Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature - Murray Rothbard

The constitution affords no such equality of opportunity, how could it? It clearly cites the pre-existing rights of individuals to their persons and property. Where in the constitution do you glean this interpretation?

reply to post by greencmp


You're seeking to argue the narrow grounds that our rights are preordained and immutable. Fine. I'm there. I think it's six of one and a half a dozen of another where they come from, but I agree that these rights are not granted to us by the government. God help us if they were.

And so I think we could spend a great deal of better-used time unpacking the word "affords." To put aside the semantics, let's say "recognizes" or "defends" or "elucidates." But, wait, why shop for our own synonyms?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The goals may be aspirational, but that's not to say we should abandon the endeavor. Surely you're not going to cede to me the text of the Constitution and the successes of the nation in securing equality of opportunity.

It would be impossible to create circumstances that never allow discrimination in voting or hiring. That would require an authoritarian, omniscient government, but surely you're not attacking your own avatar for its attention to equal rights.

michael22

The constitution affords no such equality of opportunity, how could it? It clearly cites the pre-existing rights of individuals to their persons and property. Where in the constitution do you glean this interpretation?

reply to post by greencmp

 

You're seeking to argue the narrow grounds that our rights are preordained and immutable. Fine. I'm there. I think it's six of one and a half a dozen of another where they come from, but I agree that these rights are not granted to us by the government. God help us if they were.

And so I think we could spend a great deal of better-used time unpacking the word "affords." To put aside the semantics, let's say "recognizes" or "defends" or "elucidates." But, wait, why shop for our own synonyms?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The goals may be aspirational, but that's not to say we should abandon the endeavor. Surely you're not going to cede to me the text of the Constitution and the successes of the nation in securing equality of opportunity.

It would be impossible to create circumstances that never allow discrimination in voting or hiring. That would require an authoritarian, omniscient government, but surely you're not attacking your own avatar for its attention to equal rights.

edit on 16-10-2013 by michael22 because: immutable right to do so

Ahhh, I love to hear it quoted, music to my ears.

I still don't see any part that could be construed to mean "equalize opportunity".

Ahhh, I love to hear it quoted, music to my ears.

I still don't see any part that could be construed to mean "equalize opportunity".

reply to post by greencmp


First, I feel underserved by this website for not having a "Like" button. In a better world, these things would be attended to. But then I'm left casting about for the position you wish to defend. I went back and found this, which seems the easiest to put a shoulder into:

The egalitarian revolt against biological reality, as significant as it is, is only a subset of a deeper revolt: against the ontological structure of reality itself, against the "very organization of nature"; against the universe as such. At the heart of the egalitarian Left is the pathological belief that there is no structure of reality; that all the world is a tabula rasa that can be changed at any moment in any desired direction by the mere exercise of human will — in short, that reality can be instantly transformed by the mere wish or whim of human beings.

Here: en.wikipedia.org...

You have fun. I'm going to go bring some wood in the house, and start a fire, since the government seems incapable of attending to my needs.

michael22

Ahhh, I love to hear it quoted, music to my ears.

I still don't see any part that could be construed to mean "equalize opportunity".

reply to post by greencmp

 

First, I feel underserved by this website for not having a "Like" button. In a better world, these things would be attended to. But then I'm left casting about for the position you wish to defend. I went back and found this, which seems the easiest to put a shoulder into:

The egalitarian revolt against biological reality, as significant as it is, is only a subset of a deeper revolt: against the ontological structure of reality itself, against the "very organization of nature"; against the universe as such. At the heart of the egalitarian Left is the pathological belief that there is no structure of reality; that all the world is a tabula rasa that can be changed at any moment in any desired direction by the mere exercise of human will — in short, that reality can be instantly transformed by the mere wish or whim of human beings.

Here: en.wikipedia.org...

You have fun. I'm going to go bring some wood in the house, and start a fire, since the government seems incapable of attending to my needs.

edit on 16-10-2013 by michael22 because: ibid

edit on 16-10-2013 by michael22 because: (no reason given)

I don't see it, are we still talking about equality of opportunity?

I could have sworn this was another one of yours, greencmp.

Neither you or good'ole Murray must have heard of



the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Objects hotter than their environment will lose heat to it.

Regions of localized higher pressure will tend to lose pressure.

Water flows down, not up.

Etc.

The very essence and fundamental workings of the universe are not just socialistic but downright egalitarian.

Indeed it is only because of the never halting march towards complete, perfect and universal equilibrium that your body functions and you live.

That the sun warms our planet and so on and so forth.

greencmp
Otherwise, you not only prove Rothbard's premise but, confirm the worst of my own suspicions.

edit on 12-10-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)

Dude's premise is completely wrong.

Your very body is a socialist/communist state.

The cells you're made of are its citizens.

Isn't it cute when right wingers try to pretend they can do philosophy?

It's like seeing a cat try and do calculus.

Pointless and you just know it will be completely devoid of any sense or meaning.

But it sure is cute!

Pejeu
I could have sworn this was another one yours, greencmp.

Neither you or good'ole Murray must have heard of

the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Objects hotter than their environment will lose heat to it.

Regions of localized higher pressure will tend to lose pressure.

Water flows down, not up.

Etc.

The very essence and fundamental workings of the universe are not just socialistic but downright egalitarian.

Indeed it is only because of the never halting march towards complete, perfect and universal equilibrium that your body functions and you live.

That the suns warms our planet and so on and so forth.

edit on 2013/10/16 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

I suppose your analogy could work in that all molecules in a given environment will have equal energy at the point at which they stop their activity. If, somehow, you could circumvent the normal process by taking away energy, you could probably stop all activity faster.

michael22
You're seeking to argue the narrow grounds that our rights are preordained and immutable. Fine. I'm there. I think it's six of one and a half a dozen of another where they come from, but I agree that these rights are not granted to us by the government. God help us if they were.

Rights are nothing but social norms and conventions.

You do not have an innate right to life.

The government will prosecute, maybe successfully and gaol, whomever it deems to have killed you unlawfully.

Doesn't mean you'll come back from the dead.

Your right to life is really nothing more than the government's vow that it will prosecute whoever ostensibly murders you.

Furthermore, that there are no such things as rights, in and of themselves, should be evidenced by the very fact that we are mortal.

Indeed we age and die of our own accord.

Sometimes we get sick and die from disease.

Some of us are doomed to an early death right out of the womb due to genetic and congenital diseases or poor genes (predisposition to heart failure etc.).

So nature herself #s on our so called 'rights'.

greencmp
I suppose your analogy could work in that all molecules in a given environment will have equal energy at the point at which they stop their activity. If, somehow, you could circumvent the normal process by taking away energy, you could probably stop all activity faster.

Ain't that cute?!

But it's wrong!

They don't "stop their activity" after they've reached thermal equilibrium.

Brownian motion continues so long as that point of thermal equilibrium is above absolute zero on the temperature scale.

Pejeu

greencmp
I suppose your analogy could work in that all molecules in a given environment will have equal energy at the point at which they stop their activity. If, somehow, you could circumvent the normal process by taking away energy, you could probably stop all activity faster.

Ain't that cute?!

But it's wrong!

They don't "stop their activity" after they've reached thermal equilibrium.

Brownian motion continues so long as that point of thermal equilibrium is above absolute zero on the temperature scale.

So, the 'almost dead' corpses of humanity will finally be equal.

Am I missing something? Is this what you mean to say?

I thought I was being sarcastic but, you seem to be running with the comparison.

So organisms that can't regulate their body temperature are essentially all dead, according to you?

Just because you don't have a temperature always above that of your environment doesn't mean you're dead or frozen solid.

I suppose babies are half-dead to you as well.

Seeing as how they have real trouble maintaining body warmth.

Why do you talk of corpses, plural?

Your own body is a totalitarian communist regime.

From each cell according to its ability, to each cell according to its needs.

No democracy, no elections, no currency or banks. You might even say it's a resource based economy, might'n't you?

Don't take it out on me, man.

It's your body's doing, it's how it works.

It's not my fault your Creator is a dirty commie.

Pejeu
So organisms that can't regulate their body temperature are essentially all dead, according to you?

Just because you don't have a temperature always above that of your environment doesn't mean you're dead or frozen solid.

I suppose babies are half-dead to you as well.

Seeing as how they have real trouble maintaining body warmth.

Why do you talk of corpses, plural?

Your own body is a totalitarian communist regime.

From each cell according to its ability, to each cell according to its needs.

No democracy, no elections, no currency or banks. You might even say it's a resource based economy, might'n't you?

Don't take it out on me, man.

It's your body's doing, it's how it works.

It's not my fault your Creator is a dirty commie.

edit on 2013/10/16 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)

So, when you said that peaks lower and concentrations disperse, you meant in a single organism, how can a single life form be egalitarian? Are you saying that every cell has a similar goal in mind and they work together?

Besides not being true biologically, and a poor metaphor for complex social systems, we are talking about individual people whose goals are rarely the same, if ever.

Believe it or not, I am curious what your point is. It would be nice if you had one.

So, when you said that peaks lower and concentrations disperse, you meant in a single organism, how can a single life form be egalitarian? Are you saying that every cell has a similar goal in mind and they work together?

Besides not being true biologically, and a poor metaphor for complex social systems, we are talking about individual people whose goals are rarely the same, if ever.

Believe it or not, I am curious what your point is. It would be nice if you had one.

reply to post by greencmp


Is this a private fight, or can anyone join in?

In the cold, we protect our hands and noses from the elements, despite their persistent inability to generate enough circulation and fend for themselves, because (to be practical) we're probably going to want those things when the weather warms up. And (also, to be practical) it just doesn't make much sense to watch your nose freeze and fall off to make a point to your hands that they need to shape up. One organism is inarguably a series of egalitarian systems and responses and compensations, which break down into a 'survival mode' in times of duress, but only then. Only when there are not other options for the survival of the system.

In society, without any intervention, we are egalitarian. We naturally help one another when someone falls on the train tracks or when a kid is lost at the mall. It would be unconscionable to most of us if our form of government did not similarly make every practical effort to intervene in natural disasters or feed the hungry or provide care to the sick, or to attempt to redress instances or patterns of violence or injustice.

The solutions they come up with will be inefficient and incomplete, and I don't lament that. That's what's up. But the absence of any planning or accounting for long-term or short-term malady or hunger or catastrophe would be governmental malpractice, and it would shorten the life of the state. Call it practical empathy if you like.

michael22

So, when you said that peaks lower and concentrations disperse, you meant in a single organism, how can a single life form be egalitarian? Are you saying that every cell has a similar goal in mind and they work together?

Besides not being true biologically, and a poor metaphor for complex social systems, we are talking about individual people whose goals are rarely the same, if ever.

Believe it or not, I am curious what your point is. It would be nice if you had one.

reply to post by greencmp

 

Is this a private fight, or can anyone join in?

In the cold, we protect our hands and noses from the elements, despite their persistent inability to generate enough circulation and fend for themselves, because (to be practical) we're probably going to want those things when the weather warms up. And (also, to be practical) it just doesn't make much sense to watch your nose freeze and fall off to make a point to your hands that they need to shape up. One organism is inarguably a series of egalitarian systems and responses and compensations, which break down into a 'survival mode' in times of duress, but only then. Only when there are not other options for the survival of the system.

In society, without any intervention, we are egalitarian. We naturally help one another when someone falls on the train tracks or when a kid is lost at the mall. It would be unconscionable to most of us if our form of government did not similarly make every practical effort to intervene in natural disasters or feed the hungry or provide care to the sick, or to attempt to redress instances or patterns of violence or injustice.

The solutions they come up with will be inefficient and incomplete, and I don't lament that. That's what's up. But the absence of any planning or accounting for long-term or short-term malady or hunger or catastrophe would be governmental malpractice, and it would shorten the life of the state. Call it practical empathy if you like.

Do you mean that when someone becomes a great hunter, it is natural for everyone to gang up and kill him and take what meat he had at the moment and extinguishing his singular ability to produce game rather than barter for meat? That kind of egalitarianism?

Do you mean that when someone becomes a great hunter, it is natural for everyone to gang up and kill him and take what meat he had at the moment and extinguishing his singular ability to produce game rather than barter for meat? That kind of egalitarianism?

reply to post by greencmp


No.

I yield the remainder of my time.

michael22

Do you mean that when someone becomes a great hunter, it is natural for everyone to gang up and kill him and take what meat he had at the moment and extinguishing his singular ability to produce game rather than barter for meat? That kind of egalitarianism?

reply to post by greencmp

 

No.

I yield the remainder of my time.

How does taking care of one another equal egalitarianism? I call that empathy and compassion, not egalitarianism.

I am glad that you recognize that high producers in unstructured society are highly prized and rewarded for the inordinate contributions to the tribe.

So far, these comparisons are proving my point so keep them coming.

How does taking care of one another equal egalitarianism? I call that empathy and compassion, not egalitarianism.

I am glad that you recognize that high producers in unstructured society are highly prized and rewarded for the inordinate contributions to the tribe.

So far, these comparisons are proving my point so keep them coming.

reply to post by greencmp


I can appreciate that your side in this argument, an argument you raised, is so bereft of good ideas that it needs to wander into others' comments to misinterpret their replies. Decency's value is self-evident, and also, yes, the work of the best producers is necessary to a group (if we're considering ourselves a group). Also, the ocean is the big wobbly blue thing where the big white birds fly around.

If we're considering ourselves a group, and if we're stipulating that decency should be a norm worth defending, why wouldn't we elect representatives to our government to act decently and defend the resources that are necessary to the skilled so they can continue to be productive. Others can elect their own representatives, and defend a lot of piffle and noise and antiestablishmentarianism, whinging about the WIC and the OSHA and the clean water act.

And really, you've made use of our comments, but where is your position in this? What is it you're calling for, specifically? Is there a law you want repealed, an amendment you want to forward? Is there anything you're asserting yourself, or are you simply putting up a series of quotes and picking off runners as they attempt to engage with you. You're laying out a very vague set of snippets, always in the words of others. Where are you. What specifically do you want. What is an example of a law or a government program you'd like stricken down.

Please move a piece on the board, suggest something specific, support that in your own words, and stop hectoring from the cheap seats. You'll have better results, and we'll have a better discussion.

michael22

How does taking care of one another equal egalitarianism? I call that empathy and compassion, not egalitarianism.

I am glad that you recognize that high producers in unstructured society are highly prized and rewarded for the inordinate contributions to the tribe.

So far, these comparisons are proving my point so keep them coming.

reply to post by greencmp

 

I can appreciate that your side in this argument, an argument you raised, is so bereft of good ideas that it needs to wander into others' comments to misinterpret their replies. Decency's value is self-evident, and also, yes, the work of the best producers is necessary to a group (if we're considering ourselves a group). Also, the ocean is the big wobbly blue thing where the big white birds fly around.

If we're considering ourselves a group, and if we're stipulating that decency should be a norm worth defending, why wouldn't we elect representatives to our government to act decently and defend the resources that are necessary to the skilled so they can continue to be productive. Others can elect their own representatives, and defend a lot of piffle and noise and antiestablishmentarianism, whinging about the WIC and the OSHA and the clean water act.

And really, you've made use of our comments, but where is your position in this? What is it you're calling for, specifically? Is there a law you want repealed, an amendment you want to forward? Is there anything you're asserting yourself, or are you simply putting up a series of quotes and picking off runners as they attempt to engage with you. You're laying out a very vague set of snippets, always in the words of others. Where are you. What specifically do you want. What is an example of a law or a government program you'd like stricken down.

Please move a piece on the board, suggest something specific, support that in your own words, and stop hectoring from the cheap seats. You'll have better results, and we'll have a better discussion.

My position is that people cannot form authoritarian governments that fail to be inhuman. There are no examples that prove otherwise.

To take perfect examples of individual kindness and compassion and attribute them to some projected set of mandated state regulations as your defense of totalitarianism deserves rebuke.

You are wrong in your analogies and have yet to make a point in defense of egalitarianism other than to erroneously state that humans were always so. I am sure there is one I am just not hearing it.

My position is that people cannot form authoritarian governments that fail to be inhuman. There are no examples that prove otherwise.

To take perfect examples of individual kindness and compassion and attribute them to some projected set of mandated state regulations as your defense of totalitarianism deserves rebuke.

You are wrong in your analogies and have yet to make a point in defense of egalitarianism other than to erroneously state that humans were always so. I am sure there is one I am just not hearing it.

reply to post by greencmp


You're still not picking a law you don't like, a law you would propose, an amendment you would revoke or propose, or really any specific thing. I want you to notice your refusal there.

Here's one. WIC. en.wikipedia.org...

"The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) is a federal assistance program of the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for healthcare and nutrition of low-income pregnant women, breastfeeding women, and infants and children under the age of five. (See Child nutrition programs.) The eligibility requirement is a family income below 185% of the U.S. Poverty Income Guidelines. If a person participates in other benefit programs, or has family members who participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Medicaid, or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, they automatically meet the eligibility requirements. This program is unrelated to the USDA's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Currently, WIC serves 53 percent of all infants born in the United States."


Those monsters.

reply to post by michael22


Another. en.wikipedia.org...

"The Continental Congress of 1776 encouraged enlistments during the American Revolutionary War by providing pensions for soldiers who were disabled. Direct medical and hospital care given to veterans in the early days of the republic was provided by the individual states and communities. In 1811, the first domiciliary and medical facility for veterans was authorized by the federal government, but not opened until 1834. In the 19th century, the nation's veterans assistance program was expanded to include benefits and pensions not only for veterans, but also their widows and dependents."

Egads. What will become of us.

michael22

My position is that people cannot form authoritarian governments that fail to be inhuman. There are no examples that prove otherwise.

To take perfect examples of individual kindness and compassion and attribute them to some projected set of mandated state regulations as your defense of totalitarianism deserves rebuke.

You are wrong in your analogies and have yet to make a point in defense of egalitarianism other than to erroneously state that humans were always so. I am sure there is one I am just not hearing it.

reply to post by greencmp

 

You're still not picking a law you don't like, a law you would propose, an amendment you would revoke or propose, or really any specific thing. I want you to notice your refusal there.

Here's one. WIC. en.wikipedia.org...

"The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) is a federal assistance program of the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for healthcare and nutrition of low-income pregnant women, breastfeeding women, and infants and children under the age of five. (See Child nutrition programs.) The eligibility requirement is a family income below 185% of the U.S. Poverty Income Guidelines. If a person participates in other benefit programs, or has family members who participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Medicaid, or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, they automatically meet the eligibility requirements. This program is unrelated to the USDA's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Currently, WIC serves 53 percent of all infants born in the United States."


Those monsters.

I would close all social services in federal government, fire everybody and sell all of the equipment, property and land. The resulting funds would be returned to taxpayers in the form of lowered taxes, refunds and peace of mind.

States, towns, non-governmental organizations and individuals (my preference) may engage in sweeping acts of empathy and compassion with my enthusiastic best wishes (though I may leave the state it happens in).