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

[upinwath]

I was on a socialist train today.

I was about to eat a sweet but was stopped by the security police and told I must distribute the pack evenly amongst the passengers.

I had 10 sweets but there were 100 people including myself.

We all had a tenth of a sweet each but one man bought 9 other equal portions by selling his shoes. He was, as you would expect, arrested for greed.

[upinwath]

Evidence of re-education camps in the nordic countries please. Or are you as usual spouting nonsense.

 

I didn't quote anything about Nordic countries when I mentioned the socialist's love of re-education camps.

 

You are really very silly - must be socialist.

[Cavegirl]

The title of this thread seems pretty strange to me. It is because we have inequality that we have governments, should governments truly impose equality then they would essentially be forced to disband.

 

Equality is not really about age, gender, ability or race I don't think. I say this because these difference all occurred in hunter gatherer societies, but these societies were still egalitarian. I would say that it's more about hierarchy, wealth and status as if you were to rebalance the inequality between these things in society the former issues would cease to exist.

 

The real question, I think, is are we cooperative or competetive by nature?

 

Cooperation leads to equality, competition leads to inequality.

 

I think that humans are essentially cooperative in survival situations as seen in hunter gatherer groups, but for complex reasons we adjust this attitude to being more competetive when our basic needs are easily met. I think this is probably our greatest failing as a species.

[upinwath]

 

I think that humans are essentially cooperative in survival situations as seen in hunter gatherer groups, .

 

But you neglect to mention all groups have leaders and most of those leaders chose themselves as the boss.

That or Genghis Khan was elected by the masses.

[Cyclone]

The title of this thread seems pretty strange to me. It is because we have inequality that we have governments, should governments truly impose equality then they would essentially be forced to disband.

You misunderstand the purpose of government, they don't exist to rule, they exist to do all the things we agree jointly to have done, be that build roads, defend the country or enact and enforce laws. They are the will of the people, not rulers enforcing their opinion on everyone else.

 

Equality is not really about age, gender, ability or race I don't think. I say this because these difference all occurred in hunter gatherer societies, but these societies were still egalitarian. I would say that it's more about hierarchy, wealth and status as if you were to rebalance the inequality between these things in society the former issues would cease to exist.

Ah, the noble savage. I doubt that they were all equal, the idea and system of barter started somewhere, although it's more likely to be an agragrian thing, after someone figured out that they'd have an excess if they stopped hunting and gathering and instead husbanded and harvested

The real question, I think, is are we cooperative or competetive by nature?

 

Cooperation leads to equality, competition leads to inequality.

 

I think that humans are essentially cooperative in survival situations as seen in hunter gatherer groups, but for complex reasons we adjust this attitude to being more competetive when our basic needs are easily met. I think this is probably our greatest failing as a species.

It's also our greatest success, without a competitive urge we'd probably still think that it was really cool that we could make fire when other animals couldn't.

[Cavegirl]

You misunderstand the purpose of government, they don't exist to rule, they exist to do all the things we agree jointly to have done, be that build roads, defend the country or enact and enforce laws. They are the will of the people, not rulers enforcing their opinion on everyone else.

 

This is simply not true. In the UK we see the origins of Parliament in the Anglo-Saxon period. It began with the 'Witan' in which the king would call forth his nobles to advise him, but their assent was not necessary for a law to be enacted and they did not help to frame the laws. There were smaller councils in the countryside known as 'shire moots' which were led by local lords and bishops.

 

After the Norman conquest the King began to govern through a smaller permanent council, but he would occasionally call a meeting of a larger number of barons and earls, bishops and abbots to gain approval of his decisions and this larger council would later become the House of Lords.

The shire moot developed into the County Court during this period and later it became the basis for the House of Commons.

 

There's no indication that the 'will of the people' was ever involved in the creation of UK Parliament or government. It was created through constant struggle between the king and the nobles. People were used as the pawns in the army of whichever side offered them the most benefits. The US essentially copied our model of government and as a sweetner to the people they provided a constitution that would preserve and defend the land rights of commoners.

 

Today the government campaigns for votes by promising the majority the things they think they want and then once in power they do whatever they want or whatever the ideology of the party dictates.

 

See here for more details:

http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/originsofparliament/birthofparliament/overview/origins/

 

Ah, the noble savage. I doubt that they were all equal, the idea and system of barter started somewhere, although it's more likely to be an agragrian thing, after someone figured out that they'd have an excess if they stopped hunting and gathering and instead husbanded and harvested

It's also our greatest success, without a competitive urge we'd probably still think that it was really cool that we could make fire when other animals couldn't.

 

You're misconstruing the term 'noble savage' here. Noble savage refers to human behaviour- it describes a sentimentalised view, primarily of American Indians but later it was adapted for other cultures also, but it does not describe the structure of human society. The two do not really mix.

 

Certainly we can see the origins of leadership, status and wealth accumulation in early agrarian societies as people are freed to develop craft specialisations, but it's only really with the arrival of bronze that competition for resources leads to the development of hierarchical stratas in society.

[Cavegirl]

But you neglect to mention all groups have leaders and most of those leaders chose themselves as the boss.

That or Genghis Khan was elected by the masses.

 

Not all groups have leaders. The !Kung San are a modern hunter gatherer tribe from the Kalahari desert. Many anthropological studies have described their cooperative behaviour, consensus decision making and equality between the sexes. Each person has a role to fulfill in their society and each receives a fair share of the group's provisions. Elders are respected but are not given the status of leader.

 

There's simply no reason to have leaders in a society in which nobody accumulates wealth (through precious resources).

 

Genghis Khan lived in a society that was already stratified. They were nomadic farmers, not hunter gatherers. You can only raise an army if you have a food surplus with which to feed them.

[upinwath]

Not all groups have leaders. The !Kung San are a modern hunter gatherer tribe from the Kalahari desert. .

 

Well it is handy you gave them a mention as I was only watching a documentary a few days ago that I followed up using web resources.

It strikes me they're far from a shining example of equality especially considering the gender roles in their version of tribal life.

Hardly an equal relationship thus hardly a good example for you to cite.

 

Try again.

[manofstrad]

without a competitive urge we'd probably still think that it was really cool that we could make fire when other animals couldn't.

 

Why would we be thinking that if we didn't have a competitive urge?

[Cavegirl]

Well it is handy you gave them a mention as I was only watching a documentary a few days ago that I followed up using web resources.

It strikes me they're far from a shining example of equality especially considering the gender roles in their version of tribal life.

Hardly an equal relationship thus hardly a good example for you to cite.

 

Try again.

 

What precisely is your issue with their gender roles? The fact that men are hunters and women gatherers or is there something else that you think makes them unequal?

 

I'm suggesting that they are equal based upon the fact that their society has no hierarchy. There is no difference in status between men and women or between young and old. Nobody is allowed to shirk their role, whatever that is and everybody is given a fair portion of the food and other raw materials.