Thinker 1: “Tina S is a popular YouTube guitarist. I find her skill amazing, and from the comments on her videos, I see others also find her highly talented.”
Thinker 2: “Wait! Let me look her up… Oh! Wow! I see what you mean. Really fast fingering.”
Thinker 1: “One of the comments that shows respect for Tina S. appears beneath her rendition of Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata. A guy named ‘Nighttrain’ writes, ‘I played guitar for 20 years [ ; ], after watching this video [ , ] I finally have the motivation to pursue [ a ] career in accounting.’ * Could there be higher praise? Nighttrain thinks Tina S’s skill level is, at least for him, unreachable. He shows not envy, but adulation in the best sense of the word. Of course, Nighttrain, if he were a child today, would be told that Tina S’s skills are a goal, something to be achieved. ‘If you can dream it…’ so the saying goes. But adulation in the best sense of the word implies an acknowledgement of superiority. I don’t know Nighttrain, but I believe he is honest with himself. He knows he’s not going to be another Tina S no matter how much he dreams. He’s done the math, the accounting for his life and his two decades of playing guitar, and he sees the numbers clearly and objectively. Nighttrain is a humble realist, an admirable characteristic in a society that professes various forms of ostensible egalitarianism.”
Thinker 2: “What’s that expression? ‘Everyone gets a trophy these days.’ It’s an expression abhorrent to people with commonsense. As Jerry Seinfeld jokes, the person who gets the silver medal at the Olympics is merely the best loser.”
Thinker 1: “And sometimes it isn’t just adults with commonsense who recognize the folly of a trophies-for-all philosophy. When one of my children was almost four, his well-meaning grandmother gave him a first-place trophy because his older brother had won one in a contest, and she didn’t want him to feel left out. Out of the mouths of babes, as they say, came this: ‘But Grandma, I didn’t do anything for it.’ That little trophy never sat on any desk or shelf, so little did it mean to him.”
Thinker 2: “He was certainly insightful. As we learn by experience, it’s unavoidable that in any egalitarian society, some people are more equal than others, and even some classes are similarly more equal than others. This train of thought makes me think that within any class of equals, recognition and adulation derived from special talent, accomplishment, or even self-aggrandizement can engender an awards system. Think of all those annual entertainment awards, for example. Is entertainment quantifiable like baseball statistics?”
Thinker 1: “No, not really. The best one can hope for is consensus, but then one has to ask who participates in the consensus. Ironically, even within any self-proclaimed class of people, egalitarianism fails to make people equal, not because it isn’t at heart a noble notion, but rather because it fosters envy. How many times have we heard ‘Why did So-n-So get… (this, or that, or whatever) and not me?’ Egalitarianism as a socio-political philosophy can’t be pinned down without equivocation.
“You know the problems associated with egalitarianism in various forms, but, for me, what comes to mind is the conflict between equality of opportunity vs. equality of condition. Should everyone have the chance to acquire a yacht, or should everyone be given a yacht? The mechanisms for the latter have caused uncounted numbers of people to suffer relative poverty or economic stagnation in socialist societies because there just aren’t enough yachts to go around, and truth be told, someone has to serve as boat-builder.
“Those who believe in equality of condition, that is, in a yacht in every creek, fall into two general categories: Those in control and those controlled. Egalitarianism’s ideologues who control a society claim a universal freedom and quality of life, but in reality they probably see the lives of others as quantifiably limited while seeing their own lives as qualifiable and unlimited. Take the nature of the minimum wage as an example. How does one generally determine by fiat the value of work or the worker for every job? To put a number on either is to profess an ability to quantify; and quantification implies objectivism. Yet, the number is always subjective. Why $15 per hour? Why not $20? Or $1,000,000? Is all work quantifiably equal?”
Thinker 2: “I suppose that while they say that such a number as one million dollars per hour is outlandish, even the foolish adherents of conditional equalitarianism ignore that whatever the number, the outcome is still a matter of subjectivism. They believe they quantify, but they subjectively impose the quantification. And when an entire society makes all work of equal value, the quality of individual work inevitably declines. Want an anecdote? Look at the Soviet Union. History proves that workers produce less productively and less efficiently when they have no chance of bettering themselves, that is, when they can hope for no better condition than others. The failures of the old Soviet Union’s collectivism stand as witnesses to those trapped in a stagnating egalitarianism. Why bother striving if everyone ends up in the same condition? If everyone makes a million dollars an hour, the wage eventually means nothing. Everyone is still, dare I say it, in the same boat. Literally, in the same boat because an egalitarian society can’t suffer any difference between one yacht and another or between one owner an another; there’s folly in attempting to make all boat owners equal.”
Thinker 1: “I might be wrong, but it seems to me that every social experiment demonstrates that inequality is the petri dish of envy.
“But I don’t want to oversimplify. Of course, unless there is a maximum wage, those who favor the minimum wage say there’s nothing stopping an individual from earning more, and they can point to themselves as the model though many who take such a stand do so from a position of affluence. And those who make ‘more’ include those who garner wealth through government funding and control. In what egalitarian socialist society have there not been those select few who have a bigger yacht or several yachts? In what socialist society have there not been those more equal than others, and that means conditionally more equal? How many among the favored class in the former Soviet Union had a dacha, while the ordinary members of the Proletariat lived in the cramped quarters of public housing? Weren’t all Soviet citizens supposed to be equal in condition? Isn’t that what socialists and communists proclaim?”
Thinker 2: “So, is the ultimate aim of egalitarian philosophy the eradication of envy? Silly thinking in my view. Even in those closed societies like the entertainment industry, individuals who receive trophies become the envy of those who do not receive them. I have no doubt that while some express adulation inside the mansion, someone on the awardee’s veranda is asking, ‘Why was she named Actress of the Year and not me?’”
Thinker 1: “I can’t quantify Tina S’s guitarist skills. I know she is better than most guitarists, but my knowing only three chords on a ukulele doesn’t qualify me to make an objective analysis. I can see she is talented. But putting a number on her? Quantifying her? Even when consensus says she is an extraordinary talent, those in the consensus impose a subjectivism. She’s good. Really, really good, and consensus says that is not just my opinion or that of a guy with the handle ‘Nighttrain.’
“People like Tina S reveal that human qualities can’t be quantified. But they also reveal that no society, even the most socialistic one, can eliminate the subjective nature of humans and the accompanying emotion called envy. Last time I looked, Tina S’s rendition of the Third Movement of Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata had 34,817,177 views with 482 thousand likes. But the video also received 11,000 dislikes. Now, it would be wrong of me to assume those 11 thousand checked the thumbs down symbol because of envy, but I’ll bet there were some among them who were envious.”
Thinker 2: “I guess that’s why it’s foolish to give everyone a trophy in an attempt to make everyone equal. Trophies all around for an equal outcome makes every trophy meaningless. But consensus of any kind has an embedded flaw, also. It is the ‘opinion of the majority.’ And among the most ironic of mass opinions lies in a government that declares inequality to be an anathema to be eliminated through rules, regulations, and laws. Imposing ‘equality’ of condition always engenders inequality. Those who would impose equality of condition invariably establish a new inequality between the imposers and the imposed upon.”
Thinker 1: “So, what do we do with Tina S? How do we acknowledge her superiority without eliciting envy?”
Thinker 2: “We can’t. And that’s at the heart of the issue. Social media reveal that any demonstration of talent or skill begets comments of both adulation and envy. What lies in the heart of individuals cannot be made equal. That’s a fundamental flaw in a philosophy of conditional equality. And it doesn’t matter if the philosophy comes from the top down or the bottom up.”
Thinker 1: “What do you mean?”
Thinker 2: “Those who impose apparent equality from a position of authority do so on the basis of opinion, and they define equality as their opinion changes. Those who seek equality from a position of inequality of condition do so on the basis of envy. In either instance the imposed equality cannot be maintained any more so than the weather can exist in a perfect equilibrium of temperature and pressure. The slightest change in either parameter changes the weather. The slightest differences between wage-earners or yacht-owners generates disequilibrium.”
Thinker 1: “I can’t leave this without asking one more question. Why do you think so many people believe that equality of condition is both attainable and worth attaining?”
Thinker 2: “Envy, not adulation. Definitely, envy.”
Notes:
*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6rBK0BqL2w
Question of the day: Does equality of condition eliminate equality of opportunity?
**1/27/21
Thinker 2: “Wait! Let me look her up… Oh! Wow! I see what you mean. Really fast fingering.”
Thinker 1: “One of the comments that shows respect for Tina S. appears beneath her rendition of Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata. A guy named ‘Nighttrain’ writes, ‘I played guitar for 20 years [ ; ], after watching this video [ , ] I finally have the motivation to pursue [ a ] career in accounting.’ * Could there be higher praise? Nighttrain thinks Tina S’s skill level is, at least for him, unreachable. He shows not envy, but adulation in the best sense of the word. Of course, Nighttrain, if he were a child today, would be told that Tina S’s skills are a goal, something to be achieved. ‘If you can dream it…’ so the saying goes. But adulation in the best sense of the word implies an acknowledgement of superiority. I don’t know Nighttrain, but I believe he is honest with himself. He knows he’s not going to be another Tina S no matter how much he dreams. He’s done the math, the accounting for his life and his two decades of playing guitar, and he sees the numbers clearly and objectively. Nighttrain is a humble realist, an admirable characteristic in a society that professes various forms of ostensible egalitarianism.”
Thinker 2: “What’s that expression? ‘Everyone gets a trophy these days.’ It’s an expression abhorrent to people with commonsense. As Jerry Seinfeld jokes, the person who gets the silver medal at the Olympics is merely the best loser.”
Thinker 1: “And sometimes it isn’t just adults with commonsense who recognize the folly of a trophies-for-all philosophy. When one of my children was almost four, his well-meaning grandmother gave him a first-place trophy because his older brother had won one in a contest, and she didn’t want him to feel left out. Out of the mouths of babes, as they say, came this: ‘But Grandma, I didn’t do anything for it.’ That little trophy never sat on any desk or shelf, so little did it mean to him.”
Thinker 2: “He was certainly insightful. As we learn by experience, it’s unavoidable that in any egalitarian society, some people are more equal than others, and even some classes are similarly more equal than others. This train of thought makes me think that within any class of equals, recognition and adulation derived from special talent, accomplishment, or even self-aggrandizement can engender an awards system. Think of all those annual entertainment awards, for example. Is entertainment quantifiable like baseball statistics?”
Thinker 1: “No, not really. The best one can hope for is consensus, but then one has to ask who participates in the consensus. Ironically, even within any self-proclaimed class of people, egalitarianism fails to make people equal, not because it isn’t at heart a noble notion, but rather because it fosters envy. How many times have we heard ‘Why did So-n-So get… (this, or that, or whatever) and not me?’ Egalitarianism as a socio-political philosophy can’t be pinned down without equivocation.
“You know the problems associated with egalitarianism in various forms, but, for me, what comes to mind is the conflict between equality of opportunity vs. equality of condition. Should everyone have the chance to acquire a yacht, or should everyone be given a yacht? The mechanisms for the latter have caused uncounted numbers of people to suffer relative poverty or economic stagnation in socialist societies because there just aren’t enough yachts to go around, and truth be told, someone has to serve as boat-builder.
“Those who believe in equality of condition, that is, in a yacht in every creek, fall into two general categories: Those in control and those controlled. Egalitarianism’s ideologues who control a society claim a universal freedom and quality of life, but in reality they probably see the lives of others as quantifiably limited while seeing their own lives as qualifiable and unlimited. Take the nature of the minimum wage as an example. How does one generally determine by fiat the value of work or the worker for every job? To put a number on either is to profess an ability to quantify; and quantification implies objectivism. Yet, the number is always subjective. Why $15 per hour? Why not $20? Or $1,000,000? Is all work quantifiably equal?”
Thinker 2: “I suppose that while they say that such a number as one million dollars per hour is outlandish, even the foolish adherents of conditional equalitarianism ignore that whatever the number, the outcome is still a matter of subjectivism. They believe they quantify, but they subjectively impose the quantification. And when an entire society makes all work of equal value, the quality of individual work inevitably declines. Want an anecdote? Look at the Soviet Union. History proves that workers produce less productively and less efficiently when they have no chance of bettering themselves, that is, when they can hope for no better condition than others. The failures of the old Soviet Union’s collectivism stand as witnesses to those trapped in a stagnating egalitarianism. Why bother striving if everyone ends up in the same condition? If everyone makes a million dollars an hour, the wage eventually means nothing. Everyone is still, dare I say it, in the same boat. Literally, in the same boat because an egalitarian society can’t suffer any difference between one yacht and another or between one owner an another; there’s folly in attempting to make all boat owners equal.”
Thinker 1: “I might be wrong, but it seems to me that every social experiment demonstrates that inequality is the petri dish of envy.
“But I don’t want to oversimplify. Of course, unless there is a maximum wage, those who favor the minimum wage say there’s nothing stopping an individual from earning more, and they can point to themselves as the model though many who take such a stand do so from a position of affluence. And those who make ‘more’ include those who garner wealth through government funding and control. In what egalitarian socialist society have there not been those select few who have a bigger yacht or several yachts? In what socialist society have there not been those more equal than others, and that means conditionally more equal? How many among the favored class in the former Soviet Union had a dacha, while the ordinary members of the Proletariat lived in the cramped quarters of public housing? Weren’t all Soviet citizens supposed to be equal in condition? Isn’t that what socialists and communists proclaim?”
Thinker 2: “So, is the ultimate aim of egalitarian philosophy the eradication of envy? Silly thinking in my view. Even in those closed societies like the entertainment industry, individuals who receive trophies become the envy of those who do not receive them. I have no doubt that while some express adulation inside the mansion, someone on the awardee’s veranda is asking, ‘Why was she named Actress of the Year and not me?’”
Thinker 1: “I can’t quantify Tina S’s guitarist skills. I know she is better than most guitarists, but my knowing only three chords on a ukulele doesn’t qualify me to make an objective analysis. I can see she is talented. But putting a number on her? Quantifying her? Even when consensus says she is an extraordinary talent, those in the consensus impose a subjectivism. She’s good. Really, really good, and consensus says that is not just my opinion or that of a guy with the handle ‘Nighttrain.’
“People like Tina S reveal that human qualities can’t be quantified. But they also reveal that no society, even the most socialistic one, can eliminate the subjective nature of humans and the accompanying emotion called envy. Last time I looked, Tina S’s rendition of the Third Movement of Beethoven’s Moonlight Sonata had 34,817,177 views with 482 thousand likes. But the video also received 11,000 dislikes. Now, it would be wrong of me to assume those 11 thousand checked the thumbs down symbol because of envy, but I’ll bet there were some among them who were envious.”
Thinker 2: “I guess that’s why it’s foolish to give everyone a trophy in an attempt to make everyone equal. Trophies all around for an equal outcome makes every trophy meaningless. But consensus of any kind has an embedded flaw, also. It is the ‘opinion of the majority.’ And among the most ironic of mass opinions lies in a government that declares inequality to be an anathema to be eliminated through rules, regulations, and laws. Imposing ‘equality’ of condition always engenders inequality. Those who would impose equality of condition invariably establish a new inequality between the imposers and the imposed upon.”
Thinker 1: “So, what do we do with Tina S? How do we acknowledge her superiority without eliciting envy?”
Thinker 2: “We can’t. And that’s at the heart of the issue. Social media reveal that any demonstration of talent or skill begets comments of both adulation and envy. What lies in the heart of individuals cannot be made equal. That’s a fundamental flaw in a philosophy of conditional equality. And it doesn’t matter if the philosophy comes from the top down or the bottom up.”
Thinker 1: “What do you mean?”
Thinker 2: “Those who impose apparent equality from a position of authority do so on the basis of opinion, and they define equality as their opinion changes. Those who seek equality from a position of inequality of condition do so on the basis of envy. In either instance the imposed equality cannot be maintained any more so than the weather can exist in a perfect equilibrium of temperature and pressure. The slightest change in either parameter changes the weather. The slightest differences between wage-earners or yacht-owners generates disequilibrium.”
Thinker 1: “I can’t leave this without asking one more question. Why do you think so many people believe that equality of condition is both attainable and worth attaining?”
Thinker 2: “Envy, not adulation. Definitely, envy.”
Notes:
*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6rBK0BqL2w
Question of the day: Does equality of condition eliminate equality of opportunity?
**1/27/21
RSS Feed