If everybody is "good", then there are no bad ones.... but there also no any great ones anymore.

And if convoy with many ships should move in the same speed, all have to adjust their speed to: the slowest one....

That's what I often think.

So, I really hate all this bullshit about all created equal and having equal opportunity. And the sooner it'll be all dropped - the better.

The phrase "created equal" just affirmed that the U.S. wouldn't enshrine in law the privileges of a hereditary aristocracy; that special privilege would not be conferred at birth. Similarly, "equal opportunity" says nothing about uniformity -- just that the wealth of the parents should not be the means by which the child's social privilege and opportunity is determined.

Of course, none of these things are true in the U.S., but do you really want to argue that because denying inherited privilege goes against nature, we should accept a permanent hereditary aristocracy?

Just small addition. To fight connections and knowledge advantage you need to understand how hierarchical systems work. As this is natural way how monkeys like to organise things.

Take any big problem and you'll find one or more of hierarchical systems that are interested in present situation :-)

Most reforms ideas and attempts are stupid. As they do not account two things - changes in available technology and hierarchical systems. If you want to advance society you need to use all available technologies and destroy and rebuild from scratch organization scructures.

@tetakpatak

Monetary system is just byproduct. Important one, but it is not absolute core.

Core is always in monkeys nature and in the principles necessary for current systems survival.

@VK I dont understand exactly your problematic. As far as I have understood, you say :

1/ elite wanting to "smooth out all real and natural things" (you disagree)

2/ then you say : "any system that goes against nature is unstable"

3/ then your option is some kind of starting from scratch for things to change.

You should consider that option 1 is for stability. Elite wants statu quo and putting all things equal to the low level (income, social protection, etc.). Your option (#3) is very unstable.

While competition has been a way for our past existence, so has cooperation. I don't take a priori that large systems based on cooperation simply cannot work. I favor trying something new.

In the US, there are two types of elites. One elite, wants to maximize his position and power, but keep the system sustainable. Hence, Warren Buffet calls for a more progressive tax structure. He likely believes in some form of fairness.

The other type of elite wants to maximize his positions and ignores the world external to his immediate reality. This would be like the Koch brothers. If there's money that has not been acquired by his class and his allies, he will influence government using money, attempt to gather it. He is perfectly content in a world full of starvation, most of it caused by the knowing actions of his class (the suffering in the US at the minimum). But he doesn't want a fair competition. He only wants a competition that he knows he'll win. Hence, he buys elections, he attempts to use lobbyists to rewrite laws against the masses ( "Right to Work"), fights for deregulation, fights against any and all form of taxation. He wants to cut any and all redistribution of currency to the workers with the exception of police and military expenditure (i.e. he utilizes political power to revoke welfare, medicare, medicaid, public education). He disregards that if money fails to be redistributed, it accumulates at the top through many cycles of profits, unemployment goes up, and starvation eventually occurs, as food and raw materials don't simply go down, as they are determined at a global level. He apparently ignores that he may destabilize the system to the point that the masses revolt. Or, thinking that the guns are all on his side, he simply doesn't care. This is the worst kind, an absolute madman.

In the context of that, I don't think the often conflicting needs of elites want "smoothing." Because currencies differ across borders, they maximize their exploitation through these currency differences. They want to pay workers $2/day, and they can pull that off in the third world if the dollar is high.... More accurately, I believe they want a systems that maximizes their individual capability to exploit from their personal positions of capital (some are bankers, others are oil, more yet are defense - interests overlap, and occasionally conflict in unexpected manners). Please explain how "smoothing" occurs in the present society?

To reiterate, they want goods and services to travel (aka, free trade), yet simultaneously, they don't want things to smooth by allowing labor to flow freely across borders in response.

On the other hand, when we talk about media, I see a large degree of cultural and ideological "smoothing." The dominant culture sells its movies, its packaged brand, form of stories and advertisement. These become adopted by the 1st world bourgoeis of the 3rd world, and are thereby imposed on the 3rd world masses as the way things work, a priori, and the cultural past gets rewritten.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev I should have better contextualized. "Free trade" that works toward their elite advantage. I realize their are import/export taxes between countries.

Separately, I should have also added that they don't want free hands out to the masses, but they want their business subsidized by the government (oil subsidies, bank bailouts). Essentially, "Everything for me and my small group. Absolutely nothing for you, save for a few pennies so you can continue being enslaved."

You people may or may not have seen this, I just add it as it is a part of the explanation of the current system in discussion here. I found it interesting mostly as it is an easy way to transmit the information to others (most people have absolutely no clue about the system we live in):

I had a long discussion with this online with an author who absolutely despised the idea of equality.

I think it comes down to this: we are certainly not born equal. And we do not grow into (at least semi?) self determined beings with all the same life advantages.

But shouldn't we be governed in a way that is agnostic to most of our differences?

I do wonder sometimes about the myriad of ways in which we are different, and senselessness of attempts to actively eradicate those differences. There are two sides to this.

Obviously, except for sex organ function, there is no clear division between the jobs that men and women are capable of. All men are not stronger or smarter than all women. There is more overlap than there is difference. And I suspect that the statistical outliers for intelligence overlap completely. Same with many other areas that are typically part of discussions of discrimination. Religious belief, gender, race, and sexual preference do not generally define ones skill set in the work place or one capacity in general. (Influence, perhaps, but I'd argue against them determining much.)

The other side of this is: should a church be able to refuse to hire an atheist, just because they're an atheist? Should churches get tax breaks? What about atheists then? Should public schools teach religion? Is affirmative action fair? Should a church be forced to perform a marriage ceremony they don't agree with? Are there places where a burqa should be banned for security purposes? Should a government prohibit the subjugation of women? Where does religious tolerance end?

If there were no countries and no borders to stop free travel anywhere, who's rules would we go by?

Are there things that we just should not make rules about, no matter when/where/who/what you are? (I think there are.)

Obviously, except for sex organ function, there is no clear division between the jobs that men and women are capable of.

This is not true. Man and woman have significan brain difference and significant hormones difference. I am not talking about pure strength here. So, I am not supporting equality here.

As for church. Is it just other form of opression. Dumbling down poor species.

@Vitaliy_Kiselev What recommendations/improvement would you make in recreating organizational structures?

@Micah Not born with equal financial positions or equal capabilities or equal backgrounds does imply or get us to people deserve the inequality they grow in to. As in, the existence of the present state of things is not sufficient as a moral justification for the state of things. Some sort of knowledge construction and/or logical principles should be applied. The ownership class relies on Locke, ignoring that the appropriation of others' labor might not be a moral just thing (wages, etc.), or also ignore that many transfers of land wealth that were legitimized are in fact quite questionable in terms of their morality. I personally prefer John Rawls, in the general sense. As far as borders, these borders are constructed by men for men, and I in no way find the legitimacy of borders ascertained, pragmatic or not. If we had a fair system, wealth and labor would be able to travel, and balance out trade gaps. It's one of the hypocrisies of our "semi" free system.

What recommendations/improvement would you make in recreating organizational structures?

I'll be slowly coming to this. No simple solution exist and I do not know complete solution either. I am talking about it for long time here, yet people continue to search for ones :-)