Equity - Gramsci, you bastard

This picture is sooo irritating isn't it? ...

Why are the people black / brown?  It's the same in nearly all of the google images of the same cheesy depiction ...

https://www.google.com/search?q=equity&tbm=isch

It's so patronising, blatantly racist in fact.  It's saying "Black and brown people need Equity, not anyone else".

Equity is not privilege.  It's not something that's granted on the basis of race, creed, gender, identity, or any other category of human beings.  The sole criteria of Equity is income.  If you don't have the income to afford "the things without which harm will come to you", like food, clothing, shelter, health, education, energy, information, and transport, then Equity is there for all equally, irrespective of race, creed, gender, identity.  It isn't a racist, sexist, hetero-phobic privilege, like job quotas and worthless university degrees.

It may be that when you do Equity properly on the basis of income you find certain categories of people over or under represented.  So what?  The job has been done.  They're no longer suffering, whoever they are.  And if you are peculiarly worried about a category of people, well, they've been picked up in greater proportion if they were in greater proportion.  So your racist, sexist, hetero-phobic peccadillos need not surface to piss off the rest of us.

The Left Axis has appropriated and distorted this Libertarian concept just like it appropriated and distorted the word Liberal.  Instead of a term compatible with Equality under the umbrella of Liberty, it is now a term denoting arbitrary privilege.  A fresh addition to the lexicon of authoritarianism today, like the word Liberal that was added in times past.

Equity was a vitally important word for the Left Axis to appropriate in modern times.  In the hands of the Right it would have spelt an end to the statist empires and civic agencies dominated by the Left Axis, packed as they are with wokies, BLM, Antifa, green blobbers, and all manner of oxygen thieves on privilege quotas with worthless university degrees.  In the hands of the Right it was the very Alt-State itself: quite literally a state bypass, the means by which to eliminate need and preserve individual freedom.

It is no surprise that the Right of the Tory party, the folks like Iain Duncan Smith who wince at BoJo's blue socialist agenda, were the pioneers of Universal Credit; UC being the first baby step towards the full and proper instantiation of Equity, agnostic of race, creed, gender, identity, or any other category of human beings, namely UBI (Universal Basic Income).  They saw it as the tool of the Right that it was, backed up by Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Hayek and Friedman.

Little wonder Gramsci's descendants appropriated Equity.  The nice sounding words of the Right that get votes and deliver real prosperity for all with individual freedom needed appropriating and distorting.  Liberal and Equity didn't stand a chance.

The sooner the Right in America re-appropriate Equity the better.  Call it "Negative Income Tax" if you wish to take the sting out of its currently appropriated association with the Left Axis.  That re-associates it with Ronnie and Maggie's ideological leading light Milton Friedman who actually coined the phrase, so the wrinklies on the Right don't choke on it - like the word Liberal was swapped for Libertarian in Right circles when it was lost to the Left.

If your enemy wants it, stop him getting it.  Do anything, but do not lose this word.

SoD

Comments

[The Jannie]

Not only do the left steal our cash and waste it, they steal our words and misuse them.

[Loz]

Far more succinct than me, Jannie.

SoD

[Whitewall]

"Equity" is a devilish word in some cases when in the hands of devilish people with bad intent. Equity today is a soft word hiding another vile ideology as if the 20th century never happened.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2021/01/deep-meaning-of-equity.php

[Loz]

That article is in step with what I'm saying about the distortion of equity by the Left Axis towards race, creed, gender, identity, etc.

I also agree that total redistribution that equalises all outcomes for all people is not acceptable.

The distinction I make, and you pick it up in Smith, Mill, Hayek and Friedman, and is normally preceded by something like this: "And if you have to do it, do it as far away from the state as possible, directly to the people ..." Quite rightly, the foot dragging, the "Awww, do I 'ave to?" tone comes through. Then it goes on: "... and never more than need; not luxury, or any surplus above that required to alleviate suffering, and always in exchange for presence in a work place".

I'll take that Whiters, if it tips the balance at the next election.

SoD