Is Equality something that Governments should strive to impose on people?

[Cyclone]

Look at Japan, look at the Nordic Countries. They haven't done so bad with much more equal pay than us. Look at South America, where there is huge income inequalities and look at their quality of life in contrast.

 

In fact if you look at the metrics you will see societies where pay is more equal have better life expectancy, have less crime and are generally happier people.

 

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/slides

 

You can't mandate equal pay though, how does Japan achieve it?

[Cyclone]

I can't think of a better reason than societies interests, for it to do anything.

 

For something to be done, the individuals that make up society have to agree to it. So that means that good for society needs to balance with good for the individuals. And this would be bad for pretty much every individual.

[BritPat]

Equality sounds good in theory, but think carefully about what it means.

 

For example, you can't make someone smarter (you can try to educate them, you can't even guarantee that that will succeed), but inate intelligence can't be imparted.

You can't make someone faster, taller or stronger (beyond a certain point).

 

So that means that if you're naturally smart, fast, tall or strong, you'll have to be brought down somehow to make everyone equal.

 

Then we can extend the idea to possessions, of course with the government managing it, money will no longer be necessary, it would only make people unequal. So in this perfectly equal society (we'd best include the whole world I suppose, or it won't be fair), everyone will be given an equal portion of grain or rice and some water, an equal shelter, and of course state employment.

 

When you first say it, equality sounds great, when you actually consider it, I'm not so keen...

 

Maybe if you only consider equal opportunity though, that'd be better. Unless that means that you aren't allowed to pay extra for a personal tutor, or pay for guitar lessons. Getting that extra training would give you a greater opportunity, at least if someone else couldn't afford them...

 

So, does that mean that the root cause of inequality is money? Maybe. And the root cause of some people having more than others, ability? Probably. Which brings me back to not thinking it's such a good idea to reduce the ability of everyone down to the lowest level...

 

Equality is an abstract mathematical concept, no two people are equal, no two cars are equal.

[Grahame]

As the OP was saying if you had equality there would be a dumbing down and I think people should be chosen for their ability which is what is supposed to happen in job interviews.

 

To my mind if there is a rigid selection system in place you may not get the best person for the job and this is illustrated by the English monarchy where the eldest male child inherits the throne on their parents death regardless of their ability. Just think if the eldest son is a bit of a dope while his younger brother was far more capable, who do you think would make the best king?

 

The system was different in Anglo-Saxon England, kings did not succeed on the basis of primogeniture. All the kings offspring were known as aethelings which means throneworthy and from this gene pool the royal family would select the aetheling who seemed best qualified for the job.

 

King Alfred was a youngest brother who became king of Wessex in preference to his elder siblings and I understand this is similar to the system operated by Bedouin Arab monarchies today which operates by family consensus.

 

In England the system produced a succession of monarchs who were generally more capable than those thrown up by a rigid line of inheritance and it also gave the mother who raised a competent and forceful son or daughter tremendous influence in state affairs through the new king-or-queen rather than by accident of birth.

 

(Just my thoughts on equality.)

 

[Cyclone]

Just think if they picked from amongst the population instead of inheriting the position at all!

[Cyclone]

Surely we are talking of a slightly unusual version of equality though.

 

To me, it means equality of opportunity, where anyone can try and get what they want, that doesn't mean they get it though.

 

So for example, you can't refuse a black man a job on the basis he is black - but this does not mean he will get the job.

 

I started the thread because Timson had suggested (in another thread) that a 100% inheritance tax was desirable in order to achieve better equality.

[Wildcat]

For something to be done, the individuals that make up society have to agree to it. So that means that good for society needs to balance with good for the individuals. And this would be bad for pretty much every individual.

 

I am not sure precisely what the figures are in the UK but I know from reading elsewhere recently the top 1% in the United States own 40% of the countries wealth. I don't think we are as extreme as that but figures like that show fairly clearly that you are wrong. The majority of people have a lot to gain from ending the privelege of inheritance, not purely in terms of society being more meritocratic, but also in terms of their share of wealth.

[BritPat]

Surely we are talking of a slightly unusual version of equality though.

 

To me, it means equality of opportunity, where anyone can try and get what they want, that doesn't mean they get it though.

 

So for example, you can't refuse a black man a job on the basis he is black - but this does not mean he will get the job.

 

So should you have an equal opportunity to try and get a white employee?

[Cyclone]

I think that relates quite well to my post then - equality imo means not getting a head-start over other people because of the actions of others (your parents in this case)

 

In which case the only way to do it is to adopt some sort of communist ideal.

Otherwise parents who earn well will provide a good education for their children.

They'll provide good nutrition and pay for sports clubs, they'll buy them books and so on. All of which won't be possible for the poor parent.

 

The inheritance will be largely irrelevant by the time it comes, as the good start in life will have made the (now adult) child successful anyway.

[Cyclone]

I am not sure precisely what the figures are in the UK but I know from reading elsewhere recently the top 1% in the United States own 40% of the countries wealth. I don't think we are as extreme as that but figures like that show fairly clearly that you are wrong. The majority of people have a lot to gain from ending the privelege of inheritance, not purely in terms of society being more meritocratic, but also in terms of their share of wealth.

 

Because if the government got it all I'd find my share in the post a few weeks later... Not.