true equality is undesirable and impossible because of our natural differences in talents and preferences. it is also clearly a totally subjective concept that can not be totally measured objectively. that obviously does not mean that i disagree with the modern consensus of providing the poor with access to say, public/subsidized healthcare and education and the ideal of equal treatment under the law. just that i think it is potentially tyrannical not to mention destructive to the majority to attempt to impose 'equality' beyond those bare minimum levels.
I don't believe in "true equality" either... I don't think many people do. But everyone is equal in some terms, as even Hobbes pointed out, because everyone has the potential to kill another person (personally, through machinations/conspiracy with others etc.). What I'm saying is, the lesser the gap between the top and bottom of society the better, because a highly hierachial order inevitably breeds conflict.
You don't think that constantly forcing people to conform to a societal structure you decided was ideal is something that would breed conflict? More specifically, you don't think that defining all resources as potentially belonging to anyone, i.e. everyone having a claim to everything is something that breeds conflict?
What do you mean exactly? I'm citing the argument that more equal societies tend to be happier, Sweden being a good case in point.
But that's not true indefinitely. Sweden is still a fundamentally capitalist society. And equality is not exogenous either. If you're forcing it through heavy intervention that in itself is a source for conflict.
Poll
