inferiority. No thing compared to another must be considered inferior or superior. A rich person and a poor person are the same. But if the rich person considers himself superior to the poor person he must be made to understand he isn't superior and some of his riches must be taken away from him as a demonstration that the poor person is not inferior but equal.

How can we have diversity and tolerance when attempting to politically achieve equality?

ONE day I commented to a governmental bureacrat that the Muslims living in the projects, toss their garbage on the ground in the park...she almost tossed me out of her office. "You can't speak in such a manner here!" = humm? I thought. So I believe in respect - law and order and picking up your trash - but I am not included in the "diversity"...? I guess that diversity means low in quality. That low quality is acceptable in order to create equality?

[Michael Hardner]

ONE day I commented to a governmental bureacrat that the Muslims living in the projects, toss their garbage on the ground in the park...she almost tossed me out of her office.

I would have hoped you have learned to speak to bureaucrats by now, unless you were intentionally trying to irritate her.

[Oleg Bach]

I would have hoped you have learned to speak to bureaucrats by now, unless you were intentionally trying to irritate her.

She was a welfare worker - an aging single woman..who on the side worked as a jail guard - she proudly stated to me "I am a socialist" - she deserved a little irritating. I liked her but all she could say in her attempt to indoctrinate me was - in the end "I totally give up on you" - Thank God for that. Yes I can speak to them and play the game that is prescribed. I know the script - I was just a little taken back by her effort for me to use my green thumb in some public garden and show urban kids how to make things grow - I actually wanted her job- and was not up to being a "volunteer" Which is Orwellian for do what we tell you or you get no rent money.

[msj]

Of course not. You are a socially responsible centrist, right?

Well, I am very libertarian on social policy which matches much more closely to my fiscal conservatism than many people who call themselves "conservative" but really mean they want low taxes, lots of military spending and the moral brigade to ensure homosexuals can't marry each other, for example.

PS: And you just enjoy reading stupid threads to illustrate your point.

Nah, I just like antagonizing the people who start stupid threads.

[Pliny]

It is a paradox of semantics, which has already been pointed out. In fact, it seems that being tolerant and promoting diversity is in the attempt to achieve equality. Not a paradox at all.

Unfortunately, it isn't used that way. When a law favours one over another it is then used in the political process to determine winners and losers. It puts a natural social process in the hands of a politician and, in my view, is a dangerous road, as what man should have the power to determine winners and losers in society. Society to remain cohesive cannot politically force social diversity. I don't know if you foresee a breaking down of common bonds that make a society cohesive and comprise a nation but that's what I see. The trend is then towards internationalism. Nationalism has left a bad taste in in our societies. No one culture or society must be considered preferable to others, that would be prejudicial. Preference is the opposite side of the coin of discrimination.

I am just not willing to accept that some politicians should determine whether a white person or black person or what gender should fill what jobs. Society certainly is guilty of doing that. But for a progressive person, like yourself, you should see some evolutionary progress within society that makes it just and fair. Governments have instead of righting wrongs cement society with laws of prevailing social injustices. Jack Crow laws, segregation laws. It is the purpose of government to eliminate injustices not make laws that imbed them in society. Affirmative action laws are simply reactionary corrections of government for failing to do it's job in the first place.

Blacks were, at one time in European society, not considered human, and women were considered chattel. Government made laws accordingly. If they had not done so the transition to accepting Blacks as human and women as equals could arguably have been accomplished decades earlier. Because an idea, is easier to institute than to change a law. The idea that slavery and gender discrimination and oppression existed butted up against laws that were unjust and imbedded not simply other ideas and beliefs.

Perhaps a law is all that is necessary to determine a baby at conception is human before it will be granted any rights. The fact the law defines it as not human means it can be aborted without concern or feelings of guilt. That's all that law accomplishes. It makes poeple who wish to have abortions or perform abortions not feel guilty. Just as slaveholders did not feel guilty of holding slaves who were at the time considered less than human. Besides, abortion laws, help with population control.

I see "the rich" being vilified just as much by the other "rich" in a thing called 'competition.' There isn't as much money to be made by preying on the poor as there is by preying on the rich. Well, unless you are McDonalds and WalMart.

One choses to compete or not. One is not given opportunity to bring inferior or more costly products to the market as is determined by the favour and privilege a politician law will give him.

Wal-mart is always under threat of disappearing as is Macdonald's. The internet and shopping is the biggest competitor to Wal-mart and other stores, that can't compete, have already lost out to the internet. I think that the decision should be made by who can determine demand and bring the best products at the best price to the public. A Politician should not have the power to determine winners and losers outside of ensuring justice not determining itself what is just.

Be thankful that you stand tall with us, who believe you should be free enough to express such views. But I think you are referring to something beyond our familiar democracy right?

Naw, there is always a place for thoughtful dissent Pliny. Be thankful that it isn't a grave like some regimes...

The status quo is indeed tolerable and perhaps your idea it should be "conserved" makes you the conservative. But progressivism should be limited to a progress of society not a progressive growth in size or mandate of the State.

Edited by Pliny, 23 August 2011 - 02:59 PM.

[Pliny]

Well, I am very libertarian on social policy which matches much more closely to my fiscal conservatism than many people who call themselves "conservative" but really mean they want low taxes, lots of military spending and the moral brigade to ensure homosexuals can't marry each other, for example.

Are conservatives really denying same sex unions or are they just insisting the definition of marriage not be changed. Really, if homosexual "copules" wish the same rights as granted married couples perhaps the law should be changed so that married couples do not have any favours. I think homosexuals want to enjoy the benefits of divorce which guarantee a sharing of property. A whole new area of legal opportunity opens up.

Nah, I just like antagonizing the people who start stupid threads.

You aren't dong a good job and you should really check out what "stupid" means.

You may disagree with what I say and you have that freedom but in presenting my views I am only asking anyone who cares to look at it.

I am only saying in this thread that I perceive a paradox in promoting diversity and tolerance while advocating equality. Of course, as some have pointed out, equality is generally in need of a qualifier. It should be equality of opportunity, which makes sense. But I see that abused in laws such as pertains to affirmative action or gender preference. The law, in my view should e that all hve eqaul opportunity.
If discrimination does occur then that is a reason for justice but to imbed discrimintaion in law is going to prove divisive and incendiary over time. Besides that it is patronizing to those who gain favour and does not allow them to take full pride in their accomplishments.

[msj]

Are conservatives really denying same sex unions or are they just insisting the definition of marriage not be changed. Really, if homosexual "copules" wish the same rights as granted married couples perhaps the law should be changed so that married couples do not have any favours. I think homosexuals want to enjoy the benefits of divorce which guarantee a sharing of property. A whole new area of legal opportunity opens up.

No, Cons are trying to shove down our throat their morality while saying "hands off" when it comes to fiscal/tax policy. Could be quite the paradox.

I'm saying "hands off" to both the moral police and the the tax/fiscal regulators (although, obviously I'm not so dumb as to want to allow the "free market" to do what it has done in the US a la subprime - but I'm a pragmatist).

You aren't dong a good job and you should really check out what "stupid" means.

You should look up the definition of "antagonize."

You may disagree with what I say and you have that freedom but in presenting my views I am only asking anyone who cares to look at it.

No, really! I did not know that.....

I am only saying in this thread that I perceive a paradox in promoting diversity and tolerance while advocating equality. Of course, as some have pointed out, equality is generally in need of a qualifier. It should be equality of opportunity, which makes sense. But I see that abused in laws such as pertains to affirmative action or gender preference. The law, in my view should e that all hve eqaul opportunity.
If discrimination does occur then that is a reason for justice but to imbed discrimintaion in law is going to prove divisive and incendiary over time. Besides that it is patronizing to those who gain favour and does not allow them to take full pride in their accomplishments.

To which Kimmy has already answered - along with others.

The fact is you just don't get the "left" but you think you understand them and come here spewing your semantically retarded¹ BS.

The day you are able to provide a fair summary of what the "left" really believe in is the day I will stop antagonizing and start discussing.

That's the rub: from the outset your assumptions are wrong and you look like little more than a right winger trying to setup his little straw man for the knock down.

No one's buying it but we can sure have fun along the way.



¹Retarded as in "hinder or impede." As in, Pliny's straw man setup hinders honest debate....

[Pliny]

No, Cons are trying to shove down our throat their morality while saying "hands off" when it comes to fiscal/tax policy. Could be quite the paradox.
I'm saying "hands off" to both the moral police and the the tax/fiscal regulators (although, obviously I'm not so dumb as to want to allow the "free market" to do what it has done in the US a la subprime - but I'm a pragmatist).
You should look up the definition of "antagonize."
No, really! I did not know that.....
To which Kimmy has already answered - along with others.
The fact is you just don't get the "left" but you think you understand them and come here spewing your semantically retarded¹ BS.
The day you are able to provide a fair summary of what the "left" really believe in is the day I will stop antagonizing and start discussing.
That's the rub: from the outset your assumptions are wrong and you look like little more than a right winger trying to setup his little straw man for the knock down.
No one's buying it but we can sure have fun along the way.
¹Retarded as in "hinder or impede." As in, Pliny's straw man setup hinders honest debate....

Much better.

[dre]

It is a bit of a conundrum to me how the lib-left demands equality - no one can be richer than another, no one can more valuable to society than another, no one can be openly superior and no one is to be treated as inferior, yet we must celebrate diversity and tolerance.

All must be percieved as equals. I suppose the only thing looked at as intolerable is determining someone makes differentiations between individuals, groups, races, cultures, nations, etc.

I suppose all things must be equal as regards superiority and inferiority. No thing compared to another must be considered inferior or superior. A rich person and a poor person are the same. But if the rich person considers himself superior to the poor person he must be made to understand he isn't superior and some of his riches must be taken away from him as a demonstration that the poor person is not inferior but equal.

How can we have diversity and tolerance when attempting to politically achieve equality?

It is a bit of a conundrum to me how the lib-left demands equality - no one can be richer than another

Its also an imaginary conundrum that doesnt really exist. Leftists interested in going that far are a tiny fringe group in the west. Barely existant.

no one can be openly superior and no one is to be treated as inferior, yet we must celebrate diversity and tolerance.

The system makes literally thousands of value judgements on individuals on a constant basis. Its the norm in our liberal society to recognize a persons superiority in an area and reward them for it. What people DONT like is when you apply a value judgement to a whole group based on that group being more statistically likely to fit that judgement.

I suppose all things must be equal as regards superiority and inferiority. No thing compared to another must be considered inferior or superior. A rich person and a poor person are the same.

Thats not something liberals want, and thats not how liberal societies work. Our entire system is set up to reward superiority.

But if the rich person considers himself superior to the poor person he must be made to understand he isn't superior and some of his riches must be taken away from him as a demonstration that the poor person is not inferior but equal.

No, thats just silly. Thats not why we take money away from rich people.

You act like we live in an overly progressive society but we just dont. This is the easiest society in human history for a rich person to get richer, and tax policy is in fact becoming more and more regressive. Nobody is served by our government as well as the wealthy.

[dre]

I am only saying in this thread that I perceive a paradox in promoting diversity and tolerance while advocating equality

The problem is your whole argument is a gigantic strawman. You describe equality as "no one can be richer than another, no one can more valuable to society than another", and then you attribute that admittedly crazy idea onto a group you characterize as "left-libs". The problem of course is that theres many millions of "left-libs", and almost NONE of them are advocating equality of outcome, riches, etc.

See how youre being dishonest with yourself?

In reality society is trending in the opposite direction. More tax breaks and tax loopholes for the wealthy. Income trusts, realestate trusts, and all kinds of financial vehicles designed to legally evade taxes, lower taxes on investment income, large reductions in corporate tax rates.

The wealthy get a better deal right now in Canada than ever before in history. This is a kick-ass place to be rich, and one of the easiest places to grow your wealth in the history of the human race.

[bush_cheney2004]

...The wealthy get a better deal right now in Canada than ever before in history. This is a kick-ass place to be rich, and one of the easiest places to grow your wealth in the history of the human race.

Apparently it's a great place to be poor, too.

[Pliny]

Its also an imaginary conundrum that doesnt really exist. Leftists interested in going that far are a tiny fringe group in the west. Barely existant.

Doesn't really exist or barely exists, which is it?

I would say ignore it at your peril. It is a politically progressive world where people want equality.
Is it not government's mandate today to level the playing field? If you think it is to equalize opportunity what does that involve? It certainly doesn't just mean creating more opportunity for those considered disadvantaged. It fundamentally changes the concept of opportunity where men and their laws can determine it by picking winners and losers. If you can convince a politician you are disadvantaged you are a winner. If you are getting through life on your own you are a loser and obviously your opportunity must be limited.

Just like the government cannot make the poor rich it cannot give the disadvantaged opportunity. It works the other way around. The idea government can provide for the poor or give the disadvantaged opportunity gives it licence to use force to limit the wealth and opportunity of others. That is what happens. As the ranks of the poor and disadvantaged swell in order to be given money and opportunity the ranks of those forced to provide it diminish. Opportunity thus becomes something at the whim of the political class.

The system makes literally thousands of value judgements on individuals on a constant basis. Its the norm in our liberal society to recognize a persons superiority in an area and reward them for it. What people DONT like is when you apply a value judgement to a whole group based on that group being more statistically likely to fit that judgement.

The system makes no value judgements. People make value judgements.

Thats not something liberals want, and thats not how liberal societies work. Our entire system is set up to reward superiority.

Liberal societies would work that way naturally but that isn't what I see in our graduated income tax structure or legislation such as affirmative action and equal rights opportunity. Calling these things liberal should be an affront to your sensibilities. They are a politician's power to determine winners and losers.

No, thats just silly. Thats not why we take money away from rich people.

Tell me it is because the poor have no money to take.

You act like we live in an overly progressive society but we just dont. This is the easiest society in human history for a rich person to get richer, and tax policy is in fact becoming more and more regressive. Nobody is served by our government as well as the wealthy.

It is politically overly progressive. Tax policy is mostly guided by where the money is. It can't get it from the poor. Government depends upon votes and money. It cannot create wealth and it cannot create opportunity, that it tries is a statement of it's progressive drive toward the centralization of power.

[Pliny]

The problem is your whole argument is a gigantic strawman. You describe equality as "no one can be richer than another, no one can more valuable to society than another", and then you attribute that admittedly crazy idea onto a group you characterize as "left-libs". The problem of course is that theres many millions of "left-libs", and almost NONE of them are advocating equality of outcome, riches, etc.

See how youre being dishonest with yourself?

It's the "almost" None that bothers me. The rest that support government creation of equal opportunity or redistributing the wealth are either in that categroy of almost none or are naively disillusioned.

In reality society is trending in the opposite direction. More tax breaks and tax loopholes for the wealthy. Income trusts, realestate trusts, and all kinds of financial vehicles designed to legally evade taxes, lower taxes on investment income, large reductions in corporate tax rates.

That would be the apparency. But you assign those powers to government and if government is giving you tax breaks and providing loopholes it is only doing it in it's own interests. If it has the power to give you all you want it has the power to take it away. Tax breaks and loopholes are only indications of how government has the power to pick losers and winners.

The wealthy get a better deal right now in Canada than ever before in history. This is a kick-ass place to be rich, and one of the easiest places to grow your wealth in the history of the human race.

Why should the wealthy get a better deal? This perception only creates the concept that corrections to equalize opportunity and redistribute wealth are politically necessary.

[scouterjim]

It is a bit of a conundrum to me how the lib-left demands equality - no one can be richer than another, no one can more valuable to society than another, no one can be openly superior and no one is to be treated as inferior, yet we must celebrate diversity and tolerance.

All must be percieved as equals. I suppose the only thing looked at as intolerable is determining someone makes differentiations between individuals, groups, races, cultures, nations, etc.

I suppose all things must be equal as regards superiority and inferiority. No thing compared to another must be considered inferior or superior. A rich person and a poor person are the same. But if the rich person considers himself superior to the poor person he must be made to understand he isn't superior and some of his riches must be taken away from him as a demonstration that the poor person is not inferior but equal.

How can we have diversity and tolerance when attempting to politically achieve equality?

If somebody is rich, fine, but that does not make them better than me. I admire somebody who has earned their way to wealth, not inherited it.

[bloodyminded]

Tax breaks and loopholes are only indications of how government has the power to pick losers and winners.

Not exactly. It is an indication of how the wealthy have a disproportionate influence and effect on government.