[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I can accept that definition but it still doesn't stop the argument of how far we should push for equality in other areas, equal education for example, besides being a subject of someone else. There is still debate on how far should we go for equality which still means there isn't a clear cut line.

You throw "equality" around like it's the be all, end all, to every social ill. There has never been equality in anything, and I don't think it's achievable or in most cases desirable. What we should be striving for is trying to eliminate stumbling blocks for people to advance their personal achievement, but if the kid has an IQ of 75 he's not going to Harvard, no matter what tools we give him.
Give every kid a solid basic education in the 3-Rs, then in High School provide different paths to choose from that will prepare them to make their way in the world.

And also, do you think you could truly be free of being controlled by someone more powerful than you in a hierarchical system? Do you think we have equality in your definition in the United States right now?

There is no equality and no system that's not hierarchical. If you chose to live in a society, rather than Ted Kazinski's cabin, then you have to deal with it, like everyone else. But, unlike the commie states, you still have the free choice of the cabin.

I was talking about biologically natural, we are not born with money and we can grow it within ourselves without taking it from someone else, I should have been more specific.

Biologically, there is even less equality than politically.

This assumes that this is the only way to survive, just because we evolved a monetary system doesn't mean it is impossible to survive without this specific kind. A communal society works much differently than a individualistic one.

Been there, done that, from Shakers to hippie communes. They all failed.

And the idea of the paycheck is not what I think is as so unnatural but the idea of one person gets a greater chunk than someone else is a idea that started only a few thousand years ago. People in hunter-gatherer societies didn't have one person with all the food while others starved. The fact that humans have lived both ways make the argument of a hierarchal system determining who can eat or not being natural or unnatural pointless.

No, the guy that shot the dear shared it with the others, but he still got the best cut. That's the way it's always been, commensurate reward for value. It doesn't matter that 12 other hunters worked just as hard, if they didn't produce results.

I will agree that there will never be a truly classless society but you can change it to a much different level than we have today.

Not unless the people want it, and I don't hear much clamor except from a few idealists.

You can have leadership in a classless society. If you have a company where the manager makes the same as workers you have a classless system with leadership. It is impossible to have a hierarchical free society, which does not mean class even though they are very closely related.

Your right, a manager that takes on the responsibility and accepts the same compensation as the workers, has no class.

It is a representation of a reward for societies value of skill and effort. Just because a manager makes 50 times more than a worker does not mean the manager is 50 times more skilled or put in 50 times more effort, just that society values a manager 50 times more than a regular worker.

No, not society's value of skill and effort. Society doesn't determine jack shit. It's the boss, the owner, of the business that determines the value of skill and effort, and determines the compensation, not society.

In a communist society, the idea is that the social value of a manager and regular worker is the same therefore they should be paid the same.

And communist societies don't work.

Thats bullshit, the idea of white supremacy is that whites are more advanced biologically than people of color so the people of color didn't have the same rights as whites.

What the fuck are you talking about? You said whites and blacks "were told to be equal". I presumed you were talking about the civil rights movement and federal court rulings/legislation. They were not told to be equal, they were told not to fuck with each other.

Now, it is socially accepted that whites and blacks should have the same rights.

You're dreaming. "Socially accepted" is a bullshit term that means nothing, except politically correct. It's politically correct to say that whites and blacks should have the same rights, but that doesn't mean everyone feels that way... ask any skinhead. It doesn't even guarantee a majority feel that way, it just means they'll agree in polite (PC) conversation.... and polls. The truth is in their actions.

Its contrary to our western nature and is very unlikely for a western society to change to a society that will minimalize class. I am not a pro-classless society anyways, I am just against the extremity of the class society we have now.

It's contrary to human nature, there was always chiefs and shamans in every society.