"Those who see their lives as spoiled and wasted crave equality and fraternity more than they do freedom. If they clamor for freedom, it is but freedom to establish equality and uniformity. The passion for equality is partly a passion for anonymity: to be one thread of the many which make up a tunic; one thread not distinguishable from the others. No one can then point us out, measure us against others and expose our inferiority."
--Eric Hoffer, The True Believer, 1951

that's some crazy communist 1950's imagery. equality and uniformity are not the same and if you think that people that crave equality also crave uniformity read Multitude by Hart and Negri, uniformity is not the name of the game. Keep up on the game and note that just because he's old doesn't mean he's worth repeating.

On the contrary, r.c., complete equality would be uniformity. (In fact, complete equality might imply identity -- without even numerical distinctness.) If the equality you seek is not uniformity, it must not be complete equality, but equality only in some certain respect. Then we will have to determine which aspects of persons deserve equality and which don't.

I happen to like equality under the law. Screw the rest.

skeptic: People are not numbers, there is no possibility of achieving uniformity, I don't even know what that means; would we all have the same haircut? I can see how in a very shortsighted way how you assume equality and uniformity must go hand in hand. Hoffer is getting dangerously close to some bad ideologies when he equates equality with hiding inferiorities. Seriously though read Multitude if you don't understand how equality can exist outside of uniformity.

Skeptic didn't say equality could not exist outside of uniformity. She said "Complete" or "Perfect" equality could not. If we were completely equal, yes, we would all have the same haircut.

Skeptic correctly points out that it is very likely that you do not desire complete equality, but rather desire equality in some specific regard, such as economic outcome.

Thanks BenT.

I was suggesting, r.c., that you should articulate which types of inequality between people you were willing to tolerate, or even celebrate, and which types of equality you would demand. Just talking about equality without spelling this out is rather dumb.

And, btw, it is not terribly unrealistic to think that some people like equality so much that they really yearn for identity. Look at North Korea, for example. Or, to take a much more mild example, look at how some people hate rank or hierarchies of any sort, whether in school, church, society, or government.

Alright, so apparently I have no idea what you two seem to understand as "complete" or "perfect" equality.

Skeptic, I kind of breezed past your initial closing comment, "I happen to like equality under the law. Screw the rest." I think this is probably close to what I'm thinking of, however I don't understand what equality outside of the law would be...

Here's a question though, what would equality under the law entail? For example our current system uses monetary fines as a form of punishment. In the case of a speeding ticket a multi-millionaire is affected much less than a high school student working a part time job. Are these two individuals equal under the law?

and Skeptic I also sort of lost you on the last paragraph. You said, "And, btw, it is not terribly unrealistic to think that some people like equality so much that they really yearn for identity" I don't get what you mean, your statement seems to back up what I was saying namely that people enjoy equality and within, or even through equality, establish their identity.

On this case of opposing hierarchies it seems that one could oppose a hierarchy precisely because it legislates uniform behavior, such as the military or even a church setting (you should see the old ladies stare at my dreadlocks when I go to Christmas mass with my grandma).

All in all, I think you two bring up more reasonable points than Hoffer, I feel his quote is antiquated and doesn’t adequately reflect any real persons political desires. Another reason this quote doesn’t bear repeating is the atrocious manner in which its written, I mean the subject is “they” in the beginning “If they clamor for freedom...” but by the last sentence Hoffer is talking about “us” “No one can then point us out, measure us against others and expose our inferiority.” I don’t know...

r.c.

rc: hierarchies do not necessarilty prescribe uniform behavior. And the Church doesn't care at all if you have locks or a mohawk.

"Here's a question though, what would equality under the law entail? For example our current system uses monetary fines as a form of punishment. In the case of a speeding ticket a multi-millionaire is affected much less than a high school student working a part time job. Are these two individuals equal under the law?" -R.C.

The parking ticket in general is a piece of sloppy law, imo. Either you parked in a place where you infringed on someone's property rights, and therefore you have to pay whatever it is they feel compensates them (or suffer the consequences, whatever they happen to be) or you didn't violate anyone's property rights, and therefore shouldn't have to pay any sort of ticket.

But paying the state is always ridiculous. You should be paying the owners of the property that you parked on.

Of course you might be parked on state property, but that just muddles the whole thing further. Overall I think its just sloppy law.

To answer your question, they are equal under the law, because the purpose of the law is to restore justice to he who was infringed upon, regardless of who infringed upon him. How much it will hurt the person who did the infringing is irrelevant, since it was they who originally breached the rights of others.

Thanks Ben-T for you nuanced treatment of parking tickets, although I was writing of speeding tickets, and really only as an example of the lack of equality in a monetary fine when for some people money is of no concern and for others fairly hard to come by, any crime for which the legal punishment is calculated in dollars would do to make the point.

Obviously one can always argue from one perspective that the punishments are equal as long as the fines are equal. However the aspect that I'm refering to is that to a wealthy individual the monetary fine in hardly a deterrent and to a poorer individual the punishment is of a much greater magnitude.
To go back to your parking violation: how is it determined how much parking on state property hurts the state? Especially because they would essentially rent you the space for (example) $1 an hour, but if you fail to pay, the fine is $15 the law is clearly trying to be a deterrent more than a restoration of justice to the infringed upon party.

r.c.

On the monetary issue:

Yes I agree that a monetary fine hurts some more than others. This is another failing of state law. In private law (I should probably get out of the way that I am a libertarian, not a conservative) monetary fines would be one of many ways of dealing with a situation.

Its impossible for the state to know for sure how much it should receive for a speeding ticket. It simply sets a price (and a speeding limit) at its whim, and then subjects people to it.