Sunday, April 30, 2017

Minimal basic rights vs equality

Some years ago when I was in college, someone told me that American civilization was built on White supremacy. At the time, I found the assertion profoundly offensive. No doubt, that was its intended effect. Then I thought about it for a long time, and I eventually concluded that if the foundation of civilization was white supremacy, and you removed the foundation, then you would destroy the civilization, for a building cannot stand without its foundation.

At the time, it was a sickening thought to me.

But the you look around the world, and you see that China is built on Han Chinese supremacy, and Korea on Korean supremacy, and so on and so forth. And I concluded that if equality was the enemy of civilization, and I had a choice between inequality and civilization on the one hand, and equality and a new dark age on the other, that I would prefer civilization to a dark age, and inequality to equality.

And equality IS the enemy of civilization. Witness all the atrocities of communism. What is the thirst for communism but the thirst for equality? If communism had never been tried, then even looking upon it is like looking upon the Medusa — even a glimpse makes a man insane. It is best not even to try. If the pursuit of equality leads to 94 million deaths, then a half-ass pursuit should lead to half as many deaths. It makes no sense to say that equality is "good up until a limit." Or that it is a "worthy endeavor so long as it is not taken to extreme." Half strength poison is just half the lethal dose. Why bother?

The problem with every premise of the indoctrinated class, is that it depends on Gnosticism for its effect. But what if one is a realist? What if realty matters to you and not ideals? If one goes by the Keirsey Temperament system, Idealists, (NF) are a mere 19 % of the population, at max. If the message of the idealist is "destroy yourself for your ideals," then this message should be unfavorably received by most of society, who prefer realism to idealism. If the rest go along with it then it is only because they are shamed into compliance, or bad at inventing ideology.

But let us differentiate between all the different types of equality out there.

Equal outcome, (Impossible and immoral. All the other types are used as a door for it, this is always the true hidden goal. If implemented, it ruins civilization.)
Equal opportunity, (unethical, excuses affirmative action, justifies parasitism)
Equal justice, (realistically impossible since rich people are subject to more attacks from lawsuits)
Equal rights, (impossible, since people will not be equally responsible)
Equal responsibility, (impossible, since the people who should do it, are too inferior to care)
Equal voting rights, (unworkable, since low agency people will destroy the system)
Equal care, (unethical, since criminals must be punished)

Now here are some things that are not equality, but like equality, which I am perfectly comfortable with;

A minimum standard of income, or basic income.
Leaving people alone who obey the law and pay their taxes.
Universal healthcare, (with the right to buy more healthcare).

But these three things above are not equality per say. They are minimums. Leaving decent people alone is a minimum standard of justice. Basic income is a minimum stand of income. Properly done, universal healthcare is a minimum standard of care.

Could we all just have minimal rights rather than equal rights? Could civilization be reconstructed on that basis? There is a concept in philosophy called the social minimum. It is separate and distinct from the notion of equality: a vast open door for parasitism if ever there was one.


  1. "Basic," and "minimum," have a habit of creeping skyward as the lowest socioeconomic denominator (LSD) is tapped, by the top, for political power to utilize against the middle. Granted, I take your reasoning to be that, in the absence of any such "minimums," the consequential LSD crash would become an overwhelming problem for society at large. This; however, largely depends on the economics of security services.

    From what I understand of the more hyper-stratified societies out there, it appears to be the case that more often than not a moderate up-tic in security spending can offset a massive reduction in effective minimum social spending. So long as some kind of lip-service is paid to the LSD, particularly by way of top-down easily-manipulated functionaries, the fallout can be minimum for the top and upper-middle.

    Obviously this leaves a bit of a wild-card in terms of what happens to the relatively defenseless middle and lower-middle who would likely plunge into a dystopia outside the guarded walls of Elysium. That said, I don't think one can compel the top to care about this eventuality. Their very position is maintained by the continued sacking of the middle by the bottom so a system in which the middle is cleanly bifurcated, necessitating much less concern about rebellious middle management who fear being thrust outside the wall, would be a logical interest worthy of pursuit.

    1. I would rather have a reproduction licencing market where the having more than one child is excessively costly for the poor, drug addicts, low IQ, and the like. Then make this system compassionate with a basic income in the form of vouchers for rent, food, clothing, etc., or something like that.


Don't post under the name Anonymous or your post will be deleted. There is a spam bot using that name and I just delete everything he posts.