|
Share the article on
this page with a friend.
Click
here.
|
|
| 
The Meaning of Equality
Constitution
and Law Series
By Timothy B. Lewis
There are several words that carry instant credibility and
which drive much of the political debate about what the law should
or should not do. In the prior article I discussed one of these
words, “justice.” Here I discuss a related word, “equality.”
The Declaration of Independence– What did the Term “Equality”
Mean There?
Probably the most famous expression of equality appears in
the Declaration of Independence where it says:
“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.”
What did Jefferson and the other signers mean by this type
of equality? Grammatically, the sentence builds from the most
general to the most specific and each successive refinement clarifies
what was said earlier and meant by the word “equal.”
In other words, the opening declaratory statement said that
God created all men as being equal. But how are they naturally
equal? The second phrase answers: they are equal in that they
are each endowed with the same unalienable rights. And what are
these unalienable rights? The third phrase answers: life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness.
Certainly they did not mean that everyone was created equal
in talents, intellect, drive, abilities or that everybody should
be equal when it comes to material wealth. As discussed in the
prior article on property rights, Jefferson, would not equate
the modern welfare state with either equality or happiness.
Equality Under The Law
In 1689, John Locke said:
“[F]reedom of men under government, is, to have a standing
rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and
made by the legislative power erected in it; a liberty to follow
my own will in all things, where the rule prescribes not; and
not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary
will of another man.”
[1] (emphasis added)
In an earlier article I introduced the great English legal
scholar, William Blackstone, who distinguished “civil liberty”
from “natural liberty.” I will repeat the quote in a little more
extended version to make a relevant point here. He defined “civil
liberty” as:
"no other than natural liberty, so far restrained
by human laws (and no farther) as is necessary and expedient for
the general advantages of the public....In this definition of
civil liberty it ought to be understood, or rather expressed,
that the restraints introduced by the law should be equal to
all, or as much so as the nature of things will admit." [2] (emphasis added)
Ultimately, Madison said the spirit of freedom which actuates
America would not allow for unequal treatment under the law.
Said he:
“If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate
a law not obligatory... on [all] the people, the people will be
prepared to tolerate any thing but liberty.”
[3]
I have always appreciated artistic depictions of Lady Justice
as a blindfolded woman with a sword in one hand and balance scales
in the other. The blindfold implies that the law will be equally
administered with no advantage or disadvantage given based upon
who the parties are before the court – their individual characteristics
like rich/poor, black/white, male/female, young/old, handsome/ugly,
etc. are to be ignored before the bar of justice and justice (the
sword) will be administered after all relevant evidence is fairly
weighed and considered (the balance scales) and the law uniformly
applied to the conclusions of fact drawn by the judge and jury.
Most people would endorse the idea of equality under the law
because if we do not try to achieve equality under the law, then
our law becomes arbitrary and capricious and we lose respect for
it. And when people lose respect for the law, they do not feel
strongly inclined to voluntarily comply with it. Consequently,
order, peace and safety diminish throughout society as people
tend to become “laws unto themselves.” Individual freedom expands
beyond reasonable civic bounds and conversely, feelings of personal
honor, duty, responsibility, and civic obligation diminish. Hence,
a critical component of human legal systems is an attempt to apply
the law equally to all. It should avoid the creation of differential
legal privileges that one group enjoys while others do not. Unfortunately,
we have been departing from this type of equality lately in the
pursuit of other types of “equality” and the ever-elusive notion
of “social justice.”
The foregoing types of equality -- equality under the law and
equality with respect to our natural God-given rights of life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- make intuitive sense to
most people. But let’s now consider other types of equality and
see what other worthy societal goals and objectives have to be
sacrificed in order to achieve them.
The Dangers of Politicizing Inequality
Thomas Sowell observed that many people:
“assume that politicizing inequality is free of costs
and dangers, when in fact such politicization can have very high
costs and very grave dangers....Processes designed to create greater
equality cannot be judged by that goal [alone] but must be examined
in terms of the processes created [and results caused] in pursuit
of that goal. It is the nature of these processes – including
their addictiveness and the never-ending strife they can engender
if equality proves to be impossible to achieve – which creates
the dangers.” [4]
He asks: “what are we prepared to do, to risk, or to sacrifice,
in pursuit of what can turn out to merely be a mirage?”
[5]
Equality vs. Egality
Balint Vazsonyi (the Hungarian refugee who was introduced in
the prior article) said:
“‘E3galite3, Fraternite3, Liberte3’or ‘Egality, Fraternity,
Liberty’ – these were the slogans the French Revolution of 1789
emblazoned on its banner...
“Note that I translate the French slogan ‘E3galite3’
as ‘Egality,’ and not as ‘Equality.’ Webster’s Dictionary
tells us that egality is ‘an extreme social and political leveling.’
Our word ‘egalitarian’ confirms that definition. The process
of leveling is worlds apart from equality in the affairs of man,
which was the aspiration of the Round Table. Nothing illustrates
the point more graphically than the instrument, used indiscriminately
by the French, to accomplish this leveling. If someone’s head
appeared to stand out, it was simply chopped off by the guillotine.
Enforced egality became the primary tool applied to the living
by those who made themselves masters of life and death....
***
“Egality is the elimination of differences. Since people
are different, only force can cover up the differences,
and then only temporarily. Once force is no longer applied, the
differences reappear....
***
“Thomas Jefferson could not have failed to note the
differences that render people unequal. And because he observed
that political institutions elsewhere made people permanently
unequal, he placed his faith in a political creation. He hoped
to set this nation – and through it, the world – on a path that
could free everyone of the impediments of inequality. He, and
others of his persuasion, believed that we are equal in the
eyes of God. But precisely because we appear unequal in every
other respect, it is only in the eyes of the law that we may
become equal on earth. He, and others of his persuasion, realized
that if a permanent framework of fundamental law were to be
applied equally, living within such a framework would unlock
individual potential to the fullest. Equality would be achieved
in the sense that every person could rise to the highest level
which that person’s talent, industry, and aspiration allowed.
“Nothing needed to be eliminated but the obstacles in
the way of the individual.
“Institutions and guarantees needed to be established
so that citizens could not be denied the opportunity to achieve
their highest possible status in society and, once achieved,
it could not be taken away. That is equality in the practical
sense.
“In order to secure such conditions, the legal framework
had to be fair. The Legal framework had to be constant. The
legal framework had to permit no exceptions.
“This we call the Rule of Law.”
[6]
Equality of Outcome vs. Freedom
Lord Acton said:
“The finest opportunity ever given to the world was
thrown away because the passion of equality made vain the hope
for freedom.” [7]
“Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but
one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy
seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint
and servitute.”
[8]
“A society that puts equality – in the sense of equality
of outcome – ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality
nor freedom. The use of force to achieve [this type of] equality
will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes,
will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their
own interests.” [9]
Roger Kimball observed: “Equality works to level differences;
freedom to increase them.” [10]
Occasionally as a teacher, I come across exceptional essays
from my students. Consider one that deals with this particular
trade-off from a former student named Meredith Taylor:
“It is freedom from equality that gives those
who want to achieve, the opportunity to excel to their highest
abilities. It is this beauty of freedom from equality
that makes America the land of opportunity and creativity.”
“Economic Equality” vs. “Political Equality”
Madison observed that political equality would not lead to
any other type of equality. Said he:
“[Because of the mischief of factions,] democracies
have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever
been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of
property; and have in general been as short in their lives as
they have been violent in their deaths.
“Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species
of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind
to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at
the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their
possessions, their opinions, and their passions.” [11]
As discussed in a prior article, Madison called governmental
attempts to equalize the division of property among the people,
a “wicked project.” [12]
Thomas Sowell adds:
“Economic equality...may be achievable only by political
measures which require vast concentrations of power in a relatively
few hands in government – and even this momentous exchange of
economic inequality for political inequality may leave untouched
the vast spectrum of other inequalities in intelligence, talent,
physical appearance, charm, articulation, etc., which may have
more influence on many individuals’ prospects of happiness than
the economic inequalities that have been addressed at such high
cost.” [13]
Equality vs. Justice
Most of us would tend to think of “justice” and “equality”
as going hand-in-hand and never being in conflict. However, some
have taken issue with this assumption. Aristotle, for example,
argued that “it is unjust to treat unequal things equally.” [14]
F. A. Hayek in The Mirage of Social Justice, Helmut
Schoeck in Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior, and Gonzalo
Fernandez de la Mora in Egalitarian Envy: The Political Foundations
of Social Justice all “deny the notion that there can exist
a perfect social justice, attainable by positive law and social
engineering; and...agree that the perfectly egalitarian society
would be an unjust society.”
[15]
Russell Kirk talks about the “equality of condition” meaning:
“equality of incomes and other material rewards, equality
in education, equality of mores, manners, lodgings, and tastes.
It is this envious passion for equality of condition against which
Tocqueville warned the people of his time and ours. The total
triumph of the doctrine of equality of condition would be a triumph
of injustice...Zealots throughout the centuries have endeavored
to establish communities totally egalitarian; all those endeavors
have failed after much suffering.” [16]
Unfortunately, the only equality these efforts approached in
the end was “equality of misery.”
Equality vs. Excellence
Kirk continued:
“Some insisted that American education must have both
excellence and equity, a manifest absurdity: for the word ‘excellence’
means to exceed, of course, to do better than others; while ‘equity,’
or uniformity, necessarily implies mediocrity. The more equality
in schooling, the lower the achievement; and the greater the injustice
toward students possessed of some talents. Forty years ago, I
resigned a university post in disgust at a deliberate policy of
lowering standards in the interest of ‘equity’–that is, accommodating
more students who, from stupidity or indolence, ought not to have
been admitted to a university at all. Egalitarian pressures are
exerted in virtually every country to push into the universities
most of the rising generation, however dull, bored, or feckless
a young person may be. The consequence of this movement is to
make the higher learning lower.” [17]
Equality of Condition
Kirk continued:
“Permit me to suggest some probable long-run consequences
of national infatuation with equality of condition.
“First, great injury to the leading class that every
society requires for its success....[i.e. the best, brightest
and most wise, will have little incentive to lead.]
“Second, an obsession with equality commonly results
in general impoverishment, by diminishing saving and capital accumulation,
and by ‘humanitarian’ welfare measures that diminish the incentive
to work for one’s own subsistence....Decreased economic productivity...will
afflict the poor worst of all....
“A third consequence of deliberate leveling in society would be
grave intellectual damage, already in progress. Over the centuries
there was developed in all civilized countries an elaborate edifice
of schooling, originally religious in character, meant to impart
some measure of wisdom and virtue to the rising generation. Aristotle
instructs us that the process of learning cannot be made easy.
The higher learning is concerned necessarily with abstractions,
in large part; but the common man tends to dislike abstractions....
“Those intellectual disciplines that nurture right reason
and moral imagination, requiring real thought, are unpopular with
the egalitarian, who regards them as archaic and snobbish. The
egalitarian much prefers utilitarian schooling and vague ‘social
studies.’ But both private wisdom and public order require that
a substantial number of people be well acquainted with genuine
works of the mind. The natural sciences, humane studies, and
the philosophical habit of mind neglected, the person and the
republic sink into ignorance and apathy; but the egalitarian zealot
does not perceive these ruinous consequences until the decline
no longer can be arrested.
“In short, I have been arguing that it is profoundly
unjust to endeavor to transform society into a tableland of equality.
It would be unjust to the energetic, reduced to equality with
the slack and indolent; it would be unjust to the imaginative,
compelled to share the schooling and the tastes of the dull; it
would be unjust to the thrifty, compelled to make up for the losses
of the profligate; it would be unjust to those who take long views,
forced to submit to the domination of a majority interested chiefly
in short-run results....Mediocre necessarily, the egalitarian
society would discourage or suppress enterprising talents–which
would result in social stagnation. Life in a social tableland
of equality would be infinitely boring.” [18]
Equality of Opportunity
In most any discussion about equality, it seems that people
easily agree that the law should at least be used to promote “equality
of opportunity.” But in closing out his essay, Kirk surprises
most readers when he concludes:
“Yet don’t I believe in equality of opportunity?
No, I do not. The thing is not possible.” [19]
At first the reader tends to resist that conclusion, but it
makes a lot of sense once one considers his further explanation:
“ First of all, genetic differences cannot be surmounted
between individual and individual....Second, opportunity depends
greatly upon family background and nurturing; and unless it is
proposed to sweep away the family altogether...the rising generation
of one stock will differ greatly in opportunity from the rising
generation of a different family. For instance, I read every
evening to my four little daughters, or told them stories; while
my neighbors did not so instruct and converse with their children;
accordingly, my children have enjoyed superior opportunities in
life. It would be outrageously unjust to try somehow to wipe
out these advantages of genetic inheritance or familial instruction.
“Inequality is the natural condition of human beings;
charity may assist those not favored by nature; but attempts to
impose an artificial equality of condition and intellect, although
in the long run they fail, meanwhile can work great mischief in
any society, and–still worse–damage human nature itself.” [20]
Ernest van den Haag observed:
“In the past, inequalities, however undeserved, were
attributed to God’s inscrutable will, or later, to ineluctable
nature. Today they are often attributed to inequality of opportunity,
which is used to explain almost all actual inequalities. The
intellectuals who inveigh against such inequalities seldom are
aware, however, that if we could equalize opportunity, if we had
a level playing field (which nature nowhere provides and which
society can only approximate), we would probably have even more
unequal outcomes than we currently do, because people’s talents
and inclinations vary enormously, as do the results of their efforts
and the value placed on such efforts by the market. Inequalities
can be redistributed but they cannot be eliminated. The gap between
rich and poor may actually increase when opportunity is more equal.
Even if incomes were somehow equalized by redistribution, the
poor would remain with us, since people spend their income, however
equal, at different rates [and for different things].
“Some contemporary philosophers find morally objectionable
the ‘natural lottery’ which distributes talents unequally. Among
the natural differences they would like somehow to equalize is
the capacity, as well as the inclination, to make efforts. Both
differ from person to person and may contribute to the poverty
of some and the wealth of others. Equality of opportunity, however
desirable, would not help much here, unless diligence can be equalized
as well.
“At best, equality of opportunity is procedural justice,
seldom regarded as meeting the goal of social justice, as long
as unequal outcomes remain, as they will....”
[21]
Presumably, by “procedural justice” he means judicial procedures
to resolve disputes that are fair, unbiased, and apply the law
equally to all -- the same thing that Sowell called “traditional
justice” in the prior article and was discussed above regarding
Lady Justice.
Summary Regarding “Equality”
So Vazsonyi cautions us to distinguish between equality and
the egalitarian leveling of society. He argues that equality,
in the practical sense, amounts simply to setting up a legal system
that allows individuals to achieve their highest individual potentials
(which, of course, are all inherently unequal by nature) and gives
equal protection to the fruits/property derived therefrom. Acton,
Friedman, and Kimball set up a conflict and trade-off between
equality and freedom. Madison and Sowell warn us to avoid politicizing
inequality and recognize a conflict and trade-off between economic
equality and political equality. Kirk, Hayek, Schoeck and de
la Mora set up a conflict and trade-off between equality and justice.
Kirk further sets up conflicts and trade-offs between equality
on the one hand, and excellence and economic prosperity on the
other. He argues that even equality of opportunity, which most
people have a natural affinity for, is really impossible to achieve
through human law. And finally, Van den Haag argues that trying
to equalize social outcomes is ultimately futile since productive
human character traits which naturally affect those outcomes are
so unevenly distributed by nature and cannot effectively be equalized
by the force of law.
From all of this we can see that whenever we take an expansive
view of the concept of equality, we brush up against what economists
call “opportunity costs,” “perverse incentives,” and “unintended
side effects.” In other words, we box ourselves into corners
requiring us to make difficult choices requiring trade-offs between
many desirable things. “Perverse incentives” are policies which
unintentionally encourage people to act in ways that harm societal
interests. They represent the “harm” portion of the expression:
“it will do more harm than good.”
Contrary to what many people today tacitly assume, the foregoing
thinkers argue that when it comes to using the force of law to
promote equality, of necessity the concept of equality must have
a very limited and confined connotation lest we inadvertently
sacrifice many other desirable principles, goals, and objectives
in the process, which brings us back to where we began – we have
the right to expect the equal application of the law administered
by our judicial system in a fair and unbiased way as we individually
enjoy our equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
If you are one who believes we should take an expansive view
of the concept of equality and think we should use the force of
law to try to guarantee it, how far are you willing to go and
when will you know when to stop? What non-arbitrary criteria
will you use to limit your efforts? What societal costs, side
effects, unintended consequences, and/or perverse incentives would
likely result from the legal policies you would propose in hopes
of producing the type of equality you desire? Would the societal
costs of your efforts outweigh the benefits you could realistically
(as opposed to idealistically) hope to achieve?
Religious Addendum
In the following discussion of a religious perspective of things,
please remember that I am only stating my own personal opinions
– any errors are mine alone.
What about the religious injunction to be free with our substance
to those in need and the idea that we are our brother’s keeper?
These are all true moral principles concerning which we will all
ultimately be judged, but here we have been discussing
what our man-made law should or should not do in order to optimize
our mix of desirable goals and objectives within human society
– not how God will ultimately judge us.
The scriptures tell us that where much is given, much is expected,
but do the scriptures speak to us individually or collectively?
If one were to look at them as collective injunctions/mandates,
then I could see how one could favor government action through
the force of law to achieve these moral mandates. But what about
free agency? We are here to be tested to see if we will be obedient
and good of our own free will and choice (God’s plan) and not
by force (Satan’s plan.) In judging us and determining which
kingdoms we qualify for, I doubt God will give much weight to
the fact that we were taxpayers and that our forcibly extracted
tax dollars were used to do good.
While there cannot be equality of opportunity from a temporal
perspective because of natural genetic and nurturing differentials,
and differentials among legal/political/economic systems, etc.,
we do believe that there is equality of opportunity from a spiritual
perspective. In other words, every human being has the potential
for ultimate spiritual achievement in the highest degree of glory,
for in that realm, we are not competing with each other for limited
spots. See. 1 Nephi 17:35; 2 Nephi 26:24, 27, 28, & 33; 2
Nephi 30:1-2; Jacob 2:21; Helaman 3:27-29, etc. The Parable of
the Talents tells us that even though our talents may be modest
relative to others, we can obtain equally high commendations if
we do the best we can with what we have been given. The story
of the Widow’s Mite illustrates the same idea.
Despite such spiritual equality of opportunity, we expect there
will be vast disparities among actual outcomes because of the
way people will differ regarding the use of their free agency.
Why would God tell us of three degrees of glory if they were not
all meant to be inhabited?
Rather than be content with God’s plan, many don’t like His
plan. God doesn’t act the way they think He should act, so they
deny His existence and set about to play God themselves through
the force of human law. This happens in both the political and
scientific realms.
For example, I watched a PBS program recently talking about
how we cracked the first stages of the DNA mystery. One of the
pioneers in the field was at a political rally in favor of genetic
engineering. With great personal satisfaction he arrogantly said:
“If we don’t play God, who will?” We can infer from this statement
that he did not believe God existed. In this context, presumably
his proof was the fact that people suffer from genetic imperfections.
Any type of human suffering is immediately latched onto as “proof”
that God does not exist. But that is not any sort of factual
proof – it is just the statement of a premise or article of faith
from which the rest of their reasoning proceeds. It doesn’t seem
to me that man’s successful scientific search to cure disease
and genetic defects on the one hand and God’s existence on the
other, are mutually exclusive things.
I once read an interesting article by a Jewish Rabbi stating
that according to Jewish belief, God gave man an imperfect world
to build upon – that it was man’s obligation to improve on what
God gave us.
In the political realm, some think that there is no God and
thus, there is no ultimate justice in the hereafter so if justice
(as they define it) is to occur, it will have to be during this
life or not at all. Consequently, they tend to come up with utopian
schemes of egalitarian leveling. Of course, even God-fearing
people could be inclined towards the same type of scheme – not
out of a belief that there is no such thing as divine justice,
but under the duty to improve upon what God originally gave us
as explained by the Rabbi above or, to collectively apply the
scriptural mandate to be good to one another.
From either perspective, they will force the redistribution
of wealth under the false notion that everyone deserves the same
(or something close to it) material and economic outcomes regardless
of personal merit. But the Lord criticizes idle people and says
they are not entitled to equal benefits. See D&C 42:42; 68:31;
75:29.
Throughout history various secular political and economic planners
have pursued their notion of utopia through the force of law but
always managed to achieve dystopia instead. Why? Because they
were always blind to all the powerful perverse incentives and
unintended side effects that always came along as part of the
packaged deal. By taking away the immediate economic reward structure
associated with hard work, innovation and creativity, few saw
any need to do anything above and beyond the bare minimum. They
always overestimated the inherent strength of altruism in motivating
human behavior, and they always underestimated man’s natural inclination
to match laziness with laziness when they judged other members
of the collective team as not pulling their “fair shares.” Such
systems always seemed to inadvertently encourage people to sink
to the lowest common denominator rather than rise to the highest.
What about the United Order based upon free will and choice
rather than force? We have scriptural accounts of success but
no modern example. We tried it in the church but we failed –
the people were not righteous enough to live it -- we too fell
prey to the weak side of human nature described above. If people
find it very difficult to achieve utopia even when motivated by
religious principles, it would be nigh unto impossible to successfully
achieve such a utopia based solely upon secular philosophic principles.
And even if we were shooting for something less than outright
utopia, we have to be careful about the damage we inadvertently
cause to systemic economic incentive structures (as discussed
in the prior article) when we legally impair individual freedom
and property rights in the name of social justice and equality.
If and when the Lord decides to reestablish the United Order,
it will be based upon His omniscient reasons, but until then,
the most effective economic/political model seems to be based
upon Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations theory of free political
systems with free markets. I remember hearing somebody joke something
to the effect that “the absolutely worst political/economic system
in the world is a democratic free market system – except for every
other alternative.”
We believe the founding generation was raised up by the Lord
to create a free nation within which the gospel could be restored
and from which it could be spread throughout the world. But could
it be that God’s hand even extended beyond our shores to inspire
others to help create this nation? Personally, I believe people
like Edmund Burke, Adam Smith and others played important roles
from the other side of the Atlantic in that divinely scripted
play. As discussed in a prior article, Adam Smith published his
seminal economic treatise, The Wealth of Nations, in 1776.
It was the most current economic thinking of those times and was
widely read in America. Our economic system was built upon his
economic theories of free markets.
Two of the Ten Commandments (i.e. “Thou shalt not steal” and
“Thou shalt not covet”) seem to be directed at the preservation
of property rights which is absolutely essential for democratic
free market systems to work and for free agency to operate. While
they may enjoy many material things during this life, the rich
who are stingy with their wealth will ultimately pay a price in
the next for their stinginess here – see D & C 56:16-19; Luke
16:19-31, etc.
From the foregoing, I conclude that God’s second-place choice
behind the United Order is a democratic free market system such
as we have here in America. After all, such systems tend to create
widespread economic prosperity and excess wealth for lots of people
who are then placed under a moral obligation to do good with their
excess financial resources.
Look what the church is able to do with the excess wealth created
by members of the church who are fortunate enough to live in such
free-market economies. The church is able to expand across the
globe building temples and churches in places where the local
members are economically incapable of providing such things for
themselves. Likewise, it is able to use fast offering funds,
humanitarian funds, perpetual education funds, etc. to satisfy
pressing human needs in countries not yet blessed with well-functioning
free-market economies.
In the United Order, the prime motivating forces are the love
of God and love for our fellow man. If we cannot successfully
live it in its purest form, then shouldn’t we choose the system
that provides the best economic results for the most people and
which can produce the excess financial resources needed to provide
for those in need? While the free market system is morally neutral,
the Lord still superimposes over that system the same moral obligations
to be charitable towards everybody else out of the same prime
motivating forces of love towards God and man that are behind
the United Order. This is a better system than trying to make
people to be good to one another through the force of law since
(1) such a free-market system produces more wealth to spread around
to bless the lives of people and to spread the gospel around the
world, and (2) it conforms better to the idea of free agency and
individual moral accountability.
So if you think some of the things I said in prior articles
seemed heartless, please remember that underlying all of it is
a strong belief in individual moral obligation and ultimate moral
accountability regarding the wealth with which each of us is blessed.
Let me illustrate these things with a story.
Story
Of A Colleague’s Misfortune
In the winter of 1998 one of my fellow faculty members had
an accident. He hit some black ice and spun out of control eventually
hitting some fence posts and trees. In good humor, he called
this his “grand ice-skating experience.” Fortunately, he was
not injured personally but his car suffered quite a bit of damage.
He had a wife and three children and this was his only car. Unfortunately,
although he had basic liability insurance, he did not have any
collision or comprehensive insurance – he didn’t understand the
difference.
When we discovered his misfortune, several teachers offered
to lend him a car until he could figure out what he was going
to do. Although grateful, he said that he would be fine.
The next day one of his colleagues went around to each faculty
member of the business department, explained our friend’s situation,
and indicated that it would be a nice gesture of goodwill for
us as friends to help him out in his time of need. They all were
asked if they would be willing to contribute whatever they felt
they could to the cause.
Of the twenty people solicited, seventeen (85%) contributed.
In all, we contributed about $900 which was pretty good considering
most were still struggling to dig out from under our recent Christmas
bills.
Several gave checks which were cashed so that we could give
him an anonymous envelope of cash. We then attached a note expressing
our love and respect for him as a hard-working colleague and friend,
got the Dean to open his door, and placed the envelope and note
on his desk. Late-comers put their own envelops under his door
and in his mailbox.
Independent of the foregoing efforts, the Dean and Department
Chair got the auto shop class on campus to agree to help him do
the necessary body work.
We were very surprised at what happened next. Each of us received
a copy of the following note signed by this good man. Even though
he was originally from mainland China and was expressing himself
in what to him was a foreign language, we were all impressed with
his eloquence.
The
Letter
“Dear Colleagues and Friends:
“Throughout my life, I have never picked up anything
so heavy as the envelopes that were left on my desk, in my mailbox
or under my door today, for what they contained were your kind
and noble hearts! Words simply cannot express how much my family
and I appreciate your heart-warming love, care, and generosity.
How fortunate I am being in your midst!
“The year of the tiger has so far brought a little variety
into our lives. Around the Chinese New Year time, the illness
of my wife prevented us from making our annual Chinese New Year
treats; shortly after her recovery, she was greeted with a parking
lot car collision with the hitter carrying no insurance of any
type. Ten days later, came my grand ice-skating experience in
the snow followed by my three-year-old son’s dental infection.
While some might call these “bad luck”, we know we have been greatly
blessed. As of today, all of my family members are healthy and
well (since dental problems are really not health problems).
And neither automobile accident caused any personal injuries.
Besides, as a family, we have been taught some very much needed
lessons through these events; it is only fair for us to pay a
little tuition for the great lessons.
“Two and a half years at SUU have helped me realize
how financially disadvantaged EVERYONE on the campus is. I can’t
think of anyone on the campus who does not need to stretch every
dollar. On the other hand, even though SUU has not enabled us
to save much, our family have always tried to live within our
means, and during my years prior to SUU, we managed to have an
emergency fund set aside. Thus, despite what we are experiencing,
we feel that financially, we are still quite well covered. Therefore,
both my wife and I strongly feel that we cannot accept the money
you have so generously donated out of your already-tight family
budgets. And we pray that we might somehow be able to convince
you without offending or disappointing any of you. And PLEASE
KNOW that your love, care and generosity as well as the warm message
they convey will be forever cherished in the depths of our hearts.
“Please, we plead with you, forgive us for appearing
to be so ungrateful. God knows how deeply we appreciate each
and every one of you!
“Most gratefully, Taowen”
Wow! -- I can only imagine how good he is at expressing
himself in Chinese! His letter is a miniature sermon on love,
gratitude, humility, empathy, optimism, frugality, independence,
faith in God and ultimately, wonder of wonders, success. I am
convinced this man and his family will never go hungry and will
always enjoy an abundant life that goes well beyond mere material
things. Imagine what society would be like if everyone thought
like he and his wife. I was told by a colleague who knows the
Chinese far better than I, that Taowen’s attitude, as expressed
in the foregoing letter, was very consistent with the general
Chinese cultural ethic.
Lessons Taught By This Letter
As I pondered the foregoing events, I saw what I believe
to be some other very useful lessons. First, when a person has
a will to succeed, or more importantly, the will to personally
work for his own success, people will take notice and help. Allies
will seem to appear out of nowhere on all sides to help him achieve
that goal.
Booker T. Washington once said: “I believe that any
man’s life will be filled with constant and unexpected encouragement,
if he makes up his mind to do his level best each day, and as
closely as possible to reach the high-water mark of pure and useful
living.” [22]
If Taowen had been viewed as an undeserving sort of
person, I doubt that very many people would have been so willing
to sacrifice and rush to his aid. They probably would have said
something like “Boy, I’m broke right now. I would really like
to help him, but I can’t. Sorry.” However, in Taowen’s case,
we all knew that he was a very hard working, dedicated and good
man. It was a pleasure and joy to sacrifice for him. A rich
and deep sense of personal satisfaction accompanied the effort.
I never feel these same sensations when forced to do anything
– they only come through the voluntary exercise of choice.
Second, everyone involved – both the would-be givers
and the would-be recipient – grew in character. Through attitudes
of voluntary charity and personal responsibility, everyone was
lifted. Rather than taking offense at Taowen’s refusal to accept
our gift, our admiration, respect and love for him grew and likewise,
his towards us. Collectively, society gained a little more strength,
depth and size that day.
Contrast With The Model Of Compulsion
By contrast, consider the counterfeit substitute we
have allowed ourselves to foster as a nation. In the modern-day
welfare state, people are stripped of the dignity of free will.
We have confused the terms “compassion” and “compulsion.” The
former is a free and voluntary gift and when it occurs, everyone
is lifted in the process. But in the latter case, human character
shrivels and shrinks on all sides.
The recipients demand “their fair share of the
economic pie.” In response the greater populace says “Your ‘fair
share’ is determined by what you are personally willing to contribute
to that pie – not by mere demands!” Then Uncle Sam, the referee,
steps in and calls those in the latter group “stingy, mean spirited,
greedy and selfish.” And with that rebuke, he puts his hand in
their back pockets and steals their wallets in order to make
them be more “socially responsible.” Consequently, the victims
of this institutionalized robbery (or in Bastiat’s words, “philanthropic
tyranny”) are rendered less willing and less able to give much
more of their own free will and choice to what they consider to
be worthy causes.
To illustrate what I mean, one morning on the radio
spot called “The Osgoode File,” the announcer informed us of a
study which showed that those states with the highest tax regimes
tended to have the lowest per capita charitable giving numbers.
After forcing taxpayers to be good, we then try to dignify
the whole process in a backwards sort of way. Rather than honoring
the givers (taxpayers), we vilify them and bend over backwards
to dignify the takers instead. As a result of all this, the givers
are angry and resentful and the recipients are indignant and ungrateful.
In the process, society weakens and fragments. Our collective
character diminishes and we all become smaller members of a smaller
whole – a far cry from what could have been, had the experience
we had with Taowen been multiplied millions of times over throughout
the country.
There But For The Grace Of Whom/What Go I?
Under the modern welfare state, all are deemed to be
“worthy recipients” under the notion of “human rights.” “There
but for the grace of God go I” has been transformed into
“There but for the grace of government go I.” And who
needs God when government intercedes to provide our every need?
Marx’s goal of replacing religion with a secularized substitute
seems to be moving forward apace.
Progess Is Not Always Achieved By Looking To The Future–Sometimes It Is
Achieved By Rediscovering The Past
In contrasting the uplifting experience we all enjoyed
with Taowen, with the mandatory substitute provided by the modern
welfare state, it seems to me that it is time that we return to
the days:
--when societal stigma was not placed upon the industrious
but rather, upon the indolent,
--when those with means could freely discriminate between
worthy and unworthy petitioners and not be called selfish in the
process,
--when Uncle Sam did not rob us of our abilities and
desires to be more charitable and compassionate,
--when there was no compulsory “social safety
net” that effectively negated the natural moral lessons taught
by failure,
--when such a social safety net was the product of free
will and choice and the would-be giver could judge the worthiness
of each case before making any decision to sacrifice personal
resources for the cause,
--when, through such voluntary arrangements, the people
who exhibited an attitude like that of my friend Taowen would
simply not be allowed to fail because of a voluntary outpouring
of help from those around him,
--when people without such attitudes found few voluntary
benefactors and thus were forced to ask themselves a lot of soul-searching
questions about why they were in the predicament they were in
and forcing them to make whatever changes in personal attitude
they needed to make in order to reverse their own self-induced
(or at least, self-perpetuated) misfortunes,
--when failure prompted humility, teachability, and,
as Taowen put it, a willingness “to pay a little tuition for the
great lessons learned” rather than the prideful and indignant
attitudes of entitlement we see so much of today,
--when prosperity was not the product of “human rights”
but rather, individual choice and effort, and finally,
--and perhaps most importantly, back to the days when
looking to God for help was considered to be a wise and necessary
thing to do.
In short, we need to recapture the dignifying, character-building,
and society-enhancing power of voluntary charity, individual responsibility,
and faith in God; and eschew the compulsory welfare state and
the moral dregs and poverty it spawns in the name of social justice
and equality.
_____________________________________
[1] . John Locke, Two Treatises on Government (1689),
Book 2, Chapter 4, Section 22.
[2] . 1 Blackstone's Commentaries *125, footnote 5 to Sharwood's
edition.
[3] . The Federalist Papers, No.57, paragraphs14 &
15.
[4] . Thomas Sowell, The Quest for Cosmic Justice,
p.51.
[6] . Balint Vazsonyi, America’s 30 Years War – Who is
Winning (1998), pp.37-39.
[7] . Quoted by F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, (1944),
p.112.
[9] . Milton Friedman, Free to Choose, p.148.
[10] . Roger Kimball, “Tocqueville Today”, The New Criterion,
11/01.
[11] . The Federalist Papers, No. 10, paragraphs 22
& 23.
[13] .Thomas Sowell, The Quest for Cosmic Justice,
p.53.
[14] . Quoted by Russell Kirk in an essay entitled “The Injustice
of Equality,” Redeeming the Time, p.213.
[21] . Ernest van den Haag, “The Hostility of Intellectuals
to Capitalism,” published by The Intercollegiate Review
in Vol. 36, Nos. 1-2, Fall 2000/Spring 2001 at p.58.
[22] . Quoted
in Investors’ Business Daily, 8/31/99.
Click
here to sign up for Meridian's FREE email updates.
© 2004 Meridian
Magazine. All Rights Reserved.
|
|
|
