Are people equal, or peoples?

Would you elaborate?

Equality in the coherent political sense is equality of rights.

The question is: Are people equal,

or are peoples equal?

What is the US currently?

What should the US be?

Which is religiously correct?

Which is correct from the perspective of human value?

What is the US currently?

What should the US be?

Which is religiously correct?

Which is correct from the perspective of human value?

Which is religiously correct?

Which is correct from the perspective of human value?

Equality in the coherent political sense is equality of rights.

The contention in today’s political climate I think is more about equality of opportunity

Everyone outside of America is technically an arab.

The question is: Are people equal,

The question is... WILL IIIIIIIIIII EVER LEAV... Sorry, I got sidetracked. No people are not equal.

What is the US currently?

A microcosm of a globalist one world communist government nose deep in Luciferian practices and rituals.

What should the US be?

Anarchy. Particularly, Anarcho-Capitalism. But any voluntary arrangement should suffice.

Which is religiously correct?

Christianity of course!

Which is correct from the perspective of human value?

Christianity of course.

1 & 2: People aren't equal because individual value creates a constellation and market for individual behaviors. Individuals acknowledge their own estimations of the most attractive; the most talented; the smartest; the most athletic, etc. Equality would necessitate the streamline of individual values, and/or making individual value objective. And objectivity is irrational.

3: The United States is a hodgepodge of diverse demographics in order to indoctrinate the diverse cultures around the globe with the Luciferian a.k.a. Babylonian mysteries which was brought in by this nation's Masonic "Founding Fathers." As far as my description of "Communist," you need only look into the history of this nation's central banks, as well as Joseph McCarthy's "Red Scare." You can also look into project paperclip.

4. All associations should be voluntary--even at the societal level. Involuntary associations are immoral and should be condemned.

5 & 6: I'm joking for the most part with this one. I'm not religious. If I had to provide an answer, I would state that they're all "correct," in the absence of an alternative term, even if they contradict each other.

Which is religiously correct?

Neither, sinners inferior to good-doers.

Which is correct from the perspective of human value?

Neither, those closest to one's 'tribe' are valued most this is axiomatically true even if the tribe one identifies with is not blood-related.

You can say I am lying since we don't operate this way in hospital transplant lists or human right but our species is held above other species due to this in the first place. We alienate criminals from the general populace as another means of tribal lines etc etc

The contention in today’s political climate I think is more about equality of opportunity

Opportunity to do what? (Eat ice cream?)

Would you explain why you believe they are not? Are you basing your decision on lack of empirical equality or human value, and do you believe regardless of human values existence it would be better for society to act as though it does or doesn't exist?

You gave a very clear explanation of what you perceive, but can you back this up with any suggestive evidence or relative comparisons?

Additionally, do you believe that people are aware that they are as you described, or do you believe they perceived themselves differently, and how so? 

I am certain that not every voluntary arrangement would suffice to hold together a society.

However, I am interested in hearing more about your description of how the government should be run, and why.

I clearly understand you suggest Christianity, but I don't receive your implication as you seem to expect. Can you explain why?

I wasn't expecting a joke, LOL. I already put my responses above anyways. Would you further explain how individual value being objective is irrational?

Would you explain why you believe they are not? Are you basing your decision on lack of empirical equality or human value, and do you believe regardless of human values existence it would be better for society to act as though it does or doesn't exist?

I bear no expectation that human value can be quantified; only expressed through emotion, opinion, and abstract behaviors. People aren't "equal" because that would suggest homogenizing individual value. In any social interaction, each individual will be treated and will act with respect to a composite of their respective  individual values, and thus treat others and be treated by others differently. Case in point: I do not treat strangers the same as I do my siblings. Because of my affection (individual value) for my siblings, my behavior toward them as well as my mere association with them will undoubtedly express favor. This can manifest in many ways--e.g. more willing to provide my time, labor, and resources in maximizing my estimation of their utility. I wouldn't do that for mere strangers. What I can do, and have done for strangers is respect their individual discretion and their capacity to act in their own interests so long as it does not or did not interfere with another's capacity to act in service to their individual interests.

What is the US currently?

A microcosm of a globalist one world communist government nose deep in Luciferian practices and rituals.

You gave a very clear explanation of what you perceive, but can you back this up with any suggestive evidence or relative comparisons?

Suggestive evidence or relative comparisons for which part? Or do you request evidence and comparisons for all of it?

I am certain that not every voluntary arrangement would suffice to hold together a society.

Why not?

However, I am interested in hearing more about your description of how the government should be run, and why.

If there is to be government, it should operate in the private sector subject to its market decisions and the satisfaction of its consumers.

 Would you further explain how individual value being objective is irrational?

No worries. As far as the irrationality of individual value being objective, it will be contingent on our unresolved dispute over the description of objectivity.

Do you then believe that humans have no objective or intrinsic value,

Do you believe that everyone should be treated as if they have an equal intrinsic value, and what do you believe would be the consequences of implementing or opposing this?

I suppose I was looking for something that would rigidify your claim. I don't have any particular suggestion on how you could measure or prove your statement, but you claim it as if it's a matter of fact.

An example would be the founding of the 13 colonies by the pilgrims' voluntary arrangement.

We had to rewrite the Articles of Confederation and furthermore implement the US Constitution as a result of how our voluntary arrangement was not sufficient to hold our society together.

Moreover, I cannot name a single nation that has neither evolved nor crumbled.

You provided a clear description of how you believe the government should run, but you didn't explain why.

I see, objective seems to be interpretable. How about intrinsic?

An example would be the founding of the 13 colonies by the pilgrims' voluntary arrangement.

That was not a voluntary arrangement. The clue in that is the 13 colonies were colonies.

We had to rewrite the Articles of Confederation and furthermore implement the US Constitution as a result of how our voluntary arrangement was not sufficient to hold our society together.

Not in the least bit true. This was mostly a result of Alexander Hamilton's Federalist campaign against it.

You provided a clear description of how you believe the government should run, but you didn't explain why.

Because of sovereign individuality. No individual should have a final authority as it concerns one's self, time, labor, and resources other than oneself.

The contention in today’s political climate I think is more about equality of opportunity

Opportunity to do what? (Eat ice cream?)

Are you really being serious?

I seriously intended to expose what I believe is the very high chance that what you are alluding to is imprecisely defined and the resulting blurriness of all moral logic is a recipe for social conflict that has and will continue to manifest.

While it is true that the pilgrims did form separate colonies and they did not all agree on their beliefs, they did agree to respect each other as independent colonies, which is a form of voluntary agreement.

A colony is a territory subject to a form of foreign rule. Though dominated by the foreign colonizers, the rule remains separate to the original country of the colonizers, the metropolitan state (or "mother country"), within the shared imperialist administration.

Do you believe it was sufficient, and that Alexander's campaign is not evidence of its insufficiency? As I understand it, if anything requires another to evolve or be destroyed it is evidence it was insufficient (It was required to change or be destroyed).

Do you then believe that individual sovereignty should be the highest virtue of a society or government?

In an anarchist society, how would the code of conduct and the rule of law be enforced?

How would the society defend itself from foreign invasion?

Do you think that anarchy would hinder progress and development, making the society vulnerable to more advanced and organized countries that might have religious motives to destroy it?

How would anarchy deal with the problems of violence, crime, and injustice, without any law enforcement or judicial system?

How would anarchy ensure the protection of human rights, such as freedom, equality, and dignity, without any legal or moral framework?

How would anarchy foster cooperation, trust, and solidarity among people, without any common values or norms?

How would anarchy promote social progress, innovation, and development, without any education, science, or technology?

How would anarchy cope with the challenges of diversity, complexity, and interdependence in the modern world, without any communication, coordination, or integration?

You mean like wokeness or transgenderism?

In an anarchist society, how would the code of conduct and the rule of law be enforced?

In an anarcho-capitalist society, laws would be subject to mechanisms of a free-market. Dispute Resolution Organizations would operate in the private sector.

How would the society defend itself from foreign invasion?

Private contractors or private armies.

How would anarchy deal with the problems of violence, crime, and injustice, without any law enforcement or judicial system?

Dispute Resolution Organizations can handle tort and mediate disputes among individual parties; wrongful acts can also make one subject to Outlawry.

How would anarchy ensure the protection of human rights, such as freedom, equality, and dignity, without any legal or moral framework?

Why do you assume there's no moral framework?

How would anarchy foster cooperation, trust, and solidarity among people, without any common values or norms?

The free market will bring together consumers, whether it be of values or norms, and a free flowing price system will dictate where said individuals intend to dedicate their time, labor, and resources.

How would anarchy promote social progress, innovation, and development, without any education, science, or technology?

Why do you assume there's no education, science, or technology? Are you under the impression that government is solely responsible for the aforementioned?

How would anarchy cope with the challenges of diversity, complexity, and interdependence in the modern world, without any communication, coordination, or integration?

Nothing about anarchy suggests individuals can't communicate, coordinate, or even integrate. As long as it's voluntary, it should meet the stipulations, for lack of a better term, of an anarchist/anarcho-capitalist environment.

If private contractors were the ones upholding the law that means they are driven by money, do you not see this as becoming an issue?

Who would be responsible for funding these private armies?

Who would decide the law, would it be majority vote or something else?

Without any uniformity of a government standardization people would be free to create their own religions and beliefs.

Having said that, the moral structure for every individual would be at least slightly different, so who would be the judge of which moral structure is standard and will be used in prosecution?

I don't see how anarchy could cultivate uniformity.

The more freedom a society has the freer people are to be

and therefore the less likely they will be unified and seemingly uniformed.

As a result, societies that are driven by strict governments that are tyrannical or oppressive are very uniform and powerful such as the Nazis. Whereas people not driven by uniformity are not very uniform, and therefore do not work in uniformity.

Though the question still remains, who would create the standard of education and would everyone within the society be required to accept certification?

There definitely can be coordination between individuals in an anarchist society, but as I said before, the more free individuals of a society are the more variance there is between members of that society and the more variance between members of the society the less they seem like members of the society to others. Therefore, societies that are freer have a greater variance between the differences of members and have less uniformity. As a result, freer societies are less uniform and less organized because of the lack of cooperation and expectation of trust of individuals of a more respectable group which would be people and others who you agree with rather than a great variance of other people who do not truly unify with your own.