It isn’t enough that people be made equal to enjoy living but rather all people must be equally miserable as well.
Some random guy- " If I had to get where I am today by miserable actions then you shall be no different from me as I simply will not tolerate someone else cheating out amongst life where I have worked so hard in comparison."
Thus equality pronounces that all people “must” be equally miserable around living in order to achieve the superfluous feeling of happiness.
It is a useful delusion amongst the people orchestrated by the government for its own uses. 
It is one of those archaic christian ideals that snuck itself into economical idealism.
( One of many religious idealisms that still perverts our current atmosphere.)
There is no such thing as all of us being equal. Some people are smarter than me, some dumber. Some people are more talented then I, some less talented.
But the important fact here is that we all deserve Equality of Opportunity.
In other words an equal opportunity to find your own level. Those who postulate and support racism or sexism are simply arguing to justify their own discriminatory practices.
In practice those who fight FOR the notion that racism and sexism are real and legitimate criterium are the same people who discriminate based on ethnicty or sex.
Dave
I live for myself. And I only care about equality when I’m getting the shity side of the deal. It’s the same with everyone.
Luminescence, that’s not true. Even if you’re being totally selfish, maintaining equality can be seen as an investment when it doesn’t favor you. If I share my resources now, others will share with me when I have none. So, what makes you say that “It’s the same with everyone”?
That does not make sense. If the action does not favor him, he can not be totally selfish at the same time while acting.
What makes you so certain that others will share with you when you have none???
Answer: nothing.
When I said “it doesn’t favor you,” I meant in the short term. I thought that would be clear in the context. If I give up resources now, or argue for someone else’s equality to my own short-term detriment, I could be helping myself in the long run.
This is called ‘reciprocal altruism’. What makes you reasonably certain that others will share with you is that, in the long run, groups that share will out perform groups that do not. I.e., if the person does not share in return, next time they will not be shared with; they will be understood to be ‘cheaters’, and they will not have access to shared resources. Or, in this case, if they do not return the favor of defending equlity in the future, they will be discriminated against justly in the future. So, answer: something really valuable.
Yeah, that ticks me off when people pull that kind of argument. I always like to say “Just because you choose to be miserable doesn’t mean I have to.”
Game playing theory has demonstrated over and over again, that everyone benefits by reciprocal altruism.
Look it up.
Dave
I think there’s studies in evolution theory that show the same thing - that species who cooperate with each other fair better than species who compete with each others. Obviously, there are some conditions that apply, but they’ve escaped me right now.
Actually, that’s relatively rare. We call it symbiosis, or commensalism.
Species that cooperate with each other are what these studies are about. In other words that species of creatures that do not compete with each other, within the species do better than those that do.
Human beings probably typifiy a creature that evolved by cooperating with each other. One cannot even imagine the survival of our ancestors living as hunters and gatherers, without reciprocal altruism.
It’s quite a wonder that someone can say, “Me first and always,” in light of our evolutionary charecteristics. That in fact many DO say this, is a reflection of how screwed up our society is.
Dave
Dave, in any social species, there are ‘cheaters,’ those less altruistic individuals who take more than they give. The more altruism there is, the more a cheater benefits by being stingy. The pressure against cheating is immense, because the consequences for getting caught are dire, but the rewards are great as well, and as a result cheating is a viable evolutionary strategy. As a social species, we should expect cheaters. Sure, we should make cheating incredibly hard to do and as unrewarding as possible, but it’s a credit to society that its as minor as it is.
I think it just comes down to what’s going to benefit us given our unique niche in the system of life on Earth. Some species climb tree to get away from predators, others camouflage themselves, we to a certain extent perform limited altruistic acts for the purpose of incurring greater returns in the long run. If it works, then over the long haul, it becomes ingrained as part of our nature. If not, then we perish. I don’t think one can reasonably say that altruistic actions are unconditionally doomed to fail (or work for that matter) - that is, for any species whatsoever. As I said, different species will have different survival tactics depending on their unique niche. I don’t see why gaining long-term returns from short-term altruistic investments can’t work, at least sometimes, and so why should that not be one of the essential means by which we’ve survived since our emergence?
I just thought of something to add to this: I think I can distinguish between those conditions under which competition within a species is more condusive towards the advancement of its evolution and when cooperation is more condusive.
When is cooperation more condusive? When the species is not sufficiently diversified and when its numbers are small. So, for example, suppose man has been reduced to a colony of, say, 1000 people only - that is, 1000 people world wide - then, supposing they are able to group together, they are going to be more likely to cooperate and help each other as opposed to fight against each other. I believe it is in our instincts to do this under these kinds of conditions. This is beneficial because when our numbers are small and our diversity is limited, our best chances for survival are to cooperate together such that we act as a united whole. To compete against each other in a man-vs-man fashion in this case would risk reducing our numbers to even smaller portions, in which case we risk something which is already on the verge of deciding our downfall. The point, in this case, would be to re-populate our species, which is a goal that requires focusing on the good of the community, not the individual. In extreme cases, say when there are only a few individuals - a number you can count on one hand say - then each one looking out for himself may very well ensure his own survival, but the more important point - namely, re-populating the species - is lost. He may survive to a ripe old age, but with his death he takes the whole species.
So when is competition more conducive? It is when we’ve progressed on this path for good long while, for in that case our numbers increase and our diversity becomes rich and widespread. Then we enter a different set of conditions. We enter a set of conditions under which the risk of some perishing at the cost of the survival of others doesn’t threaten the existence of the species as whole to any significant extent. When a species as large and diverse as this encounters environmental pressures or menaces of any kind, there is a good chance, because it is internally diverse, that there will be a select few that will survive - the cream of the crop, so to speak - and this pressure or menace can come from within - that is, from internal competition. The species doesn’t risk extinction in this case, and in fact, has much to gain from such internal competition, for in this case, there are bound to be a select few who are ripe for survival under the conditions of the environment - social, natural, or otherwise - of the time. In that case, those few will rise above the rest, and go on to produce progeny which will be the mark of the next phase in our evolution, re-populating the species according to their genetic profile.
What do you think? Does this classify the conditions under which cooperation and competition are likely to be the most effective methods for a given species to survive?
No, it’s a credit to the species, not the society. We are in fact, in many ways, bombarded with the idea that “I” an number one, first last and always.
That there are still so few cheaters is a reflection on our inherent nature. That there are as many cheaters that get ahead, are a reflection on the society.
Dave
The greatest example of reciprocal altruism takes place in the military.
And the military can involve millions of people. Military training actually consists of teaching the individual, that in the face of combat, the people on each side of you are not going to head for the hills… 
If you talk to people in the military, often enough they risk their lives BECAUSE they know that person would do the same for them…
Military training is aimed at teaching the above, yet primtive people, who are all essentially an armed militia do not need this training.
Think about that.
Dave
That’s actually quite a refreshing perspective. It beats the “kill the enemy” mentality.
Equality of opportunity is a religious manifestation.
Men are naturally egoistic. Anything else is a lie.
( My position.)