What is 'substantive equality'? Are we all going to have equal height and weight, with equal athletic ability, equal mathematical ability and singing ability, and equal income, equity and debts, are we? But if not, why not? If substantive equality is to be the criterion, why should anything less suffice? And if anything less does suffice, then that's not substantive equality, is it?

Substantive equality is literally meaningless. Even if it were achievable, which it's not, it would mean that no-one could obtain any advantage from entering into relations with others and it would spell the end of human society. If the author were equal with everyone else, she wouldn't write, and they wouldn't read, her article. The idea is just dreadful woolly thinking. It is meaningless, impossible, misguided and anti-social, all at the same time. It certainly should not be the basis of public policy, which should protect us from, not promote, the stronger using force or threats to bully the weaker. Yet what is forced redistribution but legalised bullying?

When you hear this phrase remember this other simple explanation I have for whats going on: its a backlash from the right and those who feel they're "born to rule". I grew up in a very high SES family so can speak for the worldviews of others than myself.

Peter Hume
"Equality does not mean an equal amount but equal opportunity. . . Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the forced equality of the convict camp. True equality implies freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the very reverse in fact. Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is equal opportunity to satisfy them that constitutes true equality. . . Free opportunity of expressing and acting out your individuality means development of natural dissimilarities and variations."

Hardly the situation currently under your beloved crapitalism is it Peter? Only the rich (think they) are free in todays perverted and greed driven system.

The REAL "politics of envy" is the constant bleating about the poor and powerless by the born to rule parasites in their Mercedes and their north shore mansions. Spending more on accountants than a pensioner gets to avoid paying more in tax than an unemployed person receives while begrudging the pittance it costs to assist some bipolar whino off the streets. Heartless, greed filled, spoilt bastards living in pampered luxury and not giving a damn about anyone else. Not only profiting off the suffering of the masses but actively doing everything they can to make sure everything stays organised to benefit them at the expense of everyone else.

mikk
Is that bitter and passionate diatribe the best you can do?
How about turning your mind to the actual merit of the argument: define substantive equality and how it would actually work in practice.

So there's going to be a great variety of tastes, talents, abilities, activities, careers, earnings, expenditure, capital accumulation and debt; but everyone's going to have an equal opportunity to do what they want? How would 'equal opportunity' ever be provided, and how would it avoid substantive inequality? What you are saying is self-contradictory.

But even if it weren't, why should everyone have an equal opportunity in the first place? They aren't equal; they can never be made equal; and the process to try to make them equal can never be equal.

It is not a coincidence that the only defence of this garbled vacuous notion immediately descends, on being questioned, into bitter invective and personal abuse. Ultimately the idea is unintelligible and its proponents have nothing else sensible to rejoin.

But if you do, then what are the answers to the questions? - and spare us the 'running dogs of the capitalist roaders' type rhetoric.

Everyone has an equal right to use their own person or property for their own purposes, subject to the equal right of everyone else to the same. But that is no justification for any forced redistribution.

People wanting not to have their property taken from them by force or threats are not 'parasites'. You've got it back-to-front.

There is no such thing as equality in a liberal, free enterprise society; there is just the opportunity for all to attain pretty much anything they want if they have the education, drive and whatever personal attributes it takes to be a success. Those of us who envy the successful and the rich, and those of us who couldn’t care less about ‘brilliant careers’ and money, have all had the same opportunities as the others. You don’t need rich parents to succeed in Australia; you just need interested parents.

‘Equality’ is an invention of the globally failed Communism. And, it’s better to be ‘unequal’ - if that’s how you see yourself, and that’s how you want to remain - in a free enterprise society than it is to be ‘equal’ in a socialist society where there is no hope of improvement.

But, much and all as I dislike the Labor Party and Comrade Rudd, I think that Nelson was totally wrong in accusing Gillard of playing the politics of envy game. Even Labor Governments know that they simply could not do without private schools and still provide an education system for Australian kids. I don’t believe for one minute that the current government is intent on queering the pitch of private schools. To compare them with the maniac, Latham, is totally unfair. The Rudd Government has stuffed up just about everything it has touched – except for education. The fact that they have the communistic teachers’ unions against them on the testing policy is proof enough of that. The government Nelson was part of did nothing for education in the entirety of its tenure - hence the ‘need’ for skilled immigration. And, Gillard deserves full marks for the MySchool website, Being willing to show how far behind private schools government schools are hardly indicates hatred or envy of the private sector

Never forget that Latham initially looked unbeatable, due to his embrace of class politics. When the press accused him of practicing class politics, he inexplicably distanced himself from the notion. We were never again entirely sure what he stood for and he no longer looked like winning.

This argument that class politics cost Latham the election suited the trendies in the press and the ALP, because they want the party to abandon representing the workers and rebrand themselves as progressive. It bears no scrutiny. Witness the way that Rudd won the last election on industrial relations, i.e. class politics. Obsessing over trendier causes has cost them far too many elections.

I see no reason why discussing income inequalities between genders and racial groups is legitimate while discussing inequality of income and opportunity between classes is mere envy. Bring back class politics.