[Matt Q]

Originally Posted by William A. Baurle

Should we really try to cultivate equality in the classroom, when nature and reality are against it, and always will be? Is it a good thing to coddle one student who lost a race in gym class, and suggest to that kid that they didn't really lose the race? That there are no such things as winners and losers in life? How will that pan out? I say we politely and lovingly allow the kid who lost the race to understand that they lost the race, and that maybe, just maybe, running fast AIN'T their particular gift? I think everyone, and I mean EVERYone, is good at something. We just need, as adults, to reach out and discover what that gift is.

Albert Einstein couldn't hit a home run, and Babe Ruth might not be so good at theoretical physics. IT'S OKAY.

Hi Bill,

Again it depends what you mean by equality. Should we be egalitarian, and promote equal rights and opportunities, I'd say yes. Should we pretend that everyone has the same natural abilities, no.

It seems to me that telling a child they're just not good at maths or sport at an early enough age -- or reinforcing that opinion -- seems likely to become a self-fulfilling prophecy don't you think? And if course it presumes that we know the barrier to their success is a lack of innate ability (do we do a DNA test?), and is fixed and unchangeable. Encouraging self-esteem is definitely a good thing if the alternative is low self-esteem which will prevent children from reaching their potential. Encouraging too much unrealistic self-esteem on the other had, not such a good thing. Is the latter done by handing out participation trophies? I don't know. I have to say that I don't think the kid who always comes last in the foot race will be persuaded that he's just as good a runner as the one who always comes first just because he gets a participation trophy. Personally, I've not seen this universal trophy thing. Not at my kid's schools anyway. Maybe it's more of a US thing. They do focus on rewarding effort and encouraging and good behaviour though, particularly so at primary school (ages 4-10), which seems sensible.

People's innate abilities are the result of luck, which is what you seem to be saying when you refer to nature and genetics. They're call 'gifts' because we didn't earn them. So how much should we be rewarded for them? Should you reward a child just for being naturally good at maths -- something they can take no credit for -- or should they instead be encouraging and supported to reach as much of their potential that they can? The same goes for the kid who struggles with numbers. Now, if you focus on effort and improvement rather than things outside a child's control, like innate ability, then you're getting a step closer to equality in my view.

People do tend to take credit for things that they've been gifted, having a sense of superiority or greater worth due to their intellect, good health, or a privileged childhood, and so on. I personally don't think that's healthy on a number of levels. Related to this: I read some research that said that kids who think they're just naturally good at academic subjects are less prepared for the future, because when things get hard, when they struggle, they're more prone to take this as evidence that they're just not good at it after all and give up, whereas kids who think they're success is due to hard work tend to work harder [an article on this here]. So, another reason not to promote the "you're just (not) good at this" thing.

I'll add that finding out what you're naturally good at and sticking to that isn't necessarily the best or most fulfilling thing to do. If I thought it was, I clearly wouldn't be writing poetry, I'd be leaving it to the naturally gifted poets. When I was at secondary school I was prevented from doing art because I was good at maths and science, so I should focus on that. I loved drawing. Wasn't great at it. (Not that they were interested in whether or not I was good at it.) I definitely feel I missed out.

As a side note, I'm interested to see how your own story works alongside your stated view. You seem to be saying that you went to a school where your academic abilities were rewarded, where there wasn't a trophy for everything, and this made you stand out which consequently led you to feel bad for the other kids, resulting in underachievement and embarrassment around success. So let's say that everyone had got a quarter and ice cream, not everyone every day, but say, different people dependent on their effort and improvement, or behaviour? Would that have been worse? Or better, as you wouldn't have been singled out so often?

As before, not all the views I argue against in the above are ones I necessarily attribute to you, they're there to help me present my argument and work through my thoughts.

best,

Matt

[John Isbell]

A. What Jim said.
B. Further to Matt's point, anecdotally: I now coach a sport I've played for thirty years, and just last night was discussing with other senior players the challenge of coaching gifted young athletes. It can be easier to coach someone who's not been handed such gifts, because star players can just rely on what's got them there and not recognize the need to improve their game. This is an old refrain in my sports experience.

Cheers,
John

[William A. Baurle]

Bless all of you. Thanks for that link, Jim. And thank you, Matt. Check your inbox.

I have always thought that a true gentleman doesn't want to conquer. I don't want to conquer anyone. I have always been happier when I lose. Sincerely.

My father taught me how to play chess. Well, guess what? I married a devastatingly beautiful young lady who was born in Nayarit, Mexico. She was 19, and I was 32. It was December 14th, 1996. After a while, she became curious about chess, which we used to play on those Sega or Nintendo games. So we sat down, and I gave her a casual run through, which I could tell she already knew. Her beautiful, dark eyes were darting all over the board, and there was a comfortable grin on her face.

She was able to beat me after about ten of my moves, every time. I think she let me win once or twice. She began to play with my father, and quite easily beat him. In 2001, when our second son was born, and we got our first computer, she was easily beating just about anyone she played against online. It was happy fun for her.

After a while she got bored with it. And she hasn't played chess for a long, long time. She currently works as a home-healthcare CNA.

YAY!

[William A. Baurle]

After a little exchange with Matt Q, I think this thread might get a kick start, and what we might be talking about is Egalitarianism.

If you just Yagooglebing that word, you get this:

e·gal·i·tar·i·an·ism
[ēˌɡaləˈterēəˌnizəm]
NOUN

the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.

Well, heck! Don't that sound great! OF COURSE IT DOES. If we were to stick with this very haiku-ishly condensed definition of egalitarianism, then everyone with a little common sense will agree that that's IT.

But Egalitarianism is a weeeee tad more complex, philosophically. Here is the Wikipedia entry on Egalitarianism.

***

To insert my own thoughts, which of course I DID NOT invent, but have derived from my fellow travelers here on Earth:

Equality of opportunity, and equality of rights under the law, and making sure that civil rights apply to each and every human being, whether in infancy, or in [senility] the latter stages of life:

This DOES NOT guarantee equality of outcomes. Due to the great disparity among individuals with regard to ability and effort, there is NO guarantee that there will be equality with respect to outcomes. The ONLY way to ensure equality of outcomes, is through governmental intervention and through restraints on the free market, and through coercion from high places. End of story. C20 was an experiment for the Marxist/socialist/utopian dream. It has been, save for a few spare exceptions, a complete disaster. It has impoverished more people, and endangered more lives, than ANY other social force in history.

[Emitt Evan Baker]

There is no innate connection between socialist ideals and violence. Stalin and others leveraged socialist ideas into innately violent movements led by men who embraced violence and operated under a condition of thoughtless certainty. Violence, the State, and certainty in ideology should be your target.

Do you think the current wage disparity between intelligent and hard working lower class folks and the few who profit the most from them at the top is based on merit and hard work of the latter as opposed to the former?
The systemic tilt of the table through capital, geography (North/South), race, and other institutionalized techniques that manipulate the rules of the game are also working toward enforcing an outcome.

Seeking basic human services like healthcare for all is not guaranteeing an outcome anymore than building any kind of shelter against the weather. To value each new individual enough to try to protect that individual from unnecessary suffering is being a responsible member of a social species as opposed to selfish jackass or a willing slave. Deciding that two homes and sports car is actually something your work earns you while assuming that the grinding poverty of your contemporaries is therefor also earned is convenient but deluded.

I still don't get the sense that you have a very good grasp of socialism including its many manifestations and influences on American institutions and givens.

[James Brancheau]

I can't help, William, but think this hasn't been inspired by the very justified concern over Trump's election. I think it'll be the worst thing to untangle an obvious, a very obvious moron, someone who always had his self-interests closest to his heart. What, for God's sake, what can you be thinking? This is, well, you'll see that reported I suppose. Fake news until he's behind bars. That'll be very real. And will happen. (Mostly because conservatives will be shamed beyond their already high tolerance for shame.)

[Roger Slater]

You say we should not expect equality of outcomes, Bill, and to a certain extent I agree completely. But you are overlooking the impact that the way the economy is structured, and the way society and government are structured, can determine what attributes and talents bring about what outcomes. By having the hoop ten feet high instead of five feet high, basketball gives a greater advantage to tall people. By having a law against people acting violently toward one another, we take away the "advantage" that physically strong people have to attack and injure physically weak people. And by the same token, the structures of government, healthcare, the economy, electoral districts, and moral consensus help to select the qualities that will be rewarded in our society.

In other words, the outcomes are not determined solely by innate qualities, but are also determined by the rules of the game in which those innate qualities are made to operate. It is just and proper for us not to take the existing rules of the game as written in stone, but to suggest that they ought to be altered in a way that distributes the rewards and disadvantages more equitably. And in that context we can (as I do) argue that there are some things, like healthcare and police protection, that ought not to be rewards for those of greater talent or wealth.

We can certainly have a fairer healthcare system and tax code, with less income inequality, and still leave plenty of room for those with greater talents to reap appropriately greater rewards.

[James Brancheau]

Off-topic, as usual. Like my first post. But I'll let that stand. One's enough. (I guess I couldn't resist.)

[William A. Baurle]

Originally Posted by Emitt Evan Baker

Do you think the current wage disparity between intelligent and hard working lower class folks and the few who profit the most from them at the top is based on merit and hard work of the latter as opposed to the former?

Good question. I don't know if you caught it, but I've mentioned many times in my many posts hereabouts that I am on the very bottom as far as wage earners go. I currently work as a kitchen utility aide in an assisted living facility, and I earn 10.00 USD per hour, which is the Arizona minimum wage. It was recently bumped up from 8.05 USD. I'm a career healthcare cook and was for a while a dietary manager, but my emotional problems and bi-polar disorder made it virtually impossible for me to handle that for very long. The most money I ever made in a single year was 35K, and that was when I worked as a team leader/head cook at a hospital. I did that for six years.

To answer your question, I judge people as individuals, not in groups. I do not view the world in black and white, re: the oppressors and the oppressed. There are wealthy people who were born rich, are spoiled brats, and do not care about others; there are also people who have earned their wealth through hard work and great effort. Also, there are wealthy people who are charitable, who are decent people and enjoy giving money to various charities to help the less privileged; as there are wealthy people who are greedy and do not wish to part with any of their money, whether that money was earned through hard work and exceptional effort, or it just came their way through inheritance, the lottery, or any number of ways one might acquire great wealth.

Do you see where I'm going with this? You and I view the world differently. Since I DO NOT know all of the billionaires and millionaires in the world, and since I DO NOT know how they acquired their great wealth, I resist making judgments, especially since I cannot judge indeterminate groups of people, being that groups do NOT exist as real entities. Only individuals exist as real entities.

I'm a nominalist, meaning I do not believe that universals exist as real entities. Therefore, I am not a classist, and do not believe there are any such things as classes of people. Classes, groups, collectives, do not exist as real entities, since only individuals exist, and we can only apply moral judgments to individuals, and cannot judge groups.

SO - next:

Originally Posted by Emitt Evan Baker

Deciding that two homes and sports car is actually something your work earns you while assuming that the grinding poverty of your contemporaries is therefor also earned is convenient but deluded.

I suggest we get to brass tacks.

I own 1 car, which is 20 years old and has over 200,000 miles on it, which means it's worth a few hundred dollars, if I'm lucky.

I rent an apartment, which I share with my brother. I've never owned a home.

I have a used computer, a large collection of books worth perhaps a few thousand dollars, some clothes, CDs, a record album collection worth probably a few hundred dollars, and a Kindle Fire that my brother bought me for Christmas one year.

I live pretty much from check to check, and I have a usual balance of between five hundred and a thousand dollars in the bank. I have a savings account, where there's about a couple hundred dollars, but as time goes by I keep having to tap into it.

That's about it. So my net worth is pretty pathetic. Nonetheless, I still donate that one dollar to charity when I swipe my card at the Dollar General, which racks up over time, and I donate five dollars monthly to one website (Talk Freethought), and have donated to the Sphere. I donate to various things if and when I have some extra money, and when I can afford it.

When I was doing well, I was donating monthly to a little girl in Mexico named Guillermina. I chose her because she has the same name as mine in female form (in Spanish), and because her face was adorable, reminded me somewhat of my ex-wife (who was born in Nayarit, Mexico, close to where Guillermina lives), and I sort of thought of her as the distant quasi-imaginary daughter I never had (I have two sons). I had to stop making that donation when I lost my last good job, but I still have her picture and I can't wait to begin donating to her again, once I win that Nobel Prize for my BIG BOOK.

What's your situation? If you don't care to share info, I understand. Privacy is important. Privacy and property are very important in my view of things.

Originally Posted by Emitt Evan Baker

I still don't get the sense that you have a very good grasp of socialism including its many manifestations and influences on American institutions and givens.

I'm no expert, that's for sure.

Do you think Lugwig von Mises had a very good grasp of socialism? Just wondering.

***

James,

You wrote: I can't help, William, but think this hasn't been inspired by the very justified concern over Trump's election. I think it'll be the worst thing to untangle an obvious, a very obvious moron, someone who always had his self-interests closest to his heart. What, for God's sake, what can you be thinking? This is, well, you'll see that reported I suppose. Fake news until he's behind bars. That'll be very real. And will happen. (Mostly because conservatives will be shamed beyond their already high tolerance for shame.)

You're right, this thread hasn't been inspired by Trump's election. I've chosen this particular battle because it's one that's interested me for decades, and I've been at it online since 2001.

Emitt suggested at some point (sorry to refer to you as if you're not here, Emitt. Hi!) that it was curious or in some way suspect that I get my feathers ruffled over violence from the Left at college campuses but don't seem to have a problem with American forces killing innocent civilians from way up high in the air. The truth is, I am upset by ANY innocent person being harmed ANYWHERE, by ANYONE. It's also true that I did not vote for Trump, and have in fact said many mean and insulting things about him in various threads. I've also referred to the US as Rome many times, and even linked to the amazing Rammstein and their fabulously critical song and video, Amerika. I can't get enough of that song, or the video. I'm NOT a nationalist, an isolationist, or a jingoist. But I am sincerely glad to have been born in the US, as my life has been good thus far, despite my underachievement and general failure as a social animal. I am terribly glad I wasn't born in China, Venezuela, Syria, North Korea, Russia, Iran, Iraq, or thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster, France, around 1760 or so (figuring I'd have been around 30 when the poop started to hit the fan). All those heads! Heads everywhere!

I'm afraid I don't grok your post in the manner I probably should at present. I will read it again and see if I can unpack it.

Roger,

See my responses to Emitt and Jim.

[William A. Baurle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49_5mM6WNAo