The lib-left's paradox

[Pliny]

It is a bit of a conundrum to me how the lib-left demands equality - no one can be richer than another, no one can more valuable to society than another, no one can be openly superior and no one is to be treated as inferior, yet we must celebrate diversity and tolerance.

All must be percieved as equals. I suppose the only thing looked at as intolerable is determining someone makes differentiations between individuals, groups, races, cultures, nations, etc.

I suppose all things must be equal as regards superiority and inferiority. No thing compared to another must be considered inferior or superior. A rich person and a poor person are the same. But if the rich person considers himself superior to the poor person he must be made to understand he isn't superior and some of his riches must be taken away from him as a demonstration that the poor person is not inferior but equal.

How can we have diversity and tolerance when attempting to politically achieve equality?

Edited August 21, 2011 by Pliny

[kimmy]

It is a bit of a conundrum to me how the lib-left demands equality - no one can be richer than another, no one can more valuable to society than another,

Who's demanding any of that?

no one can be openly superior and no one is to be treated as inferior, yet we must celebrate diversity and tolerance.

All must be percieved as equals. I suppose the only thing looked at as intolerable is determining someone makes differentiations between individuals, groups, races, cultures, nations, etc.

I suppose all things must be equal as regards superiority and inferiority. No thing compared to another must be considered inferior or superior. A rich person and a poor person are the same. But if the rich person considers himself superior to the poor person he must be made to understand he isn't superior and some of his riches must be taken away from him as a demonstration that the poor person is not inferior but equal.

How can we have diversity and tolerance when attempting to politically achieve equality?

Equality of opportunity, not equality of results. I don't know of any notable political movement in our country that is intent on guaranteeing equality of results.

-k

[TimG]

Equality of opportunity, not equality of results. I don't know of any notable political movement in our country that is intent on guaranteeing equality of results.

It think you are arguing semantics. If you pin a leftist down they will likely say they are only interested in equality of opportunity but show them any evidence of inequality of outcome and they will insist that is irrefutable evidence of inequality of opportunity.

[kimmy]

It think you are arguing semantics. If you pin a leftist down they will likely say they are only interested in equality of opportunity but show them any evidence of inequality of outcome and they will insist that is irrefutable evidence of inequality of opportunity.

I doubt it. Most people are capable of recognizing that many people succeed because of their merits and not because of some advantage or favoritism. I think this whole thread is an exercise in building straw-men.

-k

[CANADIEN]

I doubt it. Most people are capable of recognizing that many people succeed because of their merits and not because of some advantage or favoritism. I think this whole thread is an exercise in building straw-men.

-k

Mark the day. I agree with you.

[Pliny]

Who's demanding any of that?

Only a few in Canada it seems. The far left socialist. But it is enabled and becomes a matter of increasing progeressivism through the State's ability to confiscate property and determine it's distribution.

Equality of opportunity, not equality of results. I don't know of any notable political movement in our country that is intent on guaranteeing equality of results.

But if there is no equality of results then there must be an absence of equality of opportunity.

If women are half the population then there are those who will expect the representation in parliament to be half. Or if there is 10% of one race in the population then they would epxect the equivalent to be expected in their political representation. It matters little if those who are granted the right hold any interest in doing so that is how the left feel the demographic should break down.

Legislating an equality of opportunity means some must be denied opportunity in favour of others and it is no different or any better than the condition it is designed to prevent.

I understand the active denying of equal opportunity is the problem but initiating laws, such as Affirmative action laws, are only a legal denial of opportunity to some in favour of others.

So if the results are uneven, at least to some, if half the country's CEOs are not women then there must be a probelm of opportunity in the eyes of the left. Yes?

[msj]

I doubt it. Most people are capable of recognizing that many people succeed because of their merits and not because of some advantage or favoritism. I think this whole thread is an exercise in building straw-men.

-k

Super Kimmy, slayer of stupid threads!

At least, let's hope so....

[Pliny]

I doubt it. Most people are capable of recognizing that many people succeed because of their merits and not because of some advantage or favoritism. I think this whole thread is an exercise in building straw-men.

-k

I suppose I just reiterated Tim's view but equality to quite a few has no qualifier and means simply "sameness". It's the socialist Utopia.

[Pliny]

Super Kimmy, slayer of stupid threads!

At least, let's hope so....

An excellent illustration of left wing intolerance and discouragment of diversity and is most often the left wing argument against it. Thanks for the contribution.

I'm sorry I didn't say exactly what you think I should say.

[Black Dog]

Only a few in Canada it seems. The far left socialist. But it is enabled and becomes a matter of increasing progeressivism through the State's ability to confiscate property and determine it's distribution.

By whom?

But if there is no equality of results then there must be an absence of equality of opportunity.

Not necessarily.

If women are half the population then there are those who will expect the representation in parliament to be half. Or if there is 10% of one race in the population then they would epxect the equivalent to be expected in their political representation. It matters little if those who are granted the right hold any interest in doing so that is how the left feel the demographic should break down.

Legislating an equality of opportunity means some must be denied opportunity in favour of others and it is no different or any better than the condition it is designed to prevent.

I understand the active denying of equal opportunity is the problem but initiating laws, such as Affirmative action laws, are only a legal denial of opportunity to some in favour of others.

So if the results are uneven, at least to some, if half the country's CEOs are not women then there must be a probelm of opportunity in the eyes of the left. Yes?

No. That was easy.

[msj]

An excellent illustration of left wing intolerance and discouragment of diversity and is most often the left wing argument against it. Thanks for the contribution.

I'm sorry I didn't say exactly what you think I should say.

Which only demonstrates that I'm not "left" wing....

[Pliny]

No. That was easy.

So you disagree there can be any paradox in being tolerant and promoting diversity yet attempting to achieve equality?

I see the rich vilified quite often in the name of equality, and it's not about equality of opportunity. It's a fight for the "entitlement" to a higher standard of living to which only a government can be appealed to because no individual will tolerate that attitude of entitlement.

I see quite a few agencies and forces in our society that are not so much concerned with equal opportunity but with making everyone equal. Individuals must stand together to create a force, they must all be one. There can be little tolerance or promotion of diversity or individuality in such an atmosphere. If you choose to disagree, that is; be different, you are ostracized. You must be the same. There is strength in solidarity. Those who disagree obviously need to be forced to agree by law.

I suppose you can stand tall and demand entitlements as long as others stand with you to quash dissenters who can be easily overwhelmed. Storm the Bastille! Make the rich pay! We are one! All for one and one for all! Those who are of a different opinion are exploiters or greedy capitalists or deniers of rights or right wing extremists, are racists, misogynists, and start stupid threads. Those intolerant, anti-equality bastards!

[Pliny]

Which only demonstrates that I'm not "left" wing....

Of course not. You are a socially responsible centrist, right?

PS: And you just enjoy reading stupid threads to illustrate your point.

Edited August 22, 2011 by Pliny

[Shwa]

So you disagree there can be any paradox in being tolerant and promoting diversity yet attempting to achieve equality?

It is a paradox of semantics, which has already been pointed out. In fact, it seems that being tolerant and promoting diversity is in the attempt to achieve equality. Not a paradox at all.

I see the rich vilified quite often in the name of equality, and it's not about equality of opportunity. It's a fight for the "entitlement" to a higher standard of living to which only a government can be appealed to because no individual will tolerate that attitude of entitlement.

I see "the rich" being vilified just as much by the other "rich" in a thing called 'competition.' There isn't as much money to be made by preying on the poor as there is by preying on the rich. Well, unless you are McDonalds and WalMart.

I see quite a few agencies and forces in our society that are not so much concerned with equal opportunity but with making everyone equal. Individuals must stand together to create a force, they must all be one. There can be little tolerance or promotion of diversity or individuality in such an atmosphere. If you choose to disagree, that is; be different, you are ostracized. You must be the same. There is strength in solidarity. Those who disagree obviously need to be forced to agree by law.

Be thankful that you stand tall with us, who believe you should be free enough to express such views. But I think you are referring to something beyond our familiar democracy right?

I suppose you can stand tall and demand entitlements as long as others stand with you to quash dissenters who can be easily overwhelmed. Storm the Bastille! Make the rich pay! We are one! All for one and one for all! Those who are of a different opinion are exploiters or greedy capitalists or deniers of rights or right wing extremists, are racists, misogynists, and start stupid threads. Those intolerant, anti-equality bastards!

Naw, there is always a place for thoughtful dissent Pliny. Be thankful that it isn't a grave like some regimes...

[Black Dog]

I see the rich vilified quite often in the name of equality, and it's not about equality of opportunity. It's a fight for the "entitlement" to a higher standard of living to which only a government can be appealed to because no individual will tolerate that attitude of entitlement.

Sez you.

I see quite a few agencies and forces in our society that are not so much concerned with equal opportunity but with making everyone equal. Individuals must stand together to create a force, they must all be one. There can be little tolerance or promotion of diversity or individuality in such an atmosphere. If you choose to disagree, that is; be different, you are ostracized. You must be the same. There is strength in solidarity. Those who disagree obviously need to be forced to agree by law.

Examples>generalizations

I suppose you can stand tall and demand entitlements as long as others stand with you to quash dissenters who can be easily overwhelmed. Storm the Bastille! Make the rich pay! We are one! All for one and one for all! Those who are of a different opinion are exploiters or greedy capitalists or deniers of rights or right wing extremists, are racists, misogynists, and start stupid threads. Those intolerant, anti-equality bastards!

[Oleg Bach]

It is a bit of a conundrum to me how the lib-left demands equality - no one can be richer than another, no one can more valuable to society than another, no one can be openly superior and no one is to be treated as inferior, yet we must celebrate diversity and tolerance.

All must be percieved as equals. I suppose the only thing looked at as intolerable is determining someone makes differentiations between individuals, groups, races, cultures, nations, etc.

I suppose all things must be equal as regards superiority and inferiority. No thing compared to another must be considered inferior or superior. A rich person and a poor person are the same. But if the rich person considers himself superior to the poor person he must be made to understand he isn't superior and some of his riches must be taken away from him as a demonstration that the poor person is not inferior but equal.

How can we have diversity and tolerance when attempting to politically achieve equality?

ONE day I commented to a governmental bureacrat that the Muslims living in the projects, toss their garbage on the ground in the park...she almost tossed me out of her office. "You can't speak in such a manner here!" = humm? I thought. So I believe in respect - law and order and picking up your trash - but I am not included in the "diversity"...? I guess that diversity means low in quality. That low quality is acceptable in order to create equality?

[Michael Hardner]

ONE day I commented to a governmental bureacrat that the Muslims living in the projects, toss their garbage on the ground in the park...she almost tossed me out of her office.

I would have hoped you have learned to speak to bureaucrats by now, unless you were intentionally trying to irritate her.

[Oleg Bach]

I would have hoped you have learned to speak to bureaucrats by now, unless you were intentionally trying to irritate her.

She was a welfare worker - an aging single woman..who on the side worked as a jail guard - she proudly stated to me "I am a socialist" - she deserved a little irritating. I liked her but all she could say in her attempt to indoctrinate me was - in the end "I totally give up on you" - Thank God for that. Yes I can speak to them and play the game that is prescribed. I know the script - I was just a little taken back by her effort for me to use my green thumb in some public garden and show urban kids how to make things grow - I actually wanted her job- and was not up to being a "volunteer" Which is Orwellian for do what we tell you or you get no rent money.

[msj]

Of course not. You are a socially responsible centrist, right?

Well, I am very libertarian on social policy which matches much more closely to my fiscal conservatism than many people who call themselves "conservative" but really mean they want low taxes, lots of military spending and the moral brigade to ensure homosexuals can't marry each other, for example.

PS: And you just enjoy reading stupid threads to illustrate your point.

Nah, I just like antagonizing the people who start stupid threads.

[Pliny]

It is a paradox of semantics, which has already been pointed out. In fact, it seems that being tolerant and promoting diversity is in the attempt to achieve equality. Not a paradox at all.

Unfortunately, it isn't used that way. When a law favours one over another it is then used in the political process to determine winners and losers. It puts a natural social process in the hands of a politician and, in my view, is a dangerous road, as what man should have the power to determine winners and losers in society. Society to remain cohesive cannot politically force social diversity. I don't know if you foresee a breaking down of common bonds that make a society cohesive and comprise a nation but that's what I see. The trend is then towards internationalism. Nationalism has left a bad taste in in our societies. No one culture or society must be considered preferable to others, that would be prejudicial. Preference is the opposite side of the coin of discrimination.

I am just not willing to accept that some politicians should determine whether a white person or black person or what gender should fill what jobs. Society certainly is guilty of doing that. But for a progressive person, like yourself, you should see some evolutionary progress within society that makes it just and fair. Governments have instead of righting wrongs cement society with laws of prevailing social injustices. Jack Crow laws, segregation laws. It is the purpose of government to eliminate injustices not make laws that imbed them in society. Affirmative action laws are simply reactionary corrections of government for failing to do it's job in the first place.

Blacks were, at one time in European society, not considered human, and women were considered chattel. Government made laws accordingly. If they had not done so the transition to accepting Blacks as human and women as equals could arguably have been accomplished decades earlier. Because an idea, is easier to institute than to change a law. The idea that slavery and gender discrimination and oppression existed butted up against laws that were unjust and imbedded not simply other ideas and beliefs.

Perhaps a law is all that is necessary to determine a baby at conception is human before it will be granted any rights. The fact the law defines it as not human means it can be aborted without concern or feelings of guilt. That's all that law accomplishes. It makes poeple who wish to have abortions or perform abortions not feel guilty. Just as slaveholders did not feel guilty of holding slaves who were at the time considered less than human. Besides, abortion laws, help with population control.

I see "the rich" being vilified just as much by the other "rich" in a thing called 'competition.' There isn't as much money to be made by preying on the poor as there is by preying on the rich. Well, unless you are McDonalds and WalMart.

One choses to compete or not. One is not given opportunity to bring inferior or more costly products to the market as is determined by the favour and privilege a politician law will give him.

Wal-mart is always under threat of disappearing as is Macdonald's. The internet and shopping is the biggest competitor to Wal-mart and other stores, that can't compete, have already lost out to the internet. I think that the decision should be made by who can determine demand and bring the best products at the best price to the public. A Politician should not have the power to determine winners and losers outside of ensuring justice not determining itself what is just.

Be thankful that you stand tall with us, who believe you should be free enough to express such views. But I think you are referring to something beyond our familiar democracy right?

Naw, there is always a place for thoughtful dissent Pliny. Be thankful that it isn't a grave like some regimes...

The status quo is indeed tolerable and perhaps your idea it should be "conserved" makes you the conservative. But progressivism should be limited to a progress of society not a progressive growth in size or mandate of the State.

Edited August 23, 2011 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Well, I am very libertarian on social policy which matches much more closely to my fiscal conservatism than many people who call themselves "conservative" but really mean they want low taxes, lots of military spending and the moral brigade to ensure homosexuals can't marry each other, for example.

Are conservatives really denying same sex unions or are they just insisting the definition of marriage not be changed. Really, if homosexual "copules" wish the same rights as granted married couples perhaps the law should be changed so that married couples do not have any favours. I think homosexuals want to enjoy the benefits of divorce which guarantee a sharing of property. A whole new area of legal opportunity opens up.

Nah, I just like antagonizing the people who start stupid threads.

You aren't dong a good job and you should really check out what "stupid" means.

You may disagree with what I say and you have that freedom but in presenting my views I am only asking anyone who cares to look at it.

I am only saying in this thread that I perceive a paradox in promoting diversity and tolerance while advocating equality. Of course, as some have pointed out, equality is generally in need of a qualifier. It should be equality of opportunity, which makes sense. But I see that abused in laws such as pertains to affirmative action or gender preference. The law, in my view should e that all hve eqaul opportunity.

If discrimination does occur then that is a reason for justice but to imbed discrimintaion in law is going to prove divisive and incendiary over time. Besides that it is patronizing to those who gain favour and does not allow them to take full pride in their accomplishments.

[msj]

Are conservatives really denying same sex unions or are they just insisting the definition of marriage not be changed. Really, if homosexual "copules" wish the same rights as granted married couples perhaps the law should be changed so that married couples do not have any favours. I think homosexuals want to enjoy the benefits of divorce which guarantee a sharing of property. A whole new area of legal opportunity opens up.

No, Cons are trying to shove down our throat their morality while saying "hands off" when it comes to fiscal/tax policy. Could be quite the paradox.

I'm saying "hands off" to both the moral police and the the tax/fiscal regulators (although, obviously I'm not so dumb as to want to allow the "free market" to do what it has done in the US a la subprime - but I'm a pragmatist).

You aren't dong a good job and you should really check out what "stupid" means.

You should look up the definition of "antagonize."

You may disagree with what I say and you have that freedom but in presenting my views I am only asking anyone who cares to look at it.

No, really! I did not know that.....

I am only saying in this thread that I perceive a paradox in promoting diversity and tolerance while advocating equality. Of course, as some have pointed out, equality is generally in need of a qualifier. It should be equality of opportunity, which makes sense. But I see that abused in laws such as pertains to affirmative action or gender preference. The law, in my view should e that all hve eqaul opportunity.

If discrimination does occur then that is a reason for justice but to imbed discrimintaion in law is going to prove divisive and incendiary over time. Besides that it is patronizing to those who gain favour and does not allow them to take full pride in their accomplishments.

To which Kimmy has already answered - along with others.

The fact is you just don't get the "left" but you think you understand them and come here spewing your semantically retarded¹ BS.

The day you are able to provide a fair summary of what the "left" really believe in is the day I will stop antagonizing and start discussing.

That's the rub: from the outset your assumptions are wrong and you look like little more than a right winger trying to setup his little straw man for the knock down.

No one's buying it but we can sure have fun along the way.

¹Retarded as in "hinder or impede." As in, Pliny's straw man setup hinders honest debate....

[Pliny]

No, Cons are trying to shove down our throat their morality while saying "hands off" when it comes to fiscal/tax policy. Could be quite the paradox.

I'm saying "hands off" to both the moral police and the the tax/fiscal regulators (although, obviously I'm not so dumb as to want to allow the "free market" to do what it has done in the US a la subprime - but I'm a pragmatist).

You should look up the definition of "antagonize."

No, really! I did not know that.....

To which Kimmy has already answered - along with others.

The fact is you just don't get the "left" but you think you understand them and come here spewing your semantically retarded¹ BS.

The day you are able to provide a fair summary of what the "left" really believe in is the day I will stop antagonizing and start discussing.

That's the rub: from the outset your assumptions are wrong and you look like little more than a right winger trying to setup his little straw man for the knock down.

No one's buying it but we can sure have fun along the way.

¹Retarded as in "hinder or impede." As in, Pliny's straw man setup hinders honest debate....

Much better.

[dre]

It is a bit of a conundrum to me how the lib-left demands equality - no one can be richer than another, no one can more valuable to society than another, no one can be openly superior and no one is to be treated as inferior, yet we must celebrate diversity and tolerance.

All must be percieved as equals. I suppose the only thing looked at as intolerable is determining someone makes differentiations between individuals, groups, races, cultures, nations, etc.

I suppose all things must be equal as regards superiority and inferiority. No thing compared to another must be considered inferior or superior. A rich person and a poor person are the same. But if the rich person considers himself superior to the poor person he must be made to understand he isn't superior and some of his riches must be taken away from him as a demonstration that the poor person is not inferior but equal.

How can we have diversity and tolerance when attempting to politically achieve equality?

It is a bit of a conundrum to me how the lib-left demands equality - no one can be richer than another

Its also an imaginary conundrum that doesnt really exist. Leftists interested in going that far are a tiny fringe group in the west. Barely existant.

no one can be openly superior and no one is to be treated as inferior, yet we must celebrate diversity and tolerance.

The system makes literally thousands of value judgements on individuals on a constant basis. Its the norm in our liberal society to recognize a persons superiority in an area and reward them for it. What people DONT like is when you apply a value judgement to a whole group based on that group being more statistically likely to fit that judgement.

I suppose all things must be equal as regards superiority and inferiority. No thing compared to another must be considered inferior or superior. A rich person and a poor person are the same.

Thats not something liberals want, and thats not how liberal societies work. Our entire system is set up to reward superiority.

But if the rich person considers himself superior to the poor person he must be made to understand he isn't superior and some of his riches must be taken away from him as a demonstration that the poor person is not inferior but equal.

No, thats just silly. Thats not why we take money away from rich people.

You act like we live in an overly progressive society but we just dont. This is the easiest society in human history for a rich person to get richer, and tax policy is in fact becoming more and more regressive. Nobody is served by our government as well as the wealthy.

[dre]

I am only saying in this thread that I perceive a paradox in promoting diversity and tolerance while advocating equality

The problem is your whole argument is a gigantic strawman. You describe equality as "no one can be richer than another, no one can more valuable to society than another", and then you attribute that admittedly crazy idea onto a group you characterize as "left-libs". The problem of course is that theres many millions of "left-libs", and almost NONE of them are advocating equality of outcome, riches, etc.

See how youre being dishonest with yourself?

In reality society is trending in the opposite direction. More tax breaks and tax loopholes for the wealthy. Income trusts, realestate trusts, and all kinds of financial vehicles designed to legally evade taxes, lower taxes on investment income, large reductions in corporate tax rates.

The wealthy get a better deal right now in Canada than ever before in history. This is a kick-ass place to be rich, and one of the easiest places to grow your wealth in the history of the human race.