Hmm? Wouldn’t it more accurate to say. “People are naturally egotistic?”
And so what? Does saying that somehow do away with altruism? I have a strong ego, doesn’t stop me from risking everything for others.
Dave
I guess it depends what equality means. If someone has a car, which has air conditioning, CD player etc… Is he not as equal as someone with a car, which does not have them? I am saying that he has a means of transport and that they are equal with each other. Basically the goods that a rich man uses are not much different from those that a poor man would use.
On the rest I agree with Chato; Game theory and the Selfish gene have proven co-operation are beneficial for yourself.
Cooperation and equality is not always beneficial.
Egoism is always beneficial.
The religious and humanistic perspective of total equality seems to make egoism look like a sin.
So why use THEIR arguments in your rebutal? In my opinion a healthy ego is a virtue (unless you’re a Buddist Monk… 
). But let us not confuse vanity and a healthy ego.
Dave
Cooperation is not always beneficial, in any long term relationship it is. Egoism and cooperation are always opposed to each other. I could chose to scratch your back, only because I want you to scratch mine.
Uh… no. Chimps don’t have a theory of mind for cooperation tasks (other chimp has a mind like you) but they sure seem to have them for competition tasks, suggesting that competition may be a more prominent force in plenty of ape species with small numbers. Cooperation evolved t oo, as they hunt together and so forth, but, its not as pronounced.
Humans, evolved to cooperate and compete probably to very high levels respectively, this happens in modern societies as well as hunter/gatherer ones, theres no reason why those two things can’t exist together.
and who really supports that bullshit anyway? People clearly aren’t born equal, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t treat all people equally and fairly before the law.
Law=Religion.
depends where 
The object of slave morality is to slake the thirst to be tyrants.
Moral “tyrannomania” is possible only for those who feel and indeed are unequal, for those who must legislate to others in order to feel equal, for those who must dominate.
For those who are genuinely masters domination is natural like breathing.
For those who are genuinely masters domination is self directed without ever needing justification from others or some otherworldly mythology.
Equality is a disguise or mask which is really nothing more than a lust for power and control.
It’s a temporary ideal that gets trumped out when the tension between the havs and the have-nots exceeds the point where society can persist in a generally acceptable manner by the population as a whole.
We hear about it all the time because our society is so recently removed from the civil rights movement (40 years isn’t that long when it comes to the development of societies).
Don’t worry, it’ll go away. It’s already starting to.
And when equality shrieks into oblivion there will be amoralists like me who will cash in through all means necessary. 
( The anticipation is too much. 
)
( Technically I might cash in earlier. )
Forced equality- bad.
Recognizing the equal right to just be left the hell alone? I see no problem with walking around thinking “If someone fucks with me I will defend myself, and I will not fuck with anyone else.” .
All systemizations of equality are forced by the government at gun point which is then utilized for market financial gain in that everyone is taxed equally by legislative theft.
Without equality being forced down our throats by the government or market systems there can be no equality.
If global history has taught anything, it is that equality cannot exist on it’s own without someone having a finger on the trigger forcing people to behave equally.
…I think you misunderstand 'Forced equality."
I use the term to refer to the system of breaking the legs of the fastest runner so that the slower ones can keep up. This is forced equality.
What you refer to is protection of equality.
How is the existence of our present not forced equality?
How is this conception of equality, which in all actuality is forced, not inequality in disguise?
The meaning of equality revealed metaphysically.
The universe is in turmoil and constant fragmentations. This flux is the product of unequal temporal flows joining and falling apart, colliding and harmonizing.
The notion of equality is the desire to create uniformity by leveling the universe and stabilizing it. This would entail the eradication of multiplicity and of activity; it would entail inertia.
The hidden motive is to eliminate existence, defined as this constant flux and the conscious awareness of it, which is suffering.
The individual without realizing it sacrifices himself, his own existence and possibility, so as to find solace in inert non-existence.
A death wish.
Eliminate differences so that no one, especially I, will not have to suffer because of them.
And since life and suffering are tautologies - as I said consciousness being the awareness the sensation of temporal flow - then one desires to cease living.
Meditation is this self-induced hypnosis where the mind eliminates all conscious awareness of the flow, sensing it as a relief akin to inebriation.
These visions, often associated with these self-induced states, and the following sensation of rejuvenation is due to this temporary respite.
Why do they seek that, just out of curiousity? 
What is your take on that?
Excellent point. 
I think it’s more complicated than that.
I really don’t have time to answer you thoroughly but as an overview I’ll explain what I think this is a result of.
Natural selection is a cruel and vicious game.
Nature is unforgiving and indifferent to particular entities.
Once one reaches a conscious level where this becomes clear the sense of despair, reaching nihilism, and all subsequent reaction, such as delusions, self-medication, religious faith in the absurd offering hope and so on become byproducts of this growing awareness.
Particularly in human systems where the naturally wronged or those that have gotten the short end of the stick, so to speak, are protected and allowed to flourish, this growing awareness becomes a cancer that must be eradicated.
In nature the inferior, for instance, is weeded out, but in human systems, especially, it is allowed to reach a level of realization and self-knowledge that becomes excruciating.
One way to lessen its effects is to deny them, by evoking some Utopian ideal of equality or the sanctity of life or of the superficiality of appearances and so on.
Another is to promote slavish, self-hating, leveling ideologies and religions which avenge themselves on life or on those that have been given much by natural selection.
Another is to defame existence and make it an illusion or a testing round for a better, more just, afterlife or beyondness, where all the injustices of nature will be eliminated and those most wronged will be rewarded for their suffering/life.