Wednesday, June 15, 2016

IF "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL", THEN WHY AREN'T WE?

For all the hype about the profundity of The Declaration of Independence, it is important to keep in mind that it has no practical significance whatsoever. That being said, I still assert that we have an ethical obligation to adhere to its philosophical foundations and guiding principles.

Consider the following excerpt:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

We've all heard it a thousand times. The irony of slave owners proclaiming universal equality and the alienable reality of our unalienable Rights always deserve mention, but are not today's topic.  Today, I'd like you to consider some new ideas on "all men are created equal".

If we are all created equal, at what point do we become unequal?  Inequality is a primary characteristic of our society.  In particular, the variability in the amount of compensation each of us receives for our contribution to the world indicates that all men are very much not equal.

I'm going to skip my witty deconstruction of "all men are created equal" and get right to the point. WE ABSOLUTELY CAN BE EQUAL.  The road to such society is ill defined and long, but it does exist.  The most interesting stat I want you to consider is this:  If instead of some individuals being compensated 10 million dollars for their year's work and others receiving 25 thousand dollars for their efforts, what if the income generated by our population was simply pooled and distributed evenly among the households of the US?  How would that work?

It would work perfectly.  How much income would each household in the US receive if evenly distributed?  Try $110,000 per year.  And that's just using income declared for taxes.  God knows how much income is really generated by the US.  Anyway, consider this for a moment.  How would your life change if your annual income was $110k?  A certain number of people would experience a negative impact and substantial loss.  FUCK them.  The VAST majority of households would benefit tremendously.  In fact the change would be so dramatic in most households that introduction of the income would have to be moderated.

As for those that would experience a loss... oh well.  If you can't develop a fulfilling lifestyle with an annual income of $110k, then you are retarded and should just die. Humanity does not need your genes.

Life can be better for all of us.

An added thought: It would probably work better to just distribute individually to each man, woman, and child.  That it encourages overpopulation would have to be addressed, but that aside, at the moment, each person would receive $46,000.  I think we could make it work...

~ Don't forget to help out by leaving your COMMENTS, g+1 (assuming you like this stuff), and SUBSCRIBING! Thanks for reading!

No comments:

Post a Comment