Yes, it is that kind of day which deserves a second post on the Trump winning, albeit along a slightly different line. Remember when Democrats chastised Republicans for saying “Obama’s not my president”? This came after Democrats said that about George W. Bush for almost 8 years, but really starting about the time of the Iraq war. I myself proclaimed in 2011 that Obama was Not My President. But, now we get
Just woke up to a delicious fresh serving off butt-hurt with #HesNotMyPresident & #ImStillWithHer.
— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) November 9, 2016
Yeah, we do
Thank you @HillaryClinton, you fought the good fight, but hate won. I'm still with you. #HesNotMyPresident
— Lesley Abravanel ???? (@lesleyabravanel) November 9, 2016
Well we just solved #Immigration issues because who the F wants to come here now. #HesNotMyPresident
— CheriLH (@CLherlinger) November 9, 2016
#HesNotMyPresident because:
1) He does not speak for me.
2) His prejudice disgusts me.
3) His ignorance disturbs me.
4) I live in the UK.— Tony (@GodfreyElfwick) November 9, 2016
https://twitter.com/MorganMinko/status/796319157407072256
https://twitter.com/SheWhoVotes/status/796319136766775297
https://twitter.com/Annascgivens/status/796318773775110144
https://twitter.com/Hannah_Donahue3/status/796318598520328192
Um, OK. No one is silencing. If that was the case, you wouldn’t be able to Tweet.
https://twitter.com/normalol/status/796318390155612160
This keeps going and going and going. There are entirely too many to post.
Just imagine the butthurt on January 20.
https://twitter.com/WilliamTeach/status/796309319906103296
And how many will stay home today, and possibly through the week?
Yeah, what is it with the royal “We”, Zachriel?
Yet you still want to some sort of “perfect equality.”
Sorry, but this is a non-sequitur on your part. Even so, you have advocated treating people differently. In effect, you are already saying that in order to make people “equal,” you have to restrict someone’s freedom – the very freedom you want others to enjoy.
Once again, a non-sequitur on your part. The problem is that you talk about equality and then jump to restricting freedoms for some and not for others in order to guarantee what you think is an “equal” result.
Monopolies are restricted because they impact the freedoms of others. They don’t deal with the economic equality of which you speak.
Do you really type stuff like this with a straight face?
You still seem to be having problems with reading comprehension, so we’ll spell it out.
H-u-m-a-n s-o-c-i-e-t-y r-e-q-u-i-r-e-s t-r-a-d-e-o-f-f-s.
Of course they have to do with equality. Restricting monopolization explicitly prevents too much economic power being concentrated in one place.
We didn’t advocate anything. That doesn’t mean we don’t have a position, but its hard to have that discussion when you are having troubles with the basic concepts involved.
The original problem was conflating equality of opportunity with social equality generally. They are not the same thing. If you advocate for a meritocracy, then you are saying there should be at least some degree of economic inequality.
Nearly all economists agree that some economic inequality is necessary for the proper workings of markets, and that markets are essential for economic growth and prosperity. In addition, private property is fundamental to human rights, but that’s a separate issue from the problem of equality.
You’re right, they aren’t and I have no idea what you mean by “social equality”. I’ve never heard the term used before.
If you advocate for meritocracy? I was not aware achievement needed advocates. However, there should and must be economic inequality and the more the merrier. That’s the only inequality one owns primarily by his actions.
Economic equality would require a total loss of freedom and it still could not occur. I can think of no society that could, would or should force economic equality between a house painter and a heart surgeon. The law should treat citizens as equally as possible but not the market.
How can you agree they aren’t the same thing, but say you don’t know what is one of the things? In any case, let me google that for you.
A meritocracy isn’t just achievement, but reward for achievement; and yes, of course one can advocate for a meritocracy.
You may want to revisit that position. In history, there have been vast differences in economic position unrelated to merit. For instance, for centuries the aristocracy controlled political control and economic distribution, taxing the poor to support their lavish lifestyles. Modern history can be seen as a revolution against this concentration of political and economic power.
You are correct that perfect equality isn’t feasible, however, modern society mitigates the worst inequality by providing subsistence to the poor, by mandating minimal employment standards, and by preventing the over-accumulation of political and economic power.
Just to clarify, social or economic equality can be treated as a continuum, with societies exhibiting more or less equality. And because it is a continuum, there may tradeoffs involved short of “a total loss of freedom”. For instance, a nation may decide to help a war widow by providing a pension to prevent her from slipping into abject poverty.
First, I took you at your word. I’ll try not to make that mistake again. Second, they are different terms “equality of opportunity with social equality generally” therefore obviously different. N’est pas? Your google didn’t work but I googled it and got leftist jibber-jabber.
The rest of your points were silly details designed to show you know something. Save your breath.
We have been truthful to the best of our knowledge, but it is entirely appropriate to be skeptical about particular claims.
Hmm. It seemed to work. Google returned half-a-million hits for the exact match, so it’s a common enough term. The first definition of “Social Equality” is “a state of affairs in which all people within a specific society or isolated group have the same status in certain respects, often including civil rights, freedom of speech, property rights, and equal access to social goods and services.”
In history, at the end of the Medieval Period, society was highly stratified, with the aristocracy controlling secular politics and the economy, and the Church regulating matters of religion. The first revolution occurred when people fought for the right to decide matters of religion for themselves, initially within the context of Christianity, and later, matters of religion and conscience generally. Next there was a revolution against the entrenched aristocracy, the result being the rise of Republican ideals.
Yes, that is the same jibber-jabber I got. Ambiguous, inconsistent, incomprehensible. It goes from a “specific society” which could be 300 million people to an “isolated group” which could be 6 and suggest they would all have the same status. The fact they use the term “status” means there’s more than one so there cannot be “social equality”.
Civil rights and freedom of speech are equality under the law, not social equality. Property rights, unless everyone must have the exact same property, assumes inequality. And equal access to “social” goods and services I guess means everybody can use the same street or bridge.
Jibber-Jabber. Leftist jibber-jabber designed to create a problem from nothing.
Social equality refers to people within a particular society. The smallest society is usually a traditional tribe of related individuals. Many tribal groups have a strong sense of equality, with group approval being conferred rather than property as a means of acquiring status.
Political rights are a type of equality, something that took humans a long time to develop. Rights used to be conferred by place in society at birth.
Again, equality is a continuum. For instance, a nation may decide to help war widows by providing pensions to prevent them from slipping into abject poverty. It reduces the wealth of some to increase the wealth of others. The effect is to reduce economic inequality.
Certainly that’s part of it. Rather than roads being owned by the king or by a corporation that charges for use, in modern society most roads are {essentially} a public good.
But equal access may mean having access to food and shelter or other economic productions. It depends on the level of analysis, which is entailed in the phrase “in certain respects, often including”. Consider the history again. The first egalitarian revolution concerned religious liberty, that matters of religion and conscience were not to be decided by a hierarchical Church, but by the individual. That’s a type of social equality. Then there was the rise Republicanism and then Democracy, other types of social equality.
Zachriel, here is a short YouTube vid which I believe may visually explain your point.
https://youtu.be/dOOTKA0aGI0
Monty Python and the Holy Grail is a great movie. The skit works because it puts modern ideas into the mouth of an early Medieval peasant. It took a long time for modern ideas of equality to take hold in society. What is normal today was once heresy or treason.
I figured you might get a kick out of that. Especially since we were batting around social equity and all. Kinda fit.