Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only".

In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Obama: Nobel Peace Prize Winner
Topic Started: Oct 9 2009, 10:02 AM (1,324 Views)
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

Esternarx
Oct 11 2009, 12:36 PM
Damn Elitists. Equality is a moral fact of nature. Liberty is the solution to all social and economic problems.
No, equality is a non-existent contrivance of mankind used as a system of control by the government.

Dogs aren't equal. Primates aren't equal. People aren't equal.

There are leaders and there are followers. There are dominants and submissives. There are men and women.

Difference is inequality and should be recognised as such. Inequality does not translate directly to a lack of liberty. Inequality does not mean some people are worthless (well... :rolleyes: ).

If you were dating a hot dominant woman who makes more money than you, was smarter than you, was more social than you, was nicer than you and more attractive than you then you'd be a fool not to realise that she is better than you, E.

And inequalities such as these translate to society. Those who work hard and smart make more money and enjoy better lifestyles. Those who are more attractive have more privileges. Why? Because people aren't equal. Because despite the government prattling that all men are created equal, the child of two genii is more equal than the Down's child of the single mother. Society recognises this fact despite coercion.

Give a tramp off the street $1000. See what happens.
Give a business man $1000. See what happens.

Argue that people are equal.

I'm not saying that inferior people should be culled. I'm not saying I'm better than anyone (I know I'm cutting into the middle of the deck). I'm not even saying that only superior people should be allowed "liberty" (however you wish to define it).

I'm saying that people are not equal. They're not created equal. They don't live equally. They don't have equal chance to succeed or be happy. They're not equally valuable to society. Two given people (if we're honest) aren't even equally regarded by their respective families and those closest to them.

By no scale or measure - no matter how abstract - are two different people "equal".

People can be useful. People can be required. People cannot be equal.
Edited by Nag Ehgoeg, Oct 12 2009, 03:51 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Harumf
Member Avatar
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
Ah, but don't all people deserve an equal chance to succeed or fail?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

New Harumf
Oct 12 2009, 03:50 PM
Ah, but don't all people deserve an equal chance to succeed or fail?
People don't have an equal chance to succeed or fail. Whether they deserve that chance is immaterial. Your average person will a terminal illness deserves to get well - doesn't mean it can or will happen, and wishing it were so or pretending that it might happen doesn't help.

The factors that determine whether a person has a good chance of succeeding start before conception, are further solidified after copulation and are practically determined by the end of pregnancy.

If we accept that people's chances of failure are affected by factors outside of our control but surely that's "equal enough" then we're just dancing around the fact that people are unequal because we don't have the cojones to abandon political correctness (as we pick up the turd).

Even in an ideal world, people couldn't have an equal chance to succeed or fail because success is measured against the achievements of others. Every single one of us would be an unbridled success by the standards of 400 years ago - we're going to live into our forties and only have to work five days a week!

In purely objective terms, it is just that all people have an equal chance to succeed or fail. But this necessitates that all people be equally likely to succeed both genetically and in upbringing and opportunity.

I realise that the inequality of man is an uncomfortable truth. But that's only because we've been brought up to think that we can all be President and that our rights will be respected and life is fair, that you should wish upon a star and so forth. Inequality exists. It's a fact.

If we recognise this fact, it doesn't mean that someone is going to kick down your door and threaten your liberty.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tristan da Cunha
Member Avatar
Science and Industry
Furthermore some people are born poor and others are born rich. It would be ideal for people to have the material resources to achieve their potential, but this ideal if it is to be pursued should be pursued with charity and not socialism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
East Anarx
Member Avatar
Anarchitect

Of course we're not all "equal" in that sense. You misunderstood what I was saying.

Roderick Long
 
“We can now see how socioeconomic equality and legal equality both fall short of the radicalism of Lockean equality. For neither of those forms of equality calls into question the authority of those who administer the legal system; such administrators are merely required to ensure equality, of the relevant sort, among those administered. Thus socioeconomic equality, despite the bold claims of its adherents, does no more to challenge the existing power structure than does legal equality. Both forms of equality call upon that power structure to do certain things; but in so doing, they both assume, and indeed require, an inequality in authority between those who administer the legal framework and everybody else . . . The libertarian version of equality is not circumscribed in this way. As Locke sees, equality in authority entails denying to the legal system’s administrators — and thus to the legal system itself — any powers beyond those possessed by private citizens.”
Equality: The Unknown Ideal
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

Esternarx
Oct 13 2009, 09:47 AM
Of course we're not all "equal" in that sense. You misunderstood what I was saying.

Roderick Long
 
“We can now see how socioeconomic equality and legal equality both fall short of the radicalism of Lockean equality. For neither of those forms of equality calls into question the authority of those who administer the legal system; such administrators are merely required to ensure equality, of the relevant sort, among those administered. Thus socioeconomic equality, despite the bold claims of its adherents, does no more to challenge the existing power structure than does legal equality. Both forms of equality call upon that power structure to do certain things; but in so doing, they both assume, and indeed require, an inequality in authority between those who administer the legal framework and everybody else . . . The libertarian version of equality is not circumscribed in this way. As Locke sees, equality in authority entails denying to the legal system’s administrators — and thus to the legal system itself — any powers beyond those possessed by private citizens.”
Equality: The Unknown Ideal
So long as you recognise that some people are better than others, then it's hard to see how you can support equality above the law.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sedulius
Member Avatar
Field Marshal
I don't understand the mindsets of the extreme. They confuse me with their flawed logics. That said, any logic is flawed, for logic discounts the possibility of unknown factors. We know next to nothing when it comes to the truth of things.

I don't like Obama, but he really isn't that bad. I'd say the same about Bush as well. They're only human. As to the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Obama, it symbolizes the corruption within global politics. People who recognize it as right are indeed fools.

As to the matter of the Jedi and the Sith, both represent real world ideologies, and both are quite flawed. I recommend you play KOTOR I and II if you haven't Telo, both as light and dark. It sheds a lot of light on that subject. The gray Jedi always seem to be the wisest.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ulgania
Member Avatar
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
I feel like I deserve a 7 figure Swiss Bank Account. That doesn't mean I'm going to get one.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Telosan
Member Avatar
The Foremost Intellectual Badass
Sedulius
Oct 13 2009, 02:44 PM
As to the matter of the Jedi and the Sith, both represent real world ideologies, and both are quite flawed. I recommend you play KOTOR I and II if you haven't Telo, both as light and dark. It sheds a lot of light on that subject. The gray Jedi always seem to be the wisest.

Don't have an Xbox. I found out recently that there are computer version of the game, but I can't afford them right now since my brother thought it was a good idea to take my wallet to school with him (he wakes up after I leave) and hand out all $480 dollars to his friends. For no reason. At all. My parents are making him pay it back, but I'm out of cash until he does, which may be on my 30th birthday.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ulgania
Member Avatar
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
Telosan
Oct 13 2009, 04:22 PM
Sedulius
Oct 13 2009, 02:44 PM
As to the matter of the Jedi and the Sith, both represent real world ideologies, and both are quite flawed. I recommend you play KOTOR I and II if you haven't Telo, both as light and dark. It sheds a lot of light on that subject. The gray Jedi always seem to be the wisest.

Don't have an Xbox. I found out recently that there are computer version of the game, but I can't afford them right now since my brother thought it was a good idea to take my wallet to school with him (he wakes up after I leave) and hand out all $480 dollars to his friends. For no reason. At all. My parents are making him pay it back, but I'm out of cash until he does, which may be on my 30th birthday.
Alright, that would warrant a mild beating. You have some experience in that department now, I suggest you carry on with it (and I also suggest you don't take that advice :lol: )

But it shouldn't be too hard to acquire. You can get it for $9.99 on Steam right now. It's just cheap enough I might consider it myself.

EDIT: LINK
http://store.steampowered.com/app/32370/
Edited by Ulgania, Oct 13 2009, 04:57 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sedulius
Member Avatar
Field Marshal
Ulgania
Oct 13 2009, 04:57 PM
Telosan
Oct 13 2009, 04:22 PM
Sedulius
Oct 13 2009, 02:44 PM
As to the matter of the Jedi and the Sith, both represent real world ideologies, and both are quite flawed. I recommend you play KOTOR I and II if you haven't Telo, both as light and dark. It sheds a lot of light on that subject. The gray Jedi always seem to be the wisest.

Don't have an Xbox. I found out recently that there are computer version of the game, but I can't afford them right now since my brother thought it was a good idea to take my wallet to school with him (he wakes up after I leave) and hand out all $480 dollars to his friends. For no reason. At all. My parents are making him pay it back, but I'm out of cash until he does, which may be on my 30th birthday.
Alright, that would warrant a mild beating. You have some experience in that department now, I suggest you carry on with it (and I also suggest you don't take that advice :lol: )

But it shouldn't be too hard to acquire. You can get it for $9.99 on Steam right now. It's just cheap enough I might consider it myself.

EDIT: LINK
http://store.steampowered.com/app/32370/
What Ulg said.

KOTOR II shouldn't be more than twenty bucks in stores, though I may be wrong. That game oddly retained its value.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
East Anarx
Member Avatar
Anarchitect

Nag Ehgoeg
Oct 13 2009, 02:30 PM
Esternarx
Oct 13 2009, 09:47 AM
Of course we're not all "equal" in that sense. You misunderstood what I was saying.

Roderick Long
 
“We can now see how socioeconomic equality and legal equality both fall short of the radicalism of Lockean equality. For neither of those forms of equality calls into question the authority of those who administer the legal system; such administrators are merely required to ensure equality, of the relevant sort, among those administered. Thus socioeconomic equality, despite the bold claims of its adherents, does no more to challenge the existing power structure than does legal equality. Both forms of equality call upon that power structure to do certain things; but in so doing, they both assume, and indeed require, an inequality in authority between those who administer the legal framework and everybody else . . . The libertarian version of equality is not circumscribed in this way. As Locke sees, equality in authority entails denying to the legal system’s administrators — and thus to the legal system itself — any powers beyond those possessed by private citizens.”
Equality: The Unknown Ideal
So long as you recognise that some people are better than others, then it's hard to see how you can support equality above the law.
Not "Equality above the law" but equality of authority. That is, each individual has absolute authority over her own body and the fruits of her labor. Claims of authority above and beyond that are unjust and tyrannical.

Sure, I may be better than you at chess. Inequality, oh noez. Does that mean I automatically gain the authority to play all your chess games for you, without your consent?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nag Ehgoeg
Member Avatar
The Devil's Advocate

Esternarx
Oct 14 2009, 05:52 AM
Not "Equality above the law" but equality of authority. That is, each individual has absolute authority over her own body and the fruits of her labor. Claims of authority above and beyond that are unjust and tyrannical.

Sure, I may be better than you at chess. Inequality, oh noez. Does that mean I automatically gain the authority to play all your chess games for you, without your consent?
Did I ever claim that it did before you came in screaming "equality for all" at us "elitists"?

If the fate of the human race depended on you winning all your chess games, then as I'm a better player than you you'd best believe that I'd play all your chess games without your consent. Self defence.

Otherwise, why should I care if you play a sub-optimal game of chess?

Closing, and I admit only tangentially related, if an inferior individual wants to give me absolute authority over her own body and the fruits of her labour then I dutifully accept that authority. And if you call that unjust and tyrannical (which I'm sure you wouldn't - because I've got a pretty firm grasp in what you believe in and have no doubt that while you don't disagree you will post for clarity), then tough cookies.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · Off-Topic · Next Topic »
Add Reply