Healthy diversity in civilization = Orders & Classes & Inequality

Jump to Last Post 1-6 of 6 discussions (116 posts)
  1. My Esoteric profile image90
    My Esotericposted 14 months ago

    Because it is so controversial throughout American history it might be useful to discuss what makes a TRUE conservative. Among many others, the philosophical pillars of conservatism are Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797), Russell Kirk (1918 - 1994), and William F. Buckley Jr. (1925 - 2008)

    Russell Kirk in summarized Conservative philosophy in his Ten Conservative Principals. One of those, #5 "Conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety", is encapsulated in the subject of this forum.  His complete thought is as follows..

    He claims that conservatives:

    1. "Feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life"

    2. Think Liberals prefer the "narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems."

    3. That "for the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality."

    4. Think "the only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at leveling must lead, at best, to social stagnation".

    In a very general sense, if you agree with those statements you are in the true conservative camp.  If you disagree, you tend toward liberalism or socialism.

    SO, what do you think?

    1. GA Anderson profile image93
      GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      Hi My Esoteruc,
      I think your question validates my "Purple."

      I agree with #1 & #3, but think #2 is formed by a bias that makes it too narrow a statement. It seems he might be using the social egalitarianism doctrines of extreme Liberalism, (his reference to "radical systems"), to define all of Liberalism. That is not a concept I agree with. In my view the concept of Liberalism, just like my view of Conservatism,  is an umbrella concept - covering many factions.

      If #4's "Last Judgement" could also be construed as the sense of philosophical egalitarianism, then I can agree with that one too. Otherwise, I think #4 misses that vital component. My perception can easily see a True Conservative accepting the original concept of equality of human Rights, (not economic or social Rights), but with the qualifier that personal actions may diminish those Rights.

      Thinking about your reference to the historical battle of Liberal vs. Conservative, and your use of the term "true conservative," I think a True Conservative could easily be a Purple, like me, and is also only one faction under the larger umbrella of Conservatism.

      Just as Liberals, and every other grouping in life, are generally defined by the extremes of their group, I think Conservatives are misidentified by definitions like True Conservative.

      GA

      1. My Esoteric profile image90
        My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        Yes, GA, there is a purple conservative; some academics ironically label them liberal conservatives, lol.  A better name for it would be progressive conservatives. These are the people who are actually responsible for the development of the public school system.  While they had no qualms with slavery (still in existence at that time) and justified it under conservative philosophy, they nevertheless saw a need for society to better itself.

        (Just in case you didn't know, those four points is the paragraph Kirk wrote about Variety broken up into bullet points.)

        As best as I can tell, Kirk was one of those thought that the only good liberal is a dead liberal.  One way to view that is Kirk Did Not believe in the supremacy of the individual (which defines liberalism), instead, he believed in the supremacy of the state, albeit a small local one (which defines socialism and conservatism)..

        1. GA Anderson profile image93
          GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          I did realize the source of your bullet points. I read Kirk's points with interest because there was much I agreed with, but there were also troubling aspects that felt "unscholarly."

          Progressive Conservative ...  hmm... I still think "Purple" covers it, but maybe "Progressive Conservative"  might explain why Credence2 and I often find a common understanding, (once I dismount him from his Progressive Liberal horse, of course). ;-)

          GA

          1. My Esoteric profile image90
            My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            :-)

    2. Credence2 profile image81
      Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

      1. "Feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life"

      There is nothing wrong with long established social institutions and modes of life, but they are not carved in stone for a liberal, change, when overwhelming circumstances call for it is welcome.
      -----------------------------
      2. Think Liberals prefer the "narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems."

      I don't acknowledge Kings or Lords merely because they are there, prove that there is a mechanism or rational that support that some are more equal than others. And, that the possibility to be in that favored category is available to all.  My focus is equality, while being aware that we are not all equal in our abilities and talents. But that objective whether brought about by radicals systems or no, is the most important. So, I guess, here I am guilty.
      ------------------------
      3. That "for the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality."

      All that is unavoidable, as long as the foundation is based upon earned merit, not the divine right of Kings. I don't know that it is as much of a 'healthy diversity' as it is simply reality as part of the human condition. More social mobility within a society goes a long way toward placating me and my attitude toward this statement.
      ----------------------------------
      4. Think "the only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at leveling must lead, at best, to social stagnation".

      Conservatives might miss this, but the reality for many of us is that obtaining equality under the law has, in itself, been a challenge. I don't generally support that and I think that any great and responsible civilization needs to do better.

      After all that M.E., where do you think I am best placed?

      1. GA Anderson profile image93
        GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        He corralled you Cred.  You're a Progressive Conservative. Ha! This warrants a martini.

        Have you noticed that your defense of Liberal perspectives is usually based on thoughts pertaining to a Conservative-acceptable philosophical egalitarianism, and not the precepts of Social egalitarianism that Liberal Progressives usually promote?

        GA

        1. My Esoteric profile image90
          My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progr … nservatism

          There is a canyon between the desire of socialist attempts to MAKE everything equal (not quite true, but close enough), which is an aberration of egalitarianism (which is simply the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.)

          Conservatism specifically rejects the idea that "all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities" before the Judgement Day. They do, on the other hand, allow for simple "equality" under a "just" (whatever that means) court of law.

          The bottom line, IMO again, is that normal progressives believe that 1) external hurdles to equal justice and opportunities should be removed and 2) it sometimes requires the power of a collective people, e.g. government, to do the job.  Why #2? Because there are so many forces trying to keep those hurdles in place that, in the words of one active state liberal philosopher, you would have to be "superhuman" to do it yourself.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            While it is an obvious and demonstrable fact that all people are NOT equal, can you truly believe that conservatives do not think that all people should have equal rights and opportunities (as much, anyway, as they can make use of)?

            1. Credence2 profile image81
              Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

              "While it is an obvious and demonstrable fact that all people are NOT equal, can you truly believe that conservatives do not think that all people should have equal rights and opportunities (as much, anyway, as they can make use of)?"

              Yes, I do

              What do you mean by "as they can make use of"?

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                A person without arms will never be an arm wrestler.  An idiot (literal, meaning a very low IQ) cannot make use of a Yale education.

                There are some opportunities that some people cannot make use of.  All people are not equal in all respects.

          2. GA Anderson profile image93
            GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            Your link made me take a look-around, because if wealth redistribution is a tenant of Progressive Conservatism - then I don't want anything to do with it.

            Fortunately, not only have I found a couple good reads, I also did not find support for your link's contention. Whew!

            I found one blog post that sounded as if I were reading something I would write. It is just a blog post from a site called Ordinary Times on Culture and Politics, and  I haven't heard of the author before, (Mike Dwyer), but I think you will find it interesting.

            Here are a couple blurbs:

            What Progressive Conservatism Looks Like

            "... It was conservative values, actually, that gave Progressivism its start. It was only later, when the success of the project was established, that liberals largely took over the project. But there’s a fundamental difference between the ways conservatives and “progressives” go about their respective values projects. For conservatives, values arise from and are tested in society, and only later make their way into our political and legal institutions. That is, government is meant to play a supporting role in the underlying society’s culture and norms; it is not meant to conceive and advance and foist them on society who otherwise would not go along with it."

            "This is exactly what a Progressive Conservatism looks like. Change is going to happen and the government’s role is to support the process, not take over. Government provides a framework to support change and when necessary slows it down to a speed society can handle. The analogy I have always used is that liberalism is like a teenager behind the wheel of their first car. They drive fast because the point is to get where they want to go and safety is a small concern. Mainline conservatism is like the elderly driver who fears everything on the road and drives so slow that they actually cause more problems than they prevent. Progressive Conservatives are like the middle-aged dad in the minivan. They set the cruise control at five over the speed limit because it gets them a little faster, yet they drive responsibly and keep the family safe. "

            Source:  Ordinary Times on Culture and Politics

            Note the absence of any "redistribution" thoughts.

            But ... I also found a couple examples that placed "Progressive Conservatism" beyond what I could identify with in other areas also.

            Your comment about Conservatives rejecting the concept of human equality - relative to the basics of human Rights; created equal, equal opportunity, etc, draws a hesitant and grudging agreement, but I think would be more accurately attributed to Hard-Right Conservatives, than to Conservatives in general.

            One reference to Progressive Conservatives also described them as "Big Tent" Conservatives. An apt description, as I see it.

            I agree with your closing thought, but would not confine it to "normal progressives," I think you could also attribute it to "Big Tent" Purple Conservatives.

            GA

        2. Credence2 profile image81
          Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

          GA, pour me a glass, but I will have it shaken not stirred, if you don't mind.

          Progressive-Conservative? Talk about a contradiction in terms....

          I did not think that I was advocating any concept that is acceptable under today's conservative stance, that is currently in vogue.

          I think of conservatism as a restraint against the idea of more rights and opportunities for more people, in principle. That is contrary to what I believe. Who were resistant to the abolition of slavery, women's rights, etc? Why, because for them, there was always this 'natural order' where people could naturally be subordinated without any real basis or reason.  You could count on that like a sunrise.

          As a liberal/progressive, I am not an advocate of a 'commune' society, equal outcomes is not realistically possible. But government and society should see this like adding integers in the computation of PI, with the goal of always more closely approaching the answer. I have never really seen your definition as promoted by the left, have you an example?

          1. GA Anderson profile image93
            GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            Shaken is the only way Cred, stirring is for snobs. (they only want the appearance - they don't appreciate the process)

            The first thing is to push your thoughts off the Conservative label, and onto the Far-right label - which is where they belong. And... forget about your qualifier - "current vogue." I don't think anything that is "in vogue" with today's Conservative politics is normal, or an attribute of past politics.

            I think that if you consider the thread's discussion of Conservatism, and its tangent; Progressive Conservatism, and my contribution of Purple and "Big Tent" Conservatism, you will find that the resistance to change that you find unacceptable is better attributed to those Far-right, Fundamentalist Conservatives, than it is to Conservatives in general. But I admit that may be splitting hairs. I don't think "Conservatives" have distanced themselves enough, from their fringes, to avoid all the taint of those fringes.

            On your final thought I would agree, those "commune" Liberals would be better described as "Far-left" Liberals. 

            Based on our past discussions I might even challenge you on the "Liberal" part of your "Progessiveness."

            I have seen you strongly support the concept of social safety net programs, yet you don't promote the "no matter what" support that Far-left Liberals do. I have seen you rail against Voter ID laws as an infringement on voting Rights, yet admit that with proper government action to get the IDs into everyone's hands, free - the concept might not be voter infringement. Far-left Liberals would never accept that. Just the thought, regardless of the details, is to be fought.

            I like your Pi analogy. Sounds like something a Progressive Conservative would say. ;-)

            I am not sure what you are asking an example for. If it is of typical Liberal thought, I would offer the voter ID example. Or perhaps the thought behind California's lawsuit against including the "Citizen's question" on the Census.

            If you you were asking for examples of your alignment with Progressive Conservative thought - you just read those.

            ps. As for your thought about that "contradiction of terms..." I found this old, (1990) Harvard Crimson article: Progressive Conservatism is no Oxymoron that may offer a thought for you to consider.

            GA

            1. Credence2 profile image81
              Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

              Shaken is the only way Cred, stirring is for snobs. (they only want the appearance - they don't appreciate the process)
              -----------------------------------
              The first thing is to push your thoughts off the Conservative label, and onto the Far-right label - which is where they belong. And... forget about your qualifier - "current vogue." I don't think anything that is "in vogue" with today's Conservative politics is normal, or an attribute of past politics.

              Well, GA, I don't know.. It appears that this FAR Right has hijacked what it is you consider the definition of 'conservative'. I see the FAR right view in Congress, the White House and throughout the nation. I see the FAR right attitudes in the 'questions' of the day. Forgive me if I have difficulty discerning between black pepper and gnat excrement, particularly when I see so much more of the excrement relative to the pepper.
              ----------------------------------
              I think that if you consider the thread's discussion of Conservatism, and its tangent; Progressive Conservatism, and my contribution of Purple and "Big Tent" Conservatism, you will find that the resistance to change that you find unacceptable is better attributed to those Far-right, Fundamentalist Conservatives, than it is to Conservatives in general. But I admit that may be splitting hairs. I don't think "Conservatives" have distanced themselves enough, from their fringes, to avoid all the taint of those fringes.

              What you say is true, the so-called 'good conservatives' have not distanced themselves enough from their FAR right brethren. So, as I alluded to earlier, it is almost natural to place you all in the same barrel.
              -----------------------------------
              On your final thought I would agree, those "commune" Liberals would be better described as "Far-left" Liberals. 

              Based on our past discussions I might even challenge you on the "Liberal" part of your "Progessiveness."

              I have seen you strongly support the concept of social safety net programs, yet you don't promote the "no matter what" support that Far-left Liberals do. I have seen you rail against Voter ID laws as an infringement on voting Rights, yet admit that with proper government action to get the IDs into everyone's hands, free - the concept might not be voter infringement. Far-left Liberals would never accept that. Just the thought, regardless of the details, is to be fought.

              OK, I don't know those of our group that takes the 'no matter what' attitude. The FAR right is the Right and I don't see the equivalent from the ideological Left. Yes, I am concerned with the voter ID as creating impediment to those otherwise eligible to vote to not be able to vote. I don't have a problem with the ID in principle. Yes, get them into everybody's hand at no cost to them. The argument from the left focuses on the issue of voter suppression, not merely the ID in itself.
              -----------------------
              I like your Pi analogy. Sounds like something a Progressive Conservative would say. ;-)

              I am not sure what you are asking an example for. If it is of typical Liberal thought, I would offer the voter ID example. Or perhaps the thought behind California's lawsuit against including the "Citizen's question" on the Census.

              I may be misinformed, there may be some on the leftist fringe that have a problem asking the question in principle. But, it is an appropriate question to ask when one wants an accurate census result.
              --------------------------------
              If you you were asking for examples of your alignment with Progressive Conservative thought - you just read those.

              ps. As for your thought about that "contradiction of terms..." I found this old, (1990) Harvard Crimson article: Progressive Conservatism is no Oxymoron that may offer a thought for you to consider.

              Thanks....

      2. My Esoteric profile image90
        My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        Credence, right now, I wouldn't place you anywhere because there are nine more principles to discuss.

        As of yet, I haven't really said what I think, but now will expand on bullet number 3. That, IMO, is not a benign statement of reality.  While a reality it may be, Kirk holds that bullet forth as a principal,  A belief that should be followed. I would lay at the feet of this thought the Conservative's acceptance of slavery and other forms of discrimination. 

        It isn't that they advocate it, but it is the reason not to eradicate such and similar institutions.  To me, that is the evil tucked neatly beneath the surface of the conservative principal of "Variety".

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          I do see this as a major difference between the two philosophies, and your own statement here shows it rather clearly.

          Yes, #3 is a reality.  How then do we get to the concept that it can be eradicated?  The liberal lives in a dream world (in this regard - conservatives have their own, different, dream worlds), pretending that they can change the laws of nature if only they can get enough money.  The conservative lives in that reality, recognizes it and works within it.  The philosophy is that while some can be helped out of those undesirable classes, but not all for there will always be people that are simply unwilling to help themselves no matter what we do.

          1. Credence2 profile image81
            Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

            Yes, #3 is a reality.  How then do we get to the concept that it can be eradicated?  The liberal lives in a dream world (in this regard - conservatives have their own, different, dream worlds), pretending that they can change the laws of nature if only they can get enough money.  The conservative lives in that reality, recognizes it and works within it.  The philosophy is that while some can be helped out of those undesirable classes, but not all for there will always be people that are simply unwilling to help themselves no matter what we do.
            ----------------------
            Wilderness, what are the laws of nature? For conservatives, this law of nature was the excuse to subordinate people regardless of merit. The conservative calls this the "reality", me, not so much. I work to change it not work with it or accommodate it. There is a vast chasm between those that remain in the doldrums because they insist on not helping themselves, and those that far short because of a lack of equality and opportunity.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              "For conservatives, this law of nature was the excuse to subordinate people regardless of merit."

              Untrue, and you know it as well as I do.  Just another liberal spin without truth.

              When you have "changed" that a child with an IQ of 60 cannot graduate from MIT with an engineering degree, let me know.  It's time to leave the country.

              1. Credence2 profile image81
                Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                "For conservatives, this law of nature was the excuse to subordinate people regardless of merit."

                Untrue, and you know it as well as I do.  Just another liberal spin without truth.

                When you have "changed" that a child with an IQ of 60 cannot attend Yale university, let me know.  It's time to leave the country.
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                Untrue? do you read history, Wilderness? Conservatives remain irritatingly obstinate about this point.

                You know as well as I do that I am not speaking about people with obvious, mental and physical impairments. Those are the people that should be subject to compassion within our society. Merit means ability and perseverance. So, your example of the mentally deficient child evades the point of this discussion.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  Do YOU read history?  Conservatives produced the end of slavery.  It is not a matter of political philosophy no matter how hard you will try to make it one.

                  You accepted the statement of equality, live with it.  But it doesn't stop with retardation; every task requires specific attributes from people, and not all people have every attribute.  Indeed, no person has the physical and mental abilities to perform every task in the world.

                  1. Credence2 profile image81
                    Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    Do YOU read history?  Conservatives produced the end of slavery.  It is not a matter of political philosophy no matter how hard you will try to make it one.

                    You accepted the statement of equality, live with it.  But it doesn't stop with retardation; every task requires specific attributes from people, and not all people have every attribute.  Indeed, no person has the physical and mental abilities to perform every task in the world.
                    --------------------------------------------
                    And where do you get the idea that conservatives produced the end of slavery, was it because Abraham Lincoln was Republican and the Republican party was the same conservative party then as it is today? Surely, I thought that you had a more refined discernment on this subject.

                    But, I wanted to do a little research on the topic: was the maintenance of slavery a conservative or liberal concept. Well, it appears that someone else asked the question and from the comments, I believe that I am redeemed.

                    I don't believe that inequality of opportunity is "living with it". I insist on equal opportunity in all aspects of life as I can morally support where they end up economically if they had every opportunity to succeed and excel and did not take advantage of it.

                    https://www.quora.com/Was-it-the-libera … -the-1800s

              2. Jessie L Watson profile image94
                Jessie L Watsonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                Agreed, Wildnerness.

                Average IQ in the west is about 100. Most universities don't accept people with an IQ lower than 120. The military will place people with below average IQ on cooking lines.

                Oh and ethnic Jew's and Asians average at 120. So one entire standard deviation higher than typical Americans. Dismal, but the stats don't lie. Jews also account for much of the Nobel Prize history.

                "For conservatives, this law of nature was the excuse to subordinate people regardless of merit."

                If subordinate people had merit then they wouldn't be subordinate. People often subordinate themselves.

                The law of nature is a hierarchy. Liberals like to think of hierarchies as systems of power and corruption. When in reality its a system of competence and fitness.

                It should make sense if you think about. I want the freedom shop around for the most well trained and competent surgeon if need be. Same with my plumber, etc etc.

                The psychometric studies have already shown liberals to favor the maternal approaches to society. Their whole thing is compassion and caring for others. The problem is, they can become devouring and "smother their children", so to speak. [#2] Worst case scenario of course.

                1. Credence2 profile image81
                  Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  Average IQ in the west is about 100. Most universities don't accept people with an IQ lower than 120. The military will place people with below average IQ on cooking lines.
                  ------------------------------------------------------
                  Jesse, I cannot believe what I hear you saying. That, you actually subscribe to this nonsense. You're the proof in the pudding, validating my negative attitudes about conservatives in general.

                  Oh and ethnic Jew's and Asians average at 120. So one entire standard deviation higher than typical Americans. Dismal, but the stats don't lie. Jews also account for much of the Nobel Prize history.

                  People are to be judged on their ability; academics, test scores, etc. IQ is just one factor in predicting success, what about hard work and determination to compensate for not having a 'genius" IQ?
                  I guess that you subscribe to all that "Bell Curve" bull****
                  ------------------------------------------------
                  If subordinate people had merit then they wouldn't be subordinate. People often subordinate themselves.

                  More bulls***, Jesse?   Who decides who has and deserves merit? Social custom and legalized institutional racism and sexism has subordinated people. I do not see how they subordinated themselves.... I have read of more progressive attitudes from Joseph Goebbels, how did you make good your escape after the war?
                  ---------------------------------------
                  The law of nature is a hierarchy. Liberals like to think of hierarchies as systems of power and corruption. When in reality its a system of competence and fitness.

                  Why should you be a Lord and I be a Serf, you have to prove that. Your system of competence and fitness is to a large degree just more inequality, racism, ignorance and arrogance.
                  ----------------------------------------------
                  The psychometric studies have already shown liberals to favor the maternal approaches to society. Their whole thing is compassion and caring for others. The problem is, they can become devouring and "smother their children", so to speak. [#2] Worst case scenario of course.

                  It should make sense if you think about. I want the freedom shop around for the most well trained and competent surgeon if need be. Same with my plumber, etc etc.
                  --------------------------------------------------------------
                  We all should have the opportunity to become the best trained and competent surgeon if he or she wishes to be so. You validate my theory of conservatives herding entire classes of people into the realm of second class citizenship just to maintain their status quo, oppression and unearned economic advantage. Believe me, I will fight that and those that believe in it, tooth and nail. That, sir, is a promise.

                  1. Jessie L Watson profile image94
                    Jessie L Watsonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    I do subscribe to the bell curve bull*** because I have education in how statistical measurements work. Every piece of psychometric data over the last 100 years that has been used to measure human behavior uses the same statistical methods. So, sorry you feel that way. That's science. It doesn't care how you feel about it.

                    And, you're right, hard work is actually the second half of the formula to predict long-term success. It's a combination of both intelligence and industriousness.

                  2. Jessie L Watson profile image94
                    Jessie L Watsonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    And people certainly don't decide merit for themselves. Have you ever watched American Idol? Yeeesh. There's a whole lot we believe about ourselves that turns out to not be true OR not useful in the world.  IQ and Industriousness determine how well people can solve problems. If you're just sucking up resources and not solving problems, then what merit do you have in our society?

                    Having said that, I don't begrudge people who mentally or physically can't contribute in this way. I begrudge those who think leveling the playing field is going to change how well we prosper. Forcibly implemented diversity is a zero-sum game.

                    And I never said I should be a lord. I'm actually at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. Until I prove myself otherwise, I will remain here. The only thing I'm subordinate to is my own standards and capabilities.

                    I have no agenda to push people into classes. That's just where the pieces fall when people are free to choose how to live of their own accord. We can't always be what we want to be or where you think other people should be based on how "oppressed" they are.

                    So, by all means, continue to tell me how oppressive I am with the status quo and all that. I'm actually an artist with many interests and am very open to social reform on many levels. But if its easier for you to box me in, that's okay too.

                2. mrpopo profile image72
                  mrpopoposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  I think those figures are slightly off but the gist of your message is accurate. The figures I've seen have Asians at ~104-5 and Ashkenazi Jews at 115, the latter having most of their disparity due to verbal intelligence.

                  Do you watch Jordan Peterson? He echoes a lot of what you say.

                  1. Jessie L Watson profile image94
                    Jessie L Watsonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    Thanks for the correction on that.

                    I have actually. He's a powerful dude. So, technically I echo a lot of what he says because he's been at the forefront of this type of research for many years. He also happens to be one of the few people next to Murray with the cajones to speak the truth about these dark realities.

                3. My Esoteric profile image90
                  My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  An interesting statement this "The law of nature is a hierarchy". But which hierarchy? There are many.

                  The one hierarchy that is irrefutable is the hierarchy of the distribution of abilities, both mental and physical.  That is the ONLY true "law of nature hierarchy".  EVERY other hierarchy is artificial ... man made.

                  Wouldn't you agree?

                  1. Jessie L Watson profile image94
                    Jessie L Watsonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    No. Many different organisms, simpler organisms, ancient organisms organize themselves according to a hierarchical structure. It's a metaphysical truth about how evolution itself is structured, much like a scaffolding that also works like a filtration system. Under the right conditions, a hierarchy is the most stable for social organisms to survive. Mess with it at your own peril.

                    There's no way to completely eradicate suffering and tragedy. Nature won't have none of that. It is hubristic to think otherwise.

          2. GA Anderson profile image93
            GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            Hi Wilderness, I included this analogy, (not mine), to My Esoteric, but I think it goes along with your thought also.

            "... The analogy I have always used is that liberalism is like a teenager behind the wheel of their first car. They drive fast because the point is to get where they want to go and safety is a small concern. Mainline conservatism is like the elderly driver who fears everything on the road and drives so slow that they actually cause more problems than they prevent. Progressive Conservatives are like the middle-aged dad in the minivan. They set the cruise control at five over the speed limit because it gets them a little faster, yet they drive responsibly and keep the family safe. "

            I just need to think-up a driver that would fit your "unwilling" example.

            GA

            1. My Esoteric profile image90
              My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              What are the examples you have to back up this assertion - ""... The analogy I have always used is that liberalism is like a teenager behind the wheel of their first car. They drive fast because the point is to get where they want to go and safety is a small concern. "?

              How do you conflate the very slow process of:

              1. Ending slavery
              2. Passing the 1964 Civil Rights Act
              3. Passing the 1965 Voting Rights Act
              4. Passing the 19th Amendment
              to name just a few active state liberal accomplishments with driving fast cars?  Curious minds want to know.

              1. GA Anderson profile image93
                GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                Oh my, it wasn't my analogy, just one I felt covered the point in an understandable way. That you disagree with it doesn't invalidate it.

                Does your "conflate" [sic] request want me to match drivers with your listed actions?

                #1, obviously the middle-aged. dad. A teenager would have put it in the Constitution.

                #2, #3, and #4 - well, considering the seeds for all were planted after the Civil War, with Constitutional Amendments, then took from 12 to 100 years to accomplish - I would say that was a family bonding between the middle-aged dad and the teenager. Dad drove most of the way, with the teenager asking, "Are we there yet?" Until dad finally changed seats when he knew the teenager could drive the rest of the way.  ;-)

                GA

                1. My Esoteric profile image90
                  My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  lol

          3. My Esoteric profile image90
            My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            Let me ask you, Wilderness, why do you use the term "eradicated"? If you think that is a liberal's, then you think wrong. Liberals understand clearly that almost nothing can be "eradicated". Liberals don't think all gun deaths can be prevented. Liberals don't think the playing field can be perfectly level.

            So, why do you presume they do?

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              Your argument, your term.  "It isn't that they advocate it, but it is the reason not to eradicate such and similar institutions."

              1. My Esoteric profile image90
                My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                I had to search way back to find where I used that term. Just as I thought, you have, predictably, have taken it well Out Of Context.  If you look back, the subject was SLAVERY and similar institutions.  Now, in that particular and specific instance, "eradicate" is the right word and goal.  You, improperly and unjustly applied it to Everything.

                But then, as a conservative, you don't believe eradicating slavery is necessarily a good thing. Conservative theory clearly states that if that has been the tradition, it shouldn't be changed after all. (Which is why conservatives fought a Civil War over maintaining slavery.)

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  "But then, as a conservative, you don't believe eradicating slavery is necessarily a good thing. Conservative theory clearly states that if that has been the tradition, it shouldn't be changed after all."

                  Such gross, insulting and false accusations are why discussions don't go well with you.  There isn't much to be said to anyone actually believing such drivel, and less to say to someone that knows it isn't true and says it anyway.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image90
                    My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    History (and Kirk) back up my view.  True conservatives did their damnedest (and still do for that matter) to deny blacks and other minorities basic human rights.

                    Conservatives were dealt a serious blow with the 13, 14, 15, and 19th amendments.  Until 1964, they were able to effectively neuter the 14th and 15th amendments.  With the Rehnquist and Roberts' Courts, they have been slowing chipping away at the civil and voting rights granted in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

                    Careful reading of how Burke, Kirk, and Buckley Jr. define true conservatism makes it easy to understand why this is so.

                    If you actually believe yourself to be a true conservative, then you willing accept that albatross around your neck. The entire history of true conservationism from merry old England (Burke) to starting the American Civil War to Selma has been about conservatives trying to deny human rights.

        2. Credence2 profile image81
          Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

          "There is a canyon between the desire of socialist attempts to MAKE everything equal (not quite true, but close enough), which is an aberration of egalitarianism (which is simply the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.)"

          M.E., this comment you made in an earlier thread says it all for me and speaks to exactly where I stand. My problem with the conservative prospective is that I question their commitment to the idea that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.

          1. My Esoteric profile image90
            My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            By bullet number 3, true conservatives don't believe all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities. Instead, as a matter of conservative principal, they believe just the opposite because they can't conceive of a world where there is more of it than there is now.

  2. Jessie L Watson profile image94
    Jessie L Watsonposted 14 months ago

    1. Agreed. What we have successfully implemented in our societies should remain intact as long as humanly possible. It's a miracle that I wake up to electricity and running water.

    2. Agreed. Especially with the radical narrative being thrown around by left-wing media. The same old tired communist oppressed vs. oppressors, have's vs. have-nots arguments. Not once has this country ever swayed toward right-wing authoritarianism. And the latest accusation of Trump fitting that bill is a grossly inappropriate historical comparison.

    3. Agreed. I answered that in your last thread. Diversity is a natural consequence of a free nation and cannot be forcibly implemented with any degree of success.

    4. Agreed. Follows from the previous principle and our God-given sovereignty which gives rise to due process before the law. We are equal until we demonstrate that we cannot act equally in relationship to others.

    If I interpreted this correctly, lol

    I feel like I'm not as well read in this area as some of you.

  3. GA Anderson profile image93
    GA Andersonposted 14 months ago

    It seems like you folks, (Cred, Wilderness, Jessie), are talking about different things.

    Didn't the thought start as Conservative's acceptance of a Human Right to Equal Opportunity? Not to equal acquisition of of that opportunity?

    In Wilderness' example, there is nothing denying that Idiot the opportunity to apply to Yale, but the  reality of their abilities does deny acceptance/acquisition of that opportunity. Isn't it only the Right of Opportunity that you are demanding Cred? I doubt you are denying that opportunity Wilderness. Your comments seem attributable to abilities not opportunities.

    The same goes for Jessie's points, they pertain to abilities and acquisition - not opportunity. (as I read them)

    I think you are right Cred. I think everyone should have equal opportunities, but that doesn't mean I agree with the extension of that thought to everyone should have equal acquisition. And I doubt that you are asking for that either.

    I also think Wilderness is right; Conservatives, (in general, not Cred's Far-right bogyman conservatives), do accept the concept of those Human Rights that started this conversation.

    As for Jessie... well, you did get sidetracked, but you're right just because you were channeling me. ;-)

    Am I wrong thinking that you guys are arguing apples and oranges?

    GA

    1. Jessie L Watson profile image94
      Jessie L Watsonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      Which part of the conversation? I'm known for my tangents but I'm doing my best. Lots being covered here.

      And ability doesn't always equal acquisition. There are many people who squander their abilities or their abilities haven't been fostered properly.

      1. GA Anderson profile image93
        GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        Hi Jessie, I think you got sidetracked by Wilderness' response to Credence2.

        As I read the exchange, Credence2 refuted Wilderness' claim that Conservatives do also believe that everyone has the basic human Rights of; equality - in the nature of their humanity, and, opportunity - in the access to the opportunity to try to do something.

        I think Wildeness' reply - concerning equality of abilities, (which I agreed with), is where the paths diverged.

        Even as I agree with the truth and reality of your comments, (most of them anyway), I doubt that you don't also believe in the concept of everyone having the Right to those opportunities. Whether their abilities allowed then to take advantage of those opportunities, (your points), is a different matter.

        As I understood the point, it was never about whether someone could achieve the success of the opportunity - just that they had a Right to try.

        Your closing point is also still on the wrong track - even though it is a valid point. Whether abilities are squandered,. or not developed, is still beside the point of the Right to the availability of opportunity.

        GA

        1. Jessie L Watson profile image94
          Jessie L Watsonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          Hmm. Okay I think I see what you mean. I jumped into the conversation because they happened to be touching on one dimension of human cognitive ability. I threw out some things to add to that because it's a bitter pill to swallow. If we can accept the differences in people, then we might able to have a conversation on how our society becomes stratified in such a way.

          I do believe people have a right to try. That's how we actualize potential in people. If the point of my discussion leads people to believe that I don't believe in the right to opportunity then I apologize. That wasn't my intention. It's just a very dog eat dog game out there in the world and I wanted to emphasize that.

          Help me get back on track, lol. I'm not opposed to constructive criticism.

          1. GA Anderson profile image93
            GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            There was no criticism intended Jessie, just a thrown switching lever.

            GA

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      Are you wrong?  Yes and no.

      There is a little trouble distinguishing between acquisition and opportunity, but consider that without the opportunity to attend you won't acquire that education.  And that the entrance exam is only the start - there is still that massive tuition to consider.  I daresay that a lot of kids can pass the exams, but only a tiny portion can attend.  And truth be known I suspect that part of that is that the parents are not of the right social "stature" - that social standing is playing a part as well as finances. 

      And it goes further; a genius in the ghetto will not pass the exams although a year or two of intensive work could correct the deficiencies caused by ghetto schools.  The opportunity to attend Yale is at least partially dependent on the opportunity for a solid lower class education.

      So it's not just about equality of abilities.  There are many more factors as well, and factors that cannot be (reasonably) overcome by government "help".

      1. Jessie L Watson profile image94
        Jessie L Watsonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        I can't help but wonder why we would ever expect that Yale should be the target of everyone's educational future. If there are cases in which someone is blocked somehow by societal or economic circumstances, it might be helpful to look at what other options would be available to someone. Yale isn't the end all, be all. If we use that as a yardstick, then all we can see is the long list of rejects and the middle to upper-class admissions. It paints a very difficult picture to look at but its not the whole picture.

        Sorry if I've missed the point again. Now I'm paranoid lol. I'm just trying to find evidence that opportunity is very much alive and well and I support the system that produces it.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          No, you haven't missed it, for that is the point.  Not everyone that wants a thing can have it, and that's all right.  The one kid can go to Yale and one can't is all right even if both have the abilities to use that education. 

          The question isn't in how to make everyone have the same opportunities; it is how far down that road we go.  We try (and fail) to make the lower grades of school reasonable equal and, IMO, that's far enough.  I'd like to see a little more equality there, but also recognize some of the problems - problems that start with the kids and their parents.  But the liberals don't agree; all people must be totally equal in opportunities and that's something I just can't go along with.

          1. My Esoteric profile image90
            My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            - "No, you haven't missed it, for that is the point.  Not everyone that wants a thing can have it, and that's all right.  The one kid can go to Yale and one can't is all right even if both have the abilities to use that education." But that is the difference between a liberal and a conservative.

            Assuming two people are equally capable of doing well in Yale, yet one can't get in because of external forces (the color of his skin, for example or the lack of a pedigree for another).  A conservative (and minimal state liberals) don't see a problem with this and consequently don't want to do anything to fix the problem. 

            An active state liberal, on the other hand, would attempt to make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of skin color or lack of pedigree. They would work toward having the admission process be based only on talent and drive.

            1. Jessie L Watson profile image94
              Jessie L Watsonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              Skin color is actually what is getting more people accepted into universities now. Almost every university has an entire staff of diversity administrators to make sure that prejudice doesn't contaminate the admissions process. Great.

              Strangely enough, men are bailing out of universities like crazy. Over 60 percent of part-time students now are female. That's great too except: why are men bailing out?

              Where this becomes a problem is where white people (men) are considered racist by default simply because of their historical privilege. College kids are being told that the university is unsafe - full of racists and rapists - which is just patently false but it justifies hiking up tuition costs to pay for these "administrators".

              Universities have always been the hub of diversity and free expression in this country but I'm afraid its swung too far into hypocrisy. Conservative commentators are completely shut down from speaking at almost every liberal university. I digress again. lol

              1. My Esoteric profile image90
                My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                At one point decades ago, but not today. Does diversity enter into the selection process, yes it does and so it should to counter the majority natural discriminatory tendencies.

                I don't know of anybody who says white men are racist by default. For me I look to what the man (or anybody else) says and does before making that judgement. I think virtually all unprejudiced people do that.  If you actually are prejudiced, then that biases your thinking from the get go.

                And if the prejudiced person doesn't recognize that they are and try to overcome such thoughts, then the world is trouble.

                1. Jessie L Watson profile image94
                  Jessie L Watsonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  "I don't know of anybody who says white men are racist by default"

                  Where have you been since 2015?

                2. Jessie L Watson profile image94
                  Jessie L Watsonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  Since when in recent history has it ever been okay to use this kind of language publicly? It's just the tip of the iceberg...
                  https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13973398.png



                  https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13973399.png



                  https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13973400.jpg



                  https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13973401.png

              2. Credence2 profile image81
                Credence2posted 14 months agoin reply to this

                Skin color is actually what is getting more people accepted into universities now. Almost every university has an entire staff of diversity administrators to make sure that prejudice doesn't contaminate the admissions process. Great.

                Strangely enough, men are bailing out of universities like crazy. Over 60 percent of part-time students now are female. That's great too except: why are men bailing out?

                Why are the men bailing out, no one is forcing them to do so?
                -----------------------------------------
                Where this becomes a problem is where white people (men) are considered racist by default simply because of their historical privilege. College kids are being told that the university is unsafe - full of racists and rapists - which is just patently false but it justifies hiking up tuition costs to pay for these "administrators".

                I don't agree with your assessment here.
                -------------------------------------
                Universities have always been the hub of diversity and free expression in this country but I'm afraid its swung too far into hypocrisy. Conservative commentators are completely shut down from speaking at almost every liberal university. I digress again. lol

                I support freedom of speech and expression, conservative commentators should be free to speak and not be heckled. But, I do reserve the option to attend the engagement or not..

                1. Jessie L Watson profile image94
                  Jessie L Watsonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  Lol. I don't agree with your assessment of my assessment.

            2. GA Anderson profile image93
              GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              I think I understand the source of your second paragraph statement My Esoteric, but I think you are wrong applying it to Conservatives as a group. I would see someone that doesn't have a problem with your example as a bigot, or perhaps a couple other descriptors. That they are also a Conservative is secondary by my way of thinking.

              So that leads to the question of whether Conservatives, in general, are usually bigots, (or worse). I can't make that connection.  Even if I can understand how you can. Do you think all Christians are nuts because they are snake handlers?

              GA

      2. GA Anderson profile image93
        GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        But regardless of the hurdles, the opportunity to try is there. Even if there is a 100% likelihood of failure, (due to whatever reason), the opportunity to try is there.

        That is the point I thought the conversation took-off from. That is the Human Right being discussed.

        As for being right and wrong, what if I substituted "success" for "acquisition?"  (to connote the difference in my point of an opportunity to apply to Yale, and your mis-extrapolation to "attend" Yale). Still the same concept. We all should have the Right to try, but that does not include the Right to succeed.

        1. Jessie L Watson profile image94
          Jessie L Watsonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          I like the purple man's logic. Can I join your club? lol

          https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13973357.jpg

          1. GA Anderson profile image93
            GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            Thanks Jessie, but I was never one for clubs. The good ones wouldn't have me, and the ones that would didn't deserve me.

            GA ;-)

            1. Jessie L Watson profile image94
              Jessie L Watsonposted 14 months agoin reply to this
        2. My Esoteric profile image90
          My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          Assume, for example, you have two runners running a race.  One is free to run but the other had a ball and chain tied (illegally) to his or her ankle. The minimal state liberal or true conservative will simply say that's life, run the damn race (a superman might  be able to win the race, but not a regular human who is, without the ball and chain faster than their opponent).

          The active state liberal will ask what the hell is that illegal ball and chain doing on the runners leg and attempt to remove it before the race is run.

          Now, if that ball-in-chain happens to be a natural deformity which will slow the runner down, then the liberal will also say, that life and run the damn race.

          1. Jessie L Watson profile image94
            Jessie L Watsonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            I can't think of anything more heroic than running with a ball and chain. Winning or losing isn't the point. Willingly participating against all odds is noble.

            I think you make a good point, though, when you say that conservatives are less likely to do something about the ball and chain if, in fact, something can be done about it. But I think a little healthy skepticism about what can be done is actually beneficial to our checks and balances of government intervention.

            I haven't addressed your point about the bail and chain being "illegal". Perhaps you could elaborate.

          2. GA Anderson profile image93
            GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

            And now you are also switching tracks. From the original point of the Philosophical Egalitarianism concept of natural Human Rights, to the Social Egalitarianism concept of engineered Human Rights.

            I think the former can be accepted without qualification, by Liberals and Conservatives, but the latter acceptable without qualifications only to Liberals. A Conservative might ask why that ball and chain were there before declaring an inequity.

            GA

            1. My Esoteric profile image90
              My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

              I am not familiar with "Social Egalitarianism concept of engineered Human Rights".  I do understand what egalitarianism is, but where does the "engineered" part come from?

              1. Jessie L Watson profile image94
                Jessie L Watsonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                I think its the difference between thinking freely without censure versus compelled adherence to certain philosophical assumptions. Just a guess.

              2. GA Anderson profile image93
                GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                By modern usage, egalitarianism has evolved into dual meanings. The original meaning was a philosophical one in which the equalities it defined were those of our humanity. In our humanity we are all created equal. Not equal in abilities or talents, or, equal in our Right of outcomes, but equal as members of a species. It also declared that that equality also gave us the natural equality of opportunity. All had the same Right to make an effort. An equal Right to opportunity with no predetermined discrimination.

                The modern "evolved" meaning, Social egalitarianism, expands those original equalities to include the Right to equality of outcomes. Like the Yale example that was tossed around; philosophical egalitarianism declares that we all have an equal Right to apply to Yale, but Social egalitarianism now declares that we all have an equal Right to attend Yale.

                The difference between "apply" and "attend" is where the ideology and engineering comes in. It seems fair to me to lay the creation of the Social definition at the feet of Liberal ideologies, and it is their use of government to create, (engineer), the path that leads to their definition of those original Rights.

                As you have said, and as I contend Conservatives also agree, progress is an undeniable necessity. It is the path of that progress where we disagree. I believe a Conservative chooses the path of the original definition. Progress must be achieved by progress of our human nature. In steps that  abide by all members of our culture. Sometimes in baby steps, sometimes by leaps, but at all times by measures that the whole culture can accept.

                Conversely, the Social definition demands the Right to equal outcomes be recognized as a true Right, and that whatever steps needed to get there be taken now. A concept that seems only just to those of our culture that hold that belief, (Liberals), but a forced, and artificial concept to the rest of our culture, (Conservatives and non-Liberals).

                Social vs. philosophical, one demands a Right of outcomes, the other declares a Right of opportunity.

                But, I think you knew all that.  I think you just wanted to know where I got the "engineered" from. And that was my contribution to the Social definition. The use of governmental actions, not supported by the progress of the whole of the culture, but forced by the creation of artificial, (relative to natural cultural developments), cultural changes.

                GA

                1. My Esoteric profile image90
                  My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                  --> "By modern usage, egalitarianism has evolved into dual meanings." - But has it really or have conservatives (in this case) decided to change the meaning to suit their argument.  In my mind, that is no change at all, just a misuse of a concept that has a well understood and universal meaning.

                  -->" In our humanity we are all created equal. Not equal in abilities or talents, or, equal in our Right of outcomes, but equal as members of a species." - It is that belief that makes a conservative a conservative and defines the difference between conservatives and liberals.  Can you find me a few liberal (not socialist) quotes that make you believe your statement is true?

                  Liberals absolutely believe what that most famous liberal, Thomas Jefferson (or John Locke, if you will) wrote about Life, Liberty, and Happiness. That concept is pure egalitarianism, isn't it?

                  Nowhere in liberal philosophy does it say liberals believe humans are  "equal in abilities or talents, or, equal in our Right of outcomes"; that is a conservative faux argument not based on reality. Liberals only believe that each human being is equal throughout their lifetime, and have an inalienable right to equal human rights and opportunity (conservatives, as you said, do not believe that).

                  How do you square "As you have said, and as I contend Conservatives also agree, progress is an undeniable necessity." with the conservative's belief that "By proper attention to prudent reform (no leaps allowed), we may preserve and improve this tolerable order. " (which means that while conservatives do allow for minor change at the margins, the change can't be such that "this tolerable order", i.e, "some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk" is improved in any meaningful way.

                  Can you please site your source for the following as a liberal belief --> "Conversely, the Social definition demands the Right to equal outcomes be recognized as a true Right, " and "Social vs. philosophical, one demands a Right of outcomes, the other declares a Right of opportunity." -- It simply isn't true and therefore I still don't know where you get the idea that liberals engineer outcomes. It may be that you are conflating socialism (which has the same roots as conservatism in terms of state control) with liberalism - they simply are not the same thing.

                  Liberals believe strongly in the supremacy of the individual while socialists and conservatives believe just as strongly in the supremacy of the state. (It is the minimal state liberal who think that the state should exist but be as small as possible and only provide for security).

                  1. GA Anderson profile image93
                    GA Andersonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

                    You are really working me My Esoteric.

                    Understanding that my responses are coming from my perceptions, understandings, and ideas,. (their rightness is obviously a judgement call), about Liberal and Conservative positions, I will skip looking for  supporting quotes, or arguing about whether Jefferson's "liberalism" of his times would qualify him as a Liberal - as considered today.

                    First, I should offer a re-measure of my description of the Rights Philosophical Egalitarianism embraced. As I reread my response, I was left with the impression that I excluded economic, social, and political equality from the Right of Equal Opportunity. That was not my intention.

                    My intention in claiming the dual Social Egalitarian definition was to separate the ideas of the original concept; ie. everyone should have the Right of Opportunity to apply to Yale, vs the Social concept that everyone has the Right of Opportunity to attend Yale.

                    I think that even within the original concept, proper actions to remove hurdles to achieving success of Opportunity are understood as the 'right thing to do.'

                    I understand this may be a poor, (or even inflammatory), example, but I believe the early intentions, (most, but not all), of Affirmative Action in our college admittance processes would fit the ideals of the Philosophical concept of Egalitarianism

                    On the other side, I believe the demands that standards be lowered, (ie. academic or military scores), to give under-represented groups, (yes, I believe this also includes under-achievers), an equal Right of success of Opportunity, is most definitely an over-reach of the original concept. Demanding or defending this action as part of the Human Rights that are Egalitarianism can only be justified using the modern Social interpretation.

                    I believe a Conservative - in general, would accept the first example, (grudgingly), but only a Liberal would accept the latter one. As such, I still say the "universal meaning" you claim, is not universal at all. I think it is very much defined by ideology, hence the determination of a dual meaning. Although I'm not offering supportive links, you can easily find credible perspectives that agree with a modern "dual" definition/understanding of the concept.

                    The difference may just be a matter of degrees, but there is still enough  difference to affect the understanding of what those basic Rights include. As a note, I do not think  "Life, Liberty, and Happiness" is a Liberal concept. I do agree it symbolizes the concept of Egalitarianism, but I believe it is so "universally" accepted as to be a foundation, rather than an owned construct. So you need a different tact for its use as a support of your position.

                    Although I haven't addressed your contentions and questions by bullet point, I do think most are covered in the general text of this response. 

                    Except... I will cherry-pick one to answer. You said "Nowhere in liberal philosophy does it say liberals believe humans are  "equal in abilities or talents, or, equal in our Right of outcomes"  It wasn't Conservatives that demanded a lowering of physical requirements to qualify for combat duty - so women could pass those combat-ready qualification tests. And I don't think subjugating the reality of physical differences and abilities to the egalitarian concept of equal opportunity is a valid understanding of the original concept. But it does seem a legitimate understanding of the social interpretation of the concept.

                    As for Liberals believing in the supremacy of the individual, I am skeptical. I think Liberals may believe strongly in the supreme value of equality for the individual, but it is a supremacy of government that is their strongest belief.

                    GA

    3. My Esoteric profile image90
      My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      GA, I think that is the argument.  Based on their stated principals conservatives do not believe in a "Human Right to Equal Opportunity?" They recognize that, while someone is alive, nature (God's nature btw) doesn't allow for that ... so why even try to make it better (another principal says "don't try - I'll put that one up next).  That is what makes liberals (whether active of minimal state) different, they want to at least try to make things better.

  4. Jessie L Watson profile image94
    Jessie L Watsonposted 14 months ago

    This has been the funnest and most thought-provoking thread I've taken part in. I appreciate everyone's contributions.

  5. Jessie L Watson profile image94
    Jessie L Watsonposted 14 months ago

    Just stumbled across more information about Social Darwinism in my studies. It appears to be closely associated with Eugenics. I'm not on board with that. But nice try walking me into a racist trap.

  6. Jessie L Watson profile image94
    Jessie L Watsonposted 14 months ago

    Supplemental:

    "As Darwinian thought took hold in the late nineteenth century, notions of “survival of the fittest” often led to the incorrect assumption that it is a “dog-eat-dog world” in which it is “every man for himself.” Such an assumption is not implied by evolution, and it is not what Darwin proposed. Rather, it is clear that in complex species like primates, what evolves is a capacity for certain types of behavior in certain situations; but whether the behavior will occur depends on learning, and patterns of learning are shaped by culture (socially transmitted expectations and knowledge).

    In many nonhuman primates, certainly in chimps and apes, knowledge and habits are acquired from others. Many animals have communication and social organizational “societies.” For example, chimpanzees learn from others to wash bananas in jungle streams (de Waal, 2001a). So, we will never find a simple gene that leads directly to someone’s being aggressive or cooperative. Rather, individuals vary in their capacities for a variety of tendencies, and which ones will be realized depends on the multiplicity of interacting forces that we describe in this book. Ironically, many times in the twentieth century, people made the mistake of thinking not only that the “fittest” individual is the one who can out-reproduce all others, but they assumed (wrongly) that the fittest culture is the one that can conquer all others. Biological issues in personality psychology should be examined in terms of how they are being interpreted for purposes of public policy."

    Friedman, H. S., Schustack, M. W. (2013). Personality: Classic Theories and Modern Research, Vitalsource for Kaplan University, 5th Edition. [Purdue University Global Bookshelf]. Retrieved from https://purdueuniversityglobal.vitalsou … 269309431/

    1. mrpopo profile image72
      mrpopoposted 14 months agoin reply to this

      "Ironically, many times in the twentieth century, people made the mistake of thinking not only that the “fittest” individual is the one who can out-reproduce all others"

      I'm confused by that statement - I've always understood fitness to be a measure of reproductive ability in some form or another. The definitions on Dictionary.com and Wiki seem to support that:

      Herbert Spencer's well-known phrase "survival of the fittest" should be interpreted as: "Survival of the form (phenotypic or genotypic) that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations."

      Also called Darwinian fitness. Biology.
      the genetic contribution of an individual to the next generation's gene pool relative to the average for the population, usually measured by the number of offspring or close kin that survive to reproductive age.


      There's more nuance than just "out-reproducing all others," but the crux of that statement is accurate IMO.

      1. Jessie L Watson profile image94
        Jessie L Watsonposted 14 months agoin reply to this

        It's either a discrepancy among the entire scientific community or the author of my textbook has a strange bias of his own. Perhaps he's been dominated a time or two haha. My point was that evolution is better to be thought about in broader terms.

        The former wouldn't surprise me though. Most people in the scientific community still believe that depression is starkly a neurochemical problem but there's hardly any evidence to support this nor is there any evidence that anti-depressants are good at what they're supposed to do. There's actually more evidence to the contrary. So, even among the best and brightest exist the most erroneous assumptions.

        We might just be seeing a quibble among the biological/evolutionary intelligentsia.

        1. My Esoteric profile image90
          My Esotericposted 14 months agoin reply to this

          "Social Darwinism" is just an adaptation of Darwin's theory of evolution (not so much a theory anymore), the so-called "survival of the fittest". It is a metaphor, not an analogy.  It encapsulates the idea of minimal state liberals "you are on your own", "don't look to others (especially government) for help", "all men ARE an island (another metaphor)", "life sucks, deal with it", "if you get a raw deal, be a superman and overcome it on your own."

          It should be noted that this worldview is unique to minimal state liberals. Neither, socialist, active state liberals, nor conservatives (at least I can't find it in their 10 Principals) believe this.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)