The Rule of Equality and the Iniquity of Identity

Identity in its archetypal meaning of identical.

When the US constitution famously declared "all men are created equal" it did not mean that all people are identical socially, economically, and on terms of skills, capabilities, and so on.

When Pericles mentioned in his funeral oration mentioned that the laws afford equal justice to all and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that, "all are equal before the law and are entitled to (...) equal protection of the law, both did mean that before the law, all should be seen as being identical:

i.e., being entitled to identical protection under the law as well as impartiality rather than a double standard.

So, basically, we are saying that "we all have a right to the better deal, if that deal is a legal deal under applicable law" and "if that is the deal I want to be entitled to that deal, no less"



IF, however, by equality we mean identity, we run the risk of giving birth to a travesty of the fundamental rule that "all are created equal". It "all are identical".

Differences between individuals, where they do exist, should not be taken into account when individuals are under consideration. All must be seen as "identical".


If all are taken to be identical, then no-one should recognised as being "better" or "worse" than another in any capacity. Accordingly, selection made to pre-set criteria is a distortion of equality and should be abolished.

Take productivity for example; if criteria are to be abolished the measure of productivity is insignificant.


Take the performance criterion, for another example; since we do not accept that individuals are inherently different, differences in performance should not be considered. The much touted "pursuit of excellence" is admonished.

In extremis, it would seem that if we were to expect identical performance from all, then the lowest common denominator, i.e. the lowest standard, should be the inevitable goal: the performance level shared by all human beings is indubitably the lowest level.



Fortunately, the confusion of equality=identity is not implemented in any country for any number of reasons, all fortunate. Were it not so, it would lead to absurdity and inhumanity of epic proportions and this absurdity is understood.
However, the confusion of equality=identity still does inspire tragic results even today, even in our western, meritocratic societies.


In one European country recently, the ministry of education abolished experimental schools operating under a student selection and performance scheme, arguing that such practise (the pursuit of performance) promoted inequality between student and was thereby oppressive and unacceptable. In other words and in the name of equality, the institution protecting and promoting the country's standard of  education, lowered the standard of learning the in the country!


Presumably, all applicants to the country's institutions should be allowed in and all students should be allowed to graduate. Pushing it further, all students should graduate with the same grade. Official recognition of differences between the students (i.e,. grades, not graduating, etc) would be a sign of condoning inequality. No doubt, all students should also get the same mark as the best performing student -- or as the least performing student, if we do not wish to make the lowest performer feel left out...



Meritocracy becomes the rule of the lowest standard.

This is not the place not time to discuss the advantages or otherwise of the former. But we can certainly all agree to lament the latter.

Or can we??





*In teh mid 70s, in another European country then part of the Soviet bloc, 6 naval engineers were applying for a job at the Ministry of Labour.  They were duly affected to "copying duties" at the Ministry of Justice (i.e. preparing photocopies for the various departments). There were numerous positions at the Ministry of Transport and Industry as well, but the educational background was not deemed binding (inequality) and the timing was not quite there.... the positions at the other Ministries were to open after summer holidays. Hey, at least they had jobs, for a while...

What Greece Should Do (for temporary relief); What Greeks Should Do For Repeated Relief

What Greece's government should do at present is pay sums to the IM, discuss with its Europartners the possibility of one-off supportto ease the strain of repayments, and DELAY payments internally. Or,, better still, it can dupe its electorate by paying its debts partly in euro and (mostly) in 10-100 year non-convertible Greek Government bonds.

In this way, the following will be achieved:
- ease the debt repayment considerably, as the IMF is the most expensive money. TYhe rest of the money Greece has received can reach an average below 2% -- which is better than some countries get on the free market!
- confirm its good intentions and give an olive branch to the country's justly exasperated europartners.
- provide an excellent excuse to forget all the moronic, and potentially disastrous for the nation as a whole, pre-electoral promises: "not my fault, had to save the sinking ship. But I tried, which is more than others did"

The last sentence being the crux of the matter. I.e. manage to stay in power which is the government's unique concern, and do something for the country while you're at it.


Not that Greek governments are ostensibly interested in the country they lead; the present government speaks of "workers rights", "people in crisis", of "equality", of "excellence being a form of fascist oppression"-- but never about Greece, the nation, the country.

-------
On the other hand, given that most Greek governments have shown a predilection for absurdity and for iniquity and giving support to pressure group at the expense of the majority of the population, Greeks should resort to using shame and guilt to inspire positive action and social reform from their government. After all, Greece's labour legislation, antiquated, inflexible and job creation averse only began to be reviewed when a Greek politician (A Mrs Diamantopoulou) was made fun ofin European parliament when she rose to speak about labour issues, representing a country with the most lacking legislation on the subject...

What's Wrong With These People?

Greece and its government seem to espouse a kind of "left-wing" lax-ism which is unique in that it is the glorification of absurdity :

a love for the loser & the criminal seen as the underdog (losers, criminals & sundry are checked for the reasons underpinning & thereby their deviance and thereby absolving their crimes???!!); veneration of the lowest standard and meritocracy is vilified ("leading", higher calibre schools have been abolished); the rule of law is subordinate to the interests of pressure groups (civil servants pay less tax, PPC employees get different pay levels, etc, etc); the "interests of the workers" primes over other considerations according to the government -- even if there are very few blue collar workers in Greece (12% of work / unemployed force); foreign investment is pursued verbally but private operation is discouraged (restrictive labour law and operating licensing, high fines and expensive social security, many unexpected "nuisance taxes", etc; planned investments by Siemens, Benz, TVX Gold, wind energy group, etc, were initially or definitively repelled: "we don't want investment");

And, at the end of the day, "politically correct" in a country that officially endorses extremist left-wing while condemning extremist right wing (such as the Golden Dawn party -- which, btw is the runner up in recent elections) and teaming up with a right wing naysayer, a country which disallows business but does not touch civil servants found guilty of criminal neglect or appropriation of funds... etc etc means, simply:
*anyone can run for elections (if they pay of course), extremist, terrorist, psychopath and sundry and get elected;
*any absurdity goes, especially if the absurdity goes against common practise.



It is amazing that a right-left wing coalition of thwarted adolescents continues to hoodwink the population -- or at least 60% who did not vote for them with myths about conspiracy to overthrow the government, coups planned by bankers, dark secrets etc. A minister who visibly spends his time travelling and speaking and drinking; another who frees a terrorist sentenced with a life sentence "for humanitarian reasons" (how about the victims' humanitarian rights) and because he is no longer a threat because he is near-blind (so is another minister; we assume that the minister is near-useless in his position as well); yet another who abolishes selection criteria in academia because that promotes inequality...

Amazingly,  amongst the majority are parties composed of normal people such as the Potami (river; where did they find that name?)

Hopefully one day soon, 60% of Greeks who did not vote for the present government will snap out of their comma and realise the ridicule before the global community turns away in disgust.

The Greek Government's Humanitarianism -- hopefully not criminal.

Whether Greece's government officials have a point in what they have been doing lately (opening the borders to rogue immigration without any plan to contain & support the people, demanding for a bail-out plan with any plan, sinking the economy further just to see how low it can reach...) or they just feel like being contrarian, the disctinction no longer seem relevant.

Now, Greece's government came up with a new law that frees criminals for humanistic reasons.In so doing, Greece's government is freeing among other, killers, terrorists, murderers and sundry. One of these is a murderer with terrorist inclinations --basically a serial killer-- called Xiros who has been found guilty of a number of murders.


Interestingly, this very "humanistic' law thinks of the perpetrator; the victims seem to have dropped off the equation. No-one mentions these; "victims -- what's that" some of Greece's current ruling politicians seem to be saying? After all, does a victim vote? No. So, forget the victims.


It puts out a clear message for all to see: go right ahead killing, and if you're caught roll over and play sick. At the end of a decade or so, you'll be out. (Hey it's better than nothing!)



When the son of one of Xiros' victims asked why the government was liberating his father's murderer the government official (a woman) responded "well, you (i.e. the political party his father belonged-obviously not hers) are responsible for other..."

????!!!!



The sheer disrespect & cynicism boggles the mind!
Even Hitler had not come up such a ! Maybe Stalin had, I'm not sure. With one sweep of her broom, the woman judged past events as criminal, chose the perpetrator in an eye-blink, and set the vendetta without blinking! One crime deserves the other and your father was a criminal????
And justifies the killing of others.
Is this her take on the hollywood goldie "You kill one of ours we kill two of yours..."? If so, is the criminal "one of theirs"???

But then, Hitler didn't actually have many terrorists who killed diplomats, politicians and a few business for the fun of it -- does that explain it???



But really, what a thing to say !


Possibly Greece's government officials either live in another dimension. Or this woman does.

Hopefully the latter.