Freedom is the right to inequality.

Equality (if it is understood more broadly than purely formal legal term “equal rights”) and freedom are incompatible things. By nature, people are not equal, equality can only be achieved through violence, which will always be an alignment to the lowest level.

It is possible to equalize the poor with the rich, but only by taking away from the rich his wealth.
It is possible to equalize the weak with the strong, but only by taking away from the strong his strength.
It is possible to equalize the fool with the clever, but only by turning the wisdom from dignity into a blemish.

The society of universal equality is a society of the poor, the weak and the foolish, based on violence (Nikolai Berdyaev).

My Response: This is what they tried to build in his country. But it is impossible. By this you deprive a person of the opportunity to move forward. After all, he measures himself in relation to others. And if there is no competition, there is degradation.

I am for competition but for good, right competition so that you are better than him, and he is better than you. And it becomes better, better, and better every time, kinder, smarter, and so on. And then you would like to become the same and even more than that.

Question: Is this good?

Answer: Of course. Look what you stimulate by this. And today’s competitiveness is destructive. Ask people: who do they recognize today as great people? They will tell you: officials, billionaires, and that’s it.

Question: Why does humanity have such a dream all the time to come to a society of equals?

Answer: Because it is the only hope. And all other societies are ugly. I am speaking theoretically. Nature strives for balance. Nature abhors a vacuum. And so we want to come to this equality.

Question: But it is impossible. Or is it?

Answer: What we find, on the other hand, is impossible. But! Man can rise above nature and bring it to balance. To ensure that everyone is happy—each by himself, in his own right—and that everyone is equal, each in its own way. That is, the problem in definitions begins here: how can incompatibility be compatible? This we must learn.

Question: That is, will we be equal in the happiness that we will feel?

Answer: If I think about the happiness of others, then I will achieve my own happiness.

Question: Is this what you call a society of equals?

Answer: It is a society of balance.

Question: Then once again: the definition of happiness for you, if possible?

Answer: Happiness is when I can make others happy. Unbelievable?

Comment: And at the same time it is impossible. But people will feel good and warm to hear it.

My Response: Because it is pleasant for them that people around are kind to them. It is good for a person egoistically. But in fact, it is very difficult to become that way.

Question: But is it necessary?

Answer: We will discover very soon that it is necessary.

Comment: You keep saying that one way or another, humanity will come to this.

My Response: It is the bright future for all mankind.

Question: So one way or another, sooner or later, I will come to the point that I will be happy because I make others happy?

Answer: Yes, that is precisely the correct definition of happiness. It is characterized by a balanced society.
[289172]
From KabTV’s “News with Dr. Michael Laitman” 9/30/21

Related Material:
The Secret Of Universal Equality
How To Build Equal Relations In Society?
Conditional Equality

Filed under: Crisis, Economy, Globalization, News | Add Comment →