I guess social equality, or economic, or whatever kinds really is what I’m asking about.
All major philosophical problems with this aside for now, I just wanna get a response to a general, (maybe ill formed) question…
Should people be equal in that everyone starts w/ the same stuff and have the same chances?
Or should people be equal in that everyone ends up with the same things at the end of the day?
Is it possible for both of these to be the case simultaneously? If so, then how?
I don’t think wage equality will ever exist because males are more often drawn to jobs that pay highly, like engineering, etc.
So thus, by gender differences (biological) the wage inequality isn’t necessary an issue of bias, but probably on of preference for different types of work.
(obviously to some exten bias does exist but not near the levels it would take to cause this disparity, at least not here)
Yes. [I restrict “the same stuff and have the same chances” very tightly to be: mutually respected freedom. How the chips fall is a different story.]
No.
No, realistically, it is not possible because people tend to act with purpose and most people have different needs or wants.
Does that mean that everyone gets the same amount of useless crap that they have to lug around with them everywhere they go?
No thanks.
Being born equal means there are no second class citizens, In a vote the poor vote counts just as much as a wealthy vote would. The poor can be just as loud as the wealthy… In other words being born equal was not refering to material wealth. It refered to social rights and laws.
So if everyone’s not equal at the end of the day, then should we take that to mean that the rights and laws aren’t proper, and that they should be adjusted?
That wasn’t Kris’ point, I am quite sure. All men are born politically equal - that was the premise that the Founding Fathers were referring to. Not that we are equal in other ways.
Of course, the Founding Fathers didn’t really mean it. But that was the premise. It read well, at least.
Rights should serve the purposes of the group that subscribes to them. They should be adjusted when they don’t. Your question hints of essentialism. It should be, in my view, simply a matter of having the right tools for the job.
LOL, my sentiments exactly. (And I’ve found it helps to move now and then, the temptation to acquire ‘stuff’ is substantially reduced.)
Smears: Don’t confuse equality with sameness. Come on, man, you live in Alabama, think about it. Poor white trash isn’t equal, even though it never seems to understand that about itself. But at least it can be subdued by hooking up cable TV to its trailer.
And I agree with faust, the founding fathers didn’t mean it. They thought that white male property holders were the only ones whose opinions counted. That’s why the rest of us had to kick and fight and scratch our way to getting some of the ‘equality’ they had.
Faust and Inge answered this.
Sorry, Kris. I will try to stay off your wavelength. Sometimes, I just can’t help it.
No, no , its quite alright ,cool and it probably saves me from getting an early onset of Carpal tunnel syndrome. 
Everyone does start out equal, naked and screaming. Wether everyone deserved to end up with the same as eveyone else, I think that unecesscary. What is needed more is a sort of social equality that ensures everyone gets enough.
and I am the one who says what is enough.
-Imp
I would rather they have access to get enoughwith strict enforcable guidlines should they choose or need, not give it out. If you just foist it on people it makes them dependent mentally and that is not good. far too many people that don’t have desperate needs are taking away from those that have desperate neeed, the well runs dry from greed.
As long as there are people who struggle for basic survival social equality is impossible.
If society can establish a baseline of minimums for individual survival that actually ensures survival and opportunity then perhaps we can make the first step towards social equality.
How about setting the parameters of social equality, I have a feeling we all don’t mean the same thing.
Since I am allowed to go anywhere with out needing ID or transportation papers I am socialy equal to the wealthiest person. Of course I have to argue for my rights now and then with some puffy chested blue suited twitter brained moron, but freedoms must be fought for or you lose them.
If social equality only means freedom of movement I find that a pretty narrow definition. Even so, do you think the people who fly in private jets and travel in limousines have to argue for their rights as you do?