Fontaine
Banned
-
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2017
- Posts
- 5,454
- Online
- 18h 23m
The State used to care only about equality before the law for most of human history. This situation was somewhat unfair, since laws have disparate impacts on citizens: e.g. a law that punishes any kind of stealing or poaching by death will affect starving citizens more often than wealthy citizens. On the other hand, unique laws and policies for everyone had the merit of making the Law far more powerful and intimidating, and thus sacred in a way. It was Law in the original sense, not a law of special interests, jurisprudence and infinite amendments.
But then, very recently (200 years at the most), mostly due to a fear of Marxist revolutions, the State started to intervene in matters of true equality. It was a very dangerous decision, because once you try to make people really equal, not merely equal before the law, you open a Pandora's box. The defining characteristic of the universe is inequality. Inequality is noticed by the eyes everywhere they are set. Why act against certain types of inequality rather than others? Any kind of policy against inequality is necessarily unfair, more so than complete inaction, because when you reduce the impact of a certain type of inequality you relatively increase the impact of another type, humans being a hierarchical species.
The approach chosen by most modern States is the economical approach. They try to diminish economic inequality through wealth redistribution. This approach is not fully charitable as for a long time, they simply feared a Marxist revolution and needed to appease the Proletariat.
Now, what are the problems with this approach? For starters, it is outdated: several technological and economical revolutions during the 1950s and 60s severely reduced the impact of poverty. It is now almost impossible to die of starvation in the West (pasta, rice, potatoes and meat are extremely cheap), and the price of clothing or other articles of necessity has severely dropped over the last decades. Secondly, wealth is not what makes people happy. The field of psychology has repeatedly demonstrated that loneliness causes more far more depression than poverty.
In effect, economical welfare, at the precise moment, particularly benefits parents of young children i.e. people who never had any trouble finding love and having sexual validation. Ugliness and its consequence, loneliness and involuntary celibacy, demonstrably cause far more misery and suicide than poverty.
On the subject of "respecting the law": the State surrendered the sacredness of the law when the law started to treat people unequally. For instance, there are amendments to many laws that treat citizens differently based on their income level, thus completely ruining the original definition of a legal system.
As a conclusion, ugly people (men especially, because ugliness impacts men even more), are morally entitled to cheat on their taxes, thereby taking by ruse what the State should normally give them as compensation if it really cared about actual equality.
But then, very recently (200 years at the most), mostly due to a fear of Marxist revolutions, the State started to intervene in matters of true equality. It was a very dangerous decision, because once you try to make people really equal, not merely equal before the law, you open a Pandora's box. The defining characteristic of the universe is inequality. Inequality is noticed by the eyes everywhere they are set. Why act against certain types of inequality rather than others? Any kind of policy against inequality is necessarily unfair, more so than complete inaction, because when you reduce the impact of a certain type of inequality you relatively increase the impact of another type, humans being a hierarchical species.
The approach chosen by most modern States is the economical approach. They try to diminish economic inequality through wealth redistribution. This approach is not fully charitable as for a long time, they simply feared a Marxist revolution and needed to appease the Proletariat.
Now, what are the problems with this approach? For starters, it is outdated: several technological and economical revolutions during the 1950s and 60s severely reduced the impact of poverty. It is now almost impossible to die of starvation in the West (pasta, rice, potatoes and meat are extremely cheap), and the price of clothing or other articles of necessity has severely dropped over the last decades. Secondly, wealth is not what makes people happy. The field of psychology has repeatedly demonstrated that loneliness causes more far more depression than poverty.
In effect, economical welfare, at the precise moment, particularly benefits parents of young children i.e. people who never had any trouble finding love and having sexual validation. Ugliness and its consequence, loneliness and involuntary celibacy, demonstrably cause far more misery and suicide than poverty.
On the subject of "respecting the law": the State surrendered the sacredness of the law when the law started to treat people unequally. For instance, there are amendments to many laws that treat citizens differently based on their income level, thus completely ruining the original definition of a legal system.
As a conclusion, ugly people (men especially, because ugliness impacts men even more), are morally entitled to cheat on their taxes, thereby taking by ruse what the State should normally give them as compensation if it really cared about actual equality.
