Egalitarianism

 

Egalitarianism

Egalitarianism is a philosophical and political school of thought built on the principle that all people are equal in fundamental worth and moral status. It advocates for the removal of systemic inequalities, promoting equal rights, equal treatment under the law, and equal access to opportunities regardless of background (David's note: but preferably not regardless of ability...).

**

Just musing aloud, what about egalitarian hyper-democracy, where as a nation we collectively choose for ourselves what the norms, standards and culture should be, and vote for it in petition initiated citizens referendums. Sometimes we promulgate principles and standards, sometimes we do it by legalism. Umm. And also have opt outs.

For example, get rid of defamation/slander/libel laws, so that we can talk about bad guys and dodgy women openly. Without proving it.

Ban casual sex and polyamory, criminalise adultery.

But allow opt outs. Get a polyamory and swinging license and you can do all of the above.

Or you have a standard set of beliefs: stating that you’re supposed to love your neighbour as yourself, do unto others as you would have them do to you, forgive people, develop yourself so that you become a kind, patient, compassionate person over time. Those aren’t enforceable, but see them as guidelines.

Further standards: you’re not supposed to steal, bear false witness in court, slander other other people’s character by telling lies about them, lie about what other people did to support false accusations, you’re not supposed to adulterate food, engage in vanity. Pride is bad, humility is good. You’re not supposed to waste money on excess luxuries in such a way as to lord it over other people, such as fine clothes, food, wine, housing, jewellery, makeup, suits, gardens, peacocks, horses, yachts and over seas holidays. Gluttony is bad, lust is bad, greed is bad, dispossession of the poor and driving them off of their land is extremely bad, even if you hide it behind accounting and corporate structures (hi China). Usury can be a problem, but there is nuance (seriously). Payday loans are evil, and compounding interest on consumer debt should be illegal. Simple interest only, no penalty rates, and no interest allowed above 20% annually. I’m not sure, just set standards by referendum, even if they aren’t in the law. Standards for moral behaviour aren’t the same as laws. Envy, (inappropriate) wrath, and laziness are bad things. Justice isn’t. Laziness is stealing from your employer. Perhaps state that our values are Christian, or Abrahamic, in origin, but updated. Some values about education? Also, don’t covet. And don’t be a peeping Tom. And solitude is good. And ataraxia is good. Cruelty: golden rule applies, most people don’t like cruelty.

**

**

Update:

Next, why not have a cultural constitution?

Where we put principles and ideas, by referendum, into a public document.

Where we say things like:

“We adopt the belief and adhere to the fiction that all people are equal in fundamental worth and moral status. They have the same intrinsic moral value.”

“And this holds true even though not all people are equally useful. For example, old people aren’t as useful as the young. Women aren’t as useful in the area of plumbing and gas fitting as men. Children aren’t as useful as stevedores as grown men. And so on. Women and some races tend not to be as useful, statistically, as engineers, compared with males who are Western and northern European”

“We choose to be careful with the use of statistics to say that one set of people isn’t as good as another set of people, because we understand that statistics is ‘just another way of lying with numbers’. And that statistics require actual understanding of what goes into them. And that even though the average of a group might beat the average of another group, we in the end are dealing with individuals. And individuals can be excellent either way. And that even though the top outliers might more often come from one group (see F1 Racing, marathon racing, sprinting), people from within other groups are perfectly capable of developing excellence at various levels anyway. E.g. women and Chinese aren’t well represented in car racing, but they can still drive fast. Kenyans do well in distance running, but you don’t have to be a Kenyan to run for long distances. West Africans do well in sprinting, but you don’t have to be a west African to sprint well.”

“Not all individual people are equally capable of high quality abstract thinking, high quality problem solving, inventiveness and innovation.”

“Not all individuals are geniuses. Not all individuals have minds that ‘catch fire’ in the area of abstract thought, creativity, problem solving and inventiveness. We are not all equal in what we can do.”

“We just adopt the idea that every one has the same intrinsic moral value. And we do this without pretending that we are all equally useful or capable”.

We choose this by referendum, passed 81% to 19% in 2034. In New Zealand.

See also: Hogfather by Terry Pratchett for more information.

“ All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."

REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"

YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

"So we can believe the big ones?"

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

"They're not the same at all!"

YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"

MY POINT EXACTLY.”

****

****

What else? We should have a petition initiated referendum process for making people go for a long walk off a short pier. Based on nothing but popularity. And only for New Zealand. Sentencing people to a long walk off of a short pier.

Possibly for asking too many questions about cultural assumptions.