SoylentNews

Thank you Arik. You have done what others have failed to do: attempt to engage in actual discussions of ideas, rather than throwing insults and unsubstantiated claims. It's appreciated.

I will take issue with your paraphrasing of various definitions from the site you linked. The definitions are not from the author herself, rather they are from various other places around the 'net, and attributed as such:

“A state or doctrine of egalitarianism (Egalitarianism defined as 1: a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs; 2: a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people)” – Merriam-Webster Dictionary [merriam-webster.com]

I think that's a reasonable definition. Personally, I support human equality in every aspect of life. I dislike imposed inequality. That's not to say that I think all humans are identical in capacities or motivation. Rather, I support the idea that all humans *should* have an equal opportunity to succeed or fail or anything in between. No collectivism there.

If there's anything there that you find objectionable or incorrect, I'd appreciate your comments.

“The fair and proper administration of laws conforming to the natural law that all persons, irrespective of ethnic origin, gender, possessions, race, religion, etc., are to be treated equally and without prejudice. See also civil rights.” – Business Dictionary [businessdictionary.com]

” The distribution of advantages and disadvantages within a society” – Dictionary.Com [reference.com]

I fully support the idea that "all persons...are to be treated equally and without prejudice" and the stuff excluded by the ellipsis are just distractions from the larger point.

I also strongly support the idea that all persons should have the *opportunity* to participate as equals within society. Which is the gist of the second definition, IMHO. Nothing collectivist or advocating a redistribution of resources there, AFAICT.

“…justice exercised within a society, particularly as it is exercised by and among the various social classes of that society. A socially just society is defined by its advocates and practioneers as being based on the principles of equality and solidarity; this pedagogy also maintains that the socially just society both understands and values human rights, as well as recognizing the dignity of every human being.” – Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]

Except for a typo and some awkward phrasing, this seems to be strongly in favor of equality, human rights, and respect for all humans. Not a hint of collectivism here either.

“Social justice is the view that everyone deserves equal economic, political and social rights and opportunities.” – National Association of Social Workers [socialworkers.org]

Everyone deserves equal rights and opportunities...Hmm, that seems appropriate to me. Note that the word used is *opportunities* not *outcomes*. That's perfectly consistent with the ideas of liberty and equality in my book. And not a bit of collectivist anything there.

“Social Justice is the virtue which guides us in creating those organized human interactions we institutions. In turn, social institution when justly organized provide us with access to what is good for the person, both individually and in our associations with others. Social justice also imposes on each of us a personal responsibility to work with others to design and continually perfect our institutions as tools for personal and social development“- Center for Economic and Social Justice [cesj.org]

Aside from the obvious poor editing, I read this to say that we, as a society (that is, individuals living together) have a responsibility to ourselves and others to create institutions that promote equality and liberty for all. Yes, that claim does require more than one person. As such, I *guess* there is a collectivist in the sense that it promotes "cohesiveness among individuals" [wikipedia.org] to promote the liberty of us all. However, it does not, IMHO, suggest "prioritization of the group over self" [wikipedia.org].

Humans are, and have always been, even before there were humans, social animals that lived in groups and found ways to survive and thrive. The most successful humans have been those who are willing to cooperate with each other for the good of both themselves and the group as a whole.

I don't see anything inconsistent with the ideals of liberty and equality there. In fact, if we refuse to cooperate, we will lose our liberty and equality to those who are stronger, better armed and lacking in respect for their fellow humans. That's not a society in which I want to live. Do you?

Now that we've addressed what the site you linked to support your arguments actually says, let's look at your arguments.

*dignity* - who could be against dignity, right? But what's it doing on this list? Are they saying that individual *dignity* is no less important than fundamental human rights? Well, in fact, they'll be meaning the dignity of a collective, a group identity, rather than of individuals, but yes, otherwise that's really what they're doing. Your right to free speech is intended to end quite abrubtly when it meets their conception of the dignity of an allegedly oppressed group.

I'm not aware of anyone who believes that, nor is that stated or implied anywhere on the linked site. I submit that there certainly are folks who are anti-liberty, anti-equality and anti-freedom of expression, but that's not reflected by the site you linked. Show me who, specifically those people are and I will rail against them, as they are the enemy of the ideals I hold dear.

*social and other equality* - again, we're all in favor of equality, who could object? but look carefully. They're placing the concept of *social* equality, and the even more nebulous concept of *other equality*, on the same plane with fundamental rights, with equal treatment under the law.

I'm not really sure what it is that you're arguing here. Equality has many facets: Equality under the law, equality of political access, equality of opportunity and the list goes on and on. I don't see that spelling out the facets of such a broad term reduces its importance or value.

I certainly could be missing the point here, and if so I'd appreciate some help.

*equal distribution of resources* - this is an explicitly collectivist, neo-marxist idea that is completely incompatible with liberalism and fundamental human rights - again, placed on an equal level.

You're absolutely correct. But I found no exhortation to "equal distribution of resources" or "equality of outcomes" in the site you linked.

Rather, I saw "equality of opportunity" referenced more than once. I strongly support that.

So, for this, I think you're putting words in other people's mouths. Which, I suspect, is quite satisfying. Unfortunately, it's not reflective of the folks you are attempting to paint with that brush.

I find it best to treat individuals as individuals, rather than to paint poorly defined swathes of people with a broad brush.

I am certain that there are anti-liberty, anti-equality, anti-freedom of expression folks out there. And I find their ideas to be quite repugnant.

Generally, those people constitute a small, vocal group. And those groups come from *all* over the political spectrum and every economic class.

Lumping those who want to promote a society that protects the rights and liberty of individuals to live as they choose as long as they don't impinge on the rights or liberty of others, with anti-liberty, anti-equality scum is unfair and, if done deliberately, disingenuous.

Your thoughts would be most welcome, Arik.