Liberals Can’t Have Cake

I haven’t gone the way of politics for a while, as most of my friends and family are liberals and won’t talk to me for a few days after a typical Killer J political post.  I could go for a good helping of ostracization.  Then again, most close to me don’t pretentiously bloviate with righteous indignation like the vacuous dick heads in my television set. 

So, I guess I’ll just make my point.  You can’t have equality and diversity.  Both of these are great things, but liberals want them imposed on us by the government.  Well, you can’t have both.  In order to be equal, you would have to do more than just redistribute land and money.  Redistributing land and money equally is absolutely impossible anyway, but the issue goes deeper than that. 

For true equality, you would have to be a genderless, colorless, faithless, and even beliefless (is that a word?) society.  People categorize things by how they differentiate.  We do this from a young age.  In an earlier blog, I went in to this categorization process a lot deeper.  I won’t elaborate on that part here.  Where there is categorization, there is comparison.  Let’s take gender by itself.  For the record, I believe both sexes should be equal so save me the feminist drivel.  Also for the record, men have a physical advantage over women no matter how you slice it.  This creates inequality, which influences our thoughts on the actual capabilities (albeit unfairly in this technological age) of the genders.  Unless you turn us all in to Eunichs, the difference between the genders promotes discrimination all by itself.  By the way, don’t “Google Image” search the word Eunich.  Seriously, don’t.

Long story short, all the wonderful things that make us humans different, or diverse, have a dark side.  I don’t think diversity and equality are necessarily mutually exclusive, but for each standard to be realized in its entirety is a pipe dream.  Nevertheless, take a vote.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Liberals Can’t Have Cake

  1. Interesting post. Mainly because you got the idea from another blog. 😉 In terms of having full equality, you’re right. Everything being equal would suck, and you show that. However, I think if everything was fully diverse, that would also suck. For example, I think this cartoon makes a good point on why total diversity wouldn’t work:

    If everyone was diverse, there would be no commonality in which we can share something. In terms of equality, there is something that I think any normal human being can agree upon: we all have equal moral worth. The reasoning may be different for some people (thus the diversity), but nonetheless, we all share something in common. Thus, I think having 100% equality isn’t the answer, but neither is 100% diversity either. Like Aristotle, I think the middle way is the virtuous path. You need a little bit of both. We can have some equal footing, but still recognize our differences. We can share common attributes, but understand that we go different ways. We can see how we have common goals, but different ways of getting there. Of course, this still means we can (and should) criticize wrongdoing. Why? Because of what was given above: we all have equal moral worth. Thus, the best life seems to say that we can do anything we want (thus the diversity) but we can’t break that equality code (thus the equality). I’m sure there are more equality principles out there, but I think you get the idea.

    As a side note, here’s a quote from J.S. Mill:

    I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.

    Interesting, but there is one conservative that I find very bright. His name is George Will and he gives a great description on what the difference is between liberals and conservatives. Liberals want equality for the sake of freedom. Conservatives want freedom for the sake of liberty. I can see it, but the Aristotle in me says the middle ground might be the best route.

    By the way, I wouldn’t consider Bill Maher a liberal. At the very least, I’d say a libertarian.

  2. Good post. I’ve been studying numbers and chemistry for 6 hours, and I saw that you posted a new blog.. I’m in no mood to read, and I’m ESPECIALLY in no mood to read anything political. BUT, I generally like your blogs, and I figured I’d give it a shot. I like the thoughts that were provoked in this post. I’m surprised my brain is even comprehending anything right now… but this post certainly got my attention. I also liked the fact that you posted something political, and I didn’t feel the need to call you a “damn republican…” ha.. I know, I know.. Independent conservative… I’m just messing with you.

    Anywho, I agree with the both of you. I like the middle road. I enjoy having a bit of both.

    Oh. Bill Maher is the man… even though that picture you posted kind of startles me, a bit.

Reply to Killer J!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s