My Twitter posts

Friday, November 6, 2015

Equality Versus Equity Or When Justice Prevails

Today topic : Equality ( and parity) is not always justified, equity is. I'm already seeing the comments coming: ''What!? You are against equality!? Are you a **** !?'' Hear me out first. I will start by defining what both concepts refers to. Equality is, for social issues, treating every party involved equally. No one get any advantages, no one is penalised. Equality of opportunities , not of outcomes, that what parity is about. Communism for exemple, is , by definition, very equal( since everyone is paid the same amount of money, and no one have more privileges than his comrades). The problem is that by ignoring individual differences for the sake of the majority, injustices start to appear. That's inequity. One extreme exemple of equality as an excuse for inequity, is an hospital without a ramp for wheelchairs. The director of that hopital could stupidly defend himself by saying ''We treat everyone equally, everyone is free to use our stairs.'' That's seems dumb, because, well, poeple in weelchairs can hardly use those stairs, but in essence that director is right, they do treat people equally, but that doesn't mean it's fair for everyone. That dumb exemple can be applied similarly  to many equalifying policies that cause or would cause some misdirected injustices. For exemple, we can't treat women the same way we treat men in the workplace, not because they are women but because  their reality as women is different than men: they get pregnant, an thus need  fully paid maternity rest ( which i'm in favor of, for both sexes, in case you were wondering), they have menstruations and can't hold their pee as long as men, and thus need more frequent bathroom breaks ( don't laugh or roll eyes, that's a real thing), they generally pay more for their basic needs, either because they have more of them, like tampons, that are an additional expense women have, or  for different reasons ( like women products being anormaly more expensive than the same products for men, like deodorants and the likes[EDIT 18-03-2016: That article date back to when I was still kinda a feminist, and it shows. Sigh.])  it cost them more to fulfill their basic needs. Thus I think women should not have an equal salary. They should have an higher base salary than men (Edit 03-02-2016:  I don't actually think that anymore, that last sentence was kind of dumb, feminist brainwashed statement, the real point I was trying to make was that if you don't have any reason to treat someone inequally so it can be fair for everyone then by default equality is probably the best thing to ask for). Another exemple where equality could become injustice: Universal Base Income For All or (or as some people call it, Free Money For Everyone). If you don't know what it is I will make an article explaining this soon enough, but for now remember that the base idea is: We get rid of all programs that give people money or credits in certain conditions ( Student grants/scholarships, retirement pension, food stamps, disabled grants and social welfare to name a few) for an unique monthly allocation, with abolutely no conditions except being a citizen of a certain age ( probably eighteen years old).  The amount each of us would receive would be the same and more than enough to make most of us live a modest life, and that is without considering that you could still make money from working and none of that base income would be taken away from you either directly or by taxes, for that, it's very different than social welfare. So you get the basic idea. It's a great idea and I love it for different reasons, but there something that bother me: if we applied this policy would the disabled, pregnant women, or students for exemple, would get more money? They, after all, have different needs that require an extra amount of cash. Disabled people in wheelchairs, requires ramps, special transportation, and if they got no supportive friend or family member, paid assistance. Those are, in my opinon, basic needs that the Universal base income should take into consideration, otherwise those people life quality could lower drastically, but actual drafts of the project seems to forget that. Also would the people getting retired would all get the same amount? or would the old formula Own contribution + Government contribution would still apply? So that's all for now ont this subject, I hope you liked it and understood what I meant, if not, please comment and I will adress your inquiries. -KeLvin