” 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.