The Benefits of Egalitarianism

Neoconservativism is partially progressive. Some ideals derive from Trotskyism, while others derive from the Modern Liberalism of the New Deal Era. It is best to consider the ideology syncretic, as the political philosophy of Leo Strauss, a highly reactionary conservative, is also evident.

 

I guess you meant to say that it would be idiotic to believe that government should do one and not the other. That must be what you meant because you go on to say that I could make the libertarian argument that government should do neither. And of course, I don't need to, because when you reflect on the presence of the word "should", in this conversation, you should realize that, regardless of what you think is possible, anyone with an intact sense of morality knows that the one evil doesn't justify the other. In reality it has been the case, in the past, that governments have not done either. Although governments always tend to grow, it is easy to conceive of a government, the role of which is restricted to providing a safe and fair environment within which people may prosper. I don't think that's possible in the actual world, and I can't justify the idea of an entity laying claim to an arbitrarily chosen swath of land and writing laws, and applying them to anyone who happens upon that land, so I have no philosophical choice but to be an anarchist. It may turn out to be the case that, in the long run, people cannot live without government, but that doesn't matter; when I chose my ideal society I chose to choose it based on what is logically and rationally justifiable, not on what just is. Notice that we still don't have a justification for egalitarianism itself?

 

I agree...I was using your original post to lampoon the progressive left's "solution" for alleviating poverty..vis. "growth of government"

Sometimes, apparently, my rhetoric sails high...apologies for including you in my lampooning.

 

Sorry I'm way late coming into this dialogue. But anyhow, referring to the OP's question, I believe in egalitarianism for two simple reasons:

1) It makes people happier. Look at the global polls. People overwhelmingly tend to be the happiest in the most equitable countries. Not a coincidence. Equality tends to minimize social antagonisms and maximize social peace. What argument could be more compelling than this?

And...

2) It makes for a more stable approach to economics, as contrasted with the market "boom and bust" cycle.

 

I take it your avatar is genuine because the intelligence (or lack of it?) level reflected in your argument well concerts that of a blonde's.


Anyway, you made 2 gruesome mistakes:
1, It makes people as miserable as possible. USSR, Red Cambodia, NKorea etc etc, these nations are laureates of the egalitarian Oscar.

2, Yes, it's stable, because there will always be poverty, so "boom" is really out of the picture.

3, Being interested in politics. Really, go back to your kindergarten and grab some Molly Pocket doll and drive her around in her red miata. You have no place in the world of politics.

BTW, I h8t h8t people who couldn't even count and contradict themselves in public forums.

 

You see I have no picture of you, and therefore can't judge you by your looks. I only have your posts to judge by, and they are super brilliant!! Like the above posts!! Awesome!!! You are clearly a person of extraordinary intelligence!!

 

I am not a fan of his objectivist mindset, but FixingLosers makes cogent and rational posts.

 

They have 172 posts, and one of them is the nonsense post above which includes ad hominem and cherry picked evidence and almost nothing else. With such a small sample size to offer, I wonder how you have come by that conclusion, considering the post in this thread.

PS. I have rarely if ever found an objectivist to be cogent or rational.

 

Many of FixingLosers' posts uphold Ayn Rand and her philosophy.

 

So in other words you have no actual definition of progressive. It is just a bogey word used to describe all people who advocate for things you do not like? Kind of like how socialism is used in the same sort of way?


PS. Progressive is a weird word anyways. It doesn't really mean anything in general. It is just a catch all word for any people who believe they are trying to "progress" society. I have little use for the word, and have never and would never describe myself as such. However, usually when people use the word they use it interchangeably with liberal or leftist(things I proudly identify as, at least as a leftist). If that is not what you mean, then I have no interest in defending your version of what a progressive is. Which just seems to be a weird frankenstein of all ideologies which seek to increase the size of government in any way, all mixed into one.

 

So he parrots a popularizer of vulgarized version of Nietzsche? That sort is pretty common at this forum. I wonder why that sort of parroting has impressed you so quickly. Or does the poster transcend the usual Rand sycophant who runs around forums like this?

 

It's not weird, it's just a reactionary ideology oddly similar to conservatism.

 

His reasoning seems to deviate from the typical Randian. I cannot conclusively posit such. FixingLosers will do so for me over time.

 

What exactly does it mean? It is a word that comes out of the late 19th and early 20th century progressive movement. A word which was abandoned largely, and resurrected to be used to describe modern American liberals. If you use that as the bar for what a progressive is, then I agree that they are conservative, but not particularly reactionary. But I still don't really understand exactly what a progressive is ideologically. Is it just the opposite of a conservative? Anything that seeks change in the name of "progress"? If so, it seems a strange ideology, with no principles. Change is not really much of a guiding principle, nor is progress. They are vague and unspecific.

 

If one is to apply a direction-based label to the term 'reactionary', it would be regressive. Reactionaries seek to return to the status-quo of previous states. Progressives seek political, economic, and social reform in opposition to Conservatism.

 

Ya, that is a very basic dictionary definition of what the terms mean, but as you are well aware, political terminology is often complex. Too complex to be described using a dictionary. What I mean with my question, is that people usually described as progressive spend a lot of time attempting to maintain the status quo. They defend social security, medicare, welfare programs, and other long standing programs against reactionary pressures from the modern right wing. If that is what they do, then people described as progressives aren't really progressive at all. In that case, using the term to describe such people doesn't make all that much sense.

PS. Though then again, the modern "conservative" movement has little interest in conserving anything, and is actually much more reactionary in nature. Which is why I find these terms to be unhelpful if thrown around without context or explanation.

 

I concur, but for succinctness, I prefer to keep in line with dictionary classifications. This way, I do not need to provide one long-winded post describing the multiple theoretical and practical variants of a political philosophy.

 

Embrace brevity!

 

So anyway, the only point of this thread was to try and get you guys to tell me that egalitarianism is not a virtue, but nobody wants to say that, so I'll just put it this way: (A) If you can imagine a possible scenario where the only way to make a group equal is to make some in the group worse off, then equality is not necessarily good. (B) You can imagine such a scenario. Therefore, (B1) equality is not necessarily good. (C) A desire for something that is not necessarily good is not a good or evil making property; it is not a virtue. It's just a preference, and not one that is necessarily good. It would be a very strange egalitarian doctrine if it did not entail, and focus on a desire for equality among people. It doesn't matter if the focus is on equality of outcome or equality of opportunity; (B1) applies either way. Egalitarianism is not a virtue.

 

I'd be bold to say they are not similar, but identical. For starters, they all embraces idiotically delusional ideals.

 

Thanks! If you set emotions aside, you can always see that.

 

The downside to egalitarianism is that if you keep bringing in excess immigration and mass poverty from the outside, living standards will continue to go down.
It's like juice: keep adding water to it and it will become more and more diluted. That's why it's best to keep juice and water separate.

The Scandinavian experiment with egalitarianism just is not going to be sustainable with all these migrants and asylum seekers they keep taking in. It will overload the welfare and health systems, and make the pension system go bankrupt. Not to mention how it has already affected the schools in certain areas.

 

Egalitarianism gives equal opportunities for everybody. Gives the same rights and opportunities to arrive to some point. For example the most succesful societies are the most egalitarian.

Let's take for example the Finnish people, a really egalitarian society where everybody can access to any level of education and only depends in their capacities. In an individualist society like the American that is not egalitarian not everybody has access to all levels of education or healthcare or anything else.

That would be egalitarian. An egalitarian society does not mean that everybody must have the same level of knowledge... But everybody must have the same possibilities to access to that level of knowledge. Not for example I have more money than you I should have more possibilities than you. Do you understand why egalitarianism is much better than the individualist society that represents USA. For this reason always will be superior a communist system than a capitalist.

 

Can't agree, conservatism demands the status quo while progressivism wants change for the sake of change.