Equity vs Equality

[SearchingforPeace]

Jefferson elaborated: "people are of equal moral worth, and as such deserve equal treatment under the law".

He did not mean that people are literally equal to each other. Progressives misinterpreted his meaning to try and argue that America had equality has a founding value.

The values of the French Revolution are not the same as the values of the American Revolution....

The American Revolution was a very conservative affair, as the colonists were fighting for their rights as Englishmen that they felt King George III was violating. The US Constitution is a very conservative document protecting property and balancing powers and resisting democracy.

The French Revolution is a much more universalistic affair, as well progressive, desiring a truly revolutionary change. It is also more humanistic, given that anticlericalism was a vital part as well. Of course, it soon resulted in mass killing and wars of conquest and dictatorship.

Given the longevity of the American Revolution and the rather short life span of the French Revolution, it is important to understand the consequences of the values of each....

 

[KitchenFly]

For any one who is truly interested in Equity and Equality I am giving away two tabs of pharmaceutical grade LSD with every CD explaining the Centres, maybe that's it, it...was the spelling, arr sorry rethought that, no free giveaways you make your own LSD and buy your own Russ Hudson CD's !!!

 

[Kullervo]

The values of the French Revolution are not the same as the values of the American Revolution....

The American Revolution was a very conservative affair, as the colonists were fighting for their rights as Englishmen that they felt King George III was violating. The US Constitution is a very conservative document protecting property and balancing powers and resisting democracy.

I think it's often forgotten that post-Revolution America retained much of the class structure that existed when it was a colony. There was very little social upheaval, just a transfer of sovereignty.

The French Revolution is a much more universalistic affair, as well progressive, desiring a truly revolutionary change. It is also more humanistic, given that anticlericalism was a vital part as well. Of course, it soon resulted in mass killing and wars of conquest and dictatorship.

Given the longevity of the American Revolution and the rather short life span of the French Revolution, it is important to understand the consequences of the values of each....

The problem with the French Revolution was that its leaders sought to totally abolish the established institutions (the king, aristocracy and clergy) without a clear template for how to peacefully govern in their place. "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" sounds lovely, but what does it mean in practice? I believe that most of the people who revolted did so because of economic strife at the time, not because they truly hated the France which was.

Thus when the SJWs of 1790 figured out that you can't actually create bread and water out of nothing, they looked around for a scapegoat and Europe watched the Reign of Terror in disgust. It took twenty-five years of war and suffering for the ship to right itself. I wonder what it will take this time?

 

[Reborn Relic]

No two groups of people are equal, you just have to average it out. But unless you believe equality is necessary for people to be happy, this should be a problem.

1. There being a lower average performance doesn't necessarily equate to any lower level of results being commensurate with that level of performance.
2. You could at least take steps to take stereotype out of the equation. Anonymous job applications, for instance, could defeat hiring discrimination.

Enough American blood has been spilled in vain to "spread democracy".

I'm not even talking about long-term societal changes, just the containment effects you see in prison. A rapist not in Syria will not be raping people in Syria. A rapist confined to prison will only be raping other prisoners, and the more Alcatraz you get the less likely even that is.

 

[Reborn Relic]

Equity requires that each country care for its own citizens. Period. Germany should care about German citizens. America about American citizens. China about Chinese citizens.

There is no equity in Germany caring about people in Syria as much of its own citizens.

It is up to Syria and the Syrian people to protect their own people

That is equity.

I guess this is half-fair. Equity could be this, but it doesn't have to be. It's really an extension of the Golden Rule, isn't it? If I'm allowed X with these conditions, so should everyone be. You've added a condition I don't care about (citizenship or perhaps positive contributions to society), and gotten a different result.

Now, other countries, if they need people and it will not harm their own people, could choose to import new residents, but if imported residents do not benefit the society as a whole, then there is no equity to bringing in people.

Germany has a pretty old population. There may be a need to bring in people. But Germany can choose who they want in.....

This is based on equating your country with your house, right? I don't think they're necessarily the same thing, and I do think scale factor plays into this. (I wouldn't give a damn about having to give up a small amount of my property on someone else's demand, but a larger part I might think differently about).

Now, if you were to cite a corporation you might be onto something here, but I wouldn't give corporations unlimited rights to deny service or employment to people.

 

[Kullervo]

1. There being a lower average performance doesn't necessarily equate to any lower level of results being commensurate with that level of performance.
2. You could at least take steps to take stereotype out of the equation. Anonymous job applications, for instance, could defeat hiring discrimination.

But people have the right to discriminate, and it benefits everyone. Let me give you an example:

A company might decide it wanted all its employees to be non-white, genderqueer women. Now I would actually have no problem with that, but morally this would present something of a conundrum to progressives. On the one hand, there is clear discrimination based on race, gender and sexual orientation. But on the other hand, the people doing the discrimination are "protected groups".

I'm not even talking about long-term societal changes, just the containment effects you see in prison. A rapist not in Syria will not be raping people in Syria. A rapist confined to prison will only be raping other prisoners, and the more Alcatraz you get the less likely even that is.

A rapist not in Syria will just be a rapist somewhere else. You are prioritising the welfare of another people over your own. Psychologically, that is a little odd.

Now at this point, I can't help but point out there are voices on this forum who insist that we already have a lot of rapists wandering around. Importing a lot of young, single men from a culture with no understanding of our social norms isn't going to make life any easier...

 

[Reborn Relic]

But people have the right to discriminate, and it benefits everyone. Let me give you an example:

A company might decide it wanted all its employees to be non-white, genderqueer women. Now I would actually have no problem with that, but morally this would present something of a conundrum to progressives. On the one hand, there is clear discrimination based on race, gender and sexual orientation. But on the other hand, the people doing the discrimination are "protected groups".

I wouldn't either, but I also wouldn't mind a company that only hires straight white men and excludes everyone else--given certain caveats. Maybe I'm a little odd there.

These caveats would mostly relate to the size of the businesses. A company should be able to decide whom it hires, provided a given amount of people it doesn't hire can get a job elsewhere, that amount being variable based on how desirable the job is. (We don't have to guarantee every minority group member can become a CEO, but gas station attendants, engineers, that stuff...yeah.)

A rapist not in Syria will just be a rapist somewhere else. You are prioritising the welfare of another people over your own. Psychologically, that is a little odd.

If you wanted to be cynical, you could argue my own interests aren't threatened. But also, you're forgetting prisons. We don't all have to be like the German police and try to cover things up. We could just arrest the rapists we get, and put them in high-security jail cells. Then they might not be a rapist elsewhere.

Now at this point, I can't help but point out there are voices on this forum who insist that we already have a lot of rapists wandering around. Importing a lot of young, single men from a culture with no understanding of our social norms isn't going to make life any easier...

Sure. We might be making it easier on somebody else though, so it balances out.

 

[Starry]

"Equality" today refers a state of equal quantity, and has nothing at all to do with natural rights. This is why I posted those definitions, so people like you become aware of what you are actually defending.

According to whom? I mean, you can attack Affirmative Action (also known around the world as Employment Equity) and all the other ways in which the various parties of the various nations try and uphold the rights of their people. But (continuing with the US example)...you can't say that when I, as a woman, make reference to the ideologies this country was founded upon it automatically means the opposite. That "All men are created equal" is not a statement about valuing (or at the very least tolerating) and protecting us in spite of our differences...but rather I'm now saying "let's pretend we're all the same so I can exploit people."? That suggestion feels very manipulative to me.

I will also say that the literal/physical equality argument is as old as the Women's Rights movement as physical strength is an obvious demerit for us.

Also if you had read my post, you'd see I believe that this concept stems back to early Marxist theory. The radicals in the 60s just applied it to race and sex issues - they didn't invent it.

That seems hard to imagine if you look at his own lifestyle and comments on this elsewhere. You have to take the context of the Declaration into account. It was political propaganda designed to polarise people against the British.

I did and I do.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

I guess this is half-fair. Equity could be this, but it doesn't have to be. It's really an extension of the Golden Rule, isn't it? If I'm allowed X with these conditions, so should everyone be. You've added a condition I don't care about (citizenship or perhaps positive contributions to society), and gotten a different result.

You don’t care about citizenship because you misunderstand our world. Citizenship is vital to protecting individuals and their rights. We live in a world of nation states. Each person in the world was born into a specific nation state with particular aspects, featues, culture, and structure.

It is hateful and bigoted to disregard such, because that is an invitation to disregarding the rights and privileges of others and is imperialistic. It is the arrogance typical of the White Man's Burden crowd, who just knew better than the people they conquered, slaughtered, and enslaved. It is the arrogance of the bureaucrats that instead of seving those in their stewardship insteads pushes to serve people outside their stewardship, therefore hurting their own people.

Citizenship is a essential consideration if you going to talk about nations and rights and privileges and responsibility. Nations are tools to protect local rights and are responsive to local issues. No one wants to be subject to distant bureaucrats that are tools of foreign corporations. Ask Greece or any nation which had IMF/World Bank austerity imposed. It is imperialism and hurtful to the people, but that is the result of ignoring sovereignty.

You really seem to lack a basic understanding of the world and ignore the societal structure. I would suggest more studying on the topic so that your idealism can have a logical and reasonable basis.

This is based on equating your country with your house, right?

Sorry if your limited understanding can't seem to grasp the concept except using a simplistic analogy that doesn't fit. No, it is not equating a country with a house.

I don't think they're necessarily the same thing, and I do think scale factor plays into this. (I wouldn't give a damn about having to give up a small amount of my property on someone else's demand, but a larger part I might think differently about).

Again, perhaps a little more education on the topic might do you good.

Scale doesn't matter. I suspect you don’t have much to give to be taken.... rights of property are important guarantees. One of the most important property is citizenship.

Now, if you were to cite a corporation you might be onto something here, but I wouldn't give corporations unlimited rights to deny service or employment to people.

WTF is this coming from????? Gotta love TiNe jumping all over the place, ignoring substance and just jumping to the new area.

Corporations should have no rights. It is a disastrous interpretation to give them rights. Corporations exist with only the privileges granted them by the state. But that is far afield from the topic at hand.

 

[Coriolis]

I have talked about this dichotomy a lot around the forum because it is an extremely important value distinction for me.

First, some definitions, because a great many people find these terms highly confusing and conflate them:

The most important part is (3.)

Equity is a quality, so is abstract.
Equality is a quantity, so is concrete.

I agree with this distinction, and have made it often in conversations with you, though I have used the term "identity" where you use "equality" here, to mean absolute sameness; and I used "equality" where you use "equity" here, and have specified "equality of opportunity rather than outcome". So, a semantics distinction at this point.

Equity really just means impartiality. It is the chief value that underlies most modern theories of justice, and is something noble which I'm sure we can all approve of here, so I only want to briefly touch on equity. In reality, I often find myself arguing that you should treat people fairly whether you like them or not, and as individuals, against those who feel that is overly rigid and inflexible. Of course, I don't believe for a moment we are all equal.

Equality is about changing people's characteristics by removing the differences which create unequal outcomes. The drive for equality is already punishing the strong and smart for their success. This is wrong. You should be judged on your merit and allowed to succeed or fail as a result of it. However, the freedom to be yourself is something which becomes meaningless if people lack any differences, not just in intellectual ability but in any sense. I truly believe biological sameness - one race, one culture, one system of belief, is the end game for progressives - because how else can you create equality? We should learn from history. A society where everyone is coerced into "being the same", and where everything is shared equally, will rapidly stagnate, losing its vigour and purpose. Look at the USSR. How much suffering is an idea worth?

I see equity as removing obstacles which on their own lead to unequal outcomes. When we remove these obstacles, then the unequal (non-identical) outcomes that result should result from the actual differences among people. I also call this state of affairs the level playing field. An ideal which we may never reach, but to which we should aspire, so everyone can make the most of his/her potential.