scat398 said:
richardhutnik said:
scat398 said:
richardhutnik said:

I have yet to see someone screaming on the evils of "equal outcomes" come out and admit that, in society, individuals who could afford certain things would not choose to live below a certain standard of life, like drinking toxic water that makes them sick.  The glorification of "choice" above about everything else, ends up having immense rationalization for depravity people live in that it is their fault, or is chalk off along the lines of "you have to break few eggs".  And, without resources, there is few liberties, only enslavement to circumstance.  

I could also say there is a parasitic nature to Libertarianism.  Individuals believe everything is in and of themselves, and they don't get any benefit from anywhere but themselves.  And then they oppose taxes and whatnot.  The will end up scheming and plotting for their own end, and presume that what they do only has an impact on themselves.  In short, it is the mindset of a parasite, with delusions that everything here comes about because choice, in and of itself, produces magical results and abundance for everyone.  And of course, the ONLY evil that comes about is from governments with their bullying.

Want to know what can cause the next Great War?  Well, elites who fail to show any concern for the rest of humanity, and have pockets of depravity, and individuals who then go, "enough is enough".  But, odds are it will end up being an escalation of a single incident and individuals not backing down.  

Equal outcomes is a huge evil and is a false choice.  Your example of someone affluent choosing to drink water that is toxic is a misrepresentation, under equalitarianism the affluent would be forced to drink the poorer water because only then are the outcomes of the poor and affluent equal, of course you can't have the affluent in equalitarianism because their outcome must be reduced to equal the less fortunate.  

 

The danger of equalitarianism is not in its pursuit of civil rights its in its eventual impossibitly of success.  

How low do you tolerate in a society as far as the consequences of failure?  I don't see those who speak of "equality of outcome" even speaking to what a minimum outcome one can accept.  There is silence into whether a society should be able to prevent those who are disadvantaged from getting toxic water, or anything else.  It is silence, utter and complete silence.  What I am saying is NO ONE, if they have a choice, would choose to drink toxic water.  But, if given no choice, they do.  The issue is the bottom end, not the top.

A number of people, like the individuals who did the "We are the 53%" thing which is "Suck it up losers, life is tough, and you are entitled to NOTHING!", end up saying there is no right or entitlement, as a human being to a minimum of anything:

http://not53.tumblr.com/

I agree, I can see it as a pendelum that can swings too far in either direction I guess that is where my concern lies, is the pendelum getting ready to swing too far to where equality doens't lift the poor up but instead drags the wealthy down and will this swing lead to war?

Egalitarianism at all costs is dangerous.  What can happen though, is if you end up getting too much of an disparity in incomes and wealth, and the promises society makes working hard and playing by the rules gets ahead, and it merely comes down to the equivalent of winning the lottery to get there, then you have trouble.  There is also envy in egalitarianism, if people don't respect others, but there is also greed in individuals who merely live for themselves.  What doesn't help is the whole "47% of people without won't take responsibility for themselves"yammering by the likes of Mitt Romney and turning a blind eye to things not working.  There eventually will be an uprising, far less from individuals who think there is a need for some philosophical "egalitarianism" and more out of resentment sown by setting irrational demands, that usually is fueled by advertising and societial expectations, right down to worshipping the elite, powerful and rich.  It starts with lotteries and then goes from there.  Produce a free market Hunger Games society and you are bound to get an uprising.  A society to function, along with ethical systems to function, needs a degree of predictability in outcomes, and not just from measuring intentions and so on.  This will become particularly problematic also if the foundation for the ethics is rights, and people expecting certain things to.  Everything becomes a right, and then fought over.  Pushing of rights and telling them to fight for it, will also lead to another uprising and war.