=

Yesterday was National Women's Equality Day. On August 26, 1920 the 19^th Amendment to the Constitution went into effect.

That having been said, however, the reality is that there's no such thing as equality. (I think I've said this before.) It's purely a philosophical construct. Just as there are no two identical snowflakes, there are no two identical people. We differ in many aspects – sex is certainly one of them, though not always the most noticed in modern society. (And certainly not “gender.”) The visible differences between people are often masked by clothing, or minimized by style.

But that doesn't mean they don't exist. Nor other differences. We differ in height, weight, strength, intelligence, abilities and talents, interests, and a host of other features that are apparent to ourselves and to those we meet.

There are hidden differences as well, however. You're probably unaware of your basophil count or your serum creatinine, unless they were just drawn and you looked at the laboratory report. You probably don't know (or care) how many times your heart has beaten in the last twenty-four hours, unless you're attached to some monitoring device that does the counting. The chances are good, however, that the numbers are not equal to those of the people you'll meet today. Or any other day. Even your identical twin.

For just as we differ in terms of our natures, we differ in our experiences. Even before we're born. So “identical twins” – at least as the term applies to matching DNA – may not be identical. (See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/science/06qna.html?_r=0) Even the DNA itself is subject to mutation, so differences may occur there as well. But the differences related to those we meet and befriend, the schools we attend, the programs we watch, and whatever else we see or hear, or otherwise experience, will also play a part in who we are and in what we manifest to others.

And while differences in religion may not be obvious unless we make them so, they're likely to affect the way we act (ditto our ethnicity) – even if we reject the philosophy behind them. (The tension, however, between a secular society and a religious tradition can be a source of contention for us all. “Blue Laws” and other secular concessions to religious laws may limit us – especially if our religion doesn't accept the laws – while secular norms may affect the religion itself. E.g. must the Catholic Church accept the idea of women as priests since an egalitarian society would like it that way?) That's not to say that everyone considers all religions equal, or that atheists and believers would accept each other – especially their ideas.

But none of that really deals with the question of what constitutes equality. We're certainly not all the same. In fact no two of us are the same. In terms of our characteristics and our capabilities we're all different. We're not equal. And there's no concept of equality in the animal world from which, according to Darwin, we're all descended. Not between dinosaurs and dogs, and not even between two lions. There's a hierarchy in every society: a pecking order. And, whether or not it corresponds to our societal fashions and political correctness, the pecking order is related to sex and to strength. Nature doesn't know from equality. It's a purely human concept.

It's unlikely that anyone takes the idea of equality seriously. At least not in the sense that suggests that we all have equal capabilities. We may not want to admit it, but we're aware of it. We've even developed language that acknowledges the reality. We speak about “special” education rather than admit aloud the fact that some are not as intelligent as others. And we idolize sports figures who have greater physical abilities than we. We know that different people have different talents from ours, and that's not a bad thing. We're all different.

Our founders were surely aware of those differences. Yet they spoke of equality anyway, even though they clearly recognized that no two of us were the same. They certainly disagreed with each other regarding many things. In all likelihood they understood the concept of equality, however, in political terms rather than in respect to the characteristics obvious to those with whom we interact. Their goal was to provide us all with the opportunity to benefit equally from society – politically, economically, and socially. And their view of who might be a recipient of the rights they assigned may not correspond with our own, but their vision of the concept of equality does, though over the generations there has been “tweaking” of the list of those who should benefit from the political equality they envisioned. Hence the nineteenth amendment and others that have extended rights to other Americans.

We fool ourselves, however, when we speak of equality. We long for sameness rather than diversity, as we simultaneously praise diversity. But it would be a very boring world if we were all the same. Political equality is reasonable, however Nature (or G-d for those who believe) has given us different assignments. It's only when we superimpose human “norms” on those that we get into trouble. Perhaps we should all vote (at least those defined as “we” at any particular time), but it's only because we aren't all equal that we don't all think and vote the same way.

Inequality is what makes life interesting.

One “Man,” One Vote

It's been a while since the presidential elections. There have been many news cycles and the issue is quiet now, so it's a good time to address it. Donald Trump was elected president. But Hillary Clinton got more votes than he did. Neither got a majority. Neither had the trust of the American people. Yet the election and its results were the source of more passion than we have experienced in recent years. There have been protests and riots by Clinton supporters who refuse to accept Trump as their president. Assorted “hate-crimes” have been attributed to those who voted for Trump, and they're viewed as racists.

The media have echoed many of these accusations, and press coverage has often paralleled that during the campaign, with those who oppose the new administration continuing to find fault with the new president and his transition team. Despite the fact that it is moving faster than some of the previous administrations, they have accused it of failure to act and of poor performance and disunity in general. They made no such accusations when those they supported had been elected, and they didn't use the post-election period then as a time to sow discord among the electorate. That's not really much of a surprise in view of the idea that the first thing that a party (and its partisans) must do following an election I to begin preparations for the next election.

There's an important additional issue that the election has raised. Though the situation is not unique, there is much angst about a minority president. On four previous occasions (and this makes five although the vote discrepancy is the greatest now) we have elected a minority president (in this instance a “minority president” is defined as a candidate who has fewer votes than another candidate – there have been others in which the winner had a minority of the votes but had a plurality – Abraham Lincoln, for example, received only 39 percent of the popular vote in 1860 but nearly 60% of the electoral votes), although this happens for no other office. It results from the existence of the Electoral College, which occupies a disproportional part of the Constitution, and which was altered by the Twelfth Amendment. And while it interposes “electors” between the voters and the candidates, within each state the slate of electors is chosen by majority vote. The electors are free to vote for candidates other than those they claimed to support, but that has not happened. The system certainly puts the voter closer to the choice for leader than what exists in many other democracies – a selection by members of the winning party.

It's important to remember how we arrived at this system, and the history of our country tells us. We have a federal government (courtesy of the Federalists naturally) that represented the union of several pre-existing states that feared the loss of their significance when the new country was formed. Their advocates wanted assurance that the states would remain the representatives of their people and their territory. They believed that many decisions were best made locally. They didn't agree that “one size fits all.” James Madison's Electoral College was one of the mechanisms by which they retained authority locally – perhaps for the better. Were we to declare now that popular vote should be the decisor of presidential elections, the strength of the states would be significantly weakened, and large parts of the country would have little chance to meet with the candidates (and, indeed, the candidates would have little interest in most of the country) since their primary involvement would be in the large cities. The majority would be of much greater concern then the minority.

And that raises another question: What is our responsibility to minorities? We certainly emphasize the view that the majority should not be able to impose its will on those minorities in which we find ourselves, or with which we identify. We're sensitive to cultural and economic differences – even if we deny any differences among our “majority” citizens. We've even ascribed “minority” status to women, who are in the majority. The term, and the concept of protection of minorities, have come to be more issues of politics than anything else. And in the process we have chosen to take our stand for majority “rights” on a political issue – a constitutional one – as we reject it otherwise. We favor minority rights as long as they are beneficial to us or to our philosophy.

As I noted, in all likelihood by the time this essay is published the Electoral College will not be among the most important matters we're considering. There won't be many Google^® searches for it. However if the concept is wrong, it is wrong even between election cycles, and it is worthy of debate before it becomes an point of contention once again. But if we decide to eliminate it, with the consequent strengthening of the federal system and the weakening or elimination of any significance of individual states, we should consider the results of such an act. A nation in which a dirt farmer and a banker, a Hollywood movie star and a Detroit mechanic, a retiree in Florida and an entrepreneur in Alaska, are all treated identically and with indistinguishable expectations and obligations, may not be the answer to our problems.

One man one vote is sacrosanct, but in many ways it's insufficient.




November 17, 2016

Equal Justice

I heard on the radio about a woman who stabbed a man (her husband?) because he rejected her sexual advances. She was arrested, but released on $10,000 bail.

It intrigued me, and I looked on Google to see if there were any similar cases. Here is some of what was listed:

Cops: Woman, 26, Wielded Hatchet After Her Demands For Sex Were Repeatedly Rebuffed – It's dated June 28, 2016, and contains the following “... Free on $5500 bond, she is scheduled for a July 26 court hearing.”

Woman, 56, is arrested after she 'threatened a 25-year-old with a knife and a wooden cane because he rejected her sexual advances' Her bail was $3,500

Woman Threatens Husband with a Knife to Perform Oral Sex – She was sentenced to 90 days in jail after pleading guilty.

The details of these cases are not of interest to me. And while I have no reason to question the reports, I don't have independent verification of the facts. On the other hand, I suspect that there are other similar circumstances that are not listed in the online files. It seems likely to me that the incidence is under-reported. I doubt that many men would complain to authorities that they were forced by a woman to have sex. And I doesn't seem probable that they would do so with sufficient evidence for the woman to be arrested and charged.

As I mentioned, I'm not especially interested in what happened between the man and the woman. It's none of my business. But the criminal justice system is in the public realm and I pay taxes to support it (even if the offenses were in other jurisdictions), so I am more involved in that aspect of the situations. And I'm interested in the equity of the law and its penalties.

I remember, as well, the Bobbitt case. Although it took place in 1993, the story is hard to forget – a woman amputating her husband's penis because she “snapped.” His provocations were responsible for her state of mind. And because of the temporary insanity, she was found not guilty, requiring only psychiatric evaluation. While her husband's misdeeds may have – indeed, they almost certainly did – caused her to take action, her conduct, and that of the jury that excused it, raise questions. As does the penalty.

If a man, using a knife or a hatchet (or any other “persuader”), attempted to force his wife or any other woman to perform a sexual act, my sense is that he would not have been treated as leniently by the legal system. I am sure that his bail – if any were permitted at all – would have been considerably higher. And any incarceration would have been significantly longer. No mention is made of sexual predator status, but a man would surely have been entered in the sexual offender registry for life. It isn't clear from the articles that the women involved in these incidents suffered the same fate. Not even Lurena Bobbitt, who wasn't responsible for what she did (though if her husband had performed a mastectomy on her the result may have been different).

I have no intention of defending the men who have abused women, however they have done it. With or without weapons other than their fists. Abusive actions call for penalties. Severe penalties. And such actions are usually those of men.

Usually, but not always.

Do we treat women more leniently? It seems that way. Is it society's chivalry? Do we assume women can do no wrong? Sexual abuse of students used to be considered a problem of male teachers, until we learned otherwise. Men and women have differences, but many of them can be characterized by numbers – by quantity rather than quality. Women may be less likely to engage in abusive sexual conduct, and their sexual drives may differ in degree from men's, but we deceive ourselves if we deny their existence; we delude ourselves when we view women as if they were (what we believed were) the innocent damsels of the Middle Ages of whom we read. They were, and they are, people, and just as responsible for their actions as men.

It is fashionable, and has become so in part at the urging of women, to view men as insensitive boors responsible for all the ills we suffer. We have accepted that construct and assume that whatever has transpired, if there is any blame to be assigned, it is to the man. We have trained men to feel guilty all the time. Admittedly there are many who don't buy in, but at present it is “correct” to blame the man and let the woman off the hook. Women are in the majority but we treat them as a minority, and it is society's bias that the minority is being oppressed by the rest of us. So we grant them as many of the benefits of the law as we can, or create new laws to do so, while shielding them from its responsibilities. The scales of justice which, in the past, were weighted against them, now provide them with favor. We talk about equality, but we don't practice it.

We need to grow up. Society needs to mature. The time must come when we not only say that we are all equal, but we act that way. Perhaps some day we'll have, to paraphrase John Adams, a government of [equitable] laws, not of [women and] men. That doesn't seem to be the case currently.





September 22, 2016

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.

Social Socialism

“Good job, Charlie Brown.”

It used to be “You're a good man, Charlie Brown” but now everyone is complimented for doing a “good job.” It doesn't matter what the job is or how well it's been done, there is nothing more important than building up the self-esteem of whomever you're praising.ⁱ Everyone's a winner. And everyone will receive a certificate to prove it.

We're all equal. The Founding Fathers said we were so we have made it an article of faith.ⁱⁱ Whether or not we recognize it to be true – in terms of physical characteristics, intellect, social status, and the like – we pretend that it's the fact, and we take issue with those who may feel otherwise. Even if their evidence might be convincing.

We are so intent on making everyone equal, and making sure that we do not offend them with the implication that they are anything less, that we have invented a language inoffensive to anyone, and supportive of everyone. We're hoping that we can replace bias with respect by altering what we say to words that will instill within us a positive view of all around us. It's our wish that by eliminating unwanted words we can rid ourselves of unwanted thoughts.ⁱⁱⁱ The Constitution may delegitimize censorship by the government, but society has made us censor ourselves. And if we do not do so, those who hear our words will certainly make our error evident to us.

So to a degree, for example, we assuage our own guilt^iv and cater to the wishes of Blacks by calling them “African Americans,” even if that term is inaccurate.^v,vi And we guarantee minorities and other oppressed groups equality by providing them with perks denied to those not in “protected classes.” We have substituted equality of results for equality of opportunity,^vii and that has become the new American Way, whether or not it corresponds to the intent of the Founding Fathers.

But the decision to legislate protected classes means that those not so defined are unprotected. Me, for example. I'm Jewish, however past prejudice against the Jews which permeated American society for so long, and current (increasing) anti-Semitism, require no apology or preference.^viii So I don't look for them. I'm not in a protected class.

Surely there were problems with our founding documents – and, in terms of our legal system, I'm referring to the Constitution – their correction is supposed to be by amendment, not fiat. Thus slavery and the three-fifths of a person clause were eliminated by such action. But when a favored philosophy is not matched by amendment, it becomes the resolve and the responsibility of Congress or the courts to correct the situation.^ix

A good example of this approach is Affirmative Action. In 1961, President Kennedy, in Executive Order 10925, prohibited the use of federal funds for projects unless there were provisions to “take affirmative action” regarding the hiring and employment practices for the projects with an aim of ensuring that they are free of racial bias. Since that time, by the acts of Congress and the decisions of the courts, the thrust of the idea shifted from one of preventing racial bias, to the positive act of ensuring minimal quotas^x for members of particular protected classes. There has been no Constitutional Amendment dealing with this problem, but that has not stopped our judges, Congressmen, or the President. Not all have favored the conduct as practiced,^xi but the various departments of government have not been shy about weighing in on the matter, even while proclaiming that equality^xii and justice^xiii are American characteristics. An unfortunate (though unintended) result of the practice is that some students assume that any member of a protected class benefited from preference received due to membership in that class and would not have been admitted otherwise.^xiv The most gifted of minority students, therefore, is often viewed as having received a free pass. It's a less than ideal way of ending bias.

And, in a way, it's not in keeping with the Constitution, common law, or American ideals either. We value property and, Robin Hood notwithstanding, we don't endorse taking the property of one person and giving it to another. We call that theft. But that's what taking a college admission or any other award from one more deserving and giving it to one less so – in the interests of diversity, self-esteem or whatever – boils down to. “Theft” is a rather strong word, but this kind of redistribution so as to promote “equality” or some other social goal is the equivalent. It's taking from one and giving to another. It's socialism.

Whether that's good or bad is not the issue. But it is an example of the philosophy that the end justifies the means. It is proof that in front of every silver lining is a cloud. Charlie Brown may have done a good job, however it is not clear that we're following his example. Unless we've reached the point where we place too little value on merit, but too much on feelings.

Next episode:  "Day Of Unrest" -- The evil good does lives after it.

I        It's usually a child who is being praised – whose fragile self-image requires strengthening.

ii        Actually, that's a bad term. We don't want to violate the First Amendment by suggesting that we believe anything. Yet “equality” is difficult to prove, and scientific proof is acceptable while faith, which is, after all, a religious concept, is unconstitutional.

iii       It worked in Oceania.

iv        Over the slavery that ended a century-and-a-half ago, and over the prejudice that has persisted.

v        Someone who has moved from Capetown to Cape May is an African American, irrespective of his race. The definition both devalues the language and misleads. If our intent is to identify those who are descendents of African Blacks, we should say so. One of the reasons for such labeling is discussed below.

vi       In addition to the example used, we have also rendered our language genderless, corrected Columbus's error by correcting the term “Indian” and replacing it with “Native American,” and, in general, condemned the use of “hate speech.” That speech is usually considered anything that someone doesn't want to hear.

vii      It is not enough that everyone can participate in the race; everyone has to be a “winner,” whether last or first. The one who reaches the finish line first is no better than the one who is last, and can take no special pride in his accomplishment – an accomplishment which we have devalued. His self-esteem is less important than that of those who are less talented.

viii     I really should be protected however. If an individual who had one Black grandparent (or less) is considered an African American for the purpose of benefits, it is clear that membership in a protected group relates to the genes inherited from one's predecessors. For some purposes, women are protected and half my ancestors were women. And if that's not enough, I'm a descendent of “Lucy” (No, not Charlie Brown's friend) so (at least) one of my ancestors was African.

ix       At least in their view. The “Women's Rights” amendment may not have passed but we have already found ways to accomplish some of its goals.

x         In the past, quotas were used to exclude. Now the opposite is the case.

xi        See Regents of the University of California v. Allan Bakke, 438 US 265, which took issue with some of the methods used by the U of C in choosing among candidates. Nonetheless it upheld the principle of affirmative action.

xii       In this instance the equality is clearly of results, not opportunity. Bakke was rejected while minority candidates with lesser qualifications were accepted in the interests of “diversity.” The reason given was his age – Bakke was in his early thirties and age discrimination was acceptable at the time. The courts decided that in his particular case admission was warranted, although the concept of affirmative action was not overturned.

xiii      The form of justice that says that everyone should get more (of whatever) and the rich should pay for it. That's fair, isn't it?

xiv      And having been told all their lives that they have been doing a good job, and that they are winners, the idea that they might have less than a 4.0 GPA is unacceptable. It's the professor's fault, not theirs.

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.

A Perfect World

                                                                                                   

“The poor will never cease to exist in the land ...”ⁱ So says the Bible.

But another authority has a different perspective. According to the BBC News Magazine,ⁱⁱ the average annual income of the 7 billion people alive at the time of publication was $10,000.ⁱⁱⁱ There are a lot of “fudge factors” built into that calculation, and there are many involved in its interpretation, but if everyone received $10,000 annually (that's $50,000 for a family of five) it would be necessary to rethink our definition of “poor.”

The problem, of course, is distribution. At present the money is, for the most part, hoarded by a minority. Thus there are the “rich” – the minority (or, at least, some of them) – and the “poor” – everyone else.

But, for the moment, let's forget the reality of maldistribution and imagine a world in which everyone received an equal share of the earnings each year. It certainly sounds good. The world would be a utopia, and we would all be equal.^iv We might fulfill the words of our own Declaration of Independence, “...all men^v are created equal...” As I said, it sounds good. It's the ideal for which we should all be striving.^vi After all, wouldn't that solve most of the world's problems? If we were all equal we wouldn't covet the possessions of others, and crime would no longer exist.

For the poor the answer is certainly “yes.” But Americans are not poor, and some of us might not be willing to cooperate in such a plan. Based on US census data (2010), our average household income is $69,821, and our highest average family size is in Utah, where it is 3.56 persons. The lowest family size is in Maine and it is 2.83. Thus the average per capita income in the US is somewhere between $19,613 and $24,672. The numbers suggest that the average American would be badly hurt by such a redistribution.

Such an attitude, however, is selfish. A more generous approach is an equal division of income, even if it is harmful to us. And it would also be reasonable to divide all the land mass equally^vii among the earth's people and to give them equal shares of corporate earnings as well as personal earnings. And equal shares of the corporations, as well. Indeed, all property, real and intellectual, should be everyone's. Add to that world citizenship and a single currency system,^viii and we've achieved our perfect world.^ix All needs would be met and we'd all contribute to that paradise. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”^x

Of course you don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that there are a few kinks with which we might have to deal. Before we began with even the first step, we'd have to establish a bureaucracy to deal with the complex decisions and the steps necessary to implement the new system. We'd need a government. (In all likelihood, they would feel entitled to some extra compensation because of the difficulty and responsibility inherent in their tasks.) Having accomplished that, these new civil servants would have to formulate a method to redistribute the funds and to divide up the land and other property – as well as to get it to each citizen. Decisions would have to be made concerning the choice of land for each person,^xi since there are different levels of fertility and different climates. Perhaps a lottery would be the fairest way.^xii It would mean that friends and family might be divided, but that's an acceptable price to pay for paradise.

It's possible that the new economic system might have consequences which were not intended. How would the banks and stock market react to the breakup and sharing of corporate wealth, and to the equalization of funds around the world? Who would run the businesses that now exist? And what's in it for them – or, indeed, for those who work in those businesses? After all, if there is going to be an equalization each year, there's little to be gained by excessive effort or initiative. For that matter, there is little to be gained by any effort or initiative at all.^xiii

Who – if anyone – would buy what the factories produce? What would be the consumption pattens of the newly-rich and of those who may have lost most of their assets? Would there be any investment of new wealth? Would wealth (“resources” is probably a better word) be heritable or otherwise transmissible? Would parents be able to administer the “earnings” of minor children,^xiv or adult children of elderly and incompetent parents? It is assumed that the government would provide medical, legal, and other services for everyone.^xv And, of course, that government would decide on what music and art should be supported and available to everyone. That's more efficient than having differences based on folk themes or styles^xvi that differ around the world, and it will contribute to the uniformity that we all seek.

The trade-offs are doable. And the result is perfection. What right-thinking person^xvii would argue with that? And who would not be willing to accept the limitations of the new paradise?

I'll bet the world will look a lot better to the next generation.

Next episode: “Planned Parenthood” – Discouraging pregnancy.

i       Deuteronomy 15:11.

ii      March 29, 2012.

iii     The BBC got its numbers from the United Nations' International Labour [sic – that's the way the Brits spell it] Organization (ILO).

 

iv     In this case, those who favor such a utopia would probably be seeking an equality of outcome (or, more accurately, income) rather than one of opportunity. They're not the same. And neither could possibly believe that we can all be physically or intellectually equal. But what good is equal opportunity if everyone doesn't have it (and they don't) and if some make more of it than others and wind up with greater incomes?  So let's make it equality of income. It may not be better, but it sounds better.
v       In modern parlance, “men” would be replaced by “people.” (Parlance, not fact.)

vi      Individualism will, naturally, be discouraged since it only leads to inequality.

vii     Will they be equal in size, productivity, or value? What happens to the buildings already on the land?

viii    As well as a common religion, or atheism, for all.

ix     Management of paradise, and our own adjustment to it, will be aided by a population that all think, believe, and act the same.

x      That was Karl Marx's vision of equality as outlined in his “Critique of the Gotha Program” (1875). “Needs” are difficult to assess. Those accustomed to more (the rich) may “need” more.

xi      Would land have a cash value? Could it be inherited (indeed, the whole question of inheritance of money and other property would require evaluation) or would it be assigned to the newborns as people died? These are decisions that would be made by our government – our honorable co-citizens who surely have our best interests at heart – not their own.

xii     People would have to be transported to their new property, so there would have to be workers in the transportation industry.

xiii    Knowing that all our needs will be provided for will free us all up to do what we want. For some – the do-gooders among us – sitting still is not an option and they'll want to be productive irrespective of the need. For others, however, and I am one of them, would prefer to loll around or otherwise waste time rather than be productive.

xiv    Actually, sexual contact should be unlimited and open to all. Any children would be cared for by the state and not be a bother to their parents. That would limit both administration and inheritance problems.

xv    Rationing may be necessary but that's the subject of a different discussion. It brings us back, however, to the question of who governs us and who makes the decisions. Assuming a single world government with over seven billion citizens, individualized evaluations would be difficult.

xvi    Since people will be moved around following the land lottery, however, that should no longer be an issue. The prior countries will no longer exist, and their music and arts will disappear.

xvii  Or non-thinking person.