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.

Jackson Pollock was a mediocre drunk who was funded by the CIA

Jackson Pollock was a mediocre drunk who was funded by the CIA. I actually laughed when I saw this prompt, but it’s not untrue. This prompt didn’t fit the mold for the other economic and sociological thoughts that Logan Allen produced prior. Until I got into it.

During the Cold War, Stalin put an end to the individual identity. People weren’t allowed to follow their passions or skills in a socialist nation. They worked toward the collective good, and were assigned work in a Soviet-owned facility. That included the art scene. Stalin only allowed socialist realism to be created. These had to capture the struggle of the working man or the Soviet nation in times of war against the oppression of the west and elites. No other paintings were allowed.

Some great paintings were made in socialist realism. However, that’s not the spirit of art. Art is great for its ability come from anyone, and be about anything. Art is the manifestation of the wants and desires of the author. And the skill of the author. The soviets had great painters. Those that weren’t were either not allowed to paint or sent off to gulags if they did a poor job. But they didn’t allow genuine art to manifest out of the desires of the authors. They manufactured art. Much like music in 2018, but that’s for another essay.

Jackson Pollock was a famous drip painter at the time, and remains an iconic artist. His art has been in recent Blockbuster movies such as Big Lebowski and Ex-Machina. In Ex-Machina, Pollock was praised for his ability to paint with an unburdened mind – one completely free. In Lebowski, he is praised for his ability to make paintings just “come” into being. These are two things the Soviets didn’t want – freedom and a creative spirit – the entrepreneur.

These freedoms despised by the Soviets – entrepreneurial spirit and creativity, are natural feelings that humans feel. Some people are drawn towards entrepreneurship. Others to artistic craft. But in a socialist state these natural desires must be suppressed because one person cannot be “better” than others. Creating is a way to set someone apart from others through profit and the status that comes with creating something that is valued. This cannot happen in a socialist state where no one is allowed to be better than others.

The CIA had access to Pollock through the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) in New York at the time. They funded the museums and galleries that would display artists that specialize in abstract expressionism. Pollock received his fame and money through these channels.

The CIA chose to fund Pollock (and other abstract expressionists) because he was a symbol for the freedom Americans had over the socialist Soviets. His art was a protest against everything the Soviets stood for – individual freedom, individual wants, and skill that was put to use for his wants – not the collective. The fact that people were willing to pay for Pollock paintings meant that value is in the eye of the consumer. Even if that value was inflated by CIA propaganda, that doesn’t take away from the fact that people spend millions on Pollock paintings.

The CIA also chose Pollock because his art was simple. Drip art didn’t require the specialized skill or the threat of being sent to death camps that was required of the Soviet realism. When someone looks at a Pollock, they think, I can do that. That’s what the CIA wanted.

Jackson Pollock was a mediocre drunk who was funded by the CIA. His style of art did not require any unique talent. The CIA funded him and boosted him to fame for this reason – they wanted to show the Soviets and Americans that the United States stands for the ability to choose our path. We don’t need to be great to try something. We can be creative. Others can’t.

Democracy inevitably leads to socialism due to evaporative cooling of high-value individuals.

In the long-run, all democracies will turn away from their capitalist origin to socialism. This is destructive, tyrannical, and entirely natural. This happens because of the evaporative cooling of high-value individuals. Meaning, there are fewer high value individuals that are interested in competing for status.

The strong favor and thrive in a competitive, capitalist society and crave the freedoms that can be earned. The strong are out-reproduced by the weak. This goes contrary to many proponents of Darwinism, but it is actually directly in-line with Darwin theory. There are two Darwinian strategies for survival. One is to reproduce with the strongest and best to produce the strongest and best, because that is what is most likely to survive. Traits such as physical strength, cunning and mental ability, leadership and social savvy – these are all traits sought after and signs of reproductive fitness.

The other Darwinian strategy is to mass reproduce. Mass reproduction, whether through multiple partners or one, requires less work than finding a strong partner and places emphasis on quantity, not quality, of genetics – and therefore offspring. Through this, even if a couple offspring die off and don’t successfully reproduce, one or two will. This is a reproductive strategy favorable to weak individuals.

These weak individuals are the losers in the capitalist system. To succeed in capitalist societies requires similar traits that make for attractive reproductive (masculine) qualities. Social savvy, intelligence, even physical strength – these are qualities women find sexy and qualities that are rewarded in the job market.

These traits are masculine because they are favored in the sexual market by women. More intelligent, wealthy women do not have higher value in the sexual market. This also contributes to an evaporative cooling of the successful because these intelligent women have far fewer children than non-intelligent women, if any at all.

Losers in the job market cannot afford the luxuries that are available to the wealthy – those that succeed in the capitalist system. However, they want the same luxuries. They want them for two reasons – they want more than they currently have, because they see the wealthy and want what they can’t have. Also, the bottom classes often fail to have the spiritual freedom that comes with wisdom which, most often, comes with intelligence and experience. Instead of seeking spiritual freedom, the bottom classes are more likely to want material things to escape unhappiness of the day-to-day.

This means that the bottom classes in a capitalist system are more likely to want things, less likely to earn and afford the things they want, and therefore likely to despise the wealthier classes that are capable of both earning, getting, and not needing. Over time, this bottom class is likely to grow, since they are the ones that reproduce most, since that is the reproductive strategy that makes the most sense for their situation.

As the bottom classes grow, they will be more likely to gain favorable political position in a democratic society. A democracy favors those who are the majority. When that majority is intelligent and strong, the majority will tend to a capitalistic society where competition and incentives reward success. These capitalistic societies grow in technology and infrastructure.

When the majority is the lower class – made up largely of the weak, unintelligent, and wanting, the majority will favor a socialistic society. This is one where incentives are broken, and the poor are rewarded with the efforts of the rich. We have seen this in every society that has tried socialism. It always starts with power in the hands of a few. Stalinist Russia started with a revolt against the landowners, which were few in number. When the masses stand up to the few in number and take control, you get the poor in material and the poor in spirit and the poor in intellect at the head of society.

When you have the poor in spirit, intellect, and material at the head of society, you get them taking the material by force. They want and feel entitled to things, so they take it. They do not have the spiritual strength to require earning the things they want. And they don’t have the intellect to understand or consider the implications of their actions. Sure, as they start taking and disincentivizing production, the economies collapse and governments turn to other methods of producing perceived wealth.

When the poor in spirit and intellect rule and their economy slows down, they have done several things in the past, none of which have been to incentivize production or employ austerity programs – these both go in the face of their philosophy that got them in power, and the desires that led to their rise to power.

No. Instead, the socialists have printed money, as if the paper with the president’s face on it is the answer to the economy. Worthless money does not create a worthwhile economy. Printing money devalues the money in circulation and drives up the price of goods, without influencing the value of the goods.

Capitalism fuels this change. Because the lower classes make up the majority of consumers, the most successful businesses market to these demographics. Not just businesses, but anything requiring money, votes, or consensus. That means politicians and, when it comes to receiving funding, institutions such as schools and hospitals. Businesses will cater to the lower-value individuals. They will promote entertainment and ideas that appeal to the masses, at the expense of the values and interests of the successful.

The other strategy is to forcibly take from the wealthy. Since the lower classes continue to suffer, the wealthy are forcibly taken from and their goods given to the poor. The poor in material, intellect, and spirit bring down everyone.

How do you defend against this? I never understood China’s one child rule until I wrote this essay. By limiting reproduction among citizens, you can effectively control the ratio of high-value individuals and low-value individuals. This requires government oversight into communities stretching into the slums.

The alternative to this is to not have a democracy. A dictatorship of sorts removes the possibility of the lower classes taking power through democratic election. Dictatorships, however, still face the problem of lower classes reproducing at higher rates than the upper class, high-value individuals. When the lower classes unite, they can topple the much smaller dictatorship using their numbers and force. It’s bloody, and it’s bound to happen.

No one’s happy, and the poor are willing to fight to see if the riches will make them happy. Riches won’t make them happier, because they will still be poor in spirit, but they will fight for the riches anyway.

Democracy inevitably leads to socialism due to evaporative cooling of high-value individuals. There will be fewer high-value individuals because high-value individuals don’t reproduce at the rates of low-value, and the values of modern high-value individuals will cease to be promoted in media and academia. This will lead to socialism because the jealousy of the lower classes will work its way into public policy that redistributes from the wealthy individuals.

Attempts at creating ‘true socialism’ have killed more than 100 million people.

True socialism has killed more than 100 million people. This happens through the necessary actions that are taken to institute a collective economy that would reap the “benefits” that the collective set out to accomplish.

Socialism has good intentions. The goals have always been reasonable. Stalin wanted to eliminate the economic inequality between the upper and lower classes. Hitler wanted to create a nation of strength in military and economic production. Pol Pot wanted to defend against nationalism, another form of totalitarianism. Equality, fighting nationalism, and military strength are all good things – especially in times of war and uncertainty. It was by making these values visible that these leaders were able to organize political parties, which led to the totalitarian ends.

The problem isn’t in setting these goals, it’s in the execution. The means to accomplish these (otherwise noble) ends are what leads to death and suffering. The goals are vague, and the means to accomplish these goals are even more vague. When a political system that is fueled by people that believe in these values, and has the support of the masses to carry out these values, which they believe are in their best interest, it gains the power to accomplish these goals by any means necessary. And the means override individual values, necessarily. Trading one authoritarian policy for another still results in totalitarianism, which inevitably leads to death. Usually, lots of death.

China’s Mao wanted to create a socialist ideal, one that was by-the-book Marxist. To carry this out, he demanded food and resources from the workers. When production slowed down, and resources were gathered without payment, tens of millions of people starved to death. Millions died in similar fashion in North Korea and the Soviet Union. The Great Chinese Famine that occurred under Mao starved over 20 million people to death. Many millions died of starvation in Soviet Russia, Cambodia, and many others instances where socialism was carried out (Cambodia, Korea).

There are three reasons starvation is common in socialist states. The first is that resources are seized by the state. So, those dependent on their own produce are often squeezed thin. Production slows to almost nothing when the incentives of distributed labor are removed from the economy. So much less food is produced. Last, illness takes over, which is harder to defend against without proper nutrition. This leads to outbreaks in disease and premature birth.

The murder of “the enemy” is often killed by socialist regimes. The Bolsheviks killed anyone deemed an “enemy of the people”. Bolshevik leaders determined there were more than one million of these enemies. Mao’s China killed off similar numbers of dissidents. This seems almost reasonable in modern days. If someone believes in hateful ideology, doesn’t that make them hateful, and shouldn’t we do something about that? We should debate their ideas and prevent their spread. We should not force individuals to believe in one doctrine over another. But it is exactly this mindset that leads to the killing off of civilians.

The problem with this is that someone needs to decide who is an enemy and who is not. When a political party determines who is an enemy, then there is lots of room for interpretation and the allowance of bias to come in. For instance, it can be easy to point to a political opponent and say that he is one of the “enemies of the people” instead of competing against him in a fair campaign. This leads to the oppression of individuals, as they are no longer free to carry any (however natural) ideas in their own head and to share and challenge those ideas. You must get in line or die.

Hitler gathered support by promising a booming economy and a strong national image. This was enough to rally his nation during tough economic times that followed the loss of World War I. During the course of his rise to power, he cast goals that the Germans could rally behind. Winning the war was a huge motivator. To rise up from losing the first war to become a global player is a hell of a promise. Even better – blame others instead of the Germans for losing the war and for the tough times that followed (see: Jews during World War II).

This is a recurring theme in all dictatorships and tyrannical societies – they gained the favor of the majority, or at least the loud minority, before turning “evil”. How could people support a system that has led to such destruction? Again, it’s the promises of good things that lead to the destructive means. When equality, national strength, or the suppression of an idea (e.g. nationalism) are prioritized by a political movement, it’s easy to see how destructive policies can result. It’s easy to see because it has happened multiple times and because, theoretically, the means to institute a socialist state lead to oppression and often death.

In summary, the attempts to create true socialism have killed more than 100 million people through:

  • The removal of people that disagree with the values of the collective.
  • War, which is often a prioritized value that the collective must then value.
  • Death by food shortages, rioting, and lacking health care.

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.