Equality is not a virtue to be strived for

Politicians, leaders of corporations, journalists and school teachers – really anyone seeking approval of the masses, preaches equality as a way to gain favor with the masses. Those masses seek the wealth, status, and objects that the elites possess. The “elites” are always a small handful of people, and the large majority of society makes up the disadvantaged masses. At least, that’s how it’s marketed.

We are biologically different

People are not equal. And we never will be. DNA isn’t equal. In every organism where evolution is capable of taking place, mutations occur in DNA that allow for the evolution of a species. These mutations cause diversity in genes, and in the individual made up of those genes. Nearly all multi-celled organisms are going to be different, genetically.

So, people cannot be equal on a cellular level. The differences only begin there. We will never be equal in our status, in our happiness, in our financial wealth, and in our intelligence. Genetic differences will keep some people smarter than others. The smarter people will find ways to make more money OR do what it takes to achieve sex and status in their societies. The people with status will be rewarded with wealth in the form of finances, sex, and lack of need to worry about essentials. Not that the privileged don’t worry. Intelligent and beautiful people seek similarly intelligent and beautiful people of status to mate with, so that their children will have similar traits.

Education helps bring dumb people up, but it benefits the intelligent more than the disadvantaged, and keeps the gap alive. While education will bring the bottom up, it will widen the gap in comparison. The advantaged will benefit more from education because they will be able to make more use out of the information, draw more insights, and have fewer distractions such as bills that get in the way. Plus, the wealthy have better access to top schools because they can afford the resources to make a school better, and more location independence to make sure they settle in a good school district.

Inequality is not unique to humans. The animal kingdom is full of alpha leaders that are more genetically or resource-gifted than their beta peers. The alphas, like humans, are rewarded with the sex, reproductive options, and dibs on food and shelter. Socialists in the animal kingdom that try to take from the alpha are either destroyed or outlive the alpha to become their own kingpins at the top of their tribe. Never in the animal kingdom does this altruism continue once in power.

Promoting equality as a virtue will never succeed. Not only are there fundamental differences in people that rule out the option of ever obtaining genetic equality, but there are psychological incentives that keep this from ever working.

We have different motivations

Even if it were possible to be genetically equal, which it isn’t, this would not be a natural way to live. We should not want this because of our differences in sexual psychology. Men are attracted to women that are beautiful. We evolved to find traits attractive. If all women looked good – with the round butt, thin waist, and pretty face, then all women would be attractive to nearly all men. Men would be a bit more discriminatory with things like kindness and femininity, but most of what makes a woman attractive can be agreed on.

This does not work the other way around. If all men looked the same, much more pressure would lie on men’s social skill and status within their community. Women do not like a man for one or two qualities. What makes a man attractive to a woman is his status compared to other men. Good looks can allow a man to project confidence over other men, but it’s the actual status women long for. There will always only be a handful of attractive men within any community. These are the guys at the top of the social hierarchy.

I said sexual psychology, but this applies to all types of equality – not just gender equality. A lot of the other inequalities – racial, class, income, stem from this sexual psychology. Some groups of people have lower intelligence (measurable, and largely determined by genetics) than others. We’re talking group averages not individuals within groups. These inequalities are still sexual because people have to compete for sexual status with what they have. While this should be understood by society, it is instead used as a tool for political persuasion – these less intelligent are targets for manipulation instead of for promoting happiness and peace through harmony.

This makes sense. The less intelligent are more easily manipulated, and are therefore more likely to give into pressure from advertisements to spend money on products and services. They are also more likely to give into a political ideology which can be used by a manipulator to gain power. A good thing to promise these less intelligent people is “equality”. Equality can be used to instill jealousy with the more successful, and move blame to another group.

The way around this, to get people to think the same and have common attraction triggers, is to have a collective conscious that is capable of being filtered. A robotic conscious could allow for this. One downside of this, is this robotic conscious would eliminate the modern free will that humans have. Certain thoughts and behaviors would have to be censored, such as a man’s want to invent in order to appeal to women, or a woman’s want to go after a more attractive man.

Profit is what encourages innovation and labor in a society. Profit leads to a security of financial being, the accumulation of things and, in this, status. With status, man and woman (but mostly man) are treated with sexual favors.

Profit grows companies which grow societies, and profit gives the individual reason to work. By putting in a hard day’s work, I can choose how I spend my profits. After paying bills, I spend my money on dates and entertainment that make me pleased. If I don’t put in hard work, I risk being fired, which puts my love-life at risk in addition to any long-term financial security I may concern myself with.

So too, companies have incentives to be better – to look for new ways to solve problems and to reward their employees that do this. Companies that don’t will fail, and everyone involved will suffer the loss of finances and maybe love. The beauty in having a choice, in not being a part of a collective, is we can participate in the financial economy, or choose not to. Not everyone seeks to be top dog in a company, or even in the sexual market. Think monks.

These motivations aren’t going away

Trying to create societies where everyone shares and everyone gets along have been monstrous disasters. This was proven time and again, across the world, in the 20th century. The Soviet Union, home to 200 million casualties, is the glowing example. The Soviet Union was violent, backwards, and evil – all in the name of equality. Other examples were Maoist China, Che’s Cuba, and Venezuela.

Totalitarian regimes turn evil when people don’t conform, but more than that, totalitarian evil emerges when people do. When people are told they are the exact same, even if they don’t see any evidence contrary, which is impossible, they will live as servants to the status makers that decide what is reproductively attractive – even though that goes against nature.

If all else is equal, and it won’t be, women will choose to have sex with the most beautiful man. That man will be given sexual access at the expense of others. More likely, there will be the government officials, who, even if they have the same resources, will have advantage in job title which would become attractive.

Even in a perfect, on-the-Marx socialist world, there is never full equality. The man with all the same resources will be in envy of the more beautiful man. What you get is a chasing of different ways to be equal, until you get to the unequal DNA that I started this essay with. Then, it falls apart. There is no equality in nature. There never will be. I will never have the Lamborghini, as fun as that would probably be, because I won’t put in the time in a career that leads to Lamborghinis. And that’s fine. The pursuit of equality is worse than futile – it is dangerous.

Even if we could achieve equality in a handful of chosen areas (we all have the same car and house) by implementing a number of policies, we should still not pursue those policies. The policies would necessarily encroach on the free will of some individuals. There will always be people that disagree with policies. In a free society, people can choose to disagree. In a collective, they cannot. That is damaging to the spread of innovative ideas, and moral ideas.

Martin Luther King held an unpopular opinion that later manifested in more virtuous laws. We want that. He could not have accomplished that in an (even more than America towards blacks at the time) oppressive country. In addition to individual oppression, efforts to achieve equality through socialism killed more than 100 million people during the 20th century. Equality is a common goal for socialism that has killed many millions and destroyed the hopes and ambitions of many others.

The three most common forms of inequality spouted by politicians are: gender, racial, and economic. I covered economic and the other two fall into the same categories. There are racial differences in abilities. These do not extend to every member of every race, but they extend to the averages.

Gender has more pronounced differences, especially when it comes to reproductive health and sexual incentive. Men are not attracted to the woman who has financial stability the same way women find financial strength attractive in men. When women seek the same financial equality as men, they will, almost necessarily, put in more years in school and work to maintain their goal of equality. Even if they achieve it, they have lost out on the reason men were in the race to begin with – sex. Equality has become an incentive for women, not a result of the work. And the goal will never be achieved. Even if it is achieved financially, it won’t be achieved across every metric. I’m most interested in the happiness metric, and that won’t be brought about through financial equality.

In summary, equality is not a virtue because:

  • It is impossible to be equal genetically. These genetic differences manifest in social structures.
  • It pushes the values of some onto the collective, which includes individuals that do not value equality as high as individualism.

Equality, whether obtainable or not, should not be strived for, because:

  • Equality as a goal infringes on the wants of individuals by making certain values mandatory. It encroaches on individual human free will.
  • Political efforts for equality led to the death of millions during the 20th century.

Free markets are the only form of democratic representation that is viable over the long-term.

The concept of the free market and emerged division of labor allows an individual to put his money, the results of his labor, where that individual chooses. Through that choice of investment, the individual gets to prioritize the goods and services that he finds most valuable. By choosing to invest in services he finds most valuable, he, in a significant way, votes for the continued availability of those services.

Even if the values, and from those values resulting the products and services, that an individual aspires to are not represented in a free market, the individual has the option of creating those products and services that can be of value to him. If the services are of value to others, then those can be exchanged in a free market system. They can be shared or traded for profit. If they are not wanted by other individuals, then that individual can create his own and seek his own fulfillment, but by not being recognized as important by others, he may need to sacrifice the potential profits that can be acquired by participating in a trade that is more valued by others. He may need to live a life of poverty in order to live out those values which are most important to that individual.

With free markets, the values of any given individual are not guaranteed to exist in an economy. That individual can build them and bring them into the world. Without free markets, the values of any given individual are not guaranteed to ever manifest in the economy. When the individual’s interests are not manifested in the economy, there is no way to guarantee he can spend to acquire the services that individual finds most valuable.

Totalitarian systems necessarily rule out the option for each individual’s values to be represented in the economy. Totalitarian systems create values that represent the values of the collective. The system is responsible for creating the values for every individual that is a part of the economy, instead of each individual being allowed to have his own values which can then be pursued by that individual.

Collectivist economics necessarily leads to this totalitarianism. There is no way to represent the interests of every individual, because the values are prescribed from the central organization which creates the values and prioritizes the goods and services that will be produced.

The goal of a collectivist economy is to manifest the wants of the individuals in control. These may represent the majority, and they may represent a small group of idealists. Those are prioritized over the wants and wishes of each individual. The wants and wishes of the individuals with different values have to wait until the other goals are accomplished by the collective.

If universal healthcare is desired by the majority, and resources and capital are spent to make universal health accessible, then the individual that values art will have to wait until universal health is accessible to everyone, and he will have to work towards universal healthcare. Only when that is accomplished will the collective then be able to get to work on other values. That could be art, or it could be housing and transportation infrastructure. No one individual gets to decide what he can work on.

The free market allows each individual to live out his own values, and to vote on what matters to him. A man can be an artist and risk not making money while he does what he loves. Another can choose to buy art. Another can buy health services. It is the free market that allows this free decision making.

In summary, free markets are the only viable form of long-term democratic representation for the following reasons:

  • Totalitarianism necessarily rules out democratic representation.
  • Collectivist economics necessarily leads to totalitarianism.
  • Free markets put individual investment where people want.

Through annihilation of the ego, each person has the potential to realize that they are God embodied. Jesus Christ did this.

God is an ideal. In any religious text, the words spell out an ideal way to live – a peaceful, virtuous spirit that reigns over the heavens.

Unfortunately, religion steps in and tells us to hope and pray for the acceptance of that all-mighty spirit. This is not to what the biblical stories really symbolize. The biblical stories give us an answer to how to live now. Not just now meaning before death, but now meaning right now, in the moment.

It is in the moment, when we aren’t wanting for the future or fearful of what comes next, that we find this peace and that we find happiness. Happiness is available to anyone that chooses happiness. That peace comes from rejecting the fear that religious leaders instill about undesirable afterlife. It comes from rejecting all fears. That peace comes from rejecting the fear our boss instills about meeting deadlines and showing up on time.

The peace comes from within – from understanding that we have everything, because there is almost nothing we really need. Any wants and fears are nearly all externally pushed onto us – whether from teachers, preachers, bosses, or marketing departments. We can reject the wants that all these individuals push onto us, and then we can be free from the burdens that come with chasing those wants.

Rejecting wants from others means risking that we won’t be accepted by others. It means being courageous and risking humiliation from others that judge us based on our ability to satisfy the wants encouraged by others. Having the courage to say no to all these people – many of them our colleagues, family, friends, and potential lovers, means we must reject the ego that holds onto wanting the affection and acceptance of these people. By destroying the ego that holds onto the want of acceptance, we can be free from the need of this acceptance.

Jesus Christ did this. The story of Jesus is an archetypal example of a man who rejected the need to be accepted by his friends, teachers, and potential lovers. He led his loved ones and promoted peace and virtue, and was unwilling to compromise his values when those loved ones did not have the strength to stand by him. The death of Jesus was the extreme example of a man standing by his conviction. He did this by accepting humiliation from the crowd, instead of giving in to the wants of the crowd – wants that Jesus did not agree with.

The death on the cross was the most extreme example of the carrying out of the death of the ego. Even when faced with public execution in a horrific manner, Jesus refused to give in to the people that wanted him to want to fit in. In doing so, Jesus died living out his ideal. It was an ideal that he wanted – one of virtue and determination to never give in to the wants of others.

We can be Jesus like, but the struggles he faced are struggles we must endure if we are going to be free. Freedom comes at the cost of rejecting the wants and ideas that society places on us. We may not need to become martyrs for our freedom, but we must be so strong in our sticking to our values that we would rather face criticism and dislike than to fit in – if it means compromising those values.

To want to fit in is to keep the ego intact and to prioritize acceptance from others over our own free will. We can only understand our free will when we do reject all wants – materially and the expectations of others. By doing this we can become the decision makers of our own fate. We can choose to follow others or we can lead our own life wherever it takes us. We can control the heavens and find beauty and positivity in the world when we choose to look for that everywhere. That beauty and positivity is found in the present moment.

When we reject the need for our ego, when we drop the persona that faces others and start living our own ideal, we can truly be at peace and in control of our lives. And we don’t need God or anyone else telling us what to do. We are ultimately powerful when we are not controlled by others. God is not controlled by others. We are god embodied when we are not controlled by others.

We realize we are god embodied when we live out our ideal and refuse to compromise that ideal for anyone. This takes detaching ourselves from our ego that holds onto the wants and expectations of others. We, like god, are subject to no one’s control when we are able to do this. Jesus Christ demonstrated this when he died on the cross.

How two conflicting ideologies can be right. What to do.

Two conflicting ideas can be correct at the same time. Both sides of one argument can have facts that support it. That doesn’t mean the conclusion is logically sound.

Two ideas that are founded on values can both be correct.

It’s when ideas are founded in mathematical fact that have conflicting ideas that we must remove opposing views. Differentiating between fact and feeling is important to this, but we must address both situations carefully to avoid emotional outburst and physical conflict.

Math is provable. Scientific experimentation can show correlation or causation.

An example of a mathematical debate is the shape of the earth. It is round not flat.

There are two sexes, which is proven in biology.

There are other “hot topics” that are rooted in the hard sciences and because they stem from the hard sciences they have solvable solutions.

An example of this is the gender debate. How many genders are there? There are two genders. This is provable from studying biology and the evolution of any animal, including human.

“But gender is the sex you identify as, not your private parts.”

I’m skeptical but I’ll even give you that. Even if that’s your argument, the psychology of male/female dynamics evolved from the biological differences related to the private parts. There were no additional private parts to evolve from and therefore only the two genders evolved.

Psychology evolved from biology which evolved from chemistry and physics. 30 genders on a job application evolved from screaming lunatics that deny science.

Liberals and conservatives are weird and selective in their science denials. Liberals deny the previously laid out logic and conservatives deny climate change.

Both of these rely more on the observation over time – the evolution of the planet and the species, and scientists support both climate change and no more than two genders.

These scientific claims are based on math, experiment, and observation showing causation.

I caution against claims not based on these. Not against their merit, but in their absolute rightness. Many claims are made in absolutes that don’t have the bullet-proof reasoning to back them up. Many of these claims, the political ones, are based on values.

I caution against using correlation when making your passionate argument. With large enough data sets, there will often be a correlation in favor of the other side of the argument. Correlation can be shown with all sorts of cherry picked statistics.

Conflict is fine. Ideas compete. Physical conflict isn’t.

So let’s talk about it.

Let’s focus on the grey areas. They aren’t even really grey areas though. These areas are black and white to people with one set of values, and white and black for people with the opposing set of values.

What are these values?

There are numerous values that have a virtuous opposite. Sharing versus self growth. Pleasure vs discipline. Honesty vs kindness.

All of these values show up in political debate to some extent, however there is only one that attempts to define the law.

I believe freedom is the core value that politics tries to define.

On one side of freedom you have capitalists that believe you are more free if you are enterprising and create in order to earn your keep. On the other side are socialists who believe everyone is more free if we all contribute and help the lowest out of their reliance on measly sums of income for their livelihood.

On one side of freedom you have feminists that believe women are more free if they can earn the same incomes as men and challenge them in the workplace. Traditionalists say women are more free if they don’t have to provide for herself and the family and instead focus her energy on growing said family.

Gun rights people find freedom in their ability to defend themselves from evil. Gun controllers say there is more freedom in walking around knowing their neighbor doesn’t have a tool that can kill them.

Globalists want to integrate and bring other cultures together, and eliminate the dependency and thought of culture. Nationalists say we can be more free by promoting and embracing our own culture, which they deem best. One wants to just be and the other says it is our culture that allows us to just be.

There are two sides to all of these debate topics and I argue that neither is wrong. There are numbers to support both. Not bulletproof math. But numbers that can show different correlations.

Socialism may not even have correlations to positive attributes. But there’s numbers to prove a capitalist system isn’t working, just as there are examples to show that it is.

This argument that two sides can both be correct bring up more questions.

Can an idea be incorrect? What makes an idea incorrect if two opposing ideas can be correct? Where do these values come from? And, naturally, what do we do about this – how do we live peacefully and productively with people that will never agree with our politics?

One at a time.

Can an idea be incorrect?

If it is not founded in science and is not solvable either by math or repeated experiment and observation then one could argue the idea is not incorrect.

There can be a morality behind some ideas that are unpopular but cannot be logically bulletproof.

An idea can have little political support, or moral support from others. But if 49 of the population thinks we should live in a capitalistic society and 49 percent think we should be socialist and one percent think we should have a national socialist party that forbids Jews, maybe that person has had poor interactions with Jews that shaped his mind to believing this.

It’s hard to prove the idea wrong with logic, and he would have facts to support his side that point to how Jews are a net negative on the planet.

Now, there are laws that dictate you can’t commit genocide to a group of people, and that was determined by a court system to be objectively a good thing. I agree. By the way.

The actions should be suppressed. The idea should not be suppressed. The better idea that appeals to the larger population should win out in politics.

What do we do about this – how do we live peacefully and productively with people that will never agree with our politics?

You can’t.

Not without removing emotion from the picture. You have to be objective and to see things as they are, which includes seeing people as these emotional side-takers.

This is hard. You can’t have a productive discussion of politics because you are challenging someone’s core values.

Core values don’t change. They are built in. Also built it are emotions. Emotions evolved from needs to survive and replicate also. So while they do help us avoid burns and to pursue sex, they evolved before there was a need for political agreement among tribes across a nation or planet.

This middle ground is politics. And it’s messy. Because of the inherent values in individuals, no one is happy in the middle. We are, by nature, extremely conservative or extremely liberal. We can deny this, and many do, but that’s not being honest.

That’s why politics are, by the nature of those arguing, so divided.

Let’s acknowledge that and move on. These huge battles that move the scale a little to the right or left are not only productive, but they are the only way to maintain peace in a world that will always, deep down, vote right or left.

We all want to be free. But freedom is different based on the side of this value-dichotomy you align with.

For modern conservatives, freedom is the ability to choose what matters and pursue that, uninhibited by the wants and needs of others. For modern liberals, freedom is the ability to do whatever, whenever, and if necessary to share so that others can do the same.

Accepting this doesn’t make decisions easier. It does allow you to understand why there is another side to, what appears to you, the obvious truth.

Acceptance of this view allow you to be less emotional and more detached from the decisions that have slight control over your life. You do not allow these decisions to change your emotion, because it’s natural that they will try to do that.

Why is the country split so massively in the core values it holds? Where do these values come from?

I have an answer to that, but it’s messy, and requires a post of its own.

Coming soon.