Thread 18076172

Or is it something that can be achieved, all lasting movements have tribalistic roots.

Read Anthem by Ayn Rand.

>>18076185
Equality is a valid concept for NPC confusion. NPCs really perceive entities in equal terms and killing a cop is equal to anyone else, despite cops having increased significance within capitalism.
Equality is axiomatic when NPCs lack sentience and the herd equalizes all power endogenously. When the herd is destroyed equality is no longer an issue.
Therefore, equality is always valid. All users of his die equally of meth.

>>18076172 (OP)
All people being equally endowed with certain inalienable rights presupposes that they were white and members forming the body of Christ. Outside that context the notion is dubious at best, and more likely suicidal.

>>18076172 (OP)
People simply aren’t the same so they can’t be equal at birth. People aren’t equal and the same across life. Having equality in everything is not possible. Having a bureaucracy that provides an equal chance to be heard and a fair review, providing basic rights across the board, is fine, but different inputs produce different outputs when all else is the same. There’s nothing wrong with that, but that’s not equality.

>>18076172 (OP)
>muh tribalistic roots is just a weak excuse for shitty behavior.

Equality by birth isn't failed. You just can't handle a world where you aren't automatically better than someone because of your race/bloodline.

>>18076215
You're wrong. Equality is a placeholder that represents truth until capitalism decides what it is going to do. Until then everyone is equally nonsentient in terms of their threat to Jews. Equality moves the issue to another level and negates any individual ability. The tard posting on 4chan all day is equal to an average person within the system because it hasn't done anything yet.

>>18076218
You have other methods of forcing people into subversion, explain the current World order and ethnostates if what OP said is false?

>>18076232
> Forcing subversion
Cope for losers who can't compete in a modern world.

Current world order isn't some jewish plot. It's called capitalism and the internet. Your shitty little ethnostate fantasy would collapse in a week without trading with the very *degenerates* you cry about.

You lost the culture war. Get over it. Your ideology is a shelter for weak-minds who are scared of different people. Now go cry about it on /pol/ and dilate.

>>18076200
So it's only true for believers of Christian morality?

>>18076236
What do capitalists fear the most?

>>18076172 (OP)
>Is equality by birth a failed concept?
Inherently yes. Just like parents love their children better than unrelated children, the same goes with every level of social ties.
At birth, we take our place in a very large web, and it is necessarily not equal to any other place by virtue of not being the actual same place.
The issue with equality is that it's meant to be a simplification, a legal expedient to ensure fair treatment to all. But at some point retards started taking it literally instead.

>>18076244
They fear nothing and they are winning for a reason.

>>18076238
No. The reason they have inalienable rights stems entirely from the fact that they are the body of Christ. Outside that context the entire notion about people having inalienable rights is unjustifiable in any rational/logical sense.

>>18076249
Their is no way to guarantee fair treatment to all, some people naturally have headstarts by the virtue of who they were born to.

>>18076259
Doesn't mean we shouldn't try. We can't guarantee that there would be no crime at all, but we should still try to fight each instance. Fighting injustice is another way of fighting crime.

>>18076265
Dont equate them, You cannot legally fix something that's not unlawful. Where does it state that it's illegal for people to be born to higher/lesser privileged parents?

>>18076259
What about from a racial or financial context?

>>18076272
It isn't illegal right now, but should be illegal in the future. We change laws all the time. That's called moral progress.

>>18076251
What about from a racial or financial context?

>>18076281
What are you suggesting? Wealth redistribution with each generation? Do you know how catastrophically this will disrupt the exchange?

>>18076289
No. Just taking children from parents and giving them into communal care so everyone started from the same level.

>>18076302
And where does the wealth of parents of said children go to? Government?

>>18076259
>Their is no way to guarantee fair treatment to all
Which is exactly why equality is an expedient rather than reality.
The law is effectively a ruleset we use to play the game of society. A game is best played when everyone knows the rules, and you can only really know the rules when they're applied evenly.
You can't afford to have a different ruleset for every individual, therefore you need to make up the legal fiction of equality to actually manage to enforce the ruleset.
And it works perfectly well, in society just like in every game. It works as long as you keep in mind it's legal fiction. It breaks down when retards start to believe the equality is literal.
Just like football doesn't have flawed rules by virtue of you not having Messi's talent, so the law isn't flawed by virtue of you not being a billionaire. They are both flawed for other reasons altogether.

>>18076289
There is already explicit and obvious wealth redistribution from poorer people to richer people. This happens with every moment of inflation and by way of interest on loans and through trades made with unequal information.

Obviously it would be best of all to remove the effect of inflation, greatly mitigate the impact of interest based loans, and ensure equal access to information in every trade, but that's not very likely if it's even possible. What could happen is an additional economic force that could allow for all of these but still provide for people lower on the socio-economic ladder to share in the commonwealth of the nation.

Something like a Land Value Tax paying for a Universal Basic Income could work fine. In this way people who are better placed in the economy would still enjoy all the same advantages they have now, but being in a worse place wouldn't mean your efforts accrue to those who are already wealthier, as well as tending to encourage businesses and governments to cater to the whole population rather than mainly to the elites.

>>18076309
To children, but only when they'll be 18 so they wouldn't be spoiled.

>>18076314
But that just means that everyone is equal before the law, doesn't mean that everyone is literally equal in all senses. Naturally, some people are more prone to not being able to understand or follow said laws.

>>18076285
Those that compose the body of God, as its members, have prescribed direction from the Lord for their disposition towards one another.

>>18076265
How is that injustice?

>>18076321
>that just means that everyone is equal before the law, doesn't mean that everyone is literally equal in all senses
Yeah, because that's literally the point of equality in the classical liberal sense of the term that inserted the concept in our society, whereas actual literal equality is a very modern degeneration of the concept akin to young earth creationists.
Maybe I wasn't clear in my previous posts, but the point I'm trying to make is that the idea of equality is not a failed concept because what's failed is the understanding of what it was supposed to mean.
It's like saying 2+2=/=4 because nowadays there are five things in 4, you get what I mean?

>>18076315
But inflation isn't manufactured, it can occur at random. Interest is a fair concept because ultimately the lender no longer has access to that money (for the time being) therefore striping them of any potential investing opportunities, intrest acts as a compensation for this. So it isn't really wealth redistribution in the classical sense.

Apart from that we already have many welfare schemes ensuring economically weaker people still have access to food and education to some capacity, what else do we need?

>>18076339
I get it, though I was more so aiming at the people that say everyone deserves equal opportunity by the virtue of birth.

>>18076359
>loan out $100,000
>get $200,000 back
How is that not redistributing wealth to the wealthy?

>>18076374
When someone loans out $100k, they lose access to that money for years and risk not getting it back at all. Interest just balances that out. And after inflation, taxes, and defaults, the lender isn’t doubling wealth, they’re barely keeping ahead of devaluation.

>>18076385
>When someone loans out $100k,
Banks don't do that. They don't get money from a vault to give out as a loan. They are allowed to loan out about 10x more money than they actually have, and they keep the 10% in the vault while creating the 90% out of thin air.

Ina very real sense, defaulting on a loan doesn't cost the bank anything except hypothetical profits from money they never at any point actually owned.

>>18076359
Inflation is definitely planned, and whether it is planned or not, it definitely moves wealth from poorer people to wealthier people.

Interest on loans is fine, except that it can be and is being used to move wealth from poorer people to wealthier people.

Economically weaker people need to have some capacity to hold onto and acquire property. They ought to be reliably holding a larger share of the overall economy every year so long as they're working at all.

>>18076385
They're doing a lot better than that. They own a larger share of the overall economy every year, and poorer people own a smaller share of the overall economy every year.

If there was some mechanism to make sure that loaning money out could only ever keep the lender barely ahead of devaluation, that would probably be fine. They'd still make more than enough that the actual work they're doing would be worthwhile, and they wouldn't be gouging people who have less economic access to begin with.

>>18076362
>I was more so aiming at the people that say everyone deserves equal opportunity by the virtue of birth
These people are making the same exact mistake I already talked about though. They are misinterpreting the meaning of the original concept.
Deserving equal opportunities at birth was meant to mean that whatever rights the government vows to uphold, are granted to every citizen inherently, which is effectively by right of birth.
This is more or less the whole foundation of the concept of citizenship, which is effectively membership to a community with the rights and duties it implies, granted by blood (ius sanguinis), birthplace (ius solis) or declaration (oath of allegiance).
Notice however that already at this point we're drawing a line between citizens and non-citizens, which already undermines the idea of general equality.
Further, we're drawing a line between all opportunities and whatever rights the state deigns to protect, which already massively downsizes the whole concept.
If you take equal opportunities literally, then yes its ultimate conclusion is necessarily going to be equity. But equal opportunities was never meant to be taken literally, and can only be interpreted that way if you remove all the context.

>>18076172 (OP)
its impossible but necessary

>>18076440
Your whole justification boils down to feelings, how you feel about what you think you deserve. You can't articulate any actual defensible argument for why you or anyone deserves equal rights.

>>18076449
thats why its necessary