A man that can jump longer than another is better at doing that. A man that can solve math problems better than another is better at doing that. And man that is better at fooling other is better at doing that than another.
It is obvious and self-explanatory and I don’t need to point out the obvious. So what’s all that hassle about whos ‘right’ and better than whom –better in what? And respectively whats all that hassle about all being equal –equal in what?
As far as I am concerned I am always right within myself, unless I make myself wrong; that is to say I have absolute, undisputed rights over myself. That doesn’t make me right over another though –I have no rights over another. Only when we agree over something (like a competitive game), can there be a being more right or wrong, in relation to what is agreed upon. Otherwise there is no common ground to compete on.
Who bears the status of always being right? Everyone, for themselves, unless they say otherwise; and nobody for another unless they agree otherwise. If we agreed to be polite to each other and I was rude, at that point I’d be -more or less- wrong compared to our agreement. And that wouldn’t even mean I would always be wrong from that point on. I could at another time be polite.
It would mean absolutely nothing if I told another ‘he is wrong’. And it wouldn’t make me ‘right’ either. It is too general and based on agreement, but could put another to think which agreement I might be refering to.
Social status based on money is social status based on money. It is a potential agreement (and full of contradictions) one can agree with or not. It is not any law of God nor of any nature that I know. One says ‘I’m better than you because I have money’. Better in what? That guy might have inherited the money or worked for it (unlikely) or even stolen it. And anyway, who has asked each one and all whether they want to compete who’d going to make the most money? Is it any natural impulses given by some superior power? It seems that power forgot to give it to me.
Such abstract propositions like ‘I am right/you are wrong’ justified racist crimes in the past –a system which continues with racist propositions like ‘my grand grand parents made money, thus -due to inherited genes- I am now superior too, even if I sit and do nothing all day long, but gossip my friends to my other friends’.
Abstract equality justified communist crimes too, in turn. To assert we’re all equal in general -although it might sound kind- hides some traps. Among other things, it implies if somebody does something wrong, everyone is equaly responsible for it. Thus some feminists can’t tell difference between a rapist man and a non rapist man.
Nobody has rights over another, unless granted those rights by the other. And everyone have perfect rights over themselves, unless they deny those rights to themselves.