Do you think equality is an important value in society?

[invalid1]

[MrOracle]

Yes, absolutely, but there are some reality-based reasons that 109% equality can never (and should never) be realized, because in those few areas, equality could only be achieved by tyrannical force by the government, which would be worse (horrific!) for everyone.

We should absolutely have equality of opportunity anywhere that physical limitations aren't a serious factor, for example, and in the western world, we do. For example, men and women can work any office job, up to CEO or President, and can start, own, run, and sell a business. Yes, there are some jobs where the physical requirements physically preclude women, disabled, and even many men. That may seem like inequality, but it's due to a practical requirement, not political oppression.

What we do NOT want is "equity", which is equality of outcome. Every single thing we enjoy in life, from the food we eat to the home we live in, the clothes we wear, the car we drive, the medical care available to us, etc., all exists because of capitalism - the chance of receiving greater reward because you made a greater contribution and/or successfully navigated more severe risk than others were willing or able to do.

Countries that push Marxist ideas like "equity" soon have NOTHING FOR ANYONE. Look at North Korea. Look at Cuba. Look at Venezuela. Look at China prior to them opening up to capitalism in the late 60s. People starving to death was and is a common and routine occurrence. Hell, in North Korea, everyone has to collect and turn in their own poop because they can't afford fertilizer, and most people don't produce enough poop to meet their quotas, so if a village has a visitor, they fight over whose outhouse they will poop in so it can be credited to their quota.

If you don't think things like that can happen here, remember that Korea was a single country prior to 1950, and were already starving to death in the millions per year by the late 70s

People have been starving to death in Venezuela for a number of years following Hugo Chavez's Marxist revolution 20 years ago, and the whole country is in the final stages of collapse. In the 90s, Venezuela was the most prosperous country in South America.

The West has had equality for decades already - as it should. Of course there are a small number of individual examples of inequality due to group association, but we have already had laws against this for decades, and lawsuits of this kind are routinely won by plaintiffs, so the system is already working.

The Left is agitating this issue because they are trying to divide people and push the Marxist view of all human relationships being viewed as oppressors vs. victims, which is WRONG and totally counterproductive. We have equality. Yes, other parts of the world doesn't, but the activists don't care about those places because thay don't care about equality, they care about the Marxist agenda and dividing the people.

[ZXCwWRQWz]

Only in terms of negative rights. Otherwise I think it gets very childish and destructive, like two children arguing that one has slightly more ice cream. So as parent I eat a bit of the ice cream that is claimed to be bigger, then other child says now they have less. So I eat a bit of other child's ice cream, and this repeats until they have no ice cream. Now they are equal; equally deprived.

[ZXCwWRQWz]

As as silly as my analogy might sound, that tends to be what communism does throughout history. It leaves everyone equal: equally deprived and poor and miserable.

[ZXCwWRQWz]

Mature people don't obsess with equality beyond the equal rules. They don't say, "I have a bad leg, so let me start closer to the finish line than Usain Bolt so that I have a chance to win!" (which is the opposite of equality in rules). They only want equal rules. Immature people want to change the rules so that they can win.

[Siri137]

That would depend on the type of "equality" we're discussing here. If you mean "equality before the law", then yes, but otherwise no, because the fact is that we're not equal. Differing proclivities, talents, personal history and so on mean that we're all very different, with different goals in life and different personalities. Ants and bees are all equal, but people are (thankfully) very different.

[iiinsOMNIA]

That's a pretty generic question.

Of course I believe in equal opportunity. Everyone should be given the same opportunities. However, I don't believe in equal outcome. For example, if I go to med school and graduate a surgeon making 400k a year, and you decide to go to acting school, but flop, the outcome is not equal, nor should it be.

It depends on the specifics of what it is you're asking.

[Anonymous]

It depends on how far you are willing to go.

I think equality under the law is where it should all stop. If you are a woman and you commit murder, you should get the same punishment as you would if you were a man, same with race. These characteristics are superficial in this case because you only show that you are a threat to society by doing it right in front of them.

However, we need to realize that men and women have different brains, which is why men tend towards one set of behaviors (masculinity) and women the other (femininity) and these sets of behaviors are meant to compliment each other. I will give a couple examples.

As far as education and the workforce goes, women are on par with if not surpassed men in terms of what percent are employed. This would not be a problem if they are attracted to the same qualities as men but they aren't. Women seek men who are of a higher status than them for the sake of resources. The higher the women climb the ladder, the smaller her dating pool gets unless she lowers her standards. This isn't just my speculation, the BBC and New York Post has admitted this. The BBC had a study saying that marriages are more likely to end if the wife gets a raise while it remains the same likelihood if the man gets it, while the NYP have an article saying that women are having a harder time finding men who make as much money as they do. Men do not have this problem, they could go for an Applebee's waitress for all they care.

Now we arrive at the vote. My issue with it is that our voters are way too uninformed. Men at least are somewhat informed since they might get sent to war on the state's whim so they tend to want to not vote for warmongers. Since women are only required to be 18 to vote, they aren't really required to be informed at all. As a result, they tend to vote for what sounds nice (free stuff or other means of recklessly giving the state power it cannot handle). I think there should be a civics or economics exam that needs to be taken for all voters if they want to vote, otherwise they are going to advocate for things that make absolutely no sense. It sucks but I think this will greatly reduce the risk of any more economic crises in the future.

I have heard some people argue that women's suffrage should be removed because women, by nature, want to be taken care of and they will go with whoever does the best job at it be it the state or husband. However, the average husband can't compete with a mafia that demands a cut of everyone's paycheck and far more to pay for all the support they give out so they would rather give the support power to the government and... well given how Germany, Italy, Russia, China and many more have turned out within the past century, this is not a good idea to say the least. The theory goes is that either we take women's suffrage away or everyone's rights will be lost to a government that will be too powerful to stop. I obviously don't think this is a smart move because there are women who know that giving the government power it does not need will only bite them back in the end and don't deserve to be thrown under the bus. However, I don't necessarily disagree with the premise which is why I think making everyone more informed will be a better solution.

[Opinion Owner]

The other problem with taking women's sufferage is that there are men who also think free shit is a good idea and could still pose a threat to people's freedom.

[SoIcyGang]

I once was very much on the left. For me everything was about morality. And you know what? It still is!

But when I think about what system brings the best life for the greatest amount of people?

The only correct answer in my mind is free trade. Economic libert. Equality under the law. But not equality of outcome, nor equality of starting point.

I feel that the empirical evidence is clear. Markets are the most important thing in our lives. Our entire society is built on the market and transference of resources.

It is my believe that ultimately government intervention hinders the market.

However I am glad to have what we have in western countries. Even though I fear that out of morality will come ever increasing government intervention in markets, eventually causing them to collapse as seen in socialism and communism hundreds of times (fascism too, who suffers economic decline for the same reason. The attempt to plan the economy out of need of morality.)

I'm glad we live in a liberal democracy that generally believes in free trade and freedom in general.

We need to cling to freedom. And not to let it die. Don't let the conservatives turn this into a socialist Christian sharia law. And don't let the liberals stray from liberalism and become socialists/communists.

[SoIcyGang]

Equality of government treatment is the most important. Freedom of people to think and to act is most important.

Freedom does not entail a right to resources in my opinion.

For others, Freedom is the right to share all resources. That's why I'm surprised the liberals have remained liberal for so long. How can their view of the world stand in the face of a morality that says the only proper configuration of society is communism?

Well, liberals delude themselves by saying "well, communism always devolves into authoritarianism.

While that is true, the reason socialism and fascism fail is due to their desire to redistribute and to plan the economy.

So what to do? We wish for morality but we are stuck between economic prosperity that can raise the majority of the population out of poverty. Or we can suppress the economy and try to level out the inequalities that we see.

I believe that should the market be more free, those at the bottom are better off, than in a system that tries to redistribute.

That's what I think.

[Naydyonov]

Equality under the law. Equality of opportunity is noble, but hard to achieve fairly often. Any equality of outcome is ridiculous due to the inherent differentiation between people.
Give two people $100 and one will have $0 remaining while the other will have grown that money to $105 through investing.

Simply giving the same amount of resources doesn't mean those resources will be used as efficiently. That's why in the same elementary school, one student will access the school library and read 2 books per week, while another will read 2 books per year.
This is why the best one can really hope to achieve is equality under the law (both children are allowed to attend school) and equality of opportunity (both are able to access the library). Beyond that, it comes down to personal choices, which will always lead to inequality of outcome.
What if both children read 2 books per week? Well, if one is smarter, they will absorb more information or wisdom out of the same books.
They are too many factors which cannot be accounted for to achieve any kind of parity between any two random individuals.

[Potteplante]

Equality of opportunity fails - because that is based on the notion that we're equal from birth and throughout our childhoods.
Two indivuals, like those children, could very well have the same opportunities (attend school, go to a library) - but are not necessarily equal based on what they come from and that for sure isn't a personal choice for any child.

And what if both children read two books per week, both equally intelligent - one child has indivuals who help them develop that intelligence onward, the other child is not as fortunate; which child do you think is more likely to continue reading books?

[Naydyonov]

@Potteplante Precisely. So we've essentially logically proven the impossibility of equality of opportunity and why it should never become law. That said, there are many ways we can mitigate some of the inequality. If some parts of the country have an absence of books for children, recycling books, those meant for the landfill, from public libraries by giving them to parents could help some kids in some way. It'd never achieve the equality, but if whatever solution is low-cost and somewhat effective, there is no inherent reason to disregard it.
Climate change is exactly a problem which can only be solved through mitigation. It is the most cost-efficient method. But this means understanding that we won't be able to stop this change. So too with opportunities. Allowing more does not mean having equal.

[Potteplante]

For me - that sounds like a bandage and just increases the illusion of equal opportunities. Having the same access to something - does not mean having the same opportunity to be able to use that access.

You'd just be able to point at the less fortunate child group and shrug your shoulders and say "eh they had the opportunity to read more books and advance, they just choose not too" . They still come from a lower resource environment - books don't remove that factor.

We will never get rid of inequality but I think we as soceity should strive to remove as much inequality as we can for the future generations of our nations.

[Naydyonov]

@Potteplante Other than removing the child from a family which does not support reading as a habit, what exactly could we do?
Reading-clubs are an option. But again, they still require willingness on the side of children or parents to take initiative and sign up.
Unless we force people, there will always be a proportion of a population which underutilizes the resources actually available to it due to factors like culture. Otherwise, freedom of choice will lead to different utilization levels.

[Potteplante]

@Naydyonov

I do not belief in removing children from their families unless necessary. I do not have the answer to fix this solution - but social programs, to give more resources to low resource families (& again resources not solely being material goods) would help. Not blaming a child for not having the resources to utilize the opportunities given to them due to lack of resources within their background would help even more.

You're again, placing the responsibility of equality on children - they should just be better, do better - personal choice as the child as the freedom to choose.

You act as people wake up, and CHOOSE not to be the best versions of themselves. Having the opportunity - doesn't mean the indivual has the resources to utilize said opportunity, which is where the ILLUSION of equal opportunities come into play - & yes culture, along with family background, environment & resilience does play a role with that.

[Naydyonov]

@Potteplante I think you don't have an answer because you can't think of a way of making such children replicate the behavior/experience of more successful children without forcing someone to do something, be it the child or parent (who would then allow or force the child, depending on that child's willingness to engage).

Immigrants come to Canada. There are free English-language classes specifically made available for them. Yet, I know many people who barely know English after many years here. Why? Because they never actually took the time to learn English. They could've accessed online resources, government-paid classes, taken their own private classes, yet for good or bad reasons, they didn't. How to make them learn English without forcing them? If with the freedom to choose, many don't, then the only remaining way is to compel them. If the benefits aren't a good enough motivator, then only through repercussions can it be done.

Same with children. Their parents should be making better decisions for their child. If this doesn't happen, the child should (though probably won't). What then?
Even if direct assistance like additional after-school classes are offered, if it is not mandatory, at least some children who should attend will not.
The only potential way to entice such students/parents who don't care enough would be to offer rewards like money. This could actually work for having the parents sign up their child. Yet, the money in no way guarantees that child would actually be there to learn.

[Naydyonov]

@Potteplante I disagree with your statement. I think most people in general choose not to be their best. From the robber who knows stealing is wrong but does it anyways to the gamer who knows gaming isn't helping them progress in life in any way to the worker who does just enough not to be fired but never enough to actually earn a promotion.
But also in private lives: the woman who downs 3 bags of chips per night watching TV instead of going to the gym.
People often not only don't choose the best option, but choose almost the worst.

[Effably]

I think our present reality is proof that it is not a major concern for now. If that sounded negative, remember my statement is neutral so far.

Historically, pretty much every overthrown system has been replaced by one that sought greater equality. It is, in a sense, a major driving force for humanity as a whole.

Obviously it has been a while since the last revolution, unless we count communism which was basically a newborn killed in its cradle and is still semi-actively being campaigned against - which in itself is ridiculous no matter what side you're on there.

I am pretty confident, stake my life on it sort of confident, that if we see a major revolution it too will aspire towards greater equality and as always will be opposed by whoever stands to lose the most. Humans value equality a great deal.

To return to the question:
For society to function equality is not at all needed.
Equality remains a persistent theme in every major step step forward for civilisation and is realistically part of our endgame. Whether we feel we reached it or not yet.
At a much more personal level, I mostly care that the people I hold dear enjoy either equality or preferential treatment. Because well, I'm selfish and care about my own much more than I do notions like the good of humanity or what would be best for us as a species, the world, so on. Which is also why I can't really judge people for doing the same things I would. They, like I am, are also bad people.

[Naydyonov]

Communism is a newborn which goes on a homicidal rampage

[Effably]

Is that how you see it? The accusation starting the cold war was primarily the ideology being spread. Not much of a rampage.

I find communism rather naive personally. But your response in itself I see as proof of the propaganda against new thoughts. Hindering the exchange of thoughts I do view as entirely volatile.

[Naydyonov]

That's how I see it because communism brought death to whenever it came.
It's not being against new thoughts, it's about being against bad ideas. Within the framework of our society, I have no issue with a group of individuals creating a commune or creating a company divided equally between its members. I am against communists' constant recycling of the same strategy: take power, outlaw other parties, eliminate the leaders of the opposition, eliminate potential leaders, eliminate suspected potential leaders, eliminate those "conspiring" against the revolution, so on.
Hindrance of the exchange of ideas would be if I advocated for the banning of Karl Marx. I merely recognize Communism for what it is: an ideology which plays on people's good, as you said yourself, naïve intentions & desires, resulting in mass persecution of whole subsections of the population and the economic deterioration of the economy as a whole.

The American policy goal of stopping the spread of communism I view as good. Its only real problem was that it was framed as Capitalism/Freedom vs (Soviet) Communism as opposed to Capitalism/Freedom vs (Socialist) Totalitarianism. Thus, often Americans supported one dictatorship to avoid the creation of a communist one. Or simply allowed one to be created, as with Argentina. This sometimes came back to hurt them, like when Argentina invaded the Falkland islands. Or that they helped China grow into what it is today in order to counter Soviet Communism through Chinese Communism.
Even so, Taiwan & South-Korea both became democracies eventually, despite initially being run as military-dictatorships. North-Korea & China are still totalitarian.
But on a moral level, it meant allowing unjustifiable mass killing.

[Rei13]

@Naydyonov you phrased that a lot better than I ever could. Whenever I think of communism I think of countries like Cambodia, Russia and China specifically where it led to mass genocides. I am not as knowledgeable but when a type of government leads to such horrible atrocities then maybe it is not what people should strive for

[Naydyonov]

@Rei13 Thank you.
Those 3 are good examples. Unfortunately, many still believe in the idea that "True communism has never been tried", which would suggest trying again. What we do know both based on logic and based on historical-precedent is that communism is incompatible with human-psychology (primarily economically) and in practice, all precedents have seen suppression of the population in order to keep control. People still today believe we should strive for this "true communism", but this can only work under the belief that communism is not a utopian (therefore impossible) system. Unfortunately, if given power and faced with the reality that their utopia is not being created, why would we not expect these true-believers of communism to not then exert control over people in a blind attempt to achieve the greater good, even at the cost of the individual. Or 100 thousand individuals. Or 10 million individuals.

[Effably]

Not really taking either side here as I find them both flawed and care more about the freedom to discuss without judgement and my initial point was that we will eventually move towards greater freedom, real or imagined. The level of copium doesn't bother me much.

But lets be very clear: It never has been tried. That may be because the inherent flaws are too significant for it to work at all. But we have never seen it. The closest we ever got was that one TV show and it was designed to fail.

As for Capitalism, Capitalism faces two major problems to truly work. Inheritance and family. If we removed both of these, capitalism becomes functional long term. It is a lot more manageable but I can't blame people for ideologically preferring the ism that believes people are good as opposed to the one that conflicts with having family.

[RingOfFire]

Equality is an important GOOD value.

But the problem is the Democrats are trying to create confusion by using another similar sounding term that has a very different meaning: "Equity."

Equality in a society means that everyone has an equal OPPORTUNITY to succeed. There is no GUARANTEE of success, only a guarantee that you will have the same level of opportunity to try to succeed that anyone else has. This is a capitalist, free market, democratic concept.

"Equity" is something quite different. It means equality of OUTCOME, not equality of OPPORTUNITY. This is very different. It means that everyone is guaranteed the same level of success. This is a communist authoritarian concept and IT HAS NEVER WORKED ANYWHERE throughout history. Instead what you end up with is an oppressive dictatorship where everyone is equal... EQUALLY POOR AND ENSLAVED. This is the system the Democrats are pushing.

[es20490446e]

This reflects my own thinking.

[Lliam]

No. It's unrealistic. Not everyone is equal. Trying to enforce equality would create an inefficient, oppressive, dystopian society.
But I support fairness, equal opportunity, and equal treatment uddnder the law.

And I think relationships should be equal partnerships. I don't think either person should be the boss. They should have equal regard, respect and admiration for each other.

[Potteplante]

Yes I do.

I think it is important to make sure the next generation experiences less inequality than the generation before. Especially in this modern society where more and more indivuals get left behind. I dislike talking about equal opportunities - because that is an illusion. We're not equal from birth because we're not born with the same opportunities, just the notion of having equal opportunity. (More so in some countries than others)

[abc3643]

Equality in what way?

Equality of opportunity, yes.
Equality in the application or making of the law, yes.

Equality like a rule making every NBA team have at least 3 players under 5' 7" tall?
No.

Equality is important when we are talking about people's access to being equal participants in society.

Other than that, the only thing that is fair in like is that unfairness is fairly distributed.

[abc3643]

* ... that is fair in LIFE is that unfairness..."

[hahahmm]

No. The only way you can have equality is if you dumbed down all the smart people to the level of the most mediocre. Eliminate all competition. Eliminate all rewards for success. Force everyone to wear the exact same clothes & act the exact same way. And somehow avoid having a ruling class of VIPs. Even if it were possible it would be a nightmare.

[hahahmm]

Or kill off everyone on earth except 1 person. And that 1 person will be equal to themself

[richardcory]

I think the goal is equal opportunity. Now there are man cases where that is not well defined, but I still like it as a broad goal. So I want laws that attempt to reduce unequal opportunities where practical.

I think the lowest hanging fruit is public education. Public school funding should be the same per student everywhere in the country

[lightbulb27]

like, I like how my lack of effort in school and ultimate job as a janitor should make me equivalent to a brain surgeon, and not only that but the best brain surgeon is viewed the same as the worst. Fair is fair and everyone gets a trophy just for being alive.

Did I mis interpret something?

I don't think it exists...

[DarkLegacy]

Yes full equality, not the selective equality that Gen Z and Millennials are peddling which involves sexism towards men or acceptance of sexism towards men, and ignoring disability discrimination or accepting it or even discriminating towards them

[KlinkyCoder]

I don't view it as the be-all and end-all of society that it has been presented as. Values that are more important are the rule of law and equal justice in terms of treatment of liberties and crimes. At worst, forced equality is another totalitarian system.

[Smiling_Baby21]

I think women seeking to wear the man's trousers has brought more problems in society than helped it. As a woman, I love having my own place and not necessarily equating to a man to feel good.

[Spongebobssocks]

Yes. Equality of opportunities not outcome. To have the choice to choose what education we want, jobs and so on. We already have all that in the western world though.

[DizzyDesii]

Im all for fairness, not necessarily equality. Depends on the situation

[OddBeMe]

Yes it’s a goal we should strive for. Humans aren’t perfect and will never achieve 100%- not that would be even feasible.


Best we can do is our best and change what is necessary. Like women’s pay. It’s slowly getting more equavelant to men. Why? Multiple reasons.

[jshm2]

Depends what you mean by it. Most of the time it is wrongly taken to mean "boost up, despite having no merit to be there". Such as gay marriage or being trans being a passport to get all you want.

Hence why shit goes wrong the more you try and enforce wrongs as "equality"

[Drumlin2001]

There's a lot of inequality. Especially towards men, that's never spoken about. Fathers are routinely treated like 2nd class citizens, yet I've never heard a feminist argue for more equality in family court

[DarkLegacy]

Exactly

[devilish-cutie]

yes, but one needs to define equality, its not like eg. 50/50 women and men work same job, but more like equal respect, equal opportunities, equal valuing of each job etc.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

No, I think people largely only care about themselves and use the word equality to get things nobody felt was owed to them until they used the word.

[DaveJord]

No, because in society everything will never be equal. For example taxes, just go to flat taxs. 5% is 5%... not tax brackets... then I could stop feeling like I am not paying more for less.

[MAC1983]

Yes. Absolutely. But we have to work at it.

Just to give an example, at the current rate, it will take more than 250 years to close the gender salary gap, according to the UN.

[menina]

Yes it is, but it will never be real. If it was, there are many problems that we wouldn't have. Equality only exists in a fantasy world.

[Sarahr123]

The right to treat everyone humanely regardless of sex. Yes it is important.

[Miristheiss]

To a degree. We have the same basic rights. We aren't the same and we don't have equal skill sets or drives and we'll never have equally of OUTCOME. We all have the same basic rights.

[Anonymous]

Yes, it is essential, but I know we will never have it.

[invalid1]

So we should all be equal regardless of the hard work or experience or achievement and there inside.

[SolitarySolace]

No. The idea of equality, for one thing isn’t possible. Secondly, the idea of it is far too corrupted. No one wants equality, they want special treatment. Just look at feminism and the lgbt (more specifically the TQ+ part) community.

[Adam1978]

No we aren't equal, what I expect is equal result gives equal outcome. If someone needs to struggle extra to reach same result so be it.

[crossdressingrihno]

Nobody actually wants fairness or equality. They want power and luxury and don’t care who they screw over to get it.

[mandyfire98]

It absolutely is. No person should have dominion over another.

[Kiss_Me]

It all depends on the situation. "A" can, but does not always equal "B."

[KateDemee]

Yes it is important but there are many areas I think. Not just one

[Exterminatore]

No and I think it’s an impossible value. No to people are the same so we can never all be equal.

[Ben487]

Its nice in principal but it just doesn't work across the board.

[Kiran_Yagami]

The only "equality" that's important to society is equality under the law. Men and women should be treated the same under the law.

[Karate_Aaron]

Yes. Anyone who believes otherwise has some something against a particular group of people, gender, etc.

[AngryCarl2]

Equality of opportunity, yes. You will never have equality of outcomes.

[TonyMetal___86]

There is no such thing as 100% equality, men are men and women are women

[boobliker]

I would like to think it is! but I know it is not in my town of Margate

[LaFemmeFatale_1]

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” - Animal Farm, George Orwell

[captain_voidwalker]

Not realy. I think meritocracy is far more important

[Aiko_E_Lara]

Yes and that is what I don't support any movement. Just equality by itself

[Jamie05rhs]

Not so much in society, but definitely in a relationship.

[Anonymous]

No. Jesus washed his disciples feet. It isn't about being equal, it's about the better people humbling themselves and freely giving to their friends

[snowboarder720]

Not equality but equity. There’s a big difference.

[HippieVeganJewslim]

Yes. Pink men wearing thawbs should be equal to blue women wearing nothing at all.

[sureitis]

i believe a lot of people think or say or want it to be but its not...

[BarryLiverstone]

Equality of opportunity is important. Equity isn’t

[MementoMori777]

yes but we are past that now

[exitseven]

Yes, people should all be treated the same.

[Unit1]

I do value it.

[gothbxtch]

yes, definitely!

[whistlingwh0res]

If men can be a whore and women can be a thief yeah

[LiamJHayden]

Equality under the law, yes.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Yes in terms of opportunity and law.

[Chthou95]

There's no such thing as actual equality

[WanderingLoveWizard]

We are not equal

[Lauliss]

Equality of?

[ColHathi]

Yes.