[MD] Unreality of Equality

[Ham Priday]

Hello Arlo --

> 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".

If you read my thesis, you'll see that this judgment is completely
unfounded.  Essentialism supports the concept that the individual is the
center of existence.  I'm not a Social Darwinist, but I believe that
individual life is the most precious value we know, and that the individual
is the Choicemaker of the world.  "Let them die" is the hyperbole of a
frustrated antagonist.  It reminds me of the insensitive remark "Let them
eat cake" which peasant agitators attributed to Marie Antoinette on the eve
of the French Revolution.

> 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.

I don't adulate the pre-1920s, since all I know about this epoch comes from
books and fictionalized movies.  The industrial revolution brought with it
numerous inequities that were mediated in the '30s by the union movement and
the introduction of child labor laws that ended child labor and sweatshops.
By the time I entered the workforce in the '50s, Corporate America had
acceded to employees' needs, even adding training programs and other
incentives to keep valued workers on their payroll.

> 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.

Arlo, where have you seen injured people "just left to die for the good of
the rich"?  This is America we're talking about, isn't it? -- not Nairobi or
Indochina.
>
> 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.

People make themselves valuable by their contributions to society.  You seem
to have a fixation about power and wealth as a kind of conspiracy designed
to suppress "the little guy".  Yet, little guys rise above their humble
roots and achieve greatness every day.  They may have to work harder to
reach their goals, but sometimes that experience is an advantage in our
competitive world.  If this is what you call "inequality of value", then I
suspect you have a myopic view of societal responsibility.

> 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.

When have I ever put down an individual (or lauded him) on the basis of his
socio-economic status?  I can't recall EVER proclaiming a person "superior"
or "inferior" for any reason.  On the other hand, I have questioned the
value-sensibility of people on occasion, but only because they have the
capacity to develop this sense and I want to see them realize their full
potential.

> [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 replies]
> 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.

Perhaps you should turn off that radio and do some charity work yourself.
The media, the lawyers, and the politicians all enjoy bemoaning the poor and
homeless, because a "victimized" society plays to their interests.  There
always were, and probably always will be, slums and poverty; but the
disparity between rich and poor in the U.S. is less than in almost any other
country in the modern world.  If the government didn't rob the captains of
industry to run its welfare programs, they would be far more likely to
increase their contributions to the underclass.

> 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.

So, when are you planning the revolution?  And will you be promoting
Socialism or Marxism?  Have you ever asked the panhandler on the street why
he is homeless and destitute?  You might be surprised by his answer.  Many
destitute people need psychiatric help or language skills.  Most need drug
or alcohol rehabilitation.  And, let's face it, more than a few just can't
marshal themselves to the responsibilities of the workplace.  I have
compassion for people with physical or mental handicaps who make some effort
to overcome their problems.  But I can't sympathize with the individual
whose entire life-agenda is living off the generosity of others.  Even a dog
in the wild does what it has to do to survive.  Why should a human being
with intellectual understanding and a sense of values resign himself to
lifelong dependence?

I appreciate your candor, Arlo.  But I have known people of your political
persuasion who have drastically changed their position later in life.  Who
knows?  You could be one of them.

Cheers,
Ham