Comments on: Equality & Equity http://www.iamjoshbrown.com/blog/2007/10/22/equality-equity/ irregularities and other absurdities Sat, 06 Mar 2010 04:23:50 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Punk Capitalism? | IAmJoshBrown http://www.iamjoshbrown.com/blog/2007/10/22/equality-equity/comment-page-1/#comment-70270 Punk Capitalism? | IAmJoshBrown Tue, 29 Jan 2008 05:00:40 +0000 http://www.iamjoshbrown.com/blog/2007/10/22/equality-equity/#comment-70270 [...] not able to enjoy, afford, or consume themselves. I’m not advocating for equality (but rather equity). Nor do I advocate a communist system where the government divides the pie up equally. But we need [...] [...] not able to enjoy, afford, or consume themselves. I’m not advocating for equality (but rather equity). Nor do I advocate a communist system where the government divides the pie up equally. But we need [...]

]]> By: Psalm 63:1 Over Georgia « Next Gener.Asian Church http://www.iamjoshbrown.com/blog/2007/10/22/equality-equity/comment-page-1/#comment-63870 Psalm 63:1 Over Georgia « Next Gener.Asian Church Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:09:10 +0000 http://www.iamjoshbrown.com/blog/2007/10/22/equality-equity/#comment-63870 [...] we are. So it’s a small change that we’re incorporating into our lives. I’m no Josh Brown, but it’s a [...] [...] we are. So it’s a small change that we’re incorporating into our lives. I’m no Josh Brown, but it’s a [...]

]]> By: Derek http://www.iamjoshbrown.com/blog/2007/10/22/equality-equity/comment-page-1/#comment-63859 Derek Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:47:51 +0000 http://www.iamjoshbrown.com/blog/2007/10/22/equality-equity/#comment-63859 Individuals are much better equipped to discern inequitable situations than the government is, and can also determine an appropriate course of action, (as well as demand an appropriate form of response in exchange). I think charity is a prime example of this - individuals can easily discern who truly needs assistance, and how much assistance they need, and who is slipping into pauperism by refusing to work according to their ability. Government laws have no way of discerning that - and, in fact, for the last 100 years socialism has been arguing that the government <i>should</i> dispense charity indiscriminately (a mantra which liberalism continues with today). <i>"there is no reason love, submission, and commitment can’t be a central or defining theme of a national politic."</i> Sure there is, because government can't enforce it. When it tries, it fails. Always. The government can neither appropriately demand love (or submission) nor can it appropriately dispense equity. I am convinced <i>true</i> equity only exists within the context of voluntary participation in community. As soon as participation is coerced, you lose the capacity of actions being out of love. This is central to the idea of the fall of man - God had to make our participation in His kingdom voluntary so that we would also know how to love. You can't have one without the other. Individuals are much better equipped to discern inequitable situations than the government is, and can also determine an appropriate course of action, (as well as demand an appropriate form of response in exchange).

I think charity is a prime example of this – individuals can easily discern who truly needs assistance, and how much assistance they need, and who is slipping into pauperism by refusing to work according to their ability. Government laws have no way of discerning that – and, in fact, for the last 100 years socialism has been arguing that the government should dispense charity indiscriminately (a mantra which liberalism continues with today).

“there is no reason love, submission, and commitment can’t be a central or defining theme of a national politic.”

Sure there is, because government can’t enforce it. When it tries, it fails. Always. The government can neither appropriately demand love (or submission) nor can it appropriately dispense equity. I am convinced true equity only exists within the context of voluntary participation in community. As soon as participation is coerced, you lose the capacity of actions being out of love.

This is central to the idea of the fall of man – God had to make our participation in His kingdom voluntary so that we would also know how to love. You can’t have one without the other.

]]> By: Josh http://www.iamjoshbrown.com/blog/2007/10/22/equality-equity/comment-page-1/#comment-63855 Josh Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:19:02 +0000 http://www.iamjoshbrown.com/blog/2007/10/22/equality-equity/#comment-63855 good points derek. especially the last sentence. although i think the same flaws are inherent whether its individuals practicing equity with each other or the government practicing with its citizens. and i think if justice and fairness are the high moral aim of individuals, then the government should at least make an attempt at equity. there is no reason love, submission, and commitment can't be a central or defining theme of a national politic. but i'm with you . . . it begins with the individual. good points derek. especially the last sentence.

although i think the same flaws are inherent whether its individuals practicing equity with each other or the government practicing with its citizens.

and i think if justice and fairness are the high moral aim of individuals, then the government should at least make an attempt at equity. there is no reason love, submission, and commitment can’t be a central or defining theme of a national politic.

but i’m with you . . . it begins with the individual.

]]> By: Derek http://www.iamjoshbrown.com/blog/2007/10/22/equality-equity/comment-page-1/#comment-63854 Derek Mon, 22 Oct 2007 16:12:14 +0000 http://www.iamjoshbrown.com/blog/2007/10/22/equality-equity/#comment-63854 I like the distinction. The government sucks at imposing equity, though, because statutory rules <i>are</i> black and white. Laws tend to allow loopholes and, at the same time, fail to take certain cases into account and thus end up causing unnecessary hardships. This is also related to why government charity doesn't work (people have a statutory claim to assistance, and thus it is too easily abused), and why government schooling seems to absurd sometimes (zero-tolerance abuses, like elementary school children being thrown in jail for slapping another kid's butt or expelled for accidentally taking a butter knife to school). I'm sure I could think of plenty of other examples if I took the time to do so. Laws are good for black and white cases, where a judge or a jury can consider whether or not a certain action or situation fits into one category or another. But to achieve equity requires things that the government cannot enforce. Namely, love, submission to one another, and commitment. I like the distinction. The government sucks at imposing equity, though, because statutory rules are black and white. Laws tend to allow loopholes and, at the same time, fail to take certain cases into account and thus end up causing unnecessary hardships.

This is also related to why government charity doesn’t work (people have a statutory claim to assistance, and thus it is too easily abused), and why government schooling seems to absurd sometimes (zero-tolerance abuses, like elementary school children being thrown in jail for slapping another kid’s butt or expelled for accidentally taking a butter knife to school). I’m sure I could think of plenty of other examples if I took the time to do so.

Laws are good for black and white cases, where a judge or a jury can consider whether or not a certain action or situation fits into one category or another. But to achieve equity requires things that the government cannot enforce. Namely, love, submission to one another, and commitment.

]]>