Argue against my position

I believe that all equality, whether it be equality of opportunity OR equality of equality of outcome, is inherently fallacious in complex systems (e.g. a system with generations). I believe every person (including myself) has been indoctrinated into believing equality is existentially correct for irrational reasons.

Pic related is the best case scenario for equality. Adding some very slight complexity to a system that promotes equality absolutely invalidates it.
This DOES NOT get into the problem with inefficiencies of quantifying and enforcing privilege correction which is probably impossible to do with any accuracy.
This also DOES NOT get into the moral arguments behind private property and individual rights that enable passing of inheritance.

This DOES say that the concept of equality between people within a society is fundamentally flawed. People can never be equal. Any system that tries to correct inequality within a given generation is going to create inequality.

I am not advocating any political ideology. I am not suggesting a solution.

Attached: Untitled.png (1514x954, 189.38K)

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/11.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

No, you argue with my position

Attached: tf2_scout_friggen_dumbasses.jpg (200x200, 10.14K)

Reminds me of my LSAT, never again

Because politics shouldn't be a hobby for children or recreation for retards that just go online and get upset about headlines from their favorite media disseminator.

Political and legal equality does not mean "everyone gets an equal amount of everything". It means, primarily, a rejection of things such as feudal privileges or slavery. Socialists don't argue that everyone should get the same stuff, but that economic inequality cannot be ignored or handwaved away, whereas liberals generally don't ask about the poor masses who don't get enough food to eat (or worse, are actively hostile and openly acknowledge their equality is only for those with property). Collectivizing the means of production and the resource output of a society is not a matter of making sure every person gets an equal share because fairness, but a matter of having a functional distribution system at all and avoiding senseless excesses that occur in market societies. There would be no real purpose for a planning agency to with-hold food from workers to the point of starvation unless they had an intention to instate class rule, or there truly wasn't enough food to go around (which in our present conditions, we know to be a lie - we produce enough food to feed 12 billion or so people, and could easily produce more or ration out food to stretch that out to a larger population, and we could replace oil-powered tractors with human or animal powered plows if we really had to, isn't the whole argument of le overpopulation faggots that we have an abundance of people after all?)

Trying to apply utilitarian faggotry is not a worthwhile exercise.

As to whether political equality is itself valid… well, what the hell are we supposed to be doing in this society? You'd have to create an argument as to why explicit legal privileges or subjugation are inherently good (which is a somewhat different thing than arguing that there is such a thing as a natural slave that would inevitably be a slave even if he were granted legal freedom).

tl;dr: Modern eugenicist society has done a bang-up job destroying the concept of political equality. This shit comes straight outta Nineteen-Eighty-Four.

its inherently fallacious if you try to systematize people who are very different and can have entirely different means,
calls to equality there arent going accomplish anything,
you need solidarity for workers instead, you can worry about your feelings after you get a fucking meal

What's your end goal?

I don't have an end goal, I'm just explaining to you what political equality actually means instead of some strawman argument that makes no sense outside of utilitarian faggotry.

Already the first two words of your post: who cares. Your beliefs are irrelevant, since Marxism is a science.

The whole point of my post is that it's a critique of value/moral systems that underlie every popular political ideology. It's arguing that there is a paradox in these systems.

Without knowing the values, principles or objectives of those political systems, the critique makes no sense. When someone wishes to reorganize society into a system where people are more equal (economic, political or social) , they are probably going to be using the value system I am criticizing.

You've already gone off the deep end by point 6, user. You're arguing against a position that nobody here holds. Go find a group of liberals to debate.

No, they're not using the value system you are criticizing, you've just invented a strawman in your head and think to yourself "equality BTFO!!!" We aren't talking about fairness or niceness, or metering out how much everyone gets and ensuring it must be equally apportioned for our philosophy to work. We prefer an equitable distribution of goods for reasons which should be self-evident. No one wants to be ripped off, certainly not because of some asshole's conceit that he is entitled to a mansion while thousands must toil in his field. It does not require any great logic to explain this. Marx and Engels explicitly reject any notion of equality of outcome or the belief that all people are equal in ability, so I don't know what you're trying to get at.
In practice a socialist society would distribute resources somewhat unequally to meet the differing needs of each person, for example someone who needs a wheelchair would be - surprise of surprise - given a wheelchair, or whatever implements he needs. I don't want a wheelchair, I have no use for a wheelchair. Additionally, many resources would be communal, for example a neighborhood swimming pool or library. I don't need a fraction of a swimming pool or library. Maybe I'd like one of those cheap plastic pools or a shelf of books, but I'm not under any delusion that my fraction of a swimming pool or library is functionally the same as a neighborhood resource and that everyone with a cheap plastic pool can just pool their plastic pools together and make an olympic swimming pool. Your logic is only looking at individual outcomes measured as money incomes, and disregards communal property altogether - and much of the resources and means of production in a socialist society would be communal, just as much of the wealth in capitalism is in corporations, factories, skyscrapers, etc. rather than individual persons.

I don't know why I'm seriously responding to this shit but there you go.

You can't say I'm arguing against a strawman then argue from the exact perspective that I'm criticizing. You're an embarrassment.

You keep arguing against this strawman then going off about your as if I'm Sargon saying "equality of outcome is bad". I explicitly stated I was criticizing equality of opportunity as well as equality of outcome. You're so indoctrinated (again, I had to point this out in the OP) that you can't even perceive someone disagreeing with ideas like the guy with the mansion is an entitled, conceited asshole while the guy who thinks he should have equal rights isn't.

I may as well just start making points beyond the OP now because it's obvious nobody is ever going to directly challenge what I wrote.
I am saying you're worthless. I'm saying you're trash. I'm saying YOU are the entitled cunt for believing that you shouldn't be another animal on a farm. If royalty amassed wealth over thousands of years and now dominate over all others while you live in shit and starve, so what? This system of inheritance has been accepted for thousands of years but it's only modern indoctrination that tells us we are all entitled to a piece of the pie. It's nonsense. It's bullshit.

The thing is, user, only liberal pseudo-intellectuals think in terms of rights, entitlement and privileges and not in terms of political-economical structures. History is not written by laws or good intentions, it is written by the material conditions of men, which of course include legal and moral systems, but are not in any way limited to them.

Communism sees the working class as the revolutionary agent not because the worker is entitled to his piece of the pie, but because he has the strength to take it. Marx chose the worker not because it was the oppressed victim, but because he is the agent that has the ability to transform capitalist society. Just like the bourgeoise did with feudal society.

None here cares about equality of any kind. Yours is just an example of bourgeoise utilitarianist obsession. Utterly meaningless in its a-historical existence.

Attached: Xqtlx3n.jpg (1100x724, 64.15K)

All of this to accomplish what?

You have no idea how criticism works. The user whom you're replying to CAN criticise what you say you're arguing against. They're not using a moral valuation programme which is ultimately arbitrary and has no claim to supremacy over your own ideas.

But if you REALLY want to go down this route, we support 'equality of opportunity' because it allows for greater reorganisation of the world, democratically-so. We wish to reorganise the world to meet fluid and changing practical ends so that we can allow ourselves to expand the sphere of consumption and increase the scopes of the ends which we are able to achieve as a species. One person cannot think for everyone, though they are able to come to conclusions about others. No-one is a mind-reader and knowledge of the human social field which includes us ourselves is always incomplete, however scientifically-known, because when we learn about anything at all, we change ourselves and our own thoughts. We as rational subjects cannot be approximated as anything other than ourselves - not as biology, not as physical form but as DYNAMICS for which there is no evidence that there is any external causation from; there is no heteronymous control in the Kantian sense. Practically, we are self-causing and our thoughts upon their own self-reflections and self-approximations as we think about them are changed. We are not arguing for narrow moralities but rather what is central to them all. The ideological frameworks of such moralities are just the Ys of XY problems.

I'm afraid I don't understand the question.

I didn't argue for "equality of opportunity", dumbfuck. Marx never argues for such a thing (and explicitly rejected the idea of equality in the liberal sense). No liberal argues for such a thing unless they're really incompetent. No one who is talking about equality in the political sense is arguing for such a thing. No system of morality that has currency is arguing for the strawman you've set up. It's a total non-argument.

So okay, now you think I'm an entitled cunt for, y'know, not wanting to starve and die, and you think that you've stumbled upon some edgy truth that I simply cannot comprehend because I'm too much a sheeple, etc. I shouldn't give you more rope to hang yourself, but if you're trying to argue for some absolute right to freedom or whatnot, you're going to get nowhere. There is no mystical force that guarantees freedom or rights. If you have any familiarity with political power, you'd know that organizing a state to enforce your dictates on subjects is - duh - hard, and the subjects of a ruler can and do break the law all the time. I'm free now not because some guys wrote the U.S Constitution and invented freedom, but because no ruler has bothered to kill me or imprison me yet. We can navel-gaze about whether I'm really free (and no, the deterministic nature of the universe is not what I'm talking about), but for the moment I'm free enough to write this, sit back and play vidya, and so on. I am not, at the moment, another animal on a farm, and I intend to stay that way for as long as I can. I had enough experience with that kind of stifling environment.

It's the one part of Marx I have started to doubt as of late.

Attached: man-who-thought-hed-lost-all-hope-loses-last-additional-18692496.png (500x647, 191.08K)

Marxism does not aim at equality, only at human freedom. It's just that freedom as defined by bourgeois liberalism is materially meaningless.

Attached: 07c31fb1690768bfdad35ab0cc15cb65222738e14cd942b0d8da2fceb9424e4f.jpg (753x527, 50.72K)

What a load of shit. This is what happens when you prefer writing over thinking.

1. Equality of opportunity is good because giving people equal resources means they can democratically participate in reorganizing the world.
2. This is good because individual people have diverse thoughts which cannot be predicted or scientifically quantified.
3. The overarching goal is to 'advance the species'.
4. We are not arguing narrow moralities

go back to r/samharris with these retarded "thought experiments"

They night gets darker right before it gets brighter user.

So many words wasted, only to come back to this point every fucking time. Muh scary darkies. Pathetic.

Attached: 203ffbf9d438c18e306c06b8e992259c18510bd4a1649f78a4f1fe13b3699009.jpg (750x716, 69.89K)

Are you going to keep responding like an angsty faggot every time someone tells you straight up about your argument? You're bad at this.

I'm not the user you responded to, but I can say he's not too far off. An expansion of opportunity - the ability for everyone to get an education, the availability of libraries, adequate food for healthy growth, sanitary living conditions - is better for everyone in the end, and the only way to truly deny that opportunity when we clearly have the resources to do that is to enforce poverty. The accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few is only possible because of a police state to quell uprisings and the merger of corporate and state power in the form of the national security state.

Why would we want to do this? The question to ask is really, why would we NOT want to do this? Is there any really good reason for enforced poverty? Why the hell are we as humans participating in this thing called society anyway? You're utterly failing to make an argument for the existence of property and deliberate, institutionalized social inequality.

No one is arguing that strawman position you created. If you really want to get into a discussion about neurology or psychology, there are plenty of books to read by people who actually studied this shit, rather than the ramblings of some cringy edgelord on the internet. The study of psychology necessarily involves reducing humans to just another object - it is not a matter of how technologically advanced we are, it's an assumption you have to make in order to construct a theory of human psychology in the first place.

You're acting very nigger-like.

Thanks.

Attached: 68dafc8f217782db9c11ef1d4739c3d82d7a8861d2fed14846bc97e84e24e6ea.png (800x480, 333.34K)

The distinction is a meme by the establishment. It is only used to argue against equality of outcome, but how to do equality of opportunity instead is not addressed. In the real world, the equality of outcome types are also the equality of opportunity types, and the people against equality of outcome are also against equality of opportunity. To be for equality of opportunity while being against equality of outcome would require to make a distinction in time where the outcome part starts. But this isn't feasible, since people have histories and families. Rich people usually help their kids, and it is pointless to be mad at rich people for doing that as long as they have that opportunity, it is pointless to condemn them in words while doing nothing about the economic mechanisms that enable them and pressure them to act that way.
To take a do-nothing position about the status quo is taking a position, bucko.

I don't think people are equal in ability and you won't find a statement claiming otherwise in Marx/Engels/Lenin/Stalin either. People have different talents and interests, why shouldn't they work in different environments and consume different things? However, affirming inequality does not logically entail a statement on a scale or ranking. We can affirm that cats are different from dogs without making a cardinal statement that one dog is equally good as 2.3 cats or even a ranking that dogs rank above cats. That you put together the thought of people having distinct characters and talents with the thought that there must be a hierarchy of power has no basis in logic, it's just a habit of thought that you got from endless repetition of this combination in school/media.

Are you a nigger or is that a typo?

I didn't respond to your earlier post about how "we could just like feed the world because we have excess food" because it was absolutely moronic and it's still fucking retarded.

Possibly because the greatest booms in history have occurred where there. Does it ever bother you to know that people living in poverty under capitalist systems today are living far better lives than the bourgeois of previous generations? Kind of completely defeats the point of criticizing social classes when people in poverty are only upset that they're living worse lives relative to others in their society. And don't give me some sob story about the jigaboos. Their ancestors shouldn't have spent less time swinging in the trees.

quelle surprise

see

Attached: stupid idiot retard faggot sad autistic frog.jpg (657x527, 49.96K)

Stellar reasoning.

Anyway, is there anything you believe in? Are humans born to live a live of freedom and the pursuit of happiness, or is it something else?

lol yes, you weren't supporting an ideology before, because you didn't explicitly say it, just filed the serial numbers off it
your OP is retarded trash, the pic you're using as if it was evidence of anything is a literal STORY that you think is fact (like talking about the seven dwarves as if they were a real thing) and what a surprise, as if it already wasn't obvious from the stupidity you've already shown, you're a stormfag

I think morality is utterly subjective and the only thing that makes sense is to throw away ridiculous notions of "advance the human species" or "just love everyone", accept value/moral subjectivity and assert an objective value system that you enforce as a group/nation/individual.


How embarrassing. Social science?

Oh okay, so it's really about muh niggers now.

No, I am not black and I probably come from a better pedigree than you if you're really obsessed with that shit.


NO ONE IS ARGUING YOUR STRAWMAN POINT. Are you a 14 year old edgelord in sped or something? We're not talking about morality or appealing to others because we're nice and fluffy. You still haven't given a good argument as to why, you just repeated a bourgeois talking point and cut off your sentence. Do you even know what a sweatshop worker's life is like? Do you even know what an American prole's life is like? Fuck, do you even know what the standard of living was like in the past, instead of babbling some propaganda about how the progressive 21st century lets us live like kings? It's like you're completely illiterate to reality and historical context. Just knowing what us Burgers have lost since 1990 should be required reading before you make some asinine point.

How embarrassing.

Regardless, would you like to tell me all about how lower class niggers today would jump at the chance to live a middle class life in another era?

There was no middle class when they were climbing up and down trees.

Sorry bucko, you've already used your nigger-points for today. You need to find a new talking point and fast, or concede defeat.

But what is the objective value that you adhere to then?

Whatever you assert, retard.


I don't think it's possible to lose an argument to someone who literally believes niggers are going to democratically flourish in a communist utopia.

Aha, I've found it. You're claiming to reject subjective valuation yet you demand that your subjectively favored objective factor is made the measure of all things. And that chose factors incidentally also ties in to your pathological racism.

It's like poetry, in that they rhime.

Attached: jorge.jpg (500x370, 59.64K)

Are you legitimately retarded?

Attached: 21321.jpg (463x400, 10.44K)

Did I even say anything about black people?

You have a really, really simple thing to answer. I'll repeat it for you:
"You'd have to create an argument as to why explicit legal privileges or subjugation are inherently good (which is a somewhat different thing than arguing that there is such a thing as a natural slave that would inevitably be a slave even if he were granted legal freedom)."
Can you craft such an argument, faggot?

And we assert what we like, too. Funny how that works, right?

Are you so simple you do not get this basic point?

I think he's butthurt I called him a faggot and he's struggling with his homosexuality. It's okay to be gay!

No, you don't even question fundamental morality, you just run with it. And when you do run with it, you get so offended when people disagree with you because you believe there to be some existentially correct morality as opposed to a believe system that you enforce.

What are you talking about? I have to fit within some arbitrary rules you've set out? Did you write this because you realized trying to correct natural inequalities of opportunity (such as inherited wealth) in a society is ridiculously inefficient?


Geez. So embarrassing

YOU CAN NEVER ESCAPE IDEOLOGY
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/11.htm

Attached: police-australia.jpg (1000x662, 968.24K)

that pic is assertions connected through more assertions, everything is "because I say so", there's no logic or reason in there
but you used some greek letters like they do in maths classes you saw on youtube so it must be "scientific"

I have not made an argument based on morality once in this thread and neither has anyone else.


DID YOU FUCKING READ THE MAJORITY OF RESPONSES IN THIS THREAD? Jesus. No one is talking about the equality of opportunity bugaboo or trying to micromanage so that everyone gets the same opportunities out of fairness. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this. If you are pathologically incapable of arguing in good faith, you lose.

We do things like public education not because we're trying to be fair and nice to everyone, but because they are functionally useful and there is not a very compelling reason to not do so. I have a million and one gripes with schooling and it's not just because we have capitalist schools, but you'd have to be really fucking asinine to argue that we shouldn't have public libraries because black people might use them.

So we're back to square one. You'd have to give a good reason why, for this example, we shouldn't have public libraries, or if we should why black people should be restricted from accessing them. The latter point is essentially what you would have to argue for in order to say anything definitive. Otherwise you're just engaging in navel-gazing faggotry that doesn't mean a single thing, because your entire ideology is apparently arbitrary and dictated by whatever feels you have at the time (it sure as hell has no attachment to logic, given your utter failure to even comprehend the responses in this thread).

I'm quoting a quote from an argument on discount Zig Forums (funnyjunk) because this is either arrogance or a serious misunderstanding.

"Incentives exist past monetary gain. We, as a society, must pass the obsession with materialistic incentives which is provided by capitalist indoctrination throughout our entire young, scholastic lives. In a communist society, the general welfare of the state (which is comprised of the proletariat) is of top priority. People do not struggle to survive and succeed their birth-given socio-economic status so much because no-one is more or less advanced than you in any meaningful way.The work is distributed to the strong, able, and appropriate, and the incentive to discover and invent is to leave a mark on mankind and to improve society as a whole, as extreme wealth is not a given option for this mark, mostly because it is not needed. It persuades the individual to seek scholastic advancement and make scientific discoveries by removing the Capitalist-added incentive to simply gain money and buy extravagant things and act ostentatiously to gain fame/ recognition. The idea is to pass the predatory phase of society and establish a more peaceful, academically-oriented society that champions general welfare and scientific/mathematic advancement as opposed to championing income inequality and profit."

That is what is meant by progression of species. Not some human supremacy bullshit or other crap, simply to improve ones lives and become more civilized, to act for the sake of good, rather than (solely) for the sake of our lives. Pic 1 related

That's a deliberate manipulation of facts that obfuscates the fact that Africans are NOT inherently stupid or bad, but rather their situation has not let them develop as quickly. Pic 2 and 3 related.

I will not go into the rest of this because I do not pretend to be some expert on over-all equality. I will say this, trying to mathematically quantify something that is based on more than just mathematical reasoning, (I.E. morals). Capitalism is more effective at raising a profit quickly, but its over-all effects are immoral and damaging. Socialism may take slower paths but it raises equally because all people SHOULD start off equally in all aspects and remain equal in key, moral aspects. The simplest explanation that doesn't get stupid is John Rawls's Theory of Justice with 2 main principles.

1) Equal Basic Liberties: People should be maximally free to the amount compatible of being equally free.

2) Difference Principle: Wealth, or other socially influential things like class, education etc, should not be high enough to affect principle 1 significantly. (in other words a person shouldn't be able to influence society any more than another person just because they can use class or money to push their point of view. Which is why capitalist democracy is a farce, since the single 'vote' of a upper-classman is equal to many votes of a prole.

To continue on his ideas, Rawls states what is needed is fair terms of social co-operation, this acquired through 3 things.

1) Citizens should be;
- free (both in the ability to think and also in the ability to not fear for their immediate future concerning base things like shelter and food)
- Equal (in terms of one another within society)
- reasonable and rational

2) Natural Injustices: Some suffering is deserved and others are not. Some people (Ex cripples) have a natural injustice committed against them, therefore these things must be taken into account when distributing.

3) The Veil of Ignorance:
Sex, Religion, Race, Natural Injustices and other inherent things must be ignored in decisions. Therefore when choosing you pick with a theoretical veil on these characteristics and instead pick on the basis of merit or qualification.

Hopefully you take this into account, have a good day.

Attached: africa tiday.png (900x605 293.72 KB, 50.66K)

*Edit* i realize I left some things out of the Rawls content.

-free… concerning base things like shelter, food, education, healthcare and employment, thus assisting self actualization (Maslow's pyramid)
These are all required because anything past that cannot be provided by society but is determined by your further actions. By removing the primitive need of pure survival, humanity can focus on this far more and therefore largely eliminate the problems of social alienation, avarice, envy, and other human vices.

Attached: Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs.jpg (2000x1546, 487.56K)