What... are you suggesting exactly

All I can think of is slavery, concentration camps, caste system, etc so you might want to add some context to your question

The short answer is, of course, no.

The longer answer (in my opinion) is that no, the premise that "all men are created equal" is not necessary, but all well-meaning citizens of such a republic ought to be afforded a small selection of basic rights. The right to life, dignity, etc. I'd have to think more upon the exact nature of those rights, but they should not be too extensive so as to avoid descending into the unsustainable state of modern nations in the west that cannot combat existential issues plaguing their existence because they have enshrined privileges into law as rights when they should have remained privileges reserved for those who shoulder additional responsibilities for the betterment of all.

I will when I get to a computer tonight. I thought to start the discussion now and let it develop, it's meant to be more open-ended than just what I'm thinking.

I guess in the most literal sense, I'm thinking of the Ancient Greek polis city-state system, which was fundamentally republican in nature (and the foundation of our own modern democratic systems), but which nonetheless clearly did not view all people as equals (as it had substantial franchise restrictions compared to our systems now).

Define what you mean by "created" and by "equal", please?

number 1. "created" at birth or at conception? (DERAIL ABORTION THREAD)

number 2. "equal" in rights or in status? (DERAIL SOCIAL CONTRACT THREAD)

I see this ending well

So this comment is absolutely and deliberately in violation of your bullshit "etiquette rules", and I will happily stop participating in this "totally rational intellectual debate" (those quotation marks indicate that those phrases should be read as absolutely dripping with sarcasm) because actually engaging with this kind of bigoted trash on it's own terms not helpful to anyone except for those who already have the most privilege.

Which is what all this comes down to anyway. The fact is that whether it's your "intention" or not, we all know that no one is going to enter this debate with the expectation that we're primarily going to find straight, cis-gendered, able-bodied white men to be inherently inferior. You've created this entire thread which will have the effect (again probably not explicitly intended) of implying that people who are already marginalized, must be so because they are inferior, and then give yourself a convenient way to to silence opposition when they call you on your bullshit.

Maybe consider the idea that the only reason you feel that it's possible or desirable to approach this debate "without emotion" (which is already a dubious claim to start with) is because your own dignity, humanity or equality is not really being questioned by it.

I'd also like to point out that that smug unconscious sense of your own superiority that you're enjoying right now telling yourself that leftist SJW's will obviously get all emotional trying to debate you, and only you are "rational" enough to keep emotion out of it... that feeling? That's an emotion too.

So fuck this so-called debate, and fuck your so-called etiquette rules.

The question can only be answered after a person identifies what their end goal for society is. Mine is personally the happiness and well-being of every individual living within it, some people have more self-interest answers, other think it is "efficiency", etc.

Once you've answered this, then you can talk about the way to get to that goal. I personally think that happiness and well being is achieved when people have equal rights and access to resources and choices. I do not think every person is created equal (some are born richer, some have more access to resources). And, I think this should be fixed.
^All of this is based off of the "clarification" you provided about the Greek poli state

But the idea behind the statement you quoted has more to do with whether or not people should be awarded the same rights in society. I absolutely think this is a necessity or we devolve into treating others as lower than us and limiting potential. I can't fathom people arguing that some deserve more than others. I don't understand why you created such a baiting thread. I want to like you, but you make it pretty difficult.

The state you're referring to was okay with things like slavery. Societies that do not think we are all equal in the most fundamental way all devolve into things like genocide and slavery. So yes, it is absolutely essential and even ND would agree me on this. People who don't, dare I say it - probably Nazis.

@Occam

damn. I didn't know you could 'lose' in a thread... but I think you just did. you're new around here, but if someone wants to be debate calmly and logically, and you start spewing out a bunch of colorful word garbage...

"I'd also like to point out that that smug unconscious sense of your own superiority that you're enjoying right now telling yourself"

This.

this is so beautiful. I never believed that psychics existed, until I started having debates with people who are unhinged. they KNOW your intentions.

"of implying that people who are already marginalized, must be so because they are inferior, and then give yourself a convenient way to to silence opposition when they call you on your bullshit."

interesting that he left the definitions vague, but was STILL referring to the greek system that had hierarchal structures in place. if you knew anything about PE, you'd know he's closer to a constitutionalist than a fascist, and does in fact believe in rights. the debate he wants to have, I'm almost certain, is on how these thought processes unfold. but maybe I'm wrong. I'M NOT GOING TO PRETEND TO READ HIS MIND XD hahaha

"So fuck this so-called debate, and fuck your so-called etiquette rules."

ah, and this is the point where you lost. just in case you were wondering

You wound me, DO.

Lol Occam, just mute James he's probably the 2nd worst person on the forum. For the longest time he was the worst but I think he's been replaced. I usually just don't read his posts because they're nonsense. but

"if you knew anything about PE, you'd know he's closer to a constitutionalist than a fascist, and does in fact believe in rights. "

lmao someone clearly doesn't know PE

Interesting thread.

Clearly people are created unequal. There are vast differences in intelligence, longevity, physical characteristics etc. You also have the social inequality that is a function of various factors, most of which can be summed up by family.

What is necessary is equality of rights for all. In order for a stable and prosperous society to function the right to good education, good health, and a dignified retirement are vital. It's also necessary for the potential for inequality to exist. There is no greater motivation to do well than to gain the ability to give you children a good start in life. Ultimately this means the ability to give them an advantage over their peers. Whilst it would be abhorrent to give your children an advantage by taking from others, being able to give your children extras should be encouraged. Ultimately the boost to the nation provided by this motivation will increase the background prosperity for all.

Let's forget about "created" and replace this by "should be considered as".

My answer is "yes" : the principle is mandatory in any "modern" "republican" system. And the cases when in practice in the not the case illustrate the why.

Equality of rights and treatment despite the facts that we are not equally gifted (by nature, by health, by cleverness, by birth in a given family and social level, by name, by area...) is what prevents strength and resort to force to solve disputes.

We behave a civilian way because we are equal. If we were not we would use one day or the other other ways of solving injustice. Tha's why in a Republic, ie a system built to live in society, equality is a central value.

In other words : +1 with Octavious.

You can look at the US government that uses that statement. In the current tax bill, if you aren't rich or powerful enough to get your special interest into the over 1000 pages, then you prove that the statement wasn't true or is being ignored in application.

Even if you accept that all men are created equal. They aren't treated equal. They may have a chance at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but for everything else good luck at getting it.

@Randomizer

and yet the ideology behind the progressive income tax dictates that people who make more must pay a LARGER proportion of their money in taxes... that seems unequal, should we scrap it?

God creates everyone unequal so the more equal can use their God-given talents to exploit the less equal.

People are quite blatantly born unequal. Class is the biggest differentiator there, and someone born rich ain't equal to someone born poor. Western society is built on that.

Should they be? Yes. Are they? No.

Jefferson is rolling in his grave. Now for my turn. Let us update the term men and say human beings. That would be close to his intent. Let us take created as he did in that there is something about a human being that is comes for nothing becomes something due to the influence of a higher power. He would say the term soul as adequate. If this something (soul) was created by this power (God or the Creator) it would be the same as all and another created. It has no physical manifestation but is associated with one individual human being or human body. The body itself is not equal but the soul associated with it is. Thus circumstance may have one body in a better position but the soul remains equal.

And as western society was founded with the Christian religion as a common philosophy or theosophy. I would say that yes it is not only desired but absolutely necessary or the whole western society will unravel without it.

@JamesYanik

"and yet the ideology behind the progressive income tax dictates that people who make more SHOULD pay a LARGER proportion of their money in taxes... that seems unequal, should we scrap it?"

I corrected you question since the rich get special provisions in the tax code that allow them to pay less as a percentage of their income than lower income payers.

For instance it's been speculated that Donald "I'm not going release my tax returns" Trump is paying no income taxes since as a real estate developer he can offset his income with loan losses made with other people's money. These losses don't come from his own money and aren't available to tax payers who make their money in other businesses.

A previous attempt to reform the tax code was done after it was found that CEOs at major corporations were paying less in total taxes than their secretaries. Not a percentage, but in dollar amounts.

@Randomizer,
That is completely and utterly ridiculous. Individuals with higher incomes pay far higher rates of tax than do people with lower incomes.

The reason why Trump had a number of years in which he paid no income tax, despite earning income, is due to what is referred to as "loss carry forward," which has always been in the tax code, applies for everyone and is both fair and reasonable.

People with higher incomes shelter their money so they have a lower adjusted taxable income. H. Ross Perot after he sold off his company to General Motors put most of his money into municipal bonds to pay less federal taxes. Trump's "loss carry forward" that I referred to is only available to those in the real estate industry and is different than ones used by us where we lose our own money in that he gets it even though the loss is not from his own money. Trump gets the loss because he structure his business to do pass through instead of having the business pay taxes.

Aside from that, there is an important consideration to keep in mind here. When advocates of the social system, as at least two of the users above have openly admitted to being, attack slavery, they are by implication, denigrating the system which they advocate. The social system is simply, at its core, a form of slavery. It is economic slavery. So, whenever it's advocates proclaim themselves to be opponents of slavery, we know that those proclamations cannot be taken seriously.

@Randomizer,
You are not understanding at all how it works.

Losses can only be deducted on a loan if you are liable for the losses. If you are not liable for the losses, then you can't deduct them. Only the person who accrues the losses can deduct them. You don't get a free deal. As far as pass through is concerned, it is irrelevant in this regard, because wages are deducted anyways in the Corporate tax structure.

The first part of your post makes absolutely no sense. Anyone can invest in municipal bonds, which are tax-exempt so as to protect the municipalities. The downside is that they have lower yields and can often be quite dangerous. As far as Perot is concerned, the underlying income was already taxed prior to investments being made and he then paid tax again when he sold the business. It is a capital gain.

"That is completely and utterly ridiculous. Individuals with higher incomes pay far higher rates of tax than do people with lower incomes."

Not any more. Good-bye Alternative Minimum Tax, and hello insane tax shelters for the rich.

Going to talk in earnest in an hour or two. Just chiming in to thank the vast majority of respondents, of very diverse political persuasions, for a civil and productive discussion. We've had some heated conversations in the last few days as a forum and I'm rather thrilled to see how this has gone so far. Thanks all. :)

*gets popcorn*

This turned into a very wordy obiwan-esque post that I don't really feel like trimming down, sorry in advance for the length.

I mentioned the Greek polis system as my inspiration for this thread earlier. I will admit to not having an especially deep understanding of the Greek polis system, so if I am misrepresenting some aspects of it, my apologies in advance.

It's my understanding that the Greeks restricted voting and citizenship to certain individuals within a particular polis. How and why exactly they chose their restrictions isn't something that interests me here, so much as whether those restrictions are per se incompatible with a Western republican form of government.

I think we can all agree that certain fundamental rights belong to all people living in a Western republic, irrespective of any other characteristic of their being (citizenship, race, sex, so forth). Part of being "Western" is the intrinsic recognition that all people should have the right to free speech, for instance, or free practice of their religion. Even if the West has a lurid history of not respecting those rights, we did eventually come to recognize these rights as universal and worthy of respect, and have shed a lot of our own blood to prove it.
Regarding the specific consideration of slavery that DemonOverlord mentioned, I feel pretty safe saying that we can possibly still glean something useful from the Greek polis, even if we recognize that slavery is obviously incompatible with a normal understanding of what it means to be Western in the current age, and that in this respect the Greeks were "behind" us.

My concern, and the reason for this thread, is that I think the current Western democratic states are facing an existential crisis of participation. I can only really speak from direct experience with America, but I've gotten anecdotal confirmation from friends living in Canada and various European states that similar trends are showing up. There is a deeply-entrenched sense of apathy among many people living in Western societies toward their governments, which in my mind is extremely dangerous for the long-term health of a democratic society.
There was a stat that a lot of liberals trotted out in the aftermath of the last presidential election here in the US that stuck with me and made me think. There are roughly 245 million people living in the United States that are of the legal age to vote. Only about 63 million of them voted for the current president. Just over half of them voted at all... both of those stats are evidence of a crisis to me.
There are myriad reasons for this particular statistic to come out this way, and I don't want to wander deep into the weeds on this one stat, but I remember civics classes in high school, and the alleged importance of adults being, if not politically active, then at least politically aware. I think it is safe to say that there's a crisis of awareness here.
Further, even among those who voted, how many put more thought into the election than the name of the party next to each candidate? Than to what their preferred news anchor or late night comedy host or preacher told them to vote?

I am wondering if perhaps the right to vote is taken for granted. The Greeks seemed to have a strong belief that the vote should be reserved for people who are actively invested in their polis, and not merely granted to every adult living in it; that there was a danger in allowing people uninvested in the polis to have such an important say in its direction. This concern seems only magnified to me in the modern era, where the average person is more atomized and less connected with the broader society in which they find themselves than any Greek could ever be within the polis. I wonder if we would be better off by not granting the vote to any adult who registers, but instead by requiring some kind of societal service -- military service is the most obvious one that comes to mind for me, but obviously there should be some path for civilians to earn the vote as well. The key is that by doing some kind of extra work for society in order to gain the ability to vote, the resulting voter will be more invested in the political future of the country they live in, and will thus be more likely to make informed decisions and to participate more frequently in making those decisions via voting.

The big philosophical issue that I see with this, from the standpoint of Western republics specifically, is that it blatantly flies in the face of the most famous treatise in Western republican history. "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal..."
If all men are created equal, then how could one ever justify not giving all men the right to vote?
There's an interesting apparent contradiction here, in that the Founders didn't actually extend this logic to voting rights anyway. They did originally limit the franchise to land-owning white men. A cynic might argue that that's because they didn't see men who didn't own land or weren't white as people (to say nothing of women, who are left out entirely), but it's also possible they didn't believe that this idea of equality necessitated that everyone have the right to vote.
In any case, whatever they believed, the subsequent expansion of the franchise to all adults who register came in part because of a strong, and very justified, belief that the idea that "all men are created equal" *does* necessitate giving all men the right to vote.

Ultimately I guess what I'm asking is -- does it? Can all people be equal in a Western republic that limits the franchise beyond "all adults who register to vote"?

That wasn't as bad as I thought. Never mind, get dunked, I'm not sorry for the length anymore.

They can certainly be created equal. There's no concept of remaining truly equal throughtout their lives inherent to the original phrase.

But ideally those who vote in a republic's elections should be those who own a stake in the nation - people who will be personally disadvantaged should conditions take a downturn. If people who are not invested in the wellbeing of the republic are given the opportunity to vote, surely they will vote for the measures that will provide them with the most free stuff - as is the case in many western nations at present - without a care for how that will impact the long-term prosperity of the republic. Why would they care? They can simply find somewhere else to live when it topples.

@ Eden

Interesting... I think the right to vote is taken for granted by many people, but I don't think that this matters a great deal. I disagree, actually, that it is an important say in my country's direction.

My vote is both important and irrelevant. It is important to me, because I have a strong desire to have my say, to contribute to the political debate, and reward those who fight for my beliefs. It is irrelevant to the nation because whether I voted or not has never made a blind bit difference to who won. Nor should it, of course. In a democracy of 70 million people a single vote really shouldn't have much more than an infinitesimal amount of power. My vote does make a difference, but by necessity from a national perspective that difference is tiny.

What is more important than actually voting is the right to free speech, the freedom to march and protest, the ability to influence others. Via those channels anyone who cares deeply and is willing to invest effort does indeed have the power to make a real difference. It is important that this option exists, it is important that the right to vote exists, but not so much the size of the percentage that exercise these rights.

What I will say on voter turnout is that it depends very much on the choice being offered. Where there is a clear difference, as with Corbyn and May in the last UK election, turnout is strong. Where the major parties have fought so strongly for the centre ground there is little difference between them, turnout is weak. In our last general election turnout was nearly 70% and May won more votes by far than anyone who's won an election I've taken part in.

It's a little off-topic but i'm not entirely convinced by the assessment that there's a significant difference between Corbyn and May. Two limpwristed remainers eager to bend over backwards to appease the authoritarians on the continent.

You reckon? May is a remainer forced by circumstance into implementing Brexit, whilst Corbyn is an enthusiastic Brexiter forced by circumstance into pretending to be a remainer who is being forced by circumstance to campaign for a soft Brexit.

But yes, let's not derail the thread :p

I'll happily concede apathy could well be tied to perceived similarity, though. How many times have we heard "They're all the same" re: politicians?

All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.

George Orwell - Animal Farm.

In a truly equal society everyone would have the same rights and opportunities and would be treated with dignity and respect.

Sadly our [global] society is full of inequality and human self-interest prevents it becoming so, despite the best efforts of governments and faith groups.

However, just because an ideal is virtually impossible to achieve dies not mean that we should not aspire to it.

@Jeff Kuta,
The current plan does not even eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Under the current plan, the only thing being done with the Alternative Minimum Tax is that the exemption is being raised. To do much more would have been very difficult due to the revenue problems associated with doing so.

I have a viewpoint which is morally horrible. If you consider the perspective of an animal-rights activist, animals should not be killed as they are capable of conscious thought. However, so are humans. Some capuchin monkeys, as I recall, can handle money, and understand basic principles (with the occurrence of prostitution being evidence of this) of it, so clearly they should be able to be ‘paid’ for tasks that they complete with money. If humans cannot grasp principles, they should not be trusted with it. I do subscribe to the view that all things have rights, and that humans must have some basic things, but that is most definitely not equal.

Now, to answer the question, I believe that the premise “All humans are created equal” is not essential for a Western republic, indeed, it is in direct contrast with the ideals of a Western republic, that the best rise to the top, as the idea of ‘best’ contrasts directly with equality. However, the principle that all humans deserve equal things, from birth for a Western republic, that I agree with as this allows the best to rise to the top. Now, this also allows for intelligent animals equally, as if they understand society, they can integrate. This means that the premise was extended to all, allowing for the judgement of everything purely on merit, as “All things should be given equal opportunities as they deserve it, up to a point at which they fail”. This prevents continual failures from all things.