All Men Are Created Equal

“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ...” Beginning of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. Dated July 4, 1776 (though written before and signed after that).

“All men are created equal.” Five words. Only five words. Yet they're all problematic for us. Individually, and as a group they require both explanation and a kind of justification in order to be properly understood. They may be “self evident,” but there seems to be some disagreement about what they mean. Let's look at them independently, and then together.

When the Founding Fathers said “All,” that's not really what they meant. They were actually referring to Caucasians, and preferably land owners. They weren't being racist or elitist. Those are more modern concepts. It would never have occurred to most of them, for example, to view slaves, who were imported from another part of the world, as part of their world. And they similarly excluded women, speaking about all “men.” Which is precisely what they intended. Although the English language doesn't consider gender, and the masculine form is often used so as to include both male and female, they weren't using any such trope. Women were considered inferiors and had no separate legal standing. They said and they meant men. We may reject that concept now, but we mislead when we impose our standards on them.

“Are.” It's a copula (or a linking, or copulative verb; often taking the form of a predicate nominative). Such verbs often appear independently as forms of the verb “to be.” Sometimes, however, and this is such a case, they give to other words, a sense of time. And “are” means now – or, in terms of the Declaration of Independence, at the time of the writing of the document. The founders probably understood it to mean “are, have always been, and would always be,” but they were dealing very much with the situation at the time of the writing, rather than concerning themselves with tense.

The author of the document, Thomas Jefferson, next used a word that might have been a problem for him but which was rhetorically useful – “created.” Jefferson was a deist, and personally rejected the idea that any Divine Being played an active part in his world. As Professor Peter S. Onuf, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Professor of History at the University of Virginia, put it,

“... deist tendencies in the thought and language of American Revolutionaries reflected the exigencies of political and military mobilization. Americans looked to 'nature' and the Creator, 'nature’s God,' for guidance and justification as they sought to hasten the coming millennium, the Kingdom of God on earth—an epoch of enlightenment, peace, and plenty.”

Speaking of a “Creator” or “nature's God” was merely one of the “exigencies” of the situation; it was one of the justifications for the act he and the others were taking. (And it is a concept that is especially problematic nowadays in our secular society.)

Which brings us to the last word, but the one that is most thorny: “equal.” Certainly Jefferson and his colleagues were aware of the differences between men and women; between people of different races. And they viewed those with property as superior to those without. These were not merely differences. They were inequalities among people. Some were stronger than others, some more intelligent, some healthier, and some were better educated than others. And there were other characteristics that constituted inequalities, yet they asserted

All men are created equal.

What could they possibly have meant. Certainly those words could not have indicated a belief that there was literal equality, or sameness, of all individuals. But all, as Jefferson wrote and his fellow founders agreed,

“are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ...”

They viewed equality in terms of rights to which they were entitled. These were political rights, not entitlements in the sense the term is understood today. They spoke of equality, not equalization.

And that is a lesson we must all learn. While, justifiably, we should treat all as equals, we don't promote the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution when we attempt to “right the wrongs” of the past by equalization, and we should not attempt to do so. For doing so simply creates present wrongs. Affirmative action and income redistribution are as justified as giving the vote to six-year olds (and even those younger) lest we be guilty of agism. Acts like those represent an over-correction, and the source of injustices that will require further repair in the future.

All men are not created equal and pretending otherwise, like wishing, doesn't make it so. But consciousness of real differences allows us to deal with them in a manner that is not unfair to everyone else. Sometimes that will mean the deprivation of rights – for example with criminals – but to the degree possible we should bestow the rights and privileges of political equality on all our citizens, and find remedies for those who require them and could not survive without them, rather than condescend to them at the expense of others.

Pretending that everyone is the same is probably not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

Next episode: “The Never-ending Middle East Conflict” – Would that this were not the case.

Richard Brodsky, Edward G. Robinson, General Patton, And Robin Hood

                                                           

Quite a collection.

It's hard to know where to start, so I'll begin with a little background on each before getting to the point: Richard Brodsky was a New York State Assemblyman (1983 to 2002); Edward G. Robinson (1893-1973) an actor; General (George S.) Patton (Jr.) (1885-1945) was a United States officer during the First and Second World Wars; and Robin Hood, who may have been mythical, but if he lived at all, it was probably some time between the twelfth and seventeenth centuries.

What have they in common? It was a noteworthy view of human nature, responsibility, and man's relationship with his fellow.ⁱ Interestingly, the most memorable of them is the least believable. In all likelihood, the Robin Hood we all know was a conglomerate of various different legendary characters, and the act for which we most remember him – stealing from the rich and giving to the poor – wasn't attributed to him until about the nineteenth century.ⁱⁱ Still, whether or not he ever actually existed, his name will always be associated with this particular version of resource distribution – a kind of medieval socialism that was instituted by an individual rather than by the government.

Richard Brodsky's view – actually it was proposed as a governmental policy – was that an individual's most personal physical resources – his organs – would be up for grabs after his death. It would be presumed that he wished to be an organ donor unless he specifically denied such a choice,ⁱⁱⁱ and his heirs couldn't overrule his “wish,” whether expressed or assumed. One might wonder if it is ethical to impose such a policy.^iv However the view that the resource should be shared – that there is no inherent property right unless it is demanded – is considered more pressing than views in opposition. And there are many ethicists who support that view.

The ideas of these two – Robin Hood and Richard Brodsky – would be imposed on people irrespective^v of their wishes. Their views might be wise policies in some sense, and ethical in the view of those who want a share of the resources, but they are not voluntary. They reflected the philosophy of those who favor “the greatest good for the greatest number” – which is, in essence, “Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen!” – “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”^vi That is another way of saying that we are may take property from those who have it, and we should give it to those who don't. It's up to us. We are entitled to dispose of the property of others if that is what seems fair to us. It's the philosophy of socialism and was the way Karl Marx viewed an individual's responsibility to his government and his fellows.

“No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.” That was General Patton's take on bravery and responsibility to one's country and countrymen. Patton was a soldier and a patriot. He knew about love of country, responsibility, and bravery. He knew of those who had died to protect their fellows and their country. But he also knew that such actions were not the general ideal, even if necessary in some cases. Better that the forces of the enemy die than that you do so; better to kill than be killed. Don't turn the other cheek or a blind eye to tyranny. Many might not view this as the ethical position, but they're usually those who preach from the sidelines.

Patton's position was more like capitalism than the others. His perspective was very different from that of Karl Marx, and from the way Marx viewed an individual's responsibility to his government and his fellows. Patton instead believed that the best thing you can do for your country was to keep and preserve it and your own most important property – your life; not only weren't you obligated to give your property for your country, but he discouraged it. True, there were times when it might happen, and they might be the result of governmental decisions, but they were “collateral damage” and were regrettable rather than the specifically desired outcome.

Sol Roth, the character played by Edward G. Robinson in the science-fiction film “Soylent Green,” had a different view from that of his society. Living at some time in the future,^vii he learned of a conspiracy which was contrary to his view of human behavior, and he related it to his friend, Detective Thorn (Charleton Heston). Both were appalled by it. So much so that Roth chose suicide (in the form of government-sponsored euthanasia) while Thorn was shot^viii trying to expose and stop what was happening. It was a time of overpopulation and food shortages. And, unknowingly, society had turned to cannibalism. There were forces^ix that took and processed into “vegetable” wafers the corpses of those who submitted to the euthanasia provided by government, though those who chose this option presumably trusted society and were ignorant of what would then happen.^x Almost no one was aware of the next step for them, and there was no knowledge among those others about the source of their food.^xi The conspirators, who made large amounts of money in the process, used human remains in place of other food sources – sources that had been exhausted. The entire body was the possession of the state and there were no property rights at all. And it is hard not to wonder if this is the direction in which we are heading.

“Life, liberty, and property.”^xii These were the three legs of the stool on which our country was founded. They were the basis for our separation from Great Britain. Unfortunately they are no longer fashionable. Individualism and individual responsibility no longer exist. They are outmoded. General Patton spoke out for them and Sol Roth died for them, but Robin Hood and Richard Brodsky had other ideas and favored the redistribution of “resources” – society over the individual.^xiii

So always ask what your country can do for you. And whine about your need and the unfairness of someone else having what you want.

Never ask what you can do for your country. The politicians have already figured it out.

Next episode: “Sandy's Children” – First the bad news.

i      In Robinson's case he portrayed such an individual.

ii      J. C. Holt, Robin Hood, cited in Wikipedia.

iii    Actually, rather than his wish, it would be his denial in writing of a contrary assumption. If he disagreed with the policy he would have to opt out. But even if he knew about such a possibility, he might not take the time to act on his wish. So for most people the default position – one that could not be overridden – would hold sway.

iv     Is it ethical to impose such a policy? What are the ethics of preserving resources for future use and denying them to those not considered valuable to society? Is euthanasia ethical? Who decides in particular cases? Will presumption of wish to donate, along with the need for transplantable organs, lead to other medical decisions than would otherwise be taken? What are the religious implications?

v      Notwithstanding Mr. Brodsky's presumption, the failure to opt out of a program is not the equivalent of a decision to opt in.

vi    Karl Marx, “Critique of the Gotha Program,” (1875) – Many consider “ability” to mean property or resources. While this is not a precise definition, it expresses Marx's view.

vii    2022 to be precise. The movie appeared in 1973.

viii   And presumably killed, though this is not explicit in the film.

ix     It's never made quite clear who they are.

x      Roth did know, and it is ironic that he chose euthanasia. But it was an easy, and depicted as desirable, method of dealing with the intolerable situation. Both he and Thorn knew that irrespective of their efforts, there was no way to end the conspiracy. It was too profitable and too useful in wake of the overpopulation.

xi     In all likelihood they wouldn't have cared. Self-preservation was all that counted and as long as they had food it wasn't important where it came from. Dirty as they may have been, they were cleansed of morality.

xii    The “Pursuit (not achievement – emphasis added) of Happiness” – was the phraseology used in the Declaration of Independence instead of “Property” which had had been the term earlier, but it is clear that the Founders were referring to the right to own property which, at that time, was an evidence of liberty. Indeed, “taxation without representation” – the ability of a government to take your property without your consent – was viewed as tyranny.

xiii   Property rights no longer existed either for the deceased or his heirs. The dead gave all for society. It was the greatest good gone mad. Except for those who profited.

Richard

Playing The Numbers

Employing modern jargon, I need my space. I'm a pacer. People get in my way.

It's not that I don't like people. At least it's not only that.ⁱ And I'm not claustrophobic – at least not in the usual sense. I don't have a phobia, only a need for breathing room. Things have gotten too big for me.

That's a shame. We live in an age of size and numbers. We're reminded of the size issue every time we open our e-mail and look at the spam and find products which I won't discuss. And there are plenty of plastic surgeons who specialize in changing the size of breasts and butts. And lips.

The obsession with numbers, however, seems to be the hallmark of our times. Not just lotto, but everything else as well. Movies and television shows, and the various social networks, are judged by the number of people they attract; sports broadcasting is so filled with statistics that there is no time for anything else – and some of the statistics are so bizarre as to be sillyⁱⁱ; and with modern technology, search engine results are in the tens or hundreds of millions. Numbers are big, and in part that reflects a change in the American (and world) culture, with a fascination for size and records. So all numbers seem to be big.

But the most striking numbers – and, in the end, the most significant – are those related to the “representative” democracy in which we live. When the American Constitution was written,ⁱⁱⁱ note was taken of the need for representatives to be familiar with the people they represented, but in order to limit the size of the House of Representatives they^iv wrote, “The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000, but each state shall have at least one representative ...”^v That was then. The population right now^vi is 313,397,468 with a net gain of one every fourteen seconds. With 435 member of the House, there are now an average of 720,453.949425287356321...^vii constituents for each congressman.^viii And each district has a variety of neighborhoods and professions. It's likely that the “representative” isn't able to represent much more than himself.^ix

To justify their positions our representatives (or their staffs) write bills, long bills. When the Supreme Court considered health care legislation recently, Justice Scalia commented “(W)hat happened to the Eighth Amendment?^x You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?^xi And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to — to give this function to our law clerks?”^xii The laws themselves are too long,^xiii and they often are “fleshed out” by regulations whose elaboration by nameless bureaucrats may dwarf the legislation.^xiv

Speaking of “nameless bureaucrats,” as of February, 2010, according to the Employment Situation Summary published by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 21,292,000 government employees in the United States. That includes the President's eight speech writers.^xv It's likely that the Founding Fathers never anticipated all the complexities we'd create for ourselves.

It's not up to me to decide if a large governmental bureaucracy is good or bad. Both opinions have their adherents. And at a time of high unemployment there's a lot to be said for high government employment, especially in tenured Civil Service positions,^xvi but the risks of an unelected – and to a small degree elected, if unrepresentative – body that makes the rules for us, cannot be overlooked.

As for me, I have more important matters to ponder. Will we have a minyan^xvii tomorrow morning? But whether or not that that's the case – and I certainly hope we'll have enough – I'm sure I'll have enough room to pace. Large numbers are never a problem there.

Next episode: “All The News ... Addendum” -- Journalism. Take 2.

i     I would have made a great hermit. It's nice having someone to talk to, but only when I want to talk. I know it's a selfish attitude, but I like having someone around on my terms. I like to have plenty of room and not to have to pay any attention to anyone unless I feel like it. I realize that such an outlook is intolerable to others and I try to be sociable, but my heart isn't in it.

ii    Like doubles in the fourth inning on a Tuesday.

iii    1787

iv    Actually it was James Madison who wrote it.

v     Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3. Do you know that many? I don't know 30,000 people. Maybe they did but I don't. Nonetheless I can understand their view that this “limitation” would be sufficient to ensure proper representation.

vi    April 20, 2012 at 13:48 UTC – according to the US Census Bureau.

vii    The number just keeps going, but by now you've got the point. And parts of people are a little too difficult to conceive (of).

viii    The number just went up.

ix    But he probably does that admirably.

x     Dealing with cruel and unusual punishment.

xi    The Declaration of Independence, which outlined our ideals, and declared our independence and its justification, was about 1,330 words long and the Constitution about 4,500. The Constitution, of course, outlined our entire governmental system, listing the branches, their duties, and the details of our relations with other nations, among other things. The two together could fit in those 2,700 (plus however many thousand pages of pages are needed to clarify the shorthand of the original law) at 2.16 words per page. That's a lot of white space. It seems clear that the health care law is far more important than the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

xii    The Justices, though not elected, go through some form of review by the Senate; the clerks, however, are not in any way representative of the people.

xiii   And there are far too many of them, with the Federal government often taking over areas which the signers of the Constitution intended as the responsibility of the states.

xiv    “If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law.” – Winston Churchill

xv     I wonder how many George Washington had.

xvi    Whoever is elected, irrespective of which party, regulations will be written by these people, and will reflect their views and prejudices. To a degree this ensures stability, but the rules they write may not reflect the wishes of the legislators or their constituents.

xvii    The ten men needed for some parts of the Jewish religious service.