Could egalitarians present clearly explain what is meant by “equality” and why its desirable? This constant “thats not we mean by equality” is getting tiring.
I agree, some clarification would be nice. Everytime they get backed into a corner thats the response we get, “Thats not what we mean!”.
You probably didn’t intend this thread for me, but the only kind of egalitarianism I support is moral/ethical egalitarianism. That is, I strive to hold everyone (including myself) equally accountable in moral/ethical terms.
You probably didn’t intend this thread for me, but the only kind of egalitarianism I support is moral/ethical egalitarianism. That is, I strive to hold everyone (including myself) equally accountable in moral/ethical terms.
Yeah, this seems to be shared by almost all libertarians, not what I was looking for. I don’t know why you would strive to be held down, but to each there own I guess. If I don’t get much else I might ask further. Thanks.
But the end result of that can not be equal for all people, and hence this is not true equality! 
That isn’t egalitarianism. Its universalizability, and its the first part of Kant’s categorical imperative.
While I agree with your second sentence, regarding the first, isn’t it a matter of how one defines “egalitarianism”? 
True, but that’s what the conversation is about though, what is actually meant by equality or egalitarianism. If we have a pie called “equality,” and we can separate it into pieces with specific names, then we can avoid fuzzy notions of equality and talk specifically about which slices of pie you support. And if the slices are sufficiently different from each other, maybe they deserve to be their own wholes, rather than parts of Equality Pie.
Okay, so how is “moral/ethical equality” not a kind of “equality”? It seems to be just another slice of Equality Pie, doesn’t it? Whether it can be described by any other words (such as “universalizability”) is immaterial, as far as I can tell.
I agree that it very much appears to be part of the pie and it may very well be. How much though, of the pie does moral equality take up and how similar is it to the rest of the pie?
Throwing in another metaphor: John loves Poodles but not other aminals, not even other breeds of dogs, but Poodles are an animal so John calls himself an animal lover. Whenever he has discussions about animals, John get easily frustrated when other people misrepresent his love of animals for all animals, instead of just poodles. Most of John’s opponents say “hey, why don’t you just say which animals you love so we can avoid misunderstanding.” My position is this: John needs to admit that he isn’t an animal lover at all. In fact, he is against all animals and poodles are merely an exception. It is ridiculous, confusing, and seemingly sinister to to call himself an animal lover.
Does it really matter? It takes up some part of the pie and there is some amount of similarity between it and the rest.
If you’re defining “animal lover” as “lover of all animals”, then no, John isn’t an animal lover. On the other hand, if you’re defining “animal lover” as “lover of at least one kind of animal”, then John is an animal lover. Either way, you certainly can’t say that John is against all animals, as poodles are animals.
I certainly agree, though, that if most or all other people John interacts with define “animal lover” differently than he does, it would be easier for him to go along with their definition when he’s around them than it would be for him to try to make them use his definition.
Bump Bump. Come on all you LLs, please provide a cogent definition of equality and why it is desirable. It would really clear up some issues if you did.
I’ve been asked to fish for this red herring.. sure, I like a challenge.
Equality; http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&q=define%3Aequality&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1
It’s not a hard concept to understand.
You want a strict defnition of it? Impossible, it will vary from person to person. Give me a strict definition of capitalism… or even inequality for that matter.
There are problems for mathematicians where you can make 1=.9 and other such nonsense. Is that equality?
This is all, as I said, a red herring. It looks pretty, but there’s no real substance. THe focus is, and should be, for so-called egaliatarians is power relationships. Income (in other, and much more important terms, wealth) inequality is the prime material source of all coercive power (you can’t coerce people w/o the resources to do so. If you just say “do this now!” They can either listen or they can’t. But if you start punching them, you are using your wealth of physical prowess to coerce them).
Then how do you deal with the fact that so-called income equality can only be realized by way of violent force? IE, we can only create a society of income equality by using compulsion to do so. The whole concept undermines your assertion that income disparity is the very source for coercive power(Which it is not). Given two men of equal wealth. Man B must first rob man A. before an alleged disparity formed. The coercive power is not dependent upon any originating or pre-existing income disparity. It depends on the initiation of force alone, and a race against the market to suppress it’s counter-forces. Now it’s true that Man B now has more resources available to him, to further exploit ManA. However on a market, provisions are made available to ManA to protect himself, regardless of income disparity or equality.
It is entirely theoretically possible to envision an economy where income is dispersed un-evenly, without an abusive central coercive authority existing. The hypothetical economy would be, The Market. IE, the very concept of a central authority is not dependent on income in-equality. It has yet to be shown that it’s dependent on that at all. The argument your presenting is that one directly follows from the other. That coercive authorities directly follow from income in-equality. That is simply quite obviously false.
How do these coercive powers first create their income disparity? They must steal it first no? The concept that all men having equal wealth, keeps one man from stealing from another is purely naive.
It’s a complete non-sequitur. How is it not mind-boggling the dellima you’ve created? Or are you just choosing not to reason through your own beliefs?
This is a clear cop-out. We’re asking you to provide a definition. Not google.
Furthermore, in a world without a central authority, does the concept of fighting for income equality make any sense? Given the praxeological and various different ends of individual men, how can we assume to maintain a state of wealth equality?
Then how do you deal with the fact that so-called income equality can only be realized by way of force?
Explain to me exactly how a charity forces wealth equality.
It is entirely thepretically possible to speak of an economy where income is dispersed un-evenly, without an abusive central coercive authority existing.
That depends on how you define “theory.” One can hypothesize but as for theorize… idk…
The argument your presenting is that one directly follows from the other. That Coercive powers directly follow from income in-equality. That is not true.
Do you have an argument to make for this, or are you just asserting it?
How do these coercive powers first create their income disparity? They must steal it first no? Given all actors have an equal amount of pay. That doesn’t stop one man from stealing from another.
I don’t understand. Are you saying one can only make money through theft? I know some socialists who argue that, I don’t quite follow it myself. Are you keeping in mind unintended consequence and/or negative externalities?
This is a clear cop-out. We’re asking you to provide a definition. Not google.
What’s wrong with copping-out of a wild goose chase? Google will provide you with all the definition of equality you need. Whatever straw men you create out of that is your business.
_
I haven’t a clue as to what your talking about. Explain to me how you can create a universal wide wealth equality, without discrepancies, without the applied use of “Coercive Powers”.
So explain to us how one is entirely dependent on the other. How coercive entities are alone created from pre-existing income disparities.
Your confused here. I am asking you to explain the logic, of how one is completely dependent on the other. I can’t explain your argument for you, thats why you are here. I have already explained to you several times how the initiation of force is not dependent on a pre-existing condition of wealth-disparity. You ignored it.
IE, I am not the one making the assertion, you are.
I am saying that the formation of coercive authorities are not dependent on a pre-existing wealth disparity. All thats needed is the means to coerce, and a systematic depletion of market responses. Governments do this by creating socialized “public” defense agencies.
To remind you, you said
Your arguing that income disparity is the primary reason for the creation of coercive powers. I am showing you how coercive powers are formed before any notion or thought of wealth equality or in-equality exists.
Coercion is not dependent on any notion of equality, or in-equality. How more trivially can I spell this out?
Look, ScottF brought it up, and you defended it. NO one forced you attempt to defend a fallacious concept. You voluntarily chose to do so. So don’t get upset when I point out that you are now trying to find a way out.
I disagree.Considering everyone as bound by morality and requiring moral consideration and treatment is probably the most basic type of equality.It’s embedded in the NAP.It’s another kind of equality I favour.Also it need not come from Kant.I think simple recipriocity highlights if say in the golden rule.
I haven’t a clue as to what your talking about. Explain to me how you can create a universal wide wealth equality, without discrepancies, without the applied use of “Coercive Powers”.
Explain to me how that isn’t a straw man?
So explain to us how one is entirely dependent on the other. How coercive entities are alone created from pre-existing income disparities.
ANother straw man. I never said they are alone created from… I said wealth inequality is the prime material source of coercive power. One cannot implement his tyranny wihthout the means to do so.
I am saying that the formation of coercive authorities are not dependent on a pre-existing wealth disparity. All thats needed is the means to coerce, and a systematic depletion of market responses. Governments do this by creating socialized “public” defense agencies.
Your second sentence contradicts the first.
Your confused here. I am asking you to explain the logic, of how one is completely dependent on the other. I can’t explain your argument for you, thats why you are here. I have already explained to you several times how the initiation of force is not dependent on a pre-existing condition of wealth-disparity. You ignored it.
You merely asserted it. You’re so-called argument is merely begging the question. “It just isn’t” is not an explantion, nor an argument.
Your arguing that income disparity is the primary reason for the creation of coercive powers. I am showing you how coercive powers are formed before any notion or thought of wealth equality or in-equality exists.
You can want to coerce someone all day. It will do you no good unless you have the means to do so. You even said that yourself. I would almost go as far to say that the statement is a priori.
Look, ScottF brought it up, and you defended it. NO one forced you attempt to defend a fallacious concept. You voluntarily chose to do so. So don’t get upset when I point out that you are now trying to find a way out.
First, where did I get upset? In fact my first comment here said it was a wild goose chase. I attempted to get out as soon as I got in, and to show you youshould get out as well.
Second, you asked me to come here. I was avoiding it. But since you asked me to come, I came. And when I came I said “this is a wild goose chase. let’s get out of here.”
_
False. I was born with arms, and a brain. Thats all thats needed.
Pay attention. You said wealth inequality is the prime material source of coercive power.
So explain to us how you rectify natural wealth inequality which will result from day to day market activities. How is this a strawman? Your asserting that wealth inequality results in coercive power. So how do you prevent wealth ine-quality?
Stop weaseling and evading. Explain to us how Coercive powers are entirely dependent on pre-existing income disparity. I am not the one making the assertion, you are. Stop trying to flip things around. No one is begging the question of anything. (At least learn a bit about logic before making accusations)
Explain to us how coercion, is entirely dependant on pre-existing income in-equality.
Every man is born with the means to do so. Coercion is not dependent on some material object.
What kind of lunacy have you constructed to justify your reasoning?
I don’t believe I did. I said you were trying to find a way out.
Then proceed to explain to us how income disparity magically creates coercion. And how coercion would not exist in a wealth equal society.
-
Explain how coercion, would disappear in a hypothetically wealth equal society. (Which must be true based on your premise)
-
Explain how you can you can even logically create a wealth equal society, without violating the concept of praxeology,
The circularity and repetitiveness of your responses, is a model example of all you have ever offered on these forums my friend. Petty argumentation with never a hope, even if in error, of conceding points to help arrive at an honest conclusion.