In the attempt to practice egalitarianism, the intention of worsening the better off is not just for pure meanness, but because there is no other way possible.
Culturally we are convinced that equality is good, perhaps because the concept of coexistence we have learned at home or at school, areas where this condition is essential for a good harmony, beyond that always exist in both places some different, such as dad and moms who have enough privileges and authority, or poor pet that seems to have no right to anything. At school we coexist with the teachers and principals who have more rights and authority as the students.
Whenever we were in a relationship of inferiority, crave equality and whenever we were in a relationship of superiority and not set out to change the allocation of privileges. In our home we never wanted to match us with the pet.
When we talk about 'equality', we should clarify that we are referring to equal rights and duties, among which are the right to own property, privileges, safety, quality of life.
Each of those who claim to promote equality we do to improve, but we never do to go down or to be worse. We are always looking to win and avoid losing always, we are always looking to win and lose others.
Therefore, when looking for that idyllic 'equality', we are making a proselytizing, philosophic, union, hundred percent based on petty intentions campaign.
This appears to be a critique of the egalitarian, not so well.
Note that there is no way to achieve equalization toward the better, but always the equalizations are achieved by relocating the better off in the place of those who are worse. Material reality imposes this iron logic.
Therefore, the intention of worsening the better off, not only for pure meanness, but because there is no other way possible.
Note: Original in Spanish (without translation by Google): No debemos buscar la igualdad.
(Este es el Artículo Nº 2.184)