I guess it depends on the context but it seems like a lot of people seem to hold a dogmatically optimistic viewpoint regarding egalitarianism, doesnt matter where its applied.

Fluff reasoning about how the world should be without a platform of experience to weigh it against. Fact is a lot of adults including me once believed Lyndon Johnson would go down in history as one of the greatest presidents in history [despite Vietnam] because of the Great Society.

Nothing wrong with our reasoning. We just had a lot to learn by experience as we watched it come to fruition.

Is it just to throw someone in jail for not participating in your preferred economic model?
Capitalist China is also known as Taiwan. Do you have any information on these sweatshops on the Island of Taiwan that is also known as the Republic of China?

Róger Calero, presidential candidate for the Socialist Workers Party of America, only received 7,561 votes in 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

I doubt any one of those 7,561 socialists are posting here to be able to answer your question. You might try looking up their web site and seeing if they have a forum or chat board over there where you could ask them directly.

With those kinds of numbers, though, I wouldn’t consider them any kind of threat to the country.

##

Is it just to throw someone in jail for not participating in your preferred economic model?
Capitalist China is also known as Taiwan. Do you have any information on these sweatshops on the Island of Taiwan that is also known as the Republic of China?

Róger Calero, presidential candidate for the Socialist Workers Party of America, only received 7,561 votes in 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

I doubt any one of those 7,561 socialists are posting here to be able to answer your question. You might try looking up their web site and seeing if they have a forum or chat board over there where you could ask them directly.

With those kinds of numbers, though, I wouldn’t consider them any kind of threat to the country.

##

Or can we ever truly cultivate egalitarianism, a sense of feeling equal and happy about it, to humanity?

Nope. Life is about what you give not what you take. When you leave this earth the important things will be what you left behind. That is called leaving a legacy.
Take everyday and live it to the fullest and don’t worry about position because in the end that won’t matter one iota

How these faiths compare in terms of depths of thought, tolerance , and egalitarianism . All are welcome to give an honest opinion

Actually, Hinduism is a misnomer . It should rightly be called Sanatan Dharma(eternal religion). And since all these faiths originated In India, they should be termed as Indian group of religions, not Hindu group of religions. The conceptual/philosophical depths of these religions, especially those of the Sanatan dharma are beyond comparison. They are truly eternal. As regards, comparison, I feel amused when trying to even attempt such an audacious act. But since the asker has sought an honest answer I will certainly attempt. I feel, (please excuse me if you feel I am being really audacious) it is like comparing a postdoctoral professor emeritus of an institution like, Harvard/Oxford/Cambridge with a play school kid from a rural school of India. The veteran professor being the Indian group of religions and the play school kid being the other two semitic religions. There is just no comparison! It is audacious indeed!

The idea that Socialism is unachievable is sparked from the idea that humans – by nature – are greedy, unable to conform, selfish and unpredictable; meaning that the aims and ideals of Socialism (such as ‘collective ownership’ and ‘egalitarianism’) become impossible. This assumption is then commonly justified by using examples from capitalist societies. If examples from such societies – which advocate the above characteristics – are used to justify this assumption, then it is obvious that the samples used will produce biased and inaccurate evidence; therefore these so called aspects of ‘human nature’ cannot be deemed to be the reason as to why socialism is impractical.

Any feedback on this paragraph and the point it conveys would be appreciated!

thanks =]

I have to agree with you. To give the hypothesis balance evidence must be cited from both points on the economic spectrum. Socialists are quick to point out the advantages of their system, but if only those examples are used and none other, then it will be like the pot calling the kettle black! For either camp to give an informed accounting of itself, each must not only highlight its advantages, but also demonstrate consequences of the extremes of each. For capitalism, we have but to look at the U.S. economy to see what rampant deregulation has produced: selfish CEOs, recalcitrant car-manufacturing companies, and a class system in which 1% of the people control 80% of the wealth (in the U.S.) while the other 99% have to make do with remaining 20% while the economy goes under. The extremes of Socialism brings back memories of the horrors of Stalinism. Without Stalin’s taint, Socialism actually can do a lot of good, in my opinion. But like anything, each one has its good points and its drawbacks. Personally, I am of the opinion that each should have a job, according to their ability, but with the potential for advancement, should an increase in ability warrant it. Naturally, there should be opportunities for growth in individuals; these should not be denied. If the government can guarantee that, then I am all for it, provided they follow through with it. If not, it’s back to square one!

In as few words as possible: Equality in government & society

Why do so many people claim to be for equality, equal rights, egalitarianism, etc when they personify an oppressor and have an image of an oppressor in their minds? Is it a desperate need to *blame* someone, when most of the time, the powers that be who oppress and control people are not able to be seen, let alone personified?

It’s easier to blame others as oppose to taking responsibility.

77

If you dont…why?
I usually don’t edit my questions but the first answerer has a very distorted perception of the world. A lost cause I am sure.

I do not believe all people are created equal ,nonetheless I don’t think the Capitalistic system represents each individual’s strengths and weaknesses optimally. I do believe competition is healthy as it actualizes the natural aggression in people which acts to mobilize people to their potential. Nonetheless, consumers are not the best judge of what is truly beneficial to society as a whole only that which is most pleasurable to the said individual. I do believe people do have a duty to maintain life and thus necessary commodities such as food, water, and shelter should be made as cheap as possible by the establishment. Nonetheless, I do not think society should promote any kind of equality in any other respect than human worth. Those who add to society something useful should be rewarded. Those who add something unproductive such as in my view pornography, junk food, and intoxicating substances should be stopped for the sake of the moral health of society. As far as healthcare I think it should be a joint effort between people and goverment: People have a duty to maintain a healthy lifestyle; if an illness is not caused by the individuals own doing it should be payed by society as a whole. I also believe education and research are investments that should be heavily funded by society. I personally also have a distaste against credit I do ,however, think it might be a necessary evil to insure one’s standard of living. In short whether I believe in egalitarianism depends in how you define it. I do not subscribe to a behaviorist world-view in which their is no personal responsibility.

Parental influence is a danger to a child’s education.

My solution would be government-run boarding schools to keep the away from their parents. These schools would be run by government approved employees with loyalty to the government. The state knows what’s in the best interest of children. Parents are selfish and we risk too much by giving them guardian powers over their children.

Religion (Christianity in particular) would be discouraged.

Acceptance of homosexuals would be encouraged.

Economic egalitarianism would be encouraged.

I also like the idea of compulsory meditation and a pledge of loyalty and diligent servitude to the state.

While I adore the facetious tone of your post, sadly there are those who will take you seriously, and worse yet those who will agree wholeheartedly. Please do not give the deranged any new ideas.