[MD] Unreality of Equality

[Arlo J. Bensinger]

Good morning Ham,

You evidence quite articulately the notion of social Darwinism, where the value
of the individual is gleened from the social success of the individual. The
poor are, to you, in line with typical right-wing thinking; lazy, stupid,
worthless. As I said last night, the underlying notion is "let them die".

You also come straight forth with your belief that the pre-1920s was a glorious
time. I think the great majority who slaved away to create the wealth for the
few would likely disagree. A simple picking up of any history book evidences
the conditions under which the many lived. While this "law of the jungle" is
attractive to those who disdain the poor, I find it repugnant, and evidence of
a baser mind, concerned only with his own supremeity.

But let me clarify a couple of points where we may be in some agreement. I think
we should abolish income taxes. I have long been an advocator of a consumption
tax, the more you spend, the more you pay. I don't relish the thought of so
much of my income going to outrageous government spending, even if my outrage
is with corporate welfare and yours is likely with social welfare.

Human beings must work to support their existence. Of course. No one I know
thinks that the social support of welfare should be a lifestyle. I favor very
strongly work-to-receive benefits, even if it means tutoring kids, picking up
trash along the Interstates, delivering meals on wheels to shut ins, etc. That
is, while I don't favor the elimination of a safety net, I do favor making
people work to receive its temporary benefits, one of which should be job
placement. I also favor a realistic timeline of benefits. But I do not favor
"jungle law", where the temporarily injured are just left to die for the good
of the rich.

Second, let me also step back and say that "inequality of skill" is an
undeniable good, as I said last night. No one I know denies this. We are all in
possession of a variety of skill, manifest through cultural doors that (in our
society) socio-economic birthrite largely determines. What I am primarily vocal
against is the "inequality of value", or that the life of one person is somehow
"more valuable" than the life of another. And let's not mince words, in
mercantilian, right-wing thinking, that "value" is derived nearly exclusively
through the attainment of wealth.

That is, when you talk about "inequality", I am with you throughout the various
manifestations of skill that spread across the human condition, but I am NOT
with you when you lapse into proclaiming the value of one person's life is
superior to that of another's. ESPECIALLY when that value is derived from
socio-economic success. 

[Ham wrote]
The truth is, we can't have both.  We can't advance intellectually and
technologically as the world's most powerful nation by going into bankruptcy to
support the myth that everyone should have equal status.

[Arlo]
One, it's never been about "equal status", if by status you mean social income.
THAT is the right-wing myth. I hardly think that the recipients of welfare
today feel "equal" in "status". What it is about is the recognition that human
life is valuable, and that it is in everyone's best interest to help people
who've fallen. I wish it didn't have to be the government's job. I wish people
would just do this on their own. But with the selfish, self-centered,
all-about-me-and-my-things rhetoric being drummed on the radio 24/7, I don't
see that happening. When was the last time you, for example, helped a person
who lost their job with a food basket, medicine for their kids, what? And I
know, the supremeicists argument is that if this person had any value, they
wouldn't need help. I think they have value regardless of their socio-economic
position.

And, if the price, as you suggest, for technological development as the world's
most powerful nation is to let the hungry starve, the sick die, and the
homeless live destitute on the streets, then, Ham, I'd say the price is too
high. "Social Darwinism" may make the successful feel even better about their
supremeity, and greater value, but it will ultimately be destuctive. The reason
the 1920's came was that the majority of people were tired of suffering under
the weight of the "elite". Khaled has pointed out many times that social
Darwinism is only a precursor for revolution, because class stratification has
very little to do with "skill", and sooner or later those "lazy, stupid poor"
are gonna get fed up.

Arlo