Hum Dinger
Gold Member
- Aug 19, 2008
- 11,653
- 4,231
- 315
the problem is people are not equal in capacities.
and the strong are not interested in any other kind of equality with the weak.
what the weak think ultimately doesn't matter.
that's all there is to it ...
maybe when we develop models for future societies we need to start with INEQUALITY as basis ?
Yet the societies which have most adhered to the principles of equality are the strongest and most developed of all societies.
The fact that all people are not equal does not mean that a government and society should not behave as though they were.
In fact, there is no definition of superiority (excepting myself of course) or inferiority. There is no such thing as 'the strong' or 'the weak'. The physically weak may be the intellectually strong or the intuitively strong or the artistically strong.
Darwin's guess that the mechanism of evolution being 'survival of the fittest', doesn't hold up to the light of evidence. (Not that I don't believe in evolution, I just don't believe in 'the survival of the fittest' as it's mechanism). If so, lions would rule the world.
My personal belief is that biological evolution is a product of random genetics. Mankind has not all evolved equally or in the same way. This makes a potpourri of human talents and abilities. This is why a society (like the U.S.A.) BASED on equality thrives.
Societies, if not stifled by the domination of the most violent, aggressive and animalistic people, evolve quickly by manifesting the full talents it's people.
In fact, history repeatly shows a cyclical elimination of the most aggressive, dominant types thru the mechanism of wars, coups and mass revolution.
It's the apparently 'weak' commoners that continue to survive.