(via pannadoll)
(Source: allesistverbunden, via pannadoll)
In mediocracy, equality is not about opportunities for the able,
but about something better called homogeneity. According to
the axiom of homogeneity, human beings are essentially identical to
one another, and reducible to simple mechanical interpretations. It
follows there is no justification for unequal outcomes.
Homogeneity implies that no one should be different from anyone else
in a way that might arouse resentment. Certainly not if the difference
was acquired independently of the collective will, e.g. through the
operation of the market, or by inheritance.
However, mediocracy does not actually result in equality of
outcome, nor is it intended to. It is only certain kinds of inequality
that are disliked, i.e. those which might generate autonomy for
intellectuals. Other sorts can be condoned, or even promoted if the
effect is to displace less acceptable kinds.
An economically advantaged individual who is sufficiently at the
behest of others (e.g. a company director), or unlikely to do anything
significant with his wealth (e.g. a lottery prize winner), does not
represent a threat, and can therefore be tolerated.
