It seems to me that the single most determinative question in American politics is this -- What does it mean that All men are created equal? All Americans agree with this phrase, it's part of our civic religion. But what does it mean?
There seem to be two poles:
A. All men are equal in the sight of the law.B. All men should be equal in a social and economic sense.
Virtually every fight raging in America today stems from people trying to achieve B through the blunt instrument of the State. Unfortunately, when you try to force men into social and economic equality, you can only do it at the expense of liberty. Man is a hierarchic creature, and it takes a lot of bludgeoning to flatten him out.
Posted by Discoshaman at janvier 27, 2005 01:36 AM | TrackBack
Liberal dogma is to push for equality of outcomes, not opportunity. And since that's an idea that is patently riddiculous to anyone who works or competes for a living, it can't survive in the marketplace of ideas they gave up on trying to win elections and achieve their social engineering through the fiat of the courts. Their ideas can only win in the alternative universe of funded academia and federal courts. If they go before voters they lose.
Of course, that's their dogma. The reality is that they believe, like the pigs in Animal Farm, that while all the animals are created equal some are more equal than others.
The vanguard of the proletariat and all that. From limosine liberals in New York or San Francisco or the Politburo members with their dachas in the birch forests, they always have some reason, like the pigs in Animal Farm why they need to live in the farm house in order to labor on behalf of the rest of us in the barn.
Posted by: Greg at janvier 27, 2005 05:02 AMYou know, it never occurred to me before, but from a historically christian point of view all men were created equal since only one man was directly created. I guess that would be equal in the sense of A=A.
Posted by: Paul Baxter at janvier 27, 2005 04:04 PMLiberal dogma is to push for equality of outcomes, not opportunity
On the other hand, do you think that conservative dogma truly pushes for "equality of opportunity"?
For example opposing the inheritance estate tax, naming it "Death tax"? The fact that people with filthy rich parents have the right to inherit untaxed estates and not work one day of their lives -- is that an "equality of opportunity"?
Rich kids have more opportunities than poor kids. A Dickensian capitalism doesn't provide for equality of either outcome *or* of opportunity.
Sometimes the solutions to these (like communism) end up worse than the problems that originated them ofcourse. That's a different issue.
Posted by: Aris Katsaris at janvier 28, 2005 06:20 AMHate to say it but it is as simple as this.
Human beings by nature barter to increase position. Period.
They will band together is small groups to increase protection but invaribly left to their own devices will create hierarchial structure and end up with Alpha Wolf mentality.
Large groups in a socialist setting just don't work. Utopia is a fantasy, it just isn't going to happen. Socialist Democracy is failing. Look at Germany and France. Aging and crippling under the weight of their socialist structure.
I am not saying America is perfect. We all have our issues that's for sure.
Posted by: Rick Zahn at janvier 28, 2005 06:32 AMWe could maybe change B. to leave able bodied men to sort out their own heirarchy.
what about
B. All children should be equal in a social and economic sense.
or
B. All men should be equally proctected from exploitation in a social and economic sense.
Posted by: doug at janvier 28, 2005 04:09 PMI think "The Incredibles" was great for its critique on the subject...
I suppose that we are all equal in the sight of the Lord, that is quite a different connotation to the meaning of 'being equal'. It means that we will be judged according to our own deeds and not for anyone elses. Nor will anyone be judged for our deeds (Ez 18).
People are different though. To some much is given, to others less. But are those gifts for our-/themselves? I think in the New Society, gifts are given to people to pour them out: it is not something to keep for themselves (In fact, also in the 'old society'). Just as Abram/Israels vocation was to be a blessing to all nations.
Should we look up to the government to fulfill our vocation to pour out our gifts? I think that the state is a very blunt instrument indeed, bluntly taking away individual responsibility (as with so many other forms of oppression...)
Posted by: Elbert at janvier 28, 2005 05:37 PMI take the "All men are endowed by their Creator . . . " part to define the "all men are equal" part.
In other words, the phrase, "all men are equal" is a reference to where each person stands before his/her Creator. It has nothing to do with society, or economics, or even law for that matter. At least not directly, as a Socialist might see it. More indirectly, as a Libertarian might see it.
The whole gist of the document was to declare the equality of Americans with the English and the moral rightness of the rebellion against the crown--who did not treat all men equally.