Logically, the existence of social rules based upon violence reduces or eliminates the need for the negotiation of difference. If everyone has a place and a duty–the most obvious case of this again being Hindu India, where until recently everyone had a Varna and a Jati–then what you think, and how you feel, are matters of consequence only to your immediate associates.
As I have said, economic equality can be had, easily, in slavery. You lock people in a cage together–as in Cuba–and throw them all equal rations. You whip them when they protest, and then offer those who are compliant putrid scraps from an already meager table, such as a free cot when they are sick, a mediocre education suffused with Party Propaganda, to train for a profession which does not exist and cannot be practiced, or a house in poor repair that was someone’s pride in 1950.
But for GENUINE equality you need emotional intelligence. You need to be able to swim in social oceans, to bob up and down with skill in the waves of emotions, moving boundaries and expectations, and evolving and differing purposes. You have to be able to be yourself, to be content and happy on your own, and to connect with others, even when they are changing, moving, evolving, and sometimes calm and sometimes agitated, sometimes clear and sometimes confused.
In my own world, I see room for both political parties as they exist in America today. We might call the Democrats the “compassion” crowd, and the Republicans the “Justice, fairness, and security” crowd. Now, both groups have people within them who routinely abuse the words that they know create responses.
As I think about it, the hard Left in the Democrat Party bears roughly the same relation to the party members as a whole, in their cheerlessness, anger, bitterness, and emotional violence, that the Religious Right does to the Republican Party. Neither fully represents the views of most members, but both are stuck with their respective Party and its propaganda.
In both cases, negotiated disagreement is virtually impossible. Leftists see and criticize this on the Right, but fail to see their own inability to diagnose their own mistakes, their own failures, their own attachment to power seeking for its own sake.
I speak about the Good for the simple reason that the concept, as I have defined it, works to build emotional intelligence. EI, in turn, helps foster social harmony and evolution.
Anything which prevents or creates barriers to negotiated bridging of substantive difference is, then, anti-egalitarian. Safe Zones are anti-egalitarian. Government imposed social views–such as the necessity of accepting gay marriage–are anti-egalitarian.
Sick people want power. Such people naturally gravitate to the government, and such people, in government, want to use government to “solve” all problems. Where no problems exist, they will create them. It is the use and abuse of power that interests them, not the well being of actual human beings.
Use and abuse is, in turn, a good short definition of a sacrificial order.