By Robert Kaplan
Everyone loves equality: equality of races, of ethnic groups, of sexual orientations, and so on. The problem is, however, that in geopolitics equality usually does not work very well. For centuries Europe had a rough equality between major states that is often referred to as the balance-of-power system. And that led to frequent wars. East Asia, by contrast, from the 14th to the early 19th centuries, had its relations ordered by a tribute system in which China was roughly dominant. The result, according to political scientist David C. Kang of the University of Southern California, was a generally more peaceful climate in Asia than in Europe.
The fact is that domination of one sort or another, tyrannical or not, has a better chance of preventing the outbreak of war than a system in which no one is really in charge; where no one is the top dog, so to speak. That is why Columbia University’s Kenneth Waltz, arguably America’s pre-eminent realist, says that the opposite of “anarchy” is not stability, but “hierarchy.”
Hierarchy eviscerates equality; hierarchy implies that some are frankly “more equal” than others, and it is this formal inequality — where someone, or some state or group, has more authority and power than others — that prevents chaos. For it is inequality itself that often creates the conditions for peace.
Government is the most common form of hierarchy. It is a government that monopolizes the use of violence in a given geographical space, thereby preventing anarchy. To quote Thomas Hobbes, the 17th century English philosopher, only where it is possible to punish the wicked can right and wrong have any practical meaning, and that requires “some coercive power.”
RealClearWorld – The World Is Marching Toward Anarchy
If the current world is in a hierarchy, then the decline of the world’s leading empire (the US) pushes the world in the direction of anarchy.
He quoted Jack Kennedy but sounded more like Lyndon Johnson.
In an audacious State of the Union address Tuesday, President Barack
Obama made sweeping proposals to reduce poverty, revive the middle class
and increase taxes on the “well off.” While careful to not declare it
outright, an emboldened second-term president laid out an agenda that
could be called a “war on inequality.”
“There are communities in this country where no matter how hard you
work, it is virtually impossible to get ahead,” Obama declared in a
blunt attack one a core conservative credo. “And that’s why we need to
build new ladders of opportunity into the middle class for all who are
willing to climb them.”
Obama’s LBJ Moment: The War on Inequality Is the New ‘War on Poverty’ – Atlantic Mobile
If there is a war on inequality, then that must mean Obama wants everyone to be equal. The effect of this is punishment of success and subsidization of failure. Of course, we know the rule: Whatever you punish you will get less of, and whatever you subsidize you will get more of. The push for equality doesn’t make the country a better place. It makes it a worse place as we all become equally miserable.
Take ObamaCare for example. California doesn’t have enough doctors, so everybody is going to have to wait, or the standards are going lowered for healthcare providers . In the past it was the unsuccessful who waited or accepted lower quality care. Now it is the successful being punished too. ObamaCare is punishment for the successful in order to subsidize the unsuccessful. Also, now the unsuccessful have less of an incentive to improve their own lives because there is less pain for stupid decisions.
Xi’s language was unusually direct for a top leader, indicating his seriousness about the problem, but his speech gave few indications of how the party could better police itself, said Jean-Pierre Cabestan, a political scientist at Hong Kong Baptist University.
“He used strong words. It was clearly a warning: ‘We have to do something about this,’” Cabestan said. “Clearly, for him, the crux of the matter is corruption. The trouble is, of course, that he doesn’t tell us much about what are going to be the efficient tools or weapons he will put together to fight corruption.”
The Associated Press: China’s Xi warns party of corruption scourge
Corruption and extreme inequality of wealth between regions are two important factors concerning China today according to Chinese leaders. However, there is a problem. Even if the leaders fix these problems somehow, it probably won’t matter all that much.
We know from my prior analysis of collapse models that the number one factor affecting societies is time. When a relatively rigid system like China’s communist party takes over, the clock immediately starts counting down to collapse. This collapse is built into the system. The countdown is for about 70 years. Since the communists took over in 1949, that would mean 70 years later brings us to 2019. Obviously, a collapse doesn’t have to happen at exactly 70 years, but one can see that thoughts of revolution are already entering the minds of a lot of people. It’s going to be difficult to shake that.
At last, an explanation for Wall Street’s disgrace, Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme and other high-society crimes and misdemeanors: A new study published in the Proceedings of that National Academy of Sciences found that wealthier people were more apt to behave unethically than those who had less money.
Scientists at the University of California at Berkeley analyzed a person’s rank in society (measured by wealth, occupational prestige and education) and found that those who were richer were more likely to cheat, lie and break the law than those who were poorer.
“We found that it is much more prevalent for people in the higher ranks of society to see greed and self-interest … as good pursuits,” said Paul Piff, lead author of the study and a doctoral candidate at Berkeley. “This resonates with a lot of current events these days.”
“This has some pretty clear implications,” said Piff. “Inequality is very much on Americans’ minds, and the potential effects of severe inequality on individual levels of behavior are major.”
Are Rich People Unethical? – Yahoo! News
We knew this had to be true based on the rules of modern liberalism.
- All outcome for an individual or nation can be no better or worse than any other.
- If an outcome is found to be better, then they must have cheated.
- If an outcome is found to be worse, then they must have been victimized.
- The amount a victim lashes out is directly proportional to the victimization.
- It is the successful group or cheater group who is doing the victimizing.
- Good behavior leads to a better outcome.
- Bad behavior leads to a worse outcome.
Although the study applies only to individuals, the same must be true with successful countries, cultures and civilizations. The successful – the rich – got that way by cheating. Or at least that’s what liberals have always known. Now they have a study to back it up.