(Original post by davireland)
You can never achieve equality as human beings are not all the same, some are more suited to business or politics than others so there will always be a group of more wealthy or more powerful human beings no matter what the system (e.g. Communist Russia to take a Communist example). A system which considers equality as its driving force surely by nature ignores the unique talents which make people great and through ignoring this you are putting society at a disadvantage, it would not be a society of talents but simply a society of generalisation. So why bother with the principle of total equality?
Equality is very easy to misuse. Don't think that we're saying, like in Maoist China I believe, that people with no sense for business (like me), with little intelligence and zero training are equal to businessmen
in terms of running a corporation
. We accept that people are different and are suitable for different roles, most of which are very important in Society, although perhaps not equal (compare the refuse worker with the CEO, it's obvious which one is more important). We're not even arguing for equal pay (well I am, but let's pretend for the moment that I'm not).
So what are we arguing for? It boils down to equality of opportunity. The state in which no matter who your parents were, no matter what your background, you have the same opportunity of primarily health and education as anybody else. This, as I understand it, is our principle deviance from the Libertarian point of view. Some of our views are actually quite similar, at least in theory. We are against big government, unnecessary taxes, too many regulations, unacceptable restrictions of freedoms. It's just the our definitions are a little different to other people's
There's something else that I wanted to say that ties together all of the above, but I now can't remember what it was