Progressive Equality

The pursuit of equality was a 2000 year political effort. It was finally achieved through the creation of the United States; a capitalist republic built on individual rights and the limitation of government. Capitalism destroyed the aristocracy in Europe. The capitalist north fought against the agri-feudal south and eventually abolished slavery. It's capitalist traits that are now making the caste system in India more and more redundant with each passing generation, something Ghandi couldn't do, even with his eloquent messages of altruism. It was capitalism that created the middle class (an entirely self made class).

But now that equality has been achieved through the invention of a system that places the highest value on judging its citizens by their individual merits and fiercely punishing all forms of irrationality, such as racism and nepotism, the left wing seeks to transform the virtue of equality from a political one to metaphysical one!

Political equality gives the citizen the guarantee that no arbitrary obstacle should prevent him or her from achieving positions for which their talents deem fit. The pursuit of metaphysical equality can only be achieved by punishing the most ambitious citizens and rewarding its least productive, which is something entirely different than political equality where individuals are judged by their resources, and not punished for them.

Equality is meant to protect the most important fundamental right: The liberty to pursue chosen values. Liberty nurtures innovation, hard work and cooperation among individuals within society, because individuals understand that their responsible for the choices they make; consequences, whether rewarding or punishing.

The left wing vision of equality destroys liberty. Institutionalized predetermined social equality takes away an individuals ability to develop his own life, and thus by extent his esteem. The left wing seeks to diminish the individual’s choice and responsibility, thus destroying liberty. The less responsible a citizen is held for his actions the less he feels the need to be industrious and productive, because the consequences of his choices are felt not by him in particular, but by the society as a whole. Bad decisions are punished as much as good ones are rewarded- which is to say, not much and consequently little thought is put into decisions. The left would prefer that all hockey games ended in ties, that all racers crossed the finish line at the same time, and that all people earned the same profit for their developed resources. Liberty guarantees our freedom - the freedom to succeed or fail. Liberty makes no guarantees on the outcomes of pursuit; It just guarantees the right to them. If the end to all endeavors is already predetermined then there really is no liberty. The type of equality that treats all men as equals destroys liberty.

But reaching even further into the abyss of irrationality and amoral ethics leftists still react unkindly to the widespread belief that some children have unfair advantages over other children due to the wealth of their parents. Ethically speaking is there any difference between inherited wealth and inherited talent? So maybe we should club the feet of all our good athletes, lobotomize our brightest students, jam pencils into the eyes of our best artists because then nobody would have an unfair advantages. I suggest a more moderate approach: accept the fact that the boxer’s son will grow up with strength, the farmers son will grow up with work ethic and mechanical knowledge, the merchant’s son will grow up clever, and yes children of the wealthy will be raised with the advantage of capital. It's inevitable that parents will want to pass on everything they have to their child, whether it is cerebral or material. Attempting to eliminate either is neither sensible nor feasible. The desire for their child’s betterment is a healthy and instinctive parental drive.

If what a person gets does not depend on the negotiable price he receives for the services of his resources then what motive does he have to develop his resources? What incentive is there to seek out new information or to develop technology? Why would someone put the extra effort in to search out a buyer who most highly values what he has to sell if he does not get any benefit from doing so? The answer is that he will not do any of these things unless there is incentive to do so. Sloth and lack of enterprise flourish when hard work and risk taking are not rewarded. Liberal socialism is a fatalist philosophy and an enabler of stagnation. If everyone is equal then nobody can be exceptional
-Angry Roughneck