Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Hopefull Dawn

Equality

Recommended Posts

What is equality? For me its an interesting question. Many people many ways, or no? We all bleed, suffer, love, hate. But are we equal? What is equality for you? Is it a true thing if we are so different, yet all the same (someway)? What does this mean to you? Maybe its silly but it interests me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First and foremost, equality means everyone is equal under the eyes of the law.

Secondly, equality means that everyone receives a set standard of protections from the government.

It does not mean everyone is as intelligent as everyone else, or has as much money as everyone else, or is as important to the society as everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agre with most of your opinion, but not with the issue of importance of individuals to the society.

To me it says that some people are more important then others. Maybe im a little naive, but for me this is the first step to the creation of unequality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, if a society wants to be truly equal then everyone needs to be on the same scale of importance. If you have people with varying levels of importance than you'll begin to have separation between the less important and the more important resulting in inequality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that to be equal you should show that you deserve to be equal, that goes with respect you can't just get it you have to earn it, so if you make more money so what you still haven't earned anyones respect or to equal with them, your rich there not you'd think that makes you higher, but really it could be the complete opposite in the eyes of man without money. So that's my opinion please give feedback ty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Equality, I think, is a concept but its not achievable in the real world. People have different worth or values, and society judges them based on their contribution. Take for example, the President is important enough for secret service agents to die for him if needed. The same can't be said for a street bum or begger; even though "theoretically" they are equal, but realistically they are not.

I want to touch on a related question, should ALL people have the same vote?

There are interesting ideas out there that voting should be a privelege, not a birth right. Perhaps the right to vote should be given only when people have a certain amount of education, or have served the nation in some way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voting is making decisions towards the future of all the citizens so should we limit the voting to only the educated or involved? That seems to steer towards a slippery slope of elitist democracy.

I agree on the statement of equality being relative. Some people seek civil equality and view it as the only true equality, while others argue you that true equality is everyone equally entitled to everything. It's difficult to say whether true equality can be achieved or whether a certain amount of equality is a healthy balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elitist democracy is only so if education level is the pre-requisite. However, no one can argue against the fact that the more educated are usually the better informed and hence better placed to make decisions that affect the country. I can see some good points, including a greater national interest in 'education. But there are also problems, because access to education is not universal and some people cannot afford the time or money to educate themselves.

What if the requirement is "hard work"? You earn the right to vote if you worked for X number of years and paid Y amount of taxes? Or if you served in the armed forces or civil service?

I think some of the argument I hear makes sense:

- Fairness 1. In the sense people who can vote will include legal immigrants who cannot vote under the present system. They contribute as much as anyone in terms of taxes or helping the nation they work or live-in.

- Fairness 2. People who don't contribute, such as convicts, drug dealers, or others who live off the system, don't deserve to have a say.

- Potential for increased participation. Humans behavior is such that once you take away that "right", it makes it more enticing. The belief is that people will place a higher premium on voting and actually do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The equality i want is as Goddess Relief Office sead; "not achievable in the real world". At least not in 1-2 hundred years, or until humanity evolves so humans would not wiew themselfs as the most important. But thats just an utopy.

Voting is a different story. I dont believe in democracy im a fan of benelovent autocracy. I dont think humans can gowern themselves, but one can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What, one human? I'm all for trusting humanity, but to give the rule of a country into the hands of one person. We've seen many examples of that before and where does it take us? Dictatorship, as much as there is people willing to say they could lead a country in a benevolent style(I think the same thing for myself), the power seems to be to overwhelming and can easily corrupt someone. How do you suppose it's an evolution when humans view themselves as less important? That's ridiculous, if anything humanity should be the highest importance and anything should be done to maintain human life.

And usually in democracy, the ones running for political positions are educated and the one's that run who are not educated don't usually win. But education alone does not also guarantee that one is good at politics. I believe even people such as drug dealers and convicts and the "freeloaders" have a right to vote, you might not be able to understand why they're in such a position and perhaps their ability to vote can help themselves or others like them get out of that position. It's not always their fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant that humans are egoists and that is why power corrupts. So when i say " humans would not wiew themselfs as the most important" i mean the individual and his wiew of what is more important, me or the others. I think such individuals should gowern and if that happens who needs partys or elections, just advisors, a gowerning staff, jduges, and someone too coordinate an "emperor". I know Im a freaky idealist.:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I understand where you're coming from. I would love to agree to the fact if we could have a sole benevolent ruler, but the notion of leaving someone with that much power without any checks against it seems to be foolish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Elitist democracy is only so if education level is the pre-requisite. However, no one can argue against the fact that the more educated are usually the better informed and hence better placed to make decisions that affect the country. I can see some good points, including a greater national interest in 'education. But there are also problems, because access to education is not universal and some people cannot afford the time or money to educate themselves.

What if the requirement is "hard work"? You earn the right to vote if you worked for X number of years and paid Y amount of taxes? Or if you served in the armed forces or civil service?

I think some of the argument I hear makes sense:

- Fairness 1. In the sense people who can vote will include legal immigrants who cannot vote under the present system. They contribute as much as anyone in terms of taxes or helping the nation they work or live-in.

- Fairness 2. People who don't contribute, such as convicts, drug dealers, or others who live off the system, don't deserve to have a say.

- Potential for increased participation. Humans behavior is such that once you take away that "right", it makes it more enticing. The belief is that people will place a higher premium on voting and actually do so.

Throughout history it has been known that Democracy is Mob rule, and that all systems are imperfect. We should look more into not giving minorities any more rights than the average individual or for that matter taking rights away from the Criminal so to speak. Once you start taking or giving more rights to one party or the other the Governments assumes to much control. For instance look at Iran in 1953 when the U.S. killed off the democracy to preserve British oil, that to me is a good example of a government assuming too much power. Rights cannot be diminished by alloting more priviliges to the right people, but instead to all people. The government is meant to protect the people not add inequality to the mix. Equality is a standard for all citizens and that is the reason citizens can vote. Otherwise you assume one group better than the other and create a new kind of prejudice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is foolish but that is what a constitution is for. The power lies bie the "ruler", but he must obey too the constitution. He is not different then a "normal" citizen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×