It is not the same to have equality as to force the equality… Equality can not be forced… Below, I am going to try to explain why.
To force equality…:
- Is to uniform people according to the model followed by the equality concept at that moment. In others words, to make equality is to avoid diversity.
- Is to stop creativity because people do not see reality. In my country (Spain) there is a saying to show that idea: “necessity sharpens the wit”.
- Is to promote the envy in the people that do not have natural abilities to achieve the specified model according to the equality concept.
- Is to promote the big problems that envy often generates in society.
- Is to provoke other kinds of problems that, at the end, are worse than the benefits that we have if we force equality.
The process of equalisation (to make equality) in society has one essential mistake: it implies that everything can be classified as right or wrong… I think that is a big mistake because everything in Nature (even our societies) is “right”… The concept of right and wrong is a human being’s invention. Actually and theoretically, there is nothing absolutely right or absolutely wrong. These kinds of classifications are necessary in the normal cycle of social life but are counter productive if we want to analyse a complex or essential social issue, like the current one.
The ideal would be that everyone was socially perfect (remarks that it says socially not personally perfect). Under that condition, all of us could choose with liberty, without affecting the liberty of the others. To achieve that, all of us should assimilate a high humanity level. Probably, a level much higher than actually we have. We speak about a humanism very centred on the altruism value as a concept totally opposite to the egoism concept.
In a perfect society, all of us will act on our own benefit, whilst that does not mean a bigger loss to our neighbours. But that intuition level seems we have not got and the alternative is to achieve it by the intelligence and the humanistic reasons. But this way still seems more difficult than the instinctive one. The conclusion is that there are people that do not feel and do not understand that they must respect others and not for politeness or for religious or laws issues, but because they feel that they have to do it without any feeling similar to sacrifice. I think this is the most important educational item to be considered although it seems the most complicated as well.
For those people that do not have “inserted” the humanistic values (most unfortunately) and they can not live in a harmonious way in society, there is politics. According to the explained reasons, the politics must not be an obstacle to the individual freedom of people. Above all, the people that are really altruist do not need politics to do right at all times in their social environment. Thus, politics should consist of a set of minimum social rules to achieve a harmonious conviviality. An excess of political intromission would do that the general tendency was the equalisation instead of the promotion of freedom and the natural alternatives. And that situation is obviously wrong.
On the other hand, the politics should evaluate itself to control its intromission level constantly. But the only legal tool that we have to changes our current politics is democracy. But democracy by itself cannot fix that intromission problem because the people may be confused and choose a wrong way, of course. Therefore, democracy is not the enough tool to get a good government. Democracy just prevents the fascism of one or a little group of people but not the “fascism of the whole society against itself”… In other words, the ignorance of a society can condemn that society to hide a lack of freedom. Consequently, it seems that the only good tool to control the political intromission, that we are speaking of, is education. The humanistic education particularly.
By the way, the humanistic concepts involve the political concepts, not in the opposite sense. That means that to get good laws the most important feature is to get a good educational level to choose correctly for the whole society, not only for every one of us, individually.
The last interesting point to deal with is the hypocrisy of the society: Instead of accepting the differences, the people try to hide these ones, using the equality concept. People try to consider a difference as a bad thing, although they do not assume or they do not realise that. But it is a fact. That situation we may see in the controversial issue of the gender equality: The men and the women are not equals, is a fact. We are not physically equal and we are not psychologically equal either. Those facts should do think that we are being hypocrite when we want to level men and women. We are different and the only alternative to these differences is to accept and respect them, without trying to avoid them. If we try to level ourselves we will be being unfair to all of us because we will be cutting the individual and particularly options for ourselves.
In conclusion, there are no shorts cuts to avoid the main collateral effects of politics, at this case, the intromission that blocks the individual freedom. The only way is the “long road of education”. Particularly, the only right education: the humanistic education and all its similar ways (religious, for instance). All the ways that involve essential humanistic concepts should be enough. After that it is possible that the political value in these hypothetical societies was really insignificant because they would not need it.
Finally, independently of the ways to get a good government, it seems that the process of equalisation instead of the promotion of the differences in the society it does not seem a good option although at first sight it seems a very good option, even in the humanistic frame. For that last reason is necessary a deep analysis as it could be the current one.