” Essentially, I believe that it would be unwise to simply brush off the point that a world safeguarded to the point where no one falls, is also potentially a world where no one rises.” – I guess this only sentence envelopes the whole post in a nut-shell for lack of better words. We’ve often have discussed about mine and your ideas of an egalitarian society and my position has always been that only an egalitarian society is not possible but at the same time it is not a good idea for two reasons;
1) This also brings us to the issue of who is to be the arbiter warranted with upholding the principles of an egalitarian system. The judiciary? The policymakers? And does this then bestow on these individuals a set of authority (i.e. power and privilege) that thereby creates a disparity which in itself violates the very premise of a truly egalitarian model? – I couldn’t have said it better myself and …
2) In an egalitarian society, where everyone is equal, inevitably comes a moment where there’s no progress because there’s no need nor drive for moving forward as everyone gets the same for the same amount of work or contribution to such a society.
The drive for any society has always been disparity. The poor and middle class, looks up at the apex and wants to achieve what the rich have achieved by all means necessary. Thus this brings a drive for invention and betterment by means of rivalry. If we are all equal, treated the same, having what everyone else has and lacking nothing, than what is the point of striving for more? Thus an egalitarian “regime” soon becomes obsolete and falls onto itself like a house of cards.
Originally posted on The AntiNietzsche:
Genuine self-scrutiny is a personal virtue that is much easier preached than practiced. Usually the furthest most of us are willing to go is a relativistic acknowledgment that differing opinions exist to our own and that, all things considering, we would be willing to change our minds if these alternative viewpoints were to persuade us sufficiently. But, in my opinion, this sort of tacit relativism isn’t much in the way of self-scrutiny. To self-scrutinize is to actively challenge the values and ideals we hold dear to our person–to dare to shake the foundation holding up our most cherished beliefs, so to speak, and test if the structure on which we house our beliefs is sturdy enough to withstand a direct attack. In contrast, the aforementioned acknowledgment that differing (and potentially equally valid) views exist to our own is a very passive stance, as it strictly relies on an external source…
View original 1,810 more words