The Inequality of Equality
Pliny the Younger, a first century Roman lawyer, author, and philosopher wrote in a letter:
There is nothing more unequal than equality.
This proposition may seem strange to modern western thinking, but, upon further examination, seems profoundly true. In order to make sense of such a sentiment one must clarify what one means by the equality of men. It is certainly a Christian teaching that all men (and women, of course) are equally valuable. It is the imago dei, being made in God’s image, that gives humanity value. The Declaration of Independence expresses clearly this truth:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…
By virtue of being human, we are all of equal value. The Declaration further realizes that this equality, value, and the derivation of human rights is safeguarded by the realization that this equality comes from an endowment of the Creator. This truth of the equality of all men is corrupted, however, by those who propose this means all men should have equal place in society. This type of equality is most unequal. This type of justice is most unjust.
Cal Thomas, in the article, It Takes a Socialist Village, critiques Hillary Clinton’s proposed economic plans.
In a speech at Manchester School of Technology in New Hampshire, Clinton said it’s time to replace President Bush’s “ownership society,” which she called an “on your own” society, with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.
Clinton said she prefers a “we’re all in it together” society: “I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.”
As Thomas clearly points out, this type of society is plentiful in the world…
It’s called socialism, where government has sought to make all things economically equal and the only equality is that all are equally poor. Wasn’t defeating such a society precisely why we fought and won the Cold War? Why does Senator Clinton wish to embrace the principles of the losing side?
Clinton has merely updated the old and discredited (except among socialist dictators) Karl Marx saying: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
In the name of justice, injustice is perpretrated. In the name of equality, inequality prevails. I would recommend Thomas’s entire article. He insightfully notes:
This is not the philosophy that made America what it is. This is not a land of equal outcome, but of equal opportunity commensurate with one’s talents, interests and drive.