Is an equal society possible?

they should make a game of thrones anime desu

only with a qt benevolent dictator

All of the above

That's not really the way it works, women receive extra protection and lower sentences from the law because of their gender

>Everyone is equal before the eyes of the law.
Not true. If I kill someone I will go to prison, if I didn't I get to walk free. This might sound stupid but your view is actually the stupid one.

Socially / economically I'd say it's impossible. As said, people aren't equal. You'd need to enforce equality unfeasibly hard to actually enforce it. It's definitely feasible that you'd be able to provide everyone a basic income if you streamlined society so that people had an """"""equal"""""" starting line but the wealthy / attractive / charismatic will still have an advantage.

That said, a legally equal society is possible, you just don't draw legal distinctions. Everyone is treated identically under the law. That's good enough for me.

I kind of see an equal utopian society as sort of a voluntary sortition. Where basically everyone would rotate jobs every 4 or 5 years. So everyone gets a well rounded understanding on how the wheels turn in society.

What are you talking about?

The point is that, at least in concept, ANYBODY who murders goes to jail. You don't get exemption because you're rich / white / a politician etc.

In practice say what you will.

Better question:

Is an equal society desirable?

Pro tip: fuck no

It's possible, once everyone is pic related.

Why not make attractive people more ugly with plastic surgery?

Charismatic people can be taken care of simply by threatening them with prison if they take advantage of their talent.

Are you legitimately autistic?

Ah death, the great equalizer.
Top quality post mate.

>Why not make attractive people more ugly with plastic surgery?

Why not make ugly people more attractive?

>Charismatic people can be taken care of simply by threatening them with prison if they take advantage of their talent.

Good luck. I'm sure "throw all the popular people in prison" is a feasible way to govern your country.

>wow Fred's a really nice guy, I better call the police.

read harrison bergeron
tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html

it is possible, but it's not desirable
we should allow individuals to live with their innate advantages used in the way that they most want to use them

But that's not fair, why should one person have a better life than another simply because they were born attractive, charismatic or better learners?

Why should they be kneecapped because you're inferior and jealous about it?

You probably do at least something above average, don't you? Don't you think it'd be stifling for society to enforce mediocrity so nobody felt left out?

>implying people won't be going to either heaven or hell hence introducing more inequality based on moral guidelines and having the fortune to be born in and/or practice the right religion

Yes lad

I wonder what happened to Hollywood squares, it was always an enjoyable show

It's not about being jealousy, it's simply the fact that you will experience more happiness due to attributes that you were born with. That simply is not fair.

Everyone should experience equal amounts of happiness. Why should one person accept the happiness of another if they did not earn it?

1. Merit is not just about what you're born with, its about what you make of it.

2. Some people are born basically demigods, others eat shit and die. Don't like it? Curse God, or fate, or chance, not me.

So life itself ought to be "fair," eh? Because you decided it would be "the best" or some shit?

Someone should explain to animals that they should all experience equal amounts of happiness, because life ought to be fair, that predators should starve so as not to deny happiness to something that they could eat. Someone should explain to geography and the processes that shaped our world billions of years ago that it shouldn't all be deserts and mountains in one area and none in the next, because life ought to be fair. Someone should explain to the processes that control rain that they must find some way to evenly redistribute themselves among the world's lifeforms. Someone should explain to people who perform better than others at certain things (like manufacturing goods) that they ought to slow things down, because they could deny work and therefore happiness to those who aren't so good at it (despite this denying happiness to those who obtain cheaper/better goods).

Turns out, life was never fair and will never be fair. Anyone who rails against a cosmic "unfairness" is a misanthropic idiot. It's also pretty selfish to think that everyone should live life the way you prescribe it, no matter what you advocate for, and especially so when you advocate for this malarkey.

generally, we like bringing people 'up' to the highest level, but we don't like to tear those at the highest level down. the same should apply here. just because chad has a nice cock, a handsome face, and good pec insertions, does not mean you are entitled to make him ugly and fat and penisless.

however, that doesn't mean you shouldn't be given the choice to be like chad should you desire it. this is what i think gene therapy might be capable of solving- you end up with a result that's better for everyone, because those who decide to become more chad-like can choose to do so at their own leisure.

of course the 'tearing people down is bad' axiom does not hold for the destruction of the bourgeoisie.

>1. Merit is not just about what you're born with, its about what you make of it.
But you can't say a society is truly meritocratic when one baby has innate advantages over another baby.

>2. Some people are born basically demigods, others eat shit and die. Don't like it? Curse God, or fate, or chance, not me.
We can't do shit about fate or God, but we have the power to fashion our societies into any shape we see fit. We can overcome natures handicaps by imposing laws in our society to address them.

Look we don't have any control over nature, we're powerless against the circumstances of our birth, we can't do shit about a lot of things but we should intervene where we can in order to alleviate suffering. Why should one dude get a better job than another because he is naturally a faster learner and excelled? Why should a guy be alone because he was born ugly and so no girl wants him? Why should a person be allowed to be richer than another because he's charismatic fellow who became a successful businesman? We can do things about this as a society.

What does Emilia mean by equality? Does she mean forcing everyone to be on the same level or is she more liberal and wants equality under the law and equal opportunity?

I know it seems from stem from how she's discriminated against for being a half-elf, though it's kind of bull coming from a rich girl while Felt, the real pity story, is going to viva la revolution up in this bitch.

Because I'm stronger and better than you and it benefits me to do so.

Because letting excellent people succeed benefits the rest of us.

Because the only way to enforce equality is to wage war on the productive.

Because you're a faggot subhuman who offends me on a fundamental level.

In the early 30s Soviet Union everyone was equally shit. Even Stalin had to repair holes in his coat by himself.

considering the show takes place in a monarchist time period, i would assume that emilia is champiioning basic liberalism- ie every individual is equal under the law. we can't assume she has a level of political consciousness beyond what is reasonable for her during the time period of the show.

you're right on with your third sentence, it definitely derives from her hybrid race.

>Why should one dude get a better job than another because he is naturally a faster learner and excelled?

Why should someone be rewarded for being this man's inferior? Do you not want people to strive to be better? Why try to excel if you will be rewarded for being a drain on society?

>Why should a guy be alone because he was born ugly and so no girl wants him?

Why should this girl be with him just because he's ugly? What about her desires? Doesn't she want someone she's attracted to?

>Why should a person be allowed to be richer than another because he's charismatic fellow who became a successful businesman?

Why should he not be rewarded for success, a success that has likely provided many people with things they needed or wanted to improve their own lives?

You haven't thought past square one on any of these issues. You've purposely started the question of "what to do about inequality" at the end, ignoring the factors that go into your oh-so "terrible" inequalities.

You've basically asserted that individuality is unjust.

this is rather pointless.
Why should a woman suffer to be with a guy she doesn't want just because he's ugly and she's not? Why should a smart person limit themselves because others are dumb?
We should incentivize people to focus on their best.
>But you can't say a society is truly meritocratic when one baby has innate advantages over another baby.
Actually yes, it is. You cannot have a clean slate for everyone, you are going to be born with major or small (dis)advantages, and it is up to you to decide how you're gonna live.
BTW, isn't it unfair to a smart person telling them they can't do great things because it might bother someone who doesn't have the same mental capabilities? Go back to my original point, are you seriously going to force people to conform because others can't handle them?

Probably the Robber Barons like Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford

FPBP

i fucking hate elves

Equality before the law is possible, but the problem lefties have with this is that equality before the law and equality in outcome are not the same. It's entirely possible to make everyone equal before the law yet limit suffrage (notice that even Robespierre did not extend universal suffrage to women).

>though it's kind of bull coming from a rich girl
She's under the protection of BIG FAT CLOWN COCK though, to most other people she might as well be a demon.

>while Felt, the real pity story, is going to viva la revolution up in this bitch
Not really. Felt is out of fucks to give, she just wants to crash this kingdom with no survivors.

She is literally complaining because she gets called a witch because she's half-elf. She's not walking about welfare state utopia, and socialism and communism don't mean equality of result either.

Stupid retards don't understand what equality means in socialism and communism either. In socialism, everyone has an equal right to life, to be able to work, and to get paid in proportion to the value of their labor. It's not equality of end result as some rightwing memers will say. That's the welfare state. Socialism is a limited welfare state.

Communism, everyone is equal in having their needs met, but that has nothing to do with equality. That just has to do with the idea that the economy can develop to be so productive that it can produce enough for everyone. It's only a welfare state because of the abundance of goods. You can't just start a communist society without post-scarcity.

Neither social, communism or equality before the law contradicts with the fact that people are unequal. What they attempt to fix is unfair unequalness, but permit fair unequalness, for a more perfect meritocracy.

She doesn't want everyone to have access to a spirit that can destroy the world. She wants there to not be baseless discrimination because she's half elf.

Lawfully speaking, yes.
Socially speaking, fuck no.
And there is little anyone can really do about it.

Egalitarians BTFO

And yet even the poor people nowadays have more wealth and live much healthier than when everyone was equal

Depends on what you mean by equal
An equal playing field, equality before the law, etc. should be reasonably possible and I think desirable
Actual, absolute equality, like having all jobs be exactly divided according to racial and gender demographics, would require heavy-handed government intervention (and let's not get into the whole injustice of it and the biological factors). And then there is also the question of where to draw the line, should there be quotas for people of different sexualites, the handicapped, people of different income backgrounds, etc.
And all work resulting in the same pay (if money isn't abolished and replaced with some standardised citizen package) it would punish success and probably slow down society as a whole. While some though it of passion I think less people would feel motivated to spend a decade becoming engineers, doctors or whatever if they make the same amount as cleaners, cashiers or sitting around on their asses.

>though it of passion
do it out of passion*
I think I had a stroke

This, holy shit

Anyway, limiting the potential of others to succeed so everyone is an equal loser limits society drastically. Almost all inventions were made by the smartest. Limiting those people out of jealousy hurts everyone. Personally why I favor eugenics but we won't go there

Pre-scarcity? Absolutely not. Maybe not even then.

Yes in a small society. It sucks tho.

A tiny minority of landowners plus a smattering of gentry, clergy, bourgeois and master artisans.

Guess who will be remembered for a longer time

>hurr I have bigger grave
Congrats, can it bring you back to life?

Junkers.

>No because we're inherently unequal
>we live in a society which creates and perpetuates innate inequality
ftfy.

A society of equality before the law and of opportunity is so possible that every person who violates that principle, or is controlled by someone who violates that principle, claims to be representative of that principle put to practice. There simply has to be enough control by true believers in the principle, which constitutes the majority of people, who have failed to do it effectively. At all times there are threats to true equality which the people who believe in it fight against.

I think you've hit on the crux of the issue. The vast majority of people are above average at something.

The best way to create an "equal" society would be to find better ways to value the unique contributions of each individual. Instead of: "everyone who can't be a doctor, lawyer, or engineer should sit at an assembly line."

That may sound idealistic, but the rising accessibility of the internet and the increase in automation of many jobs is allowing more and more people to create their own opportunities. Extrapolate that into the future however you wish.

>retarded people and Negroes are born with the same capacity for learning as everyone else
Leftists, everyone

>learning is a capacity of equality
>not a societal problem
case in point.

It's actually impossible to tell.

"Equality" is so subjective, that even if it is equal to someone it will most likely not be to another.

If everony recieve the same amount of money regardless of the time they spent in their labor. The amount of money recieved would be equal but the time spent wouldn't. It's equal and it's unequal on the same time.

If everony recieved the same amount of money based on the time they spent on their labor. The amount of money recieved would equal but the time people took studying to perform their jobs would be unequal. It's equal and it's unequal on the same time.

If everony recieved money based on their labor time and study time. The time spent for their jobs is equal but the amount of money is unequal.

In the end, it's up to you to tell if it's equal or not.

Doesn't really seem meaningful because poverty is arbitrarily defined.

"Equality under the law" refers to the law itself, not the interpretation of it. There's always going to be some judges who are harsher than others, so true de facto equality in sentencing is never going to be achieved.

The real question is it desirable
The answer is no

Dude, let go of the revengefulness. Appreciate the success of others. It makes the world that you are an extension of better. Dragging everyone down is perverse. It's like clipping a bird's wings because you can't fly. Absolutely ignoble.

What, you're going to claim that everyone is born with the same abilities, and then society oppresses them into retards? Are you seriously that stupid?

>And yet even the poor people nowadays have more wealth and live much healthier than when everyone was equal
does not matter, because there is less equality today, which is despicable

>"Equality under the law" refers to the law itself, not the interpretation of it. There's always going to be some judges who are harsher than others, so true de facto equality in sentencing is never going to be achieved.
this is what liberals and libertarians tell themselves when they go to bed and think of the failure of their doctrine

No because we're not equal not matter how much they say otherwise. I think there should be something that is equal to everyone, however. Say, something like a basic income on everyone. You would get extra perks by bettering yourself or the society as a whole.

They werent around in 1820

equality shouldn't be what you should be worried about, it should be the welfare and quality of life of those at the bottom. pursuing equality is retarded.

Graves are unequal. I've seen cemeteries where tombstones have just sunken into the ground because of the elements and time. Even my great-grandparents tombstones were partially buried in dirt.

De Jure yes, de facto no (not preferable, would lead to collectivism)

This.

You mean one where switching careers isn't such a suicide move?

The handicapped have laws catered to them because without it they'd be at a disadvantage. Many of those things you say exist fora reason.

Inequality that is needed to bring about equality as one would say.

so your big idea is to deny the world experts

>reasonable amount of accessible social capital so people aren't fucked from birth- infrastructure, cash, societal framework, other
>reasonable freedom of opportunity
>reasonable controls on how much power one camp can wield to avoid violence, imbalance, tyranny, etc
best u can do

Ask first, is an equal society desirable?

everyone who is remembered is still alive in the lifes and actions of the ones who remember.
The graves of the ones who are insignificant are covered in dirt by time, while the ones who were important are preserved forever. I. E. The pyramids

North Korea is pretty equal.

1% of the population eats 50% of the food. How is that equal?

As far as I can see it's just that, support. It's not trying to force end results.

The problem with legal equality, is that it sets the precident for equality of opportunity and outcome.

A society must be consistently inegalitarian in order to maintain itself.

everyone is equal under the 1%

this thread is all spooks

>Why should one dude get a better job than another because he is naturally a faster learner and excelled?
Haha, you wish that happened.
The problem with inequality is that it gives useless talents and ideas credence and legitimacy by sole virtue of it appealing to a wealthy elite. There's no merit for wealth in reality, and rich people own it only because there's an autocratic state defending it.

The question is not if we can make a society equal, but rather if we should continue living under a state that fosters inequality.

>inequality is just monetary

While I do agree that those who can make money shouldent have all the power, saying that there won't be other forms of inequality such as physical and mental ability is contrary to all of the evidence.

Those who make money today already demonstrate some level of social intelligence anyways as well.

>95% of the World's population in 1820 lived in Absolute Poverty
Lmao. Fuck off.

OH SHIT these anons have not heard of our great comrade Fidel.

who cares?
they're both dead, it doesn't matter who remembers them

if they were so important to you why not do away with material objects like tombs to serve as a reminder that they existed and instead make a conscious effort to remember them?

Equality is a spook.
Human's are inherently unequal.

A 6'2 Blue Eyed Blonde man with a herculean physique and an IQ of 150 is concretely more valuable than a 4`9' brown midget with 99 IQ and bad breath.

Forcing them to be "equal" might please your tumblr sensibilities but society will suffer because one is just more useful and more pleasing to look at than the other.

sometimes i can't handle how true this is and the degree to which western civilization has completely lost the plot and how double-digit IQ normies are completely incapable of understanding how totally fucked everything is and how they are responsible for perpetuating it

yes i'll go back to /pol/ now but i couldn't help myself i'm sorry

>Capacity to learn makes you useful

>Don't need it to be equal

Leftists, everyone

hold on just a second, I've seen this sensual sea raider reaction image paired with a spelling correction today

Who cares? It would be stagnant. Even if you could do it, why would you?

>Equality

Everony turns into normies.
Is this what you wish for?