Slowman wrote:
i look at this kind of like the U.S. congress. in the senate we have true equality. 50 states, and every state gets 2 senators regardless of the size of the cohort. the house of representatives has proportional representation. i don't see either of these as better. they are 2 expressions of equality. do you think the house is an example of inequality?
i am sympathetic to your point of view. i think jordan is as well. i'm pretty sure jordan, like me, thought this through hard, and continues to think it through, to look for blind spots, to point our gazes inwardly, to see if there's a moral shoring up we need to undergo.
but i think jordan thinks, as i do, that these are competing expressions of equality. neither is bad. neither can be bad if they are both attempts to engender equalilty. maybe there's a way to meld them, as we do in the U.S. congress.
what i think is unhelpful is to deny the validity or existence of one of these expressions.
Actually, that is a perfect example of the counterpoint. Pros are the Senate, Age groupers are the House. Both are fine, coexisting. The Senate having equality doesn't make the House lose proportionality. Thanks!
----------------------------------------------------------
Zen and the Art of Triathlon. Strava Workout Log
Interviews with Chris McCormack, Helle Frederikson, Angela Naeth, and many more.
http://www.zentriathlon.com