New study/experiment. Uber conservatives now get a diagnosis?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

What would you consider equal? With the assumption that humans are naturally unequal, do we deserve unequal rights, unequal treatment, unequal pay? I'm not a big fan of this quote/mindset because it is too subjective, we say that all humans deserve some universal equality in some aspects of life while we should have inequality in others. Where is the line if there is even one?

Being equal means not a subject of someone else, that's all. It doesn't mean you have, or deserve, equal abilities, equal resources or equal rewards.

Honestly, I believe equal pay could easily work for humans since pay is an unnatural asset, which is much more compatible with equality than natural traits such as strength, smarts, looks, and charisma.

It's not unnatural at all. Since the dawn of mankind, humans have had to make an effort to survive. Hunting, gathering, making tools and seeking shelter, rewarded the best with more comfort.
Those efforts evolved into farming, manufacturing and building, but the goal was still survival, and for the best at it, the reward is more comfort.
When the efforts became organized, for economies of scale, barter was no longer practical, so money was used to keep track of individual efforts. That paycheck is the reward for your effort to survive, which is as natural as it comes.

The reason why I do not think equal pay will work for western society is that we put so much emphasis on money since that is what divides us into classes. If humans grew up in a classless society, money would seem no more important to us than our ability to vote and our hierarchy would change to prestige and respect.

There never has been, there is not now and there never will be, a classless society.
It is impossible to have a "society" without organization, and organization needs leadership, so that the pigs will always be more equal than others.

That is the biggest flaw I see in Communism, humans can not successfully switch from a society that puts so much emphasis on money as a divider in our hierarchy to a system that makes us equal in that area.

You have to understand what money is, how and why people get it, as well as why people want it. Stop thinking of money as something that justs exists and should be divided up. Realize it's a representation of, a reward for, skill and effort.

It has nothing to do with money itself because the same thing has happened in the past with areas such as rights. Equality in terms of rights did not happen when blacks and whites were told to be equal, and a fight still exists to this day but each generation gets more and more used to the idea of equal rights because we are raised in a more tolerant environment.

Blacks and whites were not told to be equal. They were told to stop fucking with each other because of color, and there is a big difference. They were told they had an equal right to make an effort and be rewarded for it, without being restricted because of their color/race. But there is no guarantee anyone will be successful or even survive.

If a generation is raised in an environment that puts little emphasis of the importance of money, a society where there is equal pay will flourish nicely. Just that, I do not think that will ever happen or at least not for a few hundred years.

When you understand what money really is, you'll see that's contrary to human nature and highly unlikely.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Being equal means not a subject of someone else, that's all. It doesn't mean you have, or deserve, equal abilities, equal resources or equal rewards.

I can accept that definition but it still doesn't stop the argument of how far we should push for equality in other areas, equal education for example, besides being a subject of someone else. There is still debate on how far should we go for equality which still means there isn't a clear cut line.

And also, do you think you could truly be free of being controlled by someone more powerful than you in a hierarchical system? Do you think we have equality in your definition in the United States right now?

It's not unnatural at all. Since the dawn of mankind, humans have had to make an effort to survive. Hunting, gathering, making tools and seeking shelter, rewarded the best with more comfort.
Those efforts evolved into farming, manufacturing and building, but the goal was still survival, and for the best at it, the reward is more comfort.

I was talking about biologically natural, we are not born with money and we can grow it within ourselves without taking it from someone else, I should have been more specific.

When the efforts became organized, for economies of scale, barter was no longer practical, so money was used to keep track of individual efforts. That paycheck is the reward for your effort to survive, which is as natural as it comes.

This assumes that this is the only way to survive, just because we evolved a monetary system doesn't mean it is impossible to survive without this specific kind. A communal society works much differently than a individualistic one.

And the idea of the paycheck is not what I think is as so unnatural but the idea of one person gets a greater chunk than someone else is a idea that started only a few thousand years ago. People in hunter-gatherer societies didn't have one person with all the food while others starved. The fact that humans have lived both ways make the argument of a hierarchal system determining who can eat or not being natural or unnatural pointless.

There never has been, there is not now and there never will be, a classless society.

I will agree that there will never be a truly classless society but you can change it to a much different level than we have today.

It is impossible to have a "society" without organization, and organization needs leadership, so that the pigs will always be more equal than others.

You can have leadership in a classless society. If you have a company where the manager makes the same as workers you have a classless system with leadership. It is impossible to have a hierarchical free society, which does not mean class even though they are very closely related.

You have to understand what money is, how and why people get it, as well as why people want it. Stop thinking of money as something that justs exists and should be divided up. Realize it's a representation of, a reward for, skill and effort.

It is a representation of a reward for societies value of skill and effort. Just because a manager makes 50 times more than a worker does not mean the manager is 50 times more skilled or put in 50 times more effort, just that society values a manager 50 times more than a regular worker. In a communist society, the idea is that the social value of a manager and regular worker is the same therefore they should be paid the same.

Blacks and whites were not told to be equal. They were told to stop fucking with each other because of color, and there is a big difference. They were told they had an equal right to make an effort and be rewarded for it, without being restricted because of their color/race. But there is no guarantee anyone will be successful or even survive.

Thats bullshit, the idea of white supremacy is that whites are more advanced biologically than people of color so the people of color didn't have the same rights as whites. Now, it is socially accepted that whites and blacks should have the same rights.

When you understand what money really is, you'll see that's contrary to human nature and highly unlikely.

Its contrary to our western nature and is very unlikely for a western society to change to a society that will minimalize class. I am not a pro-classless society anyways, I am just against the extremity of the class society we have now.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I can accept that definition but it still doesn't stop the argument of how far we should push for equality in other areas, equal education for example, besides being a subject of someone else. There is still debate on how far should we go for equality which still means there isn't a clear cut line.

You throw "equality" around like it's the be all, end all, to every social ill. There has never been equality in anything, and I don't think it's achievable or in most cases desirable. What we should be striving for is trying to eliminate stumbling blocks for people to advance their personal achievement, but if the kid has an IQ of 75 he's not going to Harvard, no matter what tools we give him.
Give every kid a solid basic education in the 3-Rs, then in High School provide different paths to choose from that will prepare them to make their way in the world.

And also, do you think you could truly be free of being controlled by someone more powerful than you in a hierarchical system? Do you think we have equality in your definition in the United States right now?

There is no equality and no system that's not hierarchical. If you chose to live in a society, rather than Ted Kazinski's cabin, then you have to deal with it, like everyone else. But, unlike the commie states, you still have the free choice of the cabin.

I was talking about biologically natural, we are not born with money and we can grow it within ourselves without taking it from someone else, I should have been more specific.

Biologically, there is even less equality than politically.

This assumes that this is the only way to survive, just because we evolved a monetary system doesn't mean it is impossible to survive without this specific kind. A communal society works much differently than a individualistic one.

Been there, done that, from Shakers to hippie communes. They all failed.

And the idea of the paycheck is not what I think is as so unnatural but the idea of one person gets a greater chunk than someone else is a idea that started only a few thousand years ago. People in hunter-gatherer societies didn't have one person with all the food while others starved. The fact that humans have lived both ways make the argument of a hierarchal system determining who can eat or not being natural or unnatural pointless.

No, the guy that shot the dear shared it with the others, but he still got the best cut. That's the way it's always been, commensurate reward for value. It doesn't matter that 12 other hunters worked just as hard, if they didn't produce results.

I will agree that there will never be a truly classless society but you can change it to a much different level than we have today.

Not unless the people want it, and I don't hear much clamor except from a few idealists.

You can have leadership in a classless society. If you have a company where the manager makes the same as workers you have a classless system with leadership. It is impossible to have a hierarchical free society, which does not mean class even though they are very closely related.

Your right, a manager that takes on the responsibility and accepts the same compensation as the workers, has no class.

It is a representation of a reward for societies value of skill and effort. Just because a manager makes 50 times more than a worker does not mean the manager is 50 times more skilled or put in 50 times more effort, just that society values a manager 50 times more than a regular worker.

No, not society's value of skill and effort. Society doesn't determine jack shit. It's the boss, the owner, of the business that determines the value of skill and effort, and determines the compensation, not society.

In a communist society, the idea is that the social value of a manager and regular worker is the same therefore they should be paid the same.

And communist societies don't work.

Thats bullshit, the idea of white supremacy is that whites are more advanced biologically than people of color so the people of color didn't have the same rights as whites.

What the fuck are you talking about? You said whites and blacks "were told to be equal". I presumed you were talking about the civil rights movement and federal court rulings/legislation. They were not told to be equal, they were told not to fuck with each other.

Now, it is socially accepted that whites and blacks should have the same rights.

You're dreaming. "Socially accepted" is a bullshit term that means nothing, except politically correct. It's politically correct to say that whites and blacks should have the same rights, but that doesn't mean everyone feels that way... ask any skinhead. It doesn't even guarantee a majority feel that way, it just means they'll agree in polite (PC) conversation.... and polls. The truth is in their actions.

Its contrary to our western nature and is very unlikely for a western society to change to a society that will minimalize class. I am not a pro-classless society anyways, I am just against the extremity of the class society we have now.

It's contrary to human nature, there was always chiefs and shamans in every society.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

You throw "equality" around like it's the be all, end all, to every social ill. There has never been equality in anything, and I don't think it's achievable or in most cases desirable. What we should be striving for is trying to eliminate stumbling blocks for people to advance their personal achievement, but if the kid has an IQ of 75 he's not going to Harvard, no matter what tools we give him.

I do not want equality in everything and never implied it, I just want to get rid of the stumbling blocks as well. I do not want the guy with the 75 IQ to go to Harvard, I want the everyone with a potential 175 IQ to have an equal chance to show that they can go to Harvard.

Give every kid a solid basic education in the 3-Rs, then in High School provide different paths to choose from that will prepare them to make their way in the world. There is no equality and no system that's not hierarchical. If you chose to live in a society, rather than Ted Kazinski's cabin, then you have to deal with it, like everyone else. But, unlike the commie states, you still have the free choice of the cabin.

I agree with this. I never wanted equality in every aspect if there was a misunderstanding there.

Biologically, there is even less equality than politically.

Thats what I was saying the whole time...

No, the guy that shot the dear shared it with the others, but he still got the best cut. That's the way it's always been, commensurate reward for value. It doesn't matter that 12 other hunters worked just as hard, if they didn't produce results.

He got the best cut, but the other people didn't go hungry either.

Not unless the people want it, and I don't hear much clamor except from a few idealists.

Thats why I don't think a leftist government is possible right now and would never fight for one either.

Your right, a manager that takes on the responsibility and accepts the same compensation as the workers, has no class.

No class? That shows that he would have a lot of class, the word you are looking for is fool.

No, not society's value of skill and effort. Society doesn't determine jack shit. It's the boss, the owner, of the business that determines the value of skill and effort, and determines the compensation, not society.

Ok, thats still not a direct representation of skill and effort then. A manager still does not work 50 times harder or is 50 times more skilled even if he or she thinks so.

What the fuck are you talking about? You said whites and blacks "were told to be equal". I presumed you were talking about the civil rights movement and federal court rulings/legislation. They were not told to be equal, they were told not to fuck with each other.

So giving blacks the right to vote is telling them "not to fuck with each other"?

You're dreaming. "Socially accepted" is a bullshit term that means nothing, except politically correct. It's politically correct to say that whites and blacks should have the same rights, but that doesn't mean everyone feels that way... ask any skinhead. It doesn't even guarantee a majority feel that way, it just means they'll agree in polite (PC) conversation.... and polls. The truth is in their actions.

Ok, your right on that but the point I am trying to get at is that racism has gone down since every generation is being raised in a society that is less and less racist.

It's contrary to human nature, there was always chiefs and shamans in every society.

I am not denying that, I am talking about how much power the chiefs and shamans should have over the population. And just because there is a leader doesn't mean there is a class difference.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

So giving blacks the right to vote is telling them "not to fuck with each other"?

The civil rights movement didn't give blacks the right to vote, which already existed, it told whites to stop interfering with the blacks right to vote. It also told whites (and blacks) not to interfere with anybody's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Keeping in mind all the laws in the world won't make it happen, on an individual basis, just punish people who persist. The only thing that makes it happen in a non-institutional environment, is personal contact building respect, like you said.

[9th Engineer]

So then if we were able to offer every kid the same highschool education and loan opportunities for college, that would be perfect equality. Equal opportunity, then it's up to the individual to use it.

manager still does not work 50 times harder or is 50 times more skilled even if he or she thinks so.

That's not important, if his labor is 50x more valuable to the success of the company then 1 worker, then he deserves 50x the pay in order to retain him.

Do you honestly think that there are enough individuals who are willing to work and sacrifice more then others for the same pay to fill all spots that would demand that? How do you rationalize telling that person he needs to travel 2 weekends a month when his buddies get to picnic with their families during that same time? How do you convince him to take on responsibilities that could cost him his job if something goes wrong, and how do you compensate him for his extra dedication to the company? A pat on the back and a 'good job, keep it up'?

Also, you are mixing two ideas which are anathema to each other. You say that the reward system would be based on additional respect and prestige. Then you say that all employees must be considered equally valuable. The self-esteem police have rampant power even in our current society, think of what they would be like under your system. I'd bet my life that under your rules anyone asking for additional respect or prestige as their reward would be torn apart as 'classist'. It already happens in socialist systems, just as the canadian doctor in here.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

That's not important, if his labor is 50x more valuable to the success of the company then 1 worker, then he deserves 50x the pay in order to retain him.

And how do you actually know that a manager's labor is 50 times more valuable than an worker's?

Do you honestly think that there are enough individuals who are willing to work and sacrifice more then others for the same pay to fill all spots that would demand that? How do you rationalize telling that person he needs to travel 2 weekends a month when his buddies get to picnic with their families during that same time? How do you convince him to take on responsibilities that could cost him his job if something goes wrong, and how do you compensate him for his extra dedication to the company? A pat on the back and a 'good job, keep it up'?

Once again, I do not agree with equal pay, I am just against the extremities. And to answer your question, those are the reasons why I don't think you can make a switch from a right-winged society to a left-winged one. If a left-winged society is going to succeed, a new system of rewards would have to be in place and I have no idea what they are or if they are even possible, I just know that our current way of living isn't the only way.

How do you convince him to take on responsibilities that could cost him his job if something goes wrong

You say that like only a manger is at risk at losing their job if something goes wrong. Shit rolls downhill.

Also, you are mixing two ideas which are anathema to each other. You say that the reward system would be based on additional respect and prestige. Then you say that all employees must be considered equally valuable. The self-esteem police have rampant power even in our current society, think of what they would be like under your system. I'd bet my life that under your rules anyone asking for additional respect or prestige as their reward would be torn apart as 'classist'. It already happens in socialist systems, just as the canadian doctor in here.

Do you purposely put words in my mouth or are you really that bad at reading comprehension? I have said numerous times that I am not a communist and I am not looking for a classless society. I am only defending some of their views because I have felt they haven't been proven wrong yet.