On Equality

[Darth Sidious]

http://lord-feverstone.blogspot.com/...-equality.html


In Western society, one word often heard is "equality." I would wager most Westerners are at least nominal egalitarians after hearing how reverently they speak of it and those they claim "fight" for it.

Is equality a comfortable myth or verifiable fact?

In the context of mathematics and related disciplines, there is no doubt in my mind equality is a reality. If a + 5 is equal to b + 5, then a is equal to b. From henceforth, I shall refer to this as quantitative equality. A qualitative equality, which I believe most people refer to when speaking of equality between persons, strikes me as quite arbitrary, sentimental and unprovable.

Can one prove person a is quantitatively equal to person b? I cannot see how it can be done. Supposing person A is stronger than person B and person B is smarter than person A, does it mean each person's advantage balances the other's and they are therefore equals? No, there are differences in scale to advantages and there are far more abilities and weaknesses to be considered; furthermore, not all abilities have equal utility.

One might object like so: "Lord Feverstone, the utility of abilities is defined by the context. For example, if a soldier is strong and battle-hardened, this ability is of greater utility in that situation than the culinary skills he lacks."

I would answer by saying situations where one ability is emphasised does not happen in equal frequency to situations where another ability is emphasised.

What point am I making? There is no way to prove one person is equal to another. There is no balance sheet and point-value systems which can demonstrate equality. I therefore conclude equality between persons is a comfortable myth.

Western governments are dominated by representative forms of government, whether it be in the form of a republic or a consitutional monarchy. At the heart of representative government is the assumption all are equal. Many object to authoritarian systems of government such as absolute monarchy by saying it does not honour "equality." After all, they also think voting is a right. Since an absolute monarchy does not involve proclaiming and enforcing "equality" let alone voting, they conclude it to be an oppressive, illegitimate form of government.

What is oppressive about recognising the obvious fact there are exceptionally-gifted people in the world? What is illegitimate about rejecting the preposterous notion the ill-informed and the informed should be given equal say over how the government is to be run?

Even if "equality" can be proven, what difference does it make whether I or anyone else give my assent to it or not? As in On Truth and Monarchy, I stated truth is objective. Just because I am not a true believer in equality, does it mean I treat people like dirt? Absolutely not! God treats us all far, far better than we deserve, and He certainly does not regard us as being equal to Himself. There are people in the world who regard others more highly than they do themselves, and they treat such people accordingly. Of course, there are definitely many resentful of those they think are better than themselves. As one can conclude, belief in equality is no prerequisite to treating people well.


I am a believer in what Jesus says in Luke 12:48:

For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required...

A related verse is found in James 3:1:

My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.

When God gives gifts and responsibilities, He expects them to be used wisely. When He returns, will we be found to be good stewards of what He has entrusted to our care? Needless to say, there will be consequences for mismanagement, so we should live our lives in that knowledge. What really matters is not whether we are "equal," but whether we live our lives as God intends.

[bola]

I'm reposting my (slightly adjusted) comment on the blog here:

How do you distinguish between the informed and the ill-informed? Most political questions are not scientific. Remember that scene from The remains of the day where the butler is interrogated on current political affairs? The pompous ass in the comfy chair thinks he knows better, but how can he be certain? Just because people have had an education, it doesn't guarantee they will take better decisions. After all, many of the Western intellectuals support the most ludicrous ideas. Democracy exists for one reason only: to distribute power and protect citizens from tyranny. That's why we put up with it. There is no other justification.

[Darth Sidious]

Originally Posted by bola

I'm reposting my (slightly adjusted) comment on the blog here:

How do you distinguish between the informed and the ill-informed? Most political questions are not scientific. Remember that scene from The remains of the day where the butler is interrogated on current political affairs? The pompous ass in the comfy chair thinks he knows better, but how can he be certain?

My point was one cannot expect high-quality let alone anything better than mediocre government from representative forms of government, since essentially everyone has a say. Would you not agree that more people fall into the ill-informed camp than otherwise? I want a stable, yet relatively unobtrusive, government that is run by the few who know what government's purpose is and do not expand its mandate on the whims of the citizenry. The King and his nobility are not elected. They do not have to make campaign promises. Their business is to keep the peace whether between citizens or between nations. You can read more of my thoughts on this subject here.

Originally Posted by bola

Just because people have had an education, it doesn't guarantee they will take better decisions. After all, many of the Western intellectuals support the most ludicrous ideas.

Quite so. I heartily agree with you here. The education system has been a "target" of mine in the past, since they do not usually teach students how to think but what to think. The so-called intellectuals usually do more harm than good with their ideas (see: political correctness and its submovements like feminism).

Originally Posted by bola

Democracy exists for one reason only: to distribute power and protect citizens from tyranny. That's why we put up with it. There is no other justification.

I once thought that, but I realised the tyranny of democracy is more subtle than the kind exercised by autocratic regimes. Think about this: just how free are you? There is a reason why the Internet is so popular: there is so little genuine freedom in the supposedly "free nations" of the world. It is quite understood what sort of thinking is or is not acceptable.

I would say democracies have failed miserably to protect citizens from tyranny. As a matter of fact, they are like foxes guarding the henhouses. Look at those massive bureaucracies spinning red tape like there is no tomorrow. Look at those laws multiplying faster than rabbits can breed. Look at those restraining orders being handed out like candy. It just goes on and on and on. Needless to say, I am not impressed with democracy's track record.

[knight-errant]

Democracy only works until the populace realise they can vote themselves more money from the public treasury, more favours from the welfare state and more protection from the government mafia.

[bola]

Originally Posted by Darth Sidious

I once thought that, but I realized the tyranny of democracy is more subtle than the kind exercised by autocratic regimes. Think about this: just how free are you? There is a reason why the Internet is so popular: there is so little genuine freedom in the supposedly "free nations" of the world. It is quite understood what sort of thinking is or is not acceptable.

But we are on this forum. Compare that to China. Michael Buerke criticized the BBC. He wasn't arrested. In stead some changes in the management were made.

I would say democracies have failed miserably to protect citizens from tyranny.

There are moments when I feel the same. It's all very disappointing. But you have to realize that without the democratic safeguards things could easily be even worse. Democracy doesn't guarantee after all that tyranny will be impossible, it just makes it harder to achieve. Democracy is designed to stop people from pulling all the power towards them, of course you can't stop them from trying. I think the real culprit is Big Government.

As a matter of fact, they are like foxes guarding the henhouses. Look at those massive bureaucracies spinning red tape like there is no tomorrow. Look at those laws multiplying faster than rabbits can breed. Look at those restraining orders being handed out like candy. It just goes on and on and on.

It's like a steady drizzle of fine grained particles that gradually covers you completely. I read that in California people are not even allowed to smoke on the beach anymore. That's in the open air.

Needless to say, I am not impressed with democracy's track record.

I'm not impressed with the track record of the aristocracy either. After all, it's their fault the revolution happened in the first place. We have had more than 200 years of revolutionary mayhem since then. If the aristocrats had done a proper job of government, we wouldn't be in the situation we are today. Common people don't easily rise against their superiors. They are very reluctant to do so. You have to manage them really badly for a long time.