8 ms·

Sooner or later, I'm going to get around to writing a piece and titling it, "I reject equality" where I lay out the argument that the goal of equality is fundam

Sooner or later, I'm going to get around to writing a piece and titling it, "I reject equality" where I lay out the argument that the goal of equality is fundamentally hostile to excellence. In fact, I think one of the biggest flaws in English right now is how we use the same word - equal - for concepts as diverse as law and economics. "Unbiased courts" and "taking things by force from people performing better" really, really, really shouldn't use the same word. They do currently - equality before the law, and income equality. Facts-based-unbiased-law is obviously a good thing. Take-by-force-from-best-performers, on the other hand... Anyways, I haven't written the "I reject equality" piece because of how touchy it'll be, and how I'll have to ultra-carefully craft the arguments to say exactly what I intend to say, and no more or less than that. But I do think a goal of total equality is fundamentally hostile to excellence - excellence, by definition, is better than the rest. At some point, you have to start pushing down on the best if you want everyone to be the same. I understand some people will disagree with me on this, but I personally think that's a really bad thing.

joe_the_user 16y ago
You know what's ironic about this reaction of yours to the article? What's ironic is that a world of fewer and fewer superstars making more and more money is a world in which there is more and more equality - in that all the others are equally in shadow of the few superstars. My Freshman philosopher professor told a parable. One despot asked advice from the another. The second despot lead the first to a field and proceeded to spin his staff, cutting all the stalks of grass above a certain level. That illustrated how to maintain the highest level stalk of all. I'm into to the rejecting equality thing. I am seriously. I just suspect you haven't thought all of it through... (for example, have you read Nietzsche?)
j_baker 16y ago
I don't necessarily think you mean to reject equality. I think what you mean to say is that you reject objective decision-making. Objective decision-making has a tendency to treat everyone and every decision the same, making no exceptions due to circumstance. I think that what you're saying is that decisions need to be made in the scope of the current context. In other words, they need to be made subjectively. In other words, we can all be equal under the law. I am just as important under the law as anyone else (at least in theory). But that doesn't mean that the courts need to treat everyone the same. In the context of a company, all employees can be more or less equal. But that doesn't mean they need to be treated the same. Everyone is different, and you need to take that into account when you decide on salaries and position and whatnot.
rue 16y ago
> Sooner or later, I'm going to get around to writing a piece and titling it, "I reject equality" where I lay out the argument that the goal of equality is fundamentally hostile to excellence. I will offer a pre-counterpoint: equality is not (should not be) about everyone being the same or at the same level, but more "from each according to their ability" — but at the same time considering the 100% effort from everyone to be (nearly) as valuable. This leads to the second question of what you consider essential in achieving exellence: I hope you can offer more of an explanation than "more money as reward".
- lionhearted 16y ago
  > I will offer a pre-counterpoint: equality is not (should not be) about everyone being the same or at the same level, but more "from each according to their ability" — but at the same time considering the 100% effort from everyone to be (nearly) as valuable. Honestly, I'm not sure how to reply to that, because I don't think any single human in history has ever given anything near 100% effort or achieved 100% of their potential. Maybe a rare few individuals - da Vinci? Jefferson? Tokugawa? Socrates? But I'm not so sure of that, even. No matter how good you get, you can always make another incremental improvement. Couple that with the fact that the vast majority of major breakthroughs come from individuals or small teams, and I think anything that stifles excellence to potentially help get more out of everyone is misguided. Again, though, I realize that I hold the minority position on this idea.
  - rue 16y ago
    Substitute 100% with a percentage you feel comfortable with. Whatever puny humans consider "full effort" without ever aspiring for more… I think it is probably correct to say that the tips of major breakthroughs come from small groups, but to claim entirety of the credit would be discounting all of the work, research, support and infrastructure currently and in the past. I do not think it is feasible to go to an "every man for himself"-system at this point — plus I'd like to see some historic examples of such successes if that is your gist. Notably fostering an overall empowering society is not the same as putting Joe Sixpack in the Manhattan project 'cause he's been trying so hard, bless his little cotton socks. You need not respond here, but I hope your article-in-potentia can sufficiently flesh out and support your idea instead of only trying to deconstruct the current (?) stifling environ.
mcn 16y ago
If you want to argue that policies which reduce income inequality should be repealed it could be an interesting essay. Arguing against a "goal of total [income] equality" wouldn't be as interesting though: pushing for total income equality is not a mainstream policy position.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
natrius 16y ago
I think it's fairly simple: the goal should be equality of opportunity and not equality of outcomes. Furthermore, when opportunities are unequal, they should never be made equal by reducing some of them.
- ScottBurson 16y ago
  Yes, I think this nails it, and what's more, I don't think it's particularly controversial, in the US, anymore. This has been the Republican line since Reagan, and I think even most Democrats accept it now. There's a whole other conversation, of course. about whether we're really doing what we could and should to bring us closer to equality of opportunity -- I think a lot of politicians pay only lip service to that goal -- but that would take us a bit far afield.
  - maigret 16y ago
    It's not controversial because people (all - democrats, republicans, rich and poor) don't seem to have a clue how much unequal the US is. It's been a HN submission today: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2039503 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2039503 . If they really knew, they may change their opinion on that.
known 16y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility
Confusion 16y ago
taking things by force from people performing better And this is where your argument will completely derail, not in consistency, but in it's ability to convince anyone with other basic assumptions about the goal of income redistribution policies. Asserting this, you've already lost and are preaching to the quire. The pertinent point is that people perform better through a combination of 'working hard', 'being more able' and 'luck', where the latter is not to be underestimated. You're elevating 'economically better performance' to 'being morally entitled to a greater share of our aggregate affluence'. That is as hard to defend as any other moral standard and probably not a debate you wish to engage in. I certainly don't believe all those bankers have 'performed better'. Many have merely been lucky, many others have gamed the system. It also shouldn't be necessary to argue that point. What we care about is 'what works?'. How much wealth should people be allowed to keep, to optimize the sum of their performance not just in terms of economy, but also in terms of humanity. What have they added to this world, to all those around them? I gladly give up half my income to live in a society like the one I live in. I love the Western European welfare state and regret the American winner-takes-all mentality that disregards how lucky you are to live this specific life in the first place. I'm not just me; I am everyone I love. You cannot convince me of allowing you to retain more of your wealth, unless you can convince me that it would not decrease the wellbeing of people I love, including those that are disabled, without a job, etc. Today you, tomorrow me.
billswift 16y ago
You should read Rothbard's Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature first and see if it says what you mean. (I couldn't tell you, since I read it so long ago that I can barely remember reading it. I have only a vague memory of what it said, but it did address some of your points.)

joe_the_user 16y ago

You know what's ironic about this reaction of yours to the article? What's ironic is that a world of fewer and fewer superstars making more and more money is a world in which there is more and more equality - in that all the others are equally in shadow of the few superstars. My Freshman philosopher professor told a parable. One despot asked advice from the another. The second despot lead the first to a field and proceeded to spin his staff, cutting all the stalks of grass above a certain level. That illustrated how to maintain the highest level stalk of all. I'm into to the rejecting equality thing. I am seriously. I just suspect you haven't thought all of it through... (for example, have you read Nietzsche?)

j_baker 16y ago

I don't necessarily think you mean to reject equality. I think what you mean to say is that you reject objective decision-making. Objective decision-making has a tendency to treat everyone and every decision the same, making no exceptions due to circumstance. I think that what you're saying is that decisions need to be made in the scope of the current context. In other words, they need to be made subjectively. In other words, we can all be equal under the law. I am just as important under the law as anyone else (at least in theory). But that doesn't mean that the courts need to treat everyone the same. In the context of a company, all employees can be more or less equal. But that doesn't mean they need to be treated the same. Everyone is different, and you need to take that into account when you decide on salaries and position and whatnot.

rue 16y ago

> Sooner or later, I'm going to get around to writing a piece and titling it, "I reject equality" where I lay out the argument that the goal of equality is fundamentally hostile to excellence. I will offer a pre-counterpoint: equality is not (should not be) about everyone being the same or at the same level, but more "from each according to their ability" — but at the same time considering the 100% effort from everyone to be (nearly) as valuable. This leads to the second question of what you consider essential in achieving exellence: I hope you can offer more of an explanation than "more money as reward".

lionhearted 16y ago
> I will offer a pre-counterpoint: equality is not (should not be) about everyone being the same or at the same level, but more "from each according to their ability" — but at the same time considering the 100% effort from everyone to be (nearly) as valuable. Honestly, I'm not sure how to reply to that, because I don't think any single human in history has ever given anything near 100% effort or achieved 100% of their potential. Maybe a rare few individuals - da Vinci? Jefferson? Tokugawa? Socrates? But I'm not so sure of that, even. No matter how good you get, you can always make another incremental improvement. Couple that with the fact that the vast majority of major breakthroughs come from individuals or small teams, and I think anything that stifles excellence to potentially help get more out of everyone is misguided. Again, though, I realize that I hold the minority position on this idea.
- rue 16y ago
  Substitute 100% with a percentage you feel comfortable with. Whatever puny humans consider "full effort" without ever aspiring for more… I think it is probably correct to say that the tips of major breakthroughs come from small groups, but to claim entirety of the credit would be discounting all of the work, research, support and infrastructure currently and in the past. I do not think it is feasible to go to an "every man for himself"-system at this point — plus I'd like to see some historic examples of such successes if that is your gist. Notably fostering an overall empowering society is not the same as putting Joe Sixpack in the Manhattan project 'cause he's been trying so hard, bless his little cotton socks. You need not respond here, but I hope your article-in-potentia can sufficiently flesh out and support your idea instead of only trying to deconstruct the current (?) stifling environ.

mcn 16y ago

If you want to argue that policies which reduce income inequality should be repealed it could be an interesting essay. Arguing against a "goal of total [income] equality" wouldn't be as interesting though: pushing for total income equality is not a mainstream policy position.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

natrius 16y ago

I think it's fairly simple: the goal should be equality of opportunity and not equality of outcomes. Furthermore, when opportunities are unequal, they should never be made equal by reducing some of them.

ScottBurson 16y ago
Yes, I think this nails it, and what's more, I don't think it's particularly controversial, in the US, anymore. This has been the Republican line since Reagan, and I think even most Democrats accept it now. There's a whole other conversation, of course. about whether we're really doing what we could and should to bring us closer to equality of opportunity -- I think a lot of politicians pay only lip service to that goal -- but that would take us a bit far afield.
- maigret 16y ago
  It's not controversial because people (all - democrats, republicans, rich and poor) don't seem to have a clue how much unequal the US is. It's been a HN submission today: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2039503 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2039503 . If they really knew, they may change their opinion on that.

known 16y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility

Confusion 16y ago

taking things by force from people performing better And this is where your argument will completely derail, not in consistency, but in it's ability to convince anyone with other basic assumptions about the goal of income redistribution policies. Asserting this, you've already lost and are preaching to the quire. The pertinent point is that people perform better through a combination of 'working hard', 'being more able' and 'luck', where the latter is not to be underestimated. You're elevating 'economically better performance' to 'being morally entitled to a greater share of our aggregate affluence'. That is as hard to defend as any other moral standard and probably not a debate you wish to engage in. I certainly don't believe all those bankers have 'performed better'. Many have merely been lucky, many others have gamed the system. It also shouldn't be necessary to argue that point. What we care about is 'what works?'. How much wealth should people be allowed to keep, to optimize the sum of their performance not just in terms of economy, but also in terms of humanity. What have they added to this world, to all those around them? I gladly give up half my income to live in a society like the one I live in. I love the Western European welfare state and regret the American winner-takes-all mentality that disregards how lucky you are to live this specific life in the first place. I'm not just me; I am everyone I love. You cannot convince me of allowing you to retain more of your wealth, unless you can convince me that it would not decrease the wellbeing of people I love, including those that are disabled, without a job, etc. Today you, tomorrow me.

billswift 16y ago

You should read Rothbard's Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature first and see if it says what you mean. (I couldn't tell you, since I read it so long ago that I can barely remember reading it. I have only a vague memory of what it said, but it did address some of your points.)