Norsefire:
I do? What are they?
Left-wing ideals are immoral, in my opinion.
The best are best able to look after themselves, surely. The state should take care of the weak and needy.
I think society, through charity, ought to take care of the weak and needy; the best require the best of the resources, as they represent the valor and pride of a state.
Let's go back and remember what you are talking about. You started this by saying that people aren't equal. By "equal" you now say you mean "equality of character". So your claim is that people don't have "equal" characters. I don't really know what that is supposed to mean.
Some people are more honest, fairer, more intelligent, and more well-mannered and more moral than others; that is all I am saying. And they ought to be treated better because of that.
I don't know how you propose to judge who is "better" than whom.
I thought you'd know; after all, there is a "right" opinion, in your opinion.
And I don't know why you think the "better" people ought to get more privileges.
They are better; better, as in, more disciplined, harder-working, and more able. To the best, go the best.
It is called "elitism". Wikipedia is helpful here.
Except, an elitism of merit, not of money and power.
Elitists tend to favor systems such as meritocracy, technocracy... as opposed to radical democracy, political egalitarianism and populism.
Elitism is the belief or attitude that those individuals who are considered members of the elite — a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight or those who view their own views as so; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern.
Elitism in the context of education is the practice of concentrating attention on or allocating funding to the best students, or those students who rank highest in a particular field of endeavour. For example, a politician who promotes specialized biochemistry classes for students deemed by conventional structures to be highly intelligent in an effort to cure diseases might be accused of elitism.
If you don't know what meritocracy and technocracy are:
Meritocracy is a system of a government or other organization where in appointments are made and responsibilities assigned to individuals based upon demonstrated talent and ability (merit).[1] In a meritocracy, society rewards (via wealth, position, and social status) those who show talent and competence as demonstrated by past actions or by competition. Evaluation systems, such as formal education, are closely linked to notions of meritocracy.
This is opposed to other value systems, where reward and legitimacy is based upon possession of wealth (plutocracy), origin (aristocracy), family connections (nepotism), property (oligarchy), friendship (cronyism), seniority (gerontocracy), popularity (democracy) or other historical determinants of social position and political power.
Technocracy is a form of meritocracy, whereby appointments for positions are made based on demonstrated technical expertise.
Meritocracy is far more logical than democracy; and we are not equal.
No. As I have explained, there have been many cases where innocent people have been executed.
This isn't a good enough basis for halting the entire justice system; and, in essence, it's a fairly irrelevant point in the sense that there have been cases where the criminal is clearly guilty and this is obvious.
ar too simplistic. You're a hopeless idealist. You need to get into the real world.
It has to be that simple, unless you're saying it's okay to break the law.
