Factions -- The Chains of Oppression - Part II
The Greatest Obstacle to Restoration of Constitutional Government
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 25, 2011
This is Part II of IV Parts
Factions not in conflict with the Principle Faction
Let's look at some factions that are examples of those consistent with the Principle Faction:
Christians: Our nation was founded, without doubt, upon Christian moral values. Some of those values, however, have been disputed between various sects of Christianity since before the Founding of this great nation. In fact, the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", was adopted to assure that the ability to practice one's religion, as one might chose to practice it, was a fundamental (God given) right. Even "Mohametmen" were allowed to practice their religion, though the principles established by the Constitution retain the moral values of Christianity. It was never implied that laws could be passed based upon Islam -- only those based upon Christian moral values, and those, only locally, in order to provide a comfortable community for those who chose to live therein. The idea that a law would be passed allowing the wearing of a Burka, contrary to norms for the community and country, was inconceivable. It was the need for assimilation, in order to maintain that which was created by the Revolutionary War, that is necessary to maintain the greatness of the country.
Outlawing prostitution, gambling, alcohol, done at the local community level (often county level), was paramount in the concepts adopted by the Founders. To assume that a state could enact and enforce such laws was not even under consideration during those formative years, and efforts to establish moral laws on a state-wide level were inconceivable.
Many Christians have beliefs that are not consistent with the beliefs of others, though there is a tendency to suppress expressing them outside of one's own circle, in recognition of the rights of others to believe as they wish. However, if we look back in history, we find that these ideals were expressed in newspaper articles, on soap boxes, and by legislators in assemblies, without fear of repercussion or arrest. Absent the ability to express such feelings, we are denied the right to pursue legislation that we believe to be for the good of the country, the state, the county, or the town, in which we live -- not to impose upon others, but rather to refrain from leaving those moral values behind.
So long as Christians adhere to the Principle Faction, and subordinate their beliefs, except as addressed above, to that Principle Faction, they are adherents to, and a product of, the United States. They are what America stands for.
Boy Scouts of America: Why would we even consider discussing a private organization such as the Boy Scouts of America under the heading of factions? Well, they are a faction -- one that has been around for over a hundred years. Their principles are based upon the Christian religion, and the Constitution and principles of this great country. Recently, however, the courts in this country have endeavored to impose upon the Boy Scouts rules of admission and acceptance that are absolutely contrary to the foundation of that organization. They, like Christians, are able to practice as they choose, and allow only those who conform to their beliefs to become members of that organization.
Instead, the courts have ruled that the Boy Scouts cannot prohibit membership to those who don't espouse the objectives of the Boy Scouts. They are forcing change upon an organization that exists totally within the concept of adherence to the Principle Faction, and have every right, under the Constitution, to allow membership only to those who adhere to the principles of that organization.
The Boy Scouts of America adhere to the Principle Faction, and subordinate their beliefs, except as addressed above, to that Principle Faction, they are adherents to, and a product of, the United States. They are what America stands for.
Jews: Jews don't believe, with few exceptions, that Christ existed, or, that if he did, he was not the Messiah. Well, this is definitely not consistent with Christianity, though it is not inconsistent with Christian moral values. In fact, for many years, many Christians despised the Jews and held them in contempt. Often crimes were committed against them, in the name of Christianity. In those instances, the Christians stepped outside of their adherence to the Principle Faction, though such instances are few and far between.
The Jews have established their own communities where they adhere to the precepts of their religion, and do not endeavor to impose their beliefs into the law, or upon others. They adhere to the Principle Faction, and subordinate their beliefs, except as addressed above, to that Principle Faction, they are adherents to, and a product of, the United States. They are what America stands for.
National Socialist Movement (in certain of its various forms): Much like the Jews, the beliefs of many National Socialists are inconsistent with the general tenor of the country, and though outspoken in their beliefs, they have, for the most part, adhered to the Principle Faction.
Some participants in this faction have stepped outside of the law and impose injury, unjustly, on others. These few, however, do not speak for the whole; the majority adhere to the laws, and their expression of their beliefs is consistent with the Constitution, though, perhaps, not politically correct.
Though they have chosen symbols (swastika and other Nazi representations) that are considered evil by most, what they hold to is not much different than the government's support of Japan and Germany, since the end of World War II. It was the whole of the people of each of those countries that stood firmly behind their governments -- responsible for death and devastation, around the world.
So long as National Socialists do not break the law and adhere to the Principle Faction, and subordinate their beliefs, except as addressed above, to that Principle Faction, they are adherents to, and a product of, the United States. They are what America stands for.
Anarchists (in certain of their various forms): The Founders enacted very few laws that acted directly on the people. For the most part, the laws enacted in the first few decades of the United States were laws to define, enhance, or protect the government. The exceptions were the moral laws, also known as Blue Laws, which generally existed within the confines of a town's ordinance, or, perhaps, even county ordinances, in an effort to establish a moral foundation that was comfortable to the majority of those residing there. Otherwise, a degree of anarchy, at least by one definition, was a part of life of the times.
There is an old adage that Liberty is existent so long as your fist stops before it reaches my nose. Our individual constraint on our own actions, so that we do no harm to others, is, perhaps, the best definition of that which should be.
The modern anarchist, even those who might espouse absence of government, altogether, are not inconsistent with much of what the Founders believed. A minimum of government is, perhaps, best, and, is without a doubt, consistent with the Constitution and most state constitutions, at least as originally ratified.
So long as Anarchists adhere to the Principle Faction, and subordinate their beliefs to that Principle Faction, they are adherents to, and a product of, the United States. They are what America stands for.
The Patriot Community: This is the most loose-knit community within the factions adhering to the Constitution. It is comprised of people who have, generally, taken one issue or aspect of the Constitution, to be their cause. Some of those aspects are taxation, the monetary system, the judicial system, the immigration policies (laws) that are not enforced, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment (either, or both, right to bear arms and militia), and, other lesser and greater causes. They are as diverse, and, perhaps more so, than the Founders, at the beginning of the Revolutionary War, yet they are probably the most vociferous of factions that comprise the adherents to the Principle Faction. They do, without a doubt, adhere to the Principle Faction, and subordinate their beliefs to that Principle Faction. They are adherents to, and a product of, the United States. They are what America stands for.
Friday, August 26, 2011
SCHOOLEEDOM 104B
(Not a student yet? Enroll for free at www.gwschool.net.)
As colonization of North American continued during the sustained westward movement of European migrants, competing claims arose as a result of different countries asserting they had rights to and ownership of the same area of land. Britain and France, specifically, had strong disagreement over whose territorial claims were valid. After the resolution of the War of the Austrian Succession in 1748, a commission was formed to expedite the resolution of this controversy.
Both countries appointed staunch expansionists to the commission, hoping to assert their position well and retain claim to the land. The group of men met in Paris in the summer of 1750; no productive result emerged, largely due to the stubborn unwillingness to compromise on each side.
Two years passed before armed conflict erupted. A new Governor-General of New France arrived in 1752, and made good on threats one of his predecessors had made five years previous. At that time, the French had led a military expedition over 200 strong throughout the territory they claimed to own, telling British merchants to leave and warning the Native Americans in the area to not trade with the British. "Dire consequences" would result from ignoring this mandate, the Governor-General at the time had claimed. The Native Americans continued to trade as they had before.
The new Governor-General sought to punish a tribe of the Miami for refusing to obey these dictates. On June 21, 1752, an armed force of over 300 (comprised of French-Canadians and Native Americans from the Ottawa tribe) attacked a trading center, killing 14 Miami--including the tribe's chief to whom the orders had been directly given five years previous.
As other French expansion progressed, including the building of forts and expulsion of British traders and Native Americans, another tribe, the Iriquois, did not take kindly to these actions. As the lriquois pressed some of the colonial leaders to abide by their previous treaty obligations and check the French's expansion, their demands were not executed, and in anger, the Iriquois severed the "Covenant Chain"--an alliance between their group of tribes and the British government. The British thus quickly turned a friend into foe.
As skirmishes ensued, George Washington became involved as a Major in the Virginia militia assigned to various campaigns to both warn the French to leave and employ force at times in response to French expansion and aggression. On one such campaign, Washington and his men intercepted French scouts, resulting in several deaths. A retaliatory strike by the French on Washington's forces a few weeks later forced the latter to surrender and withdraw. Contentious though these battles may have been, the news of their occurrence reached the respective governments of each group. Quickly thereafter, both the British and the French accelerated their deployment of stronger military forces from the mainland to their colonies in North America.
The following five years of conflict yielded a back-and-forth set of victories for both sides. The French dominated the battles during the early part of the war, and the tide later turned in favor of the British. The Treaty of Paris, signed in 1763 between Britain, France, Spain, and Portugal, reshaped imperially-claimed colonies throughout the world in favor of the dominating force, the British, thus marking the beginning of their dominance outside of Europe.
While much can be said about the details of the war itself, more interesting and pertinent to the study of American history and political economy is the effect this war had on the events that followed soon thereafter. For example, the participants in this war incurred a substantial amount of debt to fund their military expenditures. Britain's national debt was roughly doubled because of this war. The need to generate revenue to pay off this debt led to the creation and enforcement of a variety of new taxes, many of which were seen by American colonists as oppressive and helped spark the revolutionary war. Ironically, Britain's war effort to maintain and expand their land in North American ultimately helped spark a rebellion that resulted in the loss of all claims to that land.
The irony does not stop there. At the start of the war, the Crown called for a colonial congress to meet in New York in 1754. To promote this "Albany Congress", one Benjamin Franklin--among many other professions and talents a printer--created his famous political cartoon of a sectioned snake with the caption "Join or Die". Franklin hoped to encourage unity amongst the American colonies, yet only seven of the thirteen colonies sent delegates to the Congress. Still, this meeting was the first time the colonies had joined together in conference to discuss mutual interests and explore common solutions. Franklin's heavily debated proposal for union included a unified colonial entity, headed by a president whom the Crown would appoint, which would be comprised of a few delegates from each colony, empowered with legislative authority. This plan was rejected by the colonies who were jealous guardians of their own powers. "The colonial assemblies and most of the people were narrowly provincial in outlook, mutually jealous, and suspicious of any central taxing authority," wrote Benjamin Franklin in his autobiography. Britain disliked the augmentation of power in the colonists' hands, and preferred their focus be on the military campaigns. Interestingly, Franklin speculated that had Britain supported the plan for a centralized political force, the revolution would not have happened--at least when it did. "On Reflection it now seems probable, that if the foregoing Plan or some thing like it, had been adopted and carried into Execution, the subsequent Separation of the Colonies from the Mother Country might not so soon have happened, nor the mischiefs suffered on both sides have occurred, perhaps during another Century," he wrote. Despite the failure of this congress, the seeds of self-government and the desire from some sort of "more perfect union" were planted. Britain's call for a multi-colonial congress helped spark a hungry appetite of self-government in the colonies who ultimately realized, like Franklin had earlier drawn, that they must "Join or Die".
The French and Indian war should not be viewed in isolation. The results from this war--in terms of money, change in land ownership, alliances both broken and created, and political developments--had a substantial impact on events which soon followed. Indeed, the circumstances which existed to cause the colonists to seek separation from their mother government were fomented, if not directly caused, by some of the consequences of this war. As such, the French and Indian war can and should be considered a direct precursor to the American Revolution itself.
Connor Boyack is a web developer, political economist, and budding philanthropist trying to change the world one byte at a time. He serves as State Coordinator for the Tenth Amendment Center in Utah, and Communications Coordinator for the Campaign for Liberty in Utah County. Read his blog or send him an email.
(Not a student yet? Enroll for free at www.gwschool.net.)
The George Washington School of Freedom
2975 W. Executive Pkwy, Suite 183
Lehi, UT 84043
www.gwschool.net
(Not a student yet? Enroll for free at www.gwschool.net.)
Thursday, August 25, 2011
PATRIOT POST RESTORING CONSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY
The Patriot Post
Current
About
Alexander's Essays
Essays by Year
Essays by Category
Archives
Historic Documents
Resources
Subscription
Donate
Contact Us
Patriot Shop
Print
PDF
46 Comments
Post a Comment
|
Email
Ballots or Bullets?
By Mark Alexander · Thursday, August 25, 2011
Ballots or Bullets?
Ballot Box Barriers to Restoring Constitutional Integrity
"We should be unfaithful to ourselves if we should ever lose sight of the danger to our Liberties if anything partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections. If an election is to be determined by a majority of a single vote, and that can be procured by a party through artifice or corruption, the Government may be the choice of a party for its own ends, not of the nation for the national good." --John Adams, Inaugural Address, 1797
All around us, there are imminent and ominous threats to the future of American Liberty. None, however, is more grave than the demolition of free enterprise by those who would replace it with the authoritarian rule of Democratic Socialism envisioned by Barack Hussein Obama and his leftist comrades.
Rancorous political debate is currently focused on competing solutions for our failing domestic economy and the collapse of our esteemed standing among the nations of the world.
Conservatives, particularly those resolute constitutional constructionists who identify with the much-maligned Tea Party Movement, rightly understand, as did Ronald Reagan, that "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." That is why we are advocating for the restoration of constitutional limits on the central government.
Conversely, the growing ranks of leftists in Congress, some 80 of whom are openly members of the Socialist Party of America's Congressional Progressive Caucus, led by Reps. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN), subscribe to the notion that government is both the engine and the drive train of our nation's economy.
But if Essential Liberty and Rule of Law as enshrined in our Constitution are to survive, then free enterprise must be their economic engine. At present, however, that engine is attempting to pull an ever more bloated government trailer -- a trailer so overloaded as to bring the economy to a dead stop.
How bloated?
Obama's government programs will amass a $1.3 trillion deficit in fiscal year 2011 alone, some $400 billion more than the paltry $917 billion in savings to which Congress agreed over the next decade under the recent budget deal and corresponding debt-ceiling increase.
This oppressive bloat -- and our elected leaders' utterly inadequate response to it -- will serve as fodder for much of the political debate ahead of the 2012 election. Indeed, the future of Liberty depends on the successful defeat of enough congressional leftists to provide strong conservative majorities in both the House and Senate. Moreover, Liberty hangs in the balance of the upcoming presidential election. While conservatives recaptured the House of Representatives in 2010, the first effective step to restrain Obama's agenda, only a conservative president can begin to undo the damage done to our nation by the Obama regime.
However, do we still have the luxury of political solutions, via elections, to salvage what is left of our Republic? Is the ballot box still a viable method to restore constitutional integrity?
As John Adams once warned, we must be vigilantly on guard against all contagions that would "infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections."
These contagions, these obstacles, are as follows, roughly in order of threat magnitude: an ignorant electorate; candidates who are unable to articulate the difference between Rule of Law and rule of men; institutionalized dependency on the state, including the fact that 40 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax; forced redistribution of wealth; comfort, complacency and indifference; Leftmedia dezinformatsia; opposition by the leftist elite; and, finally, the conferring of legal status upon illegal immigrants in order to fortify Democrat voter constituencies illegitimately.
The most significant obstacle to restoring liberty by way of the electoral process is the fact that so many Americans know so little about civics or civic responsibility. When it comes to getting government right, ignorance is not bliss.
It follows, then, that there is a dearth of qualified candidates who are able to articulate the difference between Rule of Law and rule of men, who instead get lost in the high weeds of lesser political issues.
A majority of Americans are beneficiaries of some combination of thousands of government schemes to redistribute wealth. The resulting institutionalized dependency on the state is insidious, as it results in reliable votes for whichever party (read: the Democrat Party) can take the most from one group and redistribute it to another. It's no wonder that the most recent Index of Dependence on Government (2010) reports the greatest single-year percentage rise in dependence since 1976.
As Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) recently noted, Obama's "intent is to create dependency because it worked so well for him."
Additionally, 40 percent of Americans pay no federal income taxes. This huge voting bloc thus has no (apparent) stake in our nation's fiscal health, and its voters are thereby motivated to use their ballots to keep the government largess spewing.
As 19th-century political economist Frederic Bastiat noted, "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
The forced redistribution of wealth pushed the Cost of Government Day to 12 August this year, which means that the average American tax payer must now work 224 days to fund all taxes, and hidden regulatory taxes, imposed by the central government. That date is 27 days later than in 2008, and it now consumes more than 60 percent of national earned income. There are endless regulatory costs on the horizon, such as Obama's new fuel economy standards which according to a study conducted by the Center for Automotive Research, will increase the average retail price of motor vehicles more than $11,000.
As government takes more, individuals have less to live their lives and to support Liberty advocacy organizations like The Patriot Post.
Of course, comfort, complacency and indifference, particularly among wealthy "Republicans" who contribute little to sustain our legacy of Liberty for our posterity, undermine the potential for sustaining Liberty by way of the ballot box.
In response to such indifference, Samuel Adams advised, "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"
Meanwhile, Leftmedia indoctrination and thriving financial support for wealthy left-elite socialist causes continue to twist public opinion and ensure the success of leftist candidates and policies.
While these are certainly formidable obstacles to the rejection of socialism and successful restoration of constitutional integrity, they are not insurmountable. Still, when generations of Americans have been inculcated with the belief that they are entitled to so much from the state, it may take a generation or more to re-educate them, and to stave off the violence that often erupts when the state fails to meet their expectations as witnessed recently in Greece and England.
The question remains: Are we irrevocably locked into the Cycle of Democracy? Recall that this evolves from bondage to spiritual faith; spiritual faith to great courage; courage to Liberty (Rule of Law); Liberty to abundance; abundance to complacency; complacency to apathy; apathy to dependence; and from dependence back into bondage (rule of men).
At the close of the first American Revolution, George Washington wrote, "No country upon earth ever had it more in its power to attain these blessings [of Liberty] than United America. Wondrously strange, then, and much to be regretted indeed would it be, were we to neglect the means and to depart from the road which Providence has pointed us to so plainly; I cannot believe it will ever come to pass."
We have already veered from that road. Is there time to use the ballot box to attain a new dawn for Liberty, or are we destined to dependence and bondage, which will require another renewal of faith and courage?
Publisher's Note: The young daughter of a long-time Christian brother, and a member of our National Advisory Committee, was killed Monday morning. Her name was Hannah. Please be in prayer for her family, particularly her father, Phil; mother, Lisa; sister, Teal; and brothers David and Ryan.
Current
About
Alexander's Essays
Essays by Year
Essays by Category
Archives
Historic Documents
Resources
Subscription
Donate
Contact Us
Patriot Shop
46 Comments
Post a Comment
|
Ballots or Bullets?
By Mark Alexander · Thursday, August 25, 2011
Ballots or Bullets?
Ballot Box Barriers to Restoring Constitutional Integrity
"We should be unfaithful to ourselves if we should ever lose sight of the danger to our Liberties if anything partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections. If an election is to be determined by a majority of a single vote, and that can be procured by a party through artifice or corruption, the Government may be the choice of a party for its own ends, not of the nation for the national good." --John Adams, Inaugural Address, 1797
All around us, there are imminent and ominous threats to the future of American Liberty. None, however, is more grave than the demolition of free enterprise by those who would replace it with the authoritarian rule of Democratic Socialism envisioned by Barack Hussein Obama and his leftist comrades.
Rancorous political debate is currently focused on competing solutions for our failing domestic economy and the collapse of our esteemed standing among the nations of the world.
Conservatives, particularly those resolute constitutional constructionists who identify with the much-maligned Tea Party Movement, rightly understand, as did Ronald Reagan, that "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." That is why we are advocating for the restoration of constitutional limits on the central government.
Conversely, the growing ranks of leftists in Congress, some 80 of whom are openly members of the Socialist Party of America's Congressional Progressive Caucus, led by Reps. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN), subscribe to the notion that government is both the engine and the drive train of our nation's economy.
But if Essential Liberty and Rule of Law as enshrined in our Constitution are to survive, then free enterprise must be their economic engine. At present, however, that engine is attempting to pull an ever more bloated government trailer -- a trailer so overloaded as to bring the economy to a dead stop.
How bloated?
Obama's government programs will amass a $1.3 trillion deficit in fiscal year 2011 alone, some $400 billion more than the paltry $917 billion in savings to which Congress agreed over the next decade under the recent budget deal and corresponding debt-ceiling increase.
This oppressive bloat -- and our elected leaders' utterly inadequate response to it -- will serve as fodder for much of the political debate ahead of the 2012 election. Indeed, the future of Liberty depends on the successful defeat of enough congressional leftists to provide strong conservative majorities in both the House and Senate. Moreover, Liberty hangs in the balance of the upcoming presidential election. While conservatives recaptured the House of Representatives in 2010, the first effective step to restrain Obama's agenda, only a conservative president can begin to undo the damage done to our nation by the Obama regime.
However, do we still have the luxury of political solutions, via elections, to salvage what is left of our Republic? Is the ballot box still a viable method to restore constitutional integrity?
As John Adams once warned, we must be vigilantly on guard against all contagions that would "infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections."
These contagions, these obstacles, are as follows, roughly in order of threat magnitude: an ignorant electorate; candidates who are unable to articulate the difference between Rule of Law and rule of men; institutionalized dependency on the state, including the fact that 40 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax; forced redistribution of wealth; comfort, complacency and indifference; Leftmedia dezinformatsia; opposition by the leftist elite; and, finally, the conferring of legal status upon illegal immigrants in order to fortify Democrat voter constituencies illegitimately.
The most significant obstacle to restoring liberty by way of the electoral process is the fact that so many Americans know so little about civics or civic responsibility. When it comes to getting government right, ignorance is not bliss.
It follows, then, that there is a dearth of qualified candidates who are able to articulate the difference between Rule of Law and rule of men, who instead get lost in the high weeds of lesser political issues.
A majority of Americans are beneficiaries of some combination of thousands of government schemes to redistribute wealth. The resulting institutionalized dependency on the state is insidious, as it results in reliable votes for whichever party (read: the Democrat Party) can take the most from one group and redistribute it to another. It's no wonder that the most recent Index of Dependence on Government (2010) reports the greatest single-year percentage rise in dependence since 1976.
As Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) recently noted, Obama's "intent is to create dependency because it worked so well for him."
Additionally, 40 percent of Americans pay no federal income taxes. This huge voting bloc thus has no (apparent) stake in our nation's fiscal health, and its voters are thereby motivated to use their ballots to keep the government largess spewing.
As 19th-century political economist Frederic Bastiat noted, "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
The forced redistribution of wealth pushed the Cost of Government Day to 12 August this year, which means that the average American tax payer must now work 224 days to fund all taxes, and hidden regulatory taxes, imposed by the central government. That date is 27 days later than in 2008, and it now consumes more than 60 percent of national earned income. There are endless regulatory costs on the horizon, such as Obama's new fuel economy standards which according to a study conducted by the Center for Automotive Research, will increase the average retail price of motor vehicles more than $11,000.
As government takes more, individuals have less to live their lives and to support Liberty advocacy organizations like The Patriot Post.
Of course, comfort, complacency and indifference, particularly among wealthy "Republicans" who contribute little to sustain our legacy of Liberty for our posterity, undermine the potential for sustaining Liberty by way of the ballot box.
In response to such indifference, Samuel Adams advised, "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"
Meanwhile, Leftmedia indoctrination and thriving financial support for wealthy left-elite socialist causes continue to twist public opinion and ensure the success of leftist candidates and policies.
While these are certainly formidable obstacles to the rejection of socialism and successful restoration of constitutional integrity, they are not insurmountable. Still, when generations of Americans have been inculcated with the belief that they are entitled to so much from the state, it may take a generation or more to re-educate them, and to stave off the violence that often erupts when the state fails to meet their expectations as witnessed recently in Greece and England.
The question remains: Are we irrevocably locked into the Cycle of Democracy? Recall that this evolves from bondage to spiritual faith; spiritual faith to great courage; courage to Liberty (Rule of Law); Liberty to abundance; abundance to complacency; complacency to apathy; apathy to dependence; and from dependence back into bondage (rule of men).
At the close of the first American Revolution, George Washington wrote, "No country upon earth ever had it more in its power to attain these blessings [of Liberty] than United America. Wondrously strange, then, and much to be regretted indeed would it be, were we to neglect the means and to depart from the road which Providence has pointed us to so plainly; I cannot believe it will ever come to pass."
We have already veered from that road. Is there time to use the ballot box to attain a new dawn for Liberty, or are we destined to dependence and bondage, which will require another renewal of faith and courage?
Publisher's Note: The young daughter of a long-time Christian brother, and a member of our National Advisory Committee, was killed Monday morning. Her name was Hannah. Please be in prayer for her family, particularly her father, Phil; mother, Lisa; sister, Teal; and brothers David and Ryan.
PRINCIPLES FOR A FREE SOCIETY EQUALITY
PRINCIPLES FOR A FREE SOCIETY BY NIGEL ASHFORD
Equality
“All men have equal rights but not to equal things.”
Edmund Burke
What is equality?
Equality is the principle that people should be treated the same or
equally. Yet people are obviously not the same or ‘equal’ in most of
their characteristics, in talents, abilities, looks or preferences. No one
believes that every human being is the same, so in what sense are people
equal? The debate about equality is about when it is, and is not, right
to treat people the same. At least five different types of equality can be
identified: moral (or formal) equality, equality before the law, political
equality, equality of opportunity, and equality of outcome. The first
three types are desirable; the last is highly undesirable; and the value of
equal opportunity depends upon how it is interpreted.
For most of the history of the world, equality was ignored as a moral
principle, or viewed as inconceivable and incompatible with reality. It
was considered normal that people should be treated in different ways,
such as different laws for barons and peasants. An early statement of
equality can be found in Aristotle when he proclaimed that no distinction
should be made between men who are equal in all respects relevant
to the issue in question, which of course raises the question of ‘what is
relevant?’ Christianity preached the principle that all souls were equally
worthy in the sight of God.
Thomas Hobbes claimed that men were equal in the state of nature, but it
was such an undesirable state of affairs, in which life was “solitary, nasty,
brutish and short,” men were eager to surrender this equality for order
under a strong ruler, the Leviathan. As so often in the history of modern
philosophy, a decisive break occurred under John Locke. He maintained
that men had equal rights in the state of nature, but retained them under
political rule. These rights to life, liberty and property belonged to all
human beings. It was in this sense of equal rights that the American
Declaration of Independence declared that “all men are created equal.” Its
- 20 -
author, Thomas Jefferson, elsewhere strongly denounced those who felt
there was a natural hierarchy and that people should know their place in
society. “The mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their
backs, nor a favoured few booted and spurred ready to ride them legitimately
by the grace of God.” The nineteenth century was a period of struggle
to establish the implications of equal rights in the abolition of slavery,
the provision of the principle of equality before the law, and political equality
in which all citizens were entitled to an equal right to vote. However,
women did not receive the vote in many countries until the early twentieth
century, and blacks and coloureds were denied equal political and property
rights in the South Africa of apartheid. It was in that century, with the rise
of socialism and communism, that equality became commonly associated
with material equality or ‘equality of results.’ The principle of equal opportunity
also gained ground in that century but then was transformed into a
different principle, almost identical to that of equal results.
Moral equality
Every human being is morally worthy of consideration, with the right to
make choices about their lives. This arises from their existence as a
human being, and is based on the belief that there are certain things
which every human being has in common with every other human
being (notably natural or human rights) and that made them worthy of
respect. Just because someone is of a different religion, or nationality, or
gender, does not mean that they do not matter. As a human being, one
has the right to live one’s life as one chooses, provided one does not
invade the lives of others. This is why such beliefs are in opposition to,
and would seek to ban, slavery, as the slave is forbidden the right to live
his own chosen life. Immanuel Kant developed a rule following from
this presumption of formal equality, sometimes called the categorical
imperative: “do unto others as you would have done to you.”
This is not of course to say that everyone is morally equal in their
behaviour. Clearly there are some people who behave better than others,
and some who commit evil acts. However, their lives remain of value.
Unfortunately there is no agreed consensus on the correct term to use
for this sense of equality. Various terms include formal equality, moral
- 21 -
equality, equality of status, equality of worth, and equality of respect;
none of them truly capture this principle.
Equality before the law
The most important political consequence of the acceptance of moral
equality is best identified in the principle of legal equality or equality
before the law. This states that the law should treat people impartially,
regardless of irrelevant characteristics, such as nationality, ethnic group,
wealth, class, gender, religion, or race. This is why justice is ‘blind’ to all
factors other than those directly related to the case. Legal equality is thus
strongly linked to the principle of the rule of law. Equality before the
law was the basis for the early claims of the women’s rights movement
that women should be entitled to the same legal rights as men, such as
the right to own property and to vote.
The Roman orator Cicero noted the moral distinction between different
types of equality. “While it is undesirable to equalize wealth, and everyone
cannot have the same talents, legal rights at least should be equal
among citizens of the same commonwealth.” The French Declaration of
the Rights of Man in 1789 stated that the law “should be the same for
all...and all being equal in its sight, are equally eligible to all honours,
places and employments, according to their different abilities, without
any other distinction than that created by their virtue and talents.”
Political equality
Moral equality is also the source of political equality, in the sense that
everyone is entitled to vote unless there is a valid and legitimate reason
why that person should be denied it. As the interests of all humans are
worthy of consideration in the making of common decisions, so all
should have the vote to ensure that their particular interests were considered
by the elected politicians. Exceptions might be children, the mentally
handicapped and convicted criminals, who are either incapable of
identifying their own true interests or are felt to have forfeited that right
as a result of their failure to obey the laws. Thus there is a presumption
of equal political rights, which one should be very reluctant to betray.
- 22 -
Equality of opportunity
Equality of opportunity is based on the view that individuals should
have the opportunity, or chances, available to them to succeed in life,
as they interpret success. This is usually conveyed by the use of sporting
metaphors, such as an equal start in life, or an equal playing field. There
should be an equal start in the race of life but with an unequal finish.
Margaret Thatcher described this as “the right to be unequal.” The goal
is that careers should be open to the talented and promotion should be
by ability, not due to family, sexual or political connections.
Such a society would be a meritocracy, or rule by the able and talented,
who achieved their positions through merit. Merit has been defined as
ability plus effort. Equality of opportunity is about removing unfair
obstacles to achievement. Social position should be based on individual
effort and ability. This is strongly linked with the idea of education for
all, so that everyone can develop themselves to their full capacity.
Advocates and opponents of meritocracy both acknowledge that the
consequence could be quite major differences (or inequalities) in results.
This view is based on the idea of equal liberties.
However, it might be better to describe this as the principle of maximum
opportunity. In practice, it is never possible to achieve equal
opportunity, and it would indeed be undesirable. One of the greatest
sources of unequal opportunity is the family, when there is a difference
between warm, loving parents who care deeply about their children, and
indifferent parents who care more about their own selfish desires. It is
impossible to ensure that every parent is kind and loving, so the strict
application of the principle of equal opportunity would require taking
the children away from their parents and bringing them all up together
collectively. This would be unacceptable to anyone who believes in the
value of the family. A full commitment to erasing any differences in
opportunities would require a totalitarian society in which the state was
able to control every aspect of life to ensure that no one obtained an
‘unfair’ advantage, such as a better teacher.
- 23 -
Positive discrimination
The idea of equal, as distinct from maximum, opportunity is behind the
drive towards positive discrimination, or disproportionate but favourable
shares to groups, as a means of redressing past and present inequalities of
treatment. This can take at least three forms: outreach, encouraging
minorities to pursue positions; preferences, in which one group is preferred
over another; and quotas, where equal opportunity is said to exist
only when the same proportion is employed or represented in a body as
their percentage in the population. Originally the idea meant outreach,
making minorities aware of the opportunities available and encouraging
their pursuit. This is unobjectionable. However the idea has come to
mean preferences and quotas, which is objectionable.
Positive discrimination should be opposed and is itself a denial of the
four types of equality identified above. First, groups are favoured on
irrelevant grounds. The benefits of discrimination are often directed to
the relatively educated and successful members of the groups. Second,
unjust treatment of individuals in the past is not rectified by favourable
treatment of totally different individuals today who happen by an accident
of birth to belong to the same group. Thirdly, any discrimination
causes a backlash against the new privileged. Instead of being recognised
as having achieved their position on grounds of merit, the assumption is
that they were favoured in some way, and this reduces the confidence
and trust of the rest of the population. Fourthly, it is unfair to the members
of the majority group that they should be treated unequally. Most
important of all, it is fundamentally a denial of the principle of formal
and legal equality as people are treated not on the basis of their own
virtues and faults, what Martin Luther King called “the content of our
character,” but on irrelevant characteristics such as gender or race.
Equality of outcome
This is the most frequently used sense of equality, best described as
egalitarianism, which is that there should be equal shares for all. Instead
of being concerned with the conditions in which people participate in
society, this is concerned with results, with the end of the race, a move
- 24 -
from opportunities to rewards. All runners will finish the race together
or will receive the same rewards whether they were first or last. Equality
of outcome is concerned with material equality or equality of living conditions.
This requires redistribution from the better off to the worse off,
where the primary goal is to eliminate the gap.
Egalitarians often invite confusion as to whether they mean equality
of income or wealth. Even if two people received the same income,
inequality of wealth would quickly ensue, as one carefully saved part of
his income or spent it on long term benefits, such as improving his
home, whilst the other spent all the money on goods with only short
term benefits, such as smoking, and saved none. Very soon, the first
person would be much wealthier than the second, although they both
received the same income.
Together with most proponents of moral equality, one should reject
equality of outcome as a desirable goal. First, it is unnatural. The natural
condition of man is to have inequality of material possessions. It requires
unnatural and coercive acts to change it. Individuals left to their own
devices will rapidly achieve differences in incomes, wealth and living
standards. Second, it would require a massive denial of individual liberty
and massive state interference in people’s lives. Third, it would be highly
inefficient as it would reduce incentives to work and produce. Why
work if you know that you will receive the same benefits regardless of
your behaviour? Fourth, it is unjust as people are entitled to receive the
benefits for which they have worked. Fifth, wealth has to be produced.
Egalitarians are so concerned with redistributing wealth, that they rarely
consider the link between production and distribution. If one produces
and then discovers that, without your permission, part of your wealth is
given to others, you will reduce your wealth production. You will
respond to incentives. The consequence is the loss of wealth to society as
a whole. It is an illusion to believe that distribution can be changed with
no effect on wealth creation. Finally, ‘who will equalise the equalisers?’
Some one or body has to have the power to decide who gets what. The
members of this elite will have considerably greater power than any one
else and will use that power in their own favour. While members of the
communist nomenklatura often had wages similar to others, they were
- 25 -
able to use their political power to improve their own conditions. To
achieve equality of results would require massive inequality of political
power.
For equality, against egalitarianism
A just political system would therefore show respect for: equality
before the law, to develop a legal system which treats equally all who
come before it; equal political rights, when all are entitled to the vote
and the right of free expression; and equal opportunities in the sense
of careers open to the talented. However a free and just society
would reject positive discrimination, redistribution and egalitarianism.
- 26 -
Reading
Peter Bauer, Equality, Third World and Economic Delusion, London,
Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1981, Part 1.
Antony Flew, The Politics of Procrustes, New York, Prometheus, 1981.
Milton & Rose Friedman, Free to Choose, London, Secker & Warburg,
1980, chapter 5.
F.A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, London, Routledge, 1962,
chapter 6.
William Letwin, Against Equality, London, Macmillan, 1983.
Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia, Oxford, Blackwell, 1974,
chapter 8.
Questions for thought
1. Is the gap between the wealth of the richest and the poorest in society
a problem?
2. Do you believe that all your citizens are treated equally before the
law?
3. How can we maximise economic and social opportunities?
Equality
“All men have equal rights but not to equal things.”
Edmund Burke
What is equality?
Equality is the principle that people should be treated the same or
equally. Yet people are obviously not the same or ‘equal’ in most of
their characteristics, in talents, abilities, looks or preferences. No one
believes that every human being is the same, so in what sense are people
equal? The debate about equality is about when it is, and is not, right
to treat people the same. At least five different types of equality can be
identified: moral (or formal) equality, equality before the law, political
equality, equality of opportunity, and equality of outcome. The first
three types are desirable; the last is highly undesirable; and the value of
equal opportunity depends upon how it is interpreted.
For most of the history of the world, equality was ignored as a moral
principle, or viewed as inconceivable and incompatible with reality. It
was considered normal that people should be treated in different ways,
such as different laws for barons and peasants. An early statement of
equality can be found in Aristotle when he proclaimed that no distinction
should be made between men who are equal in all respects relevant
to the issue in question, which of course raises the question of ‘what is
relevant?’ Christianity preached the principle that all souls were equally
worthy in the sight of God.
Thomas Hobbes claimed that men were equal in the state of nature, but it
was such an undesirable state of affairs, in which life was “solitary, nasty,
brutish and short,” men were eager to surrender this equality for order
under a strong ruler, the Leviathan. As so often in the history of modern
philosophy, a decisive break occurred under John Locke. He maintained
that men had equal rights in the state of nature, but retained them under
political rule. These rights to life, liberty and property belonged to all
human beings. It was in this sense of equal rights that the American
Declaration of Independence declared that “all men are created equal.” Its
- 20 -
author, Thomas Jefferson, elsewhere strongly denounced those who felt
there was a natural hierarchy and that people should know their place in
society. “The mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their
backs, nor a favoured few booted and spurred ready to ride them legitimately
by the grace of God.” The nineteenth century was a period of struggle
to establish the implications of equal rights in the abolition of slavery,
the provision of the principle of equality before the law, and political equality
in which all citizens were entitled to an equal right to vote. However,
women did not receive the vote in many countries until the early twentieth
century, and blacks and coloureds were denied equal political and property
rights in the South Africa of apartheid. It was in that century, with the rise
of socialism and communism, that equality became commonly associated
with material equality or ‘equality of results.’ The principle of equal opportunity
also gained ground in that century but then was transformed into a
different principle, almost identical to that of equal results.
Moral equality
Every human being is morally worthy of consideration, with the right to
make choices about their lives. This arises from their existence as a
human being, and is based on the belief that there are certain things
which every human being has in common with every other human
being (notably natural or human rights) and that made them worthy of
respect. Just because someone is of a different religion, or nationality, or
gender, does not mean that they do not matter. As a human being, one
has the right to live one’s life as one chooses, provided one does not
invade the lives of others. This is why such beliefs are in opposition to,
and would seek to ban, slavery, as the slave is forbidden the right to live
his own chosen life. Immanuel Kant developed a rule following from
this presumption of formal equality, sometimes called the categorical
imperative: “do unto others as you would have done to you.”
This is not of course to say that everyone is morally equal in their
behaviour. Clearly there are some people who behave better than others,
and some who commit evil acts. However, their lives remain of value.
Unfortunately there is no agreed consensus on the correct term to use
for this sense of equality. Various terms include formal equality, moral
- 21 -
equality, equality of status, equality of worth, and equality of respect;
none of them truly capture this principle.
Equality before the law
The most important political consequence of the acceptance of moral
equality is best identified in the principle of legal equality or equality
before the law. This states that the law should treat people impartially,
regardless of irrelevant characteristics, such as nationality, ethnic group,
wealth, class, gender, religion, or race. This is why justice is ‘blind’ to all
factors other than those directly related to the case. Legal equality is thus
strongly linked to the principle of the rule of law. Equality before the
law was the basis for the early claims of the women’s rights movement
that women should be entitled to the same legal rights as men, such as
the right to own property and to vote.
The Roman orator Cicero noted the moral distinction between different
types of equality. “While it is undesirable to equalize wealth, and everyone
cannot have the same talents, legal rights at least should be equal
among citizens of the same commonwealth.” The French Declaration of
the Rights of Man in 1789 stated that the law “should be the same for
all...and all being equal in its sight, are equally eligible to all honours,
places and employments, according to their different abilities, without
any other distinction than that created by their virtue and talents.”
Political equality
Moral equality is also the source of political equality, in the sense that
everyone is entitled to vote unless there is a valid and legitimate reason
why that person should be denied it. As the interests of all humans are
worthy of consideration in the making of common decisions, so all
should have the vote to ensure that their particular interests were considered
by the elected politicians. Exceptions might be children, the mentally
handicapped and convicted criminals, who are either incapable of
identifying their own true interests or are felt to have forfeited that right
as a result of their failure to obey the laws. Thus there is a presumption
of equal political rights, which one should be very reluctant to betray.
- 22 -
Equality of opportunity
Equality of opportunity is based on the view that individuals should
have the opportunity, or chances, available to them to succeed in life,
as they interpret success. This is usually conveyed by the use of sporting
metaphors, such as an equal start in life, or an equal playing field. There
should be an equal start in the race of life but with an unequal finish.
Margaret Thatcher described this as “the right to be unequal.” The goal
is that careers should be open to the talented and promotion should be
by ability, not due to family, sexual or political connections.
Such a society would be a meritocracy, or rule by the able and talented,
who achieved their positions through merit. Merit has been defined as
ability plus effort. Equality of opportunity is about removing unfair
obstacles to achievement. Social position should be based on individual
effort and ability. This is strongly linked with the idea of education for
all, so that everyone can develop themselves to their full capacity.
Advocates and opponents of meritocracy both acknowledge that the
consequence could be quite major differences (or inequalities) in results.
This view is based on the idea of equal liberties.
However, it might be better to describe this as the principle of maximum
opportunity. In practice, it is never possible to achieve equal
opportunity, and it would indeed be undesirable. One of the greatest
sources of unequal opportunity is the family, when there is a difference
between warm, loving parents who care deeply about their children, and
indifferent parents who care more about their own selfish desires. It is
impossible to ensure that every parent is kind and loving, so the strict
application of the principle of equal opportunity would require taking
the children away from their parents and bringing them all up together
collectively. This would be unacceptable to anyone who believes in the
value of the family. A full commitment to erasing any differences in
opportunities would require a totalitarian society in which the state was
able to control every aspect of life to ensure that no one obtained an
‘unfair’ advantage, such as a better teacher.
- 23 -
Positive discrimination
The idea of equal, as distinct from maximum, opportunity is behind the
drive towards positive discrimination, or disproportionate but favourable
shares to groups, as a means of redressing past and present inequalities of
treatment. This can take at least three forms: outreach, encouraging
minorities to pursue positions; preferences, in which one group is preferred
over another; and quotas, where equal opportunity is said to exist
only when the same proportion is employed or represented in a body as
their percentage in the population. Originally the idea meant outreach,
making minorities aware of the opportunities available and encouraging
their pursuit. This is unobjectionable. However the idea has come to
mean preferences and quotas, which is objectionable.
Positive discrimination should be opposed and is itself a denial of the
four types of equality identified above. First, groups are favoured on
irrelevant grounds. The benefits of discrimination are often directed to
the relatively educated and successful members of the groups. Second,
unjust treatment of individuals in the past is not rectified by favourable
treatment of totally different individuals today who happen by an accident
of birth to belong to the same group. Thirdly, any discrimination
causes a backlash against the new privileged. Instead of being recognised
as having achieved their position on grounds of merit, the assumption is
that they were favoured in some way, and this reduces the confidence
and trust of the rest of the population. Fourthly, it is unfair to the members
of the majority group that they should be treated unequally. Most
important of all, it is fundamentally a denial of the principle of formal
and legal equality as people are treated not on the basis of their own
virtues and faults, what Martin Luther King called “the content of our
character,” but on irrelevant characteristics such as gender or race.
Equality of outcome
This is the most frequently used sense of equality, best described as
egalitarianism, which is that there should be equal shares for all. Instead
of being concerned with the conditions in which people participate in
society, this is concerned with results, with the end of the race, a move
- 24 -
from opportunities to rewards. All runners will finish the race together
or will receive the same rewards whether they were first or last. Equality
of outcome is concerned with material equality or equality of living conditions.
This requires redistribution from the better off to the worse off,
where the primary goal is to eliminate the gap.
Egalitarians often invite confusion as to whether they mean equality
of income or wealth. Even if two people received the same income,
inequality of wealth would quickly ensue, as one carefully saved part of
his income or spent it on long term benefits, such as improving his
home, whilst the other spent all the money on goods with only short
term benefits, such as smoking, and saved none. Very soon, the first
person would be much wealthier than the second, although they both
received the same income.
Together with most proponents of moral equality, one should reject
equality of outcome as a desirable goal. First, it is unnatural. The natural
condition of man is to have inequality of material possessions. It requires
unnatural and coercive acts to change it. Individuals left to their own
devices will rapidly achieve differences in incomes, wealth and living
standards. Second, it would require a massive denial of individual liberty
and massive state interference in people’s lives. Third, it would be highly
inefficient as it would reduce incentives to work and produce. Why
work if you know that you will receive the same benefits regardless of
your behaviour? Fourth, it is unjust as people are entitled to receive the
benefits for which they have worked. Fifth, wealth has to be produced.
Egalitarians are so concerned with redistributing wealth, that they rarely
consider the link between production and distribution. If one produces
and then discovers that, without your permission, part of your wealth is
given to others, you will reduce your wealth production. You will
respond to incentives. The consequence is the loss of wealth to society as
a whole. It is an illusion to believe that distribution can be changed with
no effect on wealth creation. Finally, ‘who will equalise the equalisers?’
Some one or body has to have the power to decide who gets what. The
members of this elite will have considerably greater power than any one
else and will use that power in their own favour. While members of the
communist nomenklatura often had wages similar to others, they were
- 25 -
able to use their political power to improve their own conditions. To
achieve equality of results would require massive inequality of political
power.
For equality, against egalitarianism
A just political system would therefore show respect for: equality
before the law, to develop a legal system which treats equally all who
come before it; equal political rights, when all are entitled to the vote
and the right of free expression; and equal opportunities in the sense
of careers open to the talented. However a free and just society
would reject positive discrimination, redistribution and egalitarianism.
- 26 -
Reading
Peter Bauer, Equality, Third World and Economic Delusion, London,
Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1981, Part 1.
Antony Flew, The Politics of Procrustes, New York, Prometheus, 1981.
Milton & Rose Friedman, Free to Choose, London, Secker & Warburg,
1980, chapter 5.
F.A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, London, Routledge, 1962,
chapter 6.
William Letwin, Against Equality, London, Macmillan, 1983.
Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State and Utopia, Oxford, Blackwell, 1974,
chapter 8.
Questions for thought
1. Is the gap between the wealth of the richest and the poorest in society
a problem?
2. Do you believe that all your citizens are treated equally before the
law?
3. How can we maximise economic and social opportunities?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)