Its Weakest Members

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all menⁱ are created equal, ...”

The Declaration of Independence said that, but no one takes it seriously – at least not in that form.

“that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, ...”

Now we're heading back toward reality. Clearly there are differences that are governed by DNA. There are differences in sexual anatomy between men and women, there are differences related to physical status, appearance, and development, and there are differences in mental capacity, there are others related to susceptibility to diseases, and many others. But there are even more, and perhaps more significant, differences between people.

“that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”ⁱⁱ

It's finally clear that the “unalienable” rights refer to an individual's situation, not to his physical appearance.ⁱⁱⁱ With this knowledge, however it becomes even more obvious that those who believe this must be aware that the rights with which we are endowed are not necessarily the rights all people enjoy. Too many people are born into poverty and starvation, into bondage, and into families that are incapable of caring for the – perhaps because they do not wish to do so.

It seems unfair.

But that is the kind of society we would create if we could. For the principles that Jefferson espoused were goals rather than realities. David Hume wrote about the distinction and confusion between descriptive and prescriptive views – the “is-ought” dichotomy^iv – and it seems clear that the Founding Fathers had “ought” in mind when they met and discussed the separation from the Crown and the creation of a new country. It's hard to otherwise imagine what Jefferson, a slaveholder, was thinking when he wrote about “Liberty,” or what the writers and the Constitution meant when they defined a slave as three-fifths of a person. It's clear they were talking about goals – what should be – rather than what was a reality, or seemed to be a practical plan for that time. Their intent was to describe the order that they hoped would result from their efforts – eventually if not immediately.

They had in mind what so many before and since pictured as a utopia. What was yet to come were the communes and settlements, and what they hadn't considered was that they were calling for an end to free enterprise, personal initiative, and property,^v which were the anchors of the society they desired. In their zeal, they did not realize that subsequent generations would find, in their words, an argument for social equality, a “leveling of the playing field.”

Clearly that isn't what they meant. They understood “equality” to be referring to equality before the law and equality of opportunity. As time has passed, however, we have turned, more and more, to the ideas of the level playing field. We have accepted the admirable goal in which “equality” is almost identical to “sameness.” We aim for an egalitarian society in which there are no rich and poor, but everyone is the same. We have internalized the idea that “A society is measured by how it treats its weakest members.”^vi We have instituted programs of entitlements and charity that are intended to equalize the situations of rich and poor^vii – at least our own rich and poor.^viii

The reality, unfortunately, is that our founders were probably better judges of character than we. They recognized that there are differences among people, some of which are inborn, but some reflect the disposition of the individual. The ambitious was entitled to a reward for his action, while the lazy might be aided, but only minimally. Inborn errors, both physical and mental, were the responsibility of society even though society wasn't responsible for them. Equalizing the treatment of all members – its weakest and its strongest – is not only impossible but reflects questionable wisdom. Support of our weakest members is admirable and appropriate, but it should not stifle the productivity the rest.

That is a lesson we have yet to learn. When we give a prize to every child so as to boost his self-esteem; when we teach a class at a low level so the slowest will be able to “succeed” – ignoring the capable so as not to “hurt” those less so; when we encourage and support the poor by taking from those who have more, we are running the risk of damaging society. Elevating the measure of our society by trying to equalize the lot of its weakest members sounds better than it is. The founders sought only equality of opportunity – political and economic. They knew that they couldn't correct a malformed limb or inculcate ambition in the lazy or virtue in born deceivers. All that would be achieved would be the discouragement of those who were productive.

Equality, however desirable, is very much like utopia. It is impossible. Our ancestors knew this. They knew the difference between is and ought. We should learn from them.

Next episode: “Obama, Roosevelt, And Rocky” – Dealing with children and other problems.

i       People.

ii      Thomas Jefferson wrote these inspiring words, in large part basing them on the work of Locke and on the Virginia Declaration of Right which was largely written by George Mason. Interestingly both indicated that property was primarily what “happiness” meant.

iii      Actually all babies look alike, and they all look like Winston Churchill.

iv        A Treatise of Human Nature, 1739.

v      As was noted earlier (see endnote ii), property was what was understood to be a basic component of happiness. For many of the signers, a “man” was defined as a white male property owner. He was entitled to Life and Liberty. As the Virginia Declaration of Rights says, “... all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.” That declaration was adopted on June 12, 1776, just before the Declaration of Independence.

vi      There is considerable dispute concerning the origin of this idea and among those to whom it has been attributed are Churchill, Pope John Paul II, Dostoyevsky, Truman, and Cardinal Roger Mahony. Ghandi, who was more spiritual (or less concerned with his brothers) than most wrote: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” I'd pay more attention to people.

vii      We consider it the responsibility of the rich to support the poor through taxes and assesments. Thus their property is communal (community) property. Perhaps the Founding Fathers viewed the matter differently – perhaps they didn't accept the concept of socialism – however times and philosophies have changed. George Mason may have frowned on the idea that his descendants might be “ deprive[d] or divest[ed of] their ... means of acquiring and possessing property,” but that was an eighteenth century idea. We know better now.

viii      It is surely logical to assume that such equalization should include all people in all countries, but that doesn't seem to have been offered yet as a program. Chances are, though, that it will be at some time in the future.