Posted on 01/14/2014 6:43:49 AM PST by Servant of the Cross
To put equality ahead of liberty is to war against human nature.
“There is, in fact, a manly and lawful passion for equality which excites men to wish all to be powerful and honored. This passion tends to elevate the humble to the rank of the great; but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom.”
—Alexis de Tocqueville
In his famous admonition about the tyranny of the majority, Tocqueville went on to warn that “Liberty is not the chief and constant object of their desires; equality is their idol: they make rapid and sudden efforts to obtain liberty, and if they miss their aim resign themselves to their disappointment; but nothing can satisfy them except equality, and rather than lose it they resolve to perish.”
If we keep Tocqueville’s advice in mind, we can appreciate why and how the present war against personal liberty in service to mandated equality may become the greatest danger of the 21st century. The theaters of battle already extend to every segment of American life; and every weapon is employed, from government coercion to the progressive media to the Orwellian effort to change the meaning of language itself.
Millions of Americans have lost the liberty to select their own type of health insurance, purchased on their own volition to best match their own assessments of their particular needs. Obamacare — the federal government’s redistributive effort to equalize health care for all — sought to destroy the liberty of many millions in order to ensure a state-directed sameness in care for all. (snip) ... Better to call it the the “Unaffordable Uncaring Edict.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
VDH ping ...
To an American, equality under the law is what is important. Obama is NOT an American in spirit or attitude or in values.
Ping for posting on Facebook later
Kinda sums up the left right there. Equality in slavery.
Chasing “equality” is another democrat brainstorm like “The War On Poverty”.
Both are never ending quests for the unattainable and a reliable way to bilk taxpayers out of billions to buy off democrat voters year after year after year..
As was comprehensively demonstrated by how the French Revolution turned out vs. the American Revolution.
There are several types of equality, notably social, political, legal and economic.
Enforcing social, political and legal equality is all to the good. Attempts to enforce economic equality not only always fails, but generally generates a large body count in the process.
I want to see some conservatives or Republicans to fight back against this. I want them to say that they are in favor of inequality.
The MSNBC crowd will be horrified, but, I want conservatives to say that inequality results from certain job and career fields paying more than others. Surgeons make more than hired help at fast food places. Do liberals think that is unfair?
“I want to see some conservatives or Republicans to fight back against this. I want them to say that they are in favor of inequality.”
I want to see someone grill these RATS about what they mean by “income inequality” and what they want to do about it. Equality is something that sounds good in a sound bite or slogan but when they explain what they mean people will see how stupid and unfair it is.
Exactly my point. The liberals are going to push this inequality meme, but never quite say why it is bad, or what exactly they propose to do to solve this alleged problem.
In my opinion, it is right and proper that certain highly skilled technical jobs pay more than unskilled labor type jobs. I want the president and other liberals to tell us why this situation is bad.
You may be correct, but a fair explanation, if any is offered, may not reach and be understood by a sufficient number of low info voters, a voting block that is being nourished and is growing.
Meanwhile, those with an agenda and their followers will continue to believe economic equality is a worthy political goal. They believe all should be paid what the least of us is worth, with special benefits allowed to some by the government. Of course, they do not imagine themselves being excluded from the group receiving such benefits.
History has made clear that the human spirit ultimately rejects such a goal.
“Meanwhile, those with an agenda and their followers will continue to believe economic equality is a worthy political goal. They believe all should be paid what the least of us is worth, with special benefits allowed to some by the government. Of course, they do not imagine themselves being excluded from the group receiving such benefits.”
Rather than focusing on income inequality we need to focus on productivity inequality. There is a large and growing number of citizens who are completely unproductive and therefore economically useless. We need to get those people off their butts and put them to work rather than have them trapped in welfare.
Exactly right. Tocqueville was in a unique position to see the VAST difference between the French and American Revolutions and to compare and contrast them.
The concept of 'Equality', featured prominently in the French Revolution ... Liberty, Equality, Fraternity ... but did not exist at all in the American Revolution. And for VERY good reasons ...
Equal protection and opportunity. NOT equal results. This class warfare liberal idiocy is unsustainable, liberty-robbing and doomed to failure ...
"Attempts to enforce equality through "redistributive change" are not only unconstitutional; they are efforts to impose upon the masses a Utopian pipe dream. Such efforts have failed everywhere they have been attempted. Wealth may be redistributed, but it does not, and cannot, make people equal. The attempt will fail here, in America, under President Obama."
Aye, there's the rub.
First, get 'em off their butts? What politician is going to pry a significant number away from their 60" flat screen tv?
Second, without a job they can sincerely perform with interest they are at the least going to need food stamps. Will kind of people willing to be trapped in welfare are going to be willing to step up and sincerely try to make a valuable attempt to earn their paycheck? Some, of course, but a meaningful percentage? What politician is going to require them to try?
It seems as close as possible to a Gordian Knot. Obviously, short of a catastrophe a gradual weaning in indicated. But, it is not encouraging as our political system may not be designed to deliver the tough love required.
And that is no surprise to many who would argue our system was not designed to operate a national welfare program.
“Will kind of people willing to be trapped in welfare are going to be willing to step up and sincerely try to make a valuable attempt to earn their paycheck? Some, of course, but a meaningful percentage? What politician is going to require them to try?”
We are too far gone to fix this problem. The solution is to make people uncomfortable on the dole. In the 30’s they would send inspectors to homes looking for luxuries like radios. Today it would be flat screens and smart phones. They would check to see if a man was present who shouldnt be. . I would end food stamps and make the poor eat in cafeteria style buildings. Every dollar given would have to be accounted for, with receipts. Having an extra kid means you get less money not more. Being on welfare would be harder than having a full time job. Fat chance of that happening today.
Perhaps this bit of wisdom on "Equality in a Republic" from America's founding period might bring another perspective to this discussion:
The following pursues the idea of equality in a republic, as published in The Founders' Constitution.
Nathaniel Chipman, Sketches of the Principles of Government 177--82
Volume 1, Chapter 15, Document 51
Of the Nature of Equality in Republics.
Some of the most eminent writers on government, have supposed an equality of property, as well as of rights to be necessary in a republic. They have, therefore, prescribed limits to individual acquisition. The Reason given is, that riches give power to those who possess them, and that those who possess power, will always abuse it to the oppression of others. If this be a good reason for limiting the acquisition of riches, there is equal reason for limiting the improvement of bodily strength and mental abilities. Such a step would be an abridgement of the primary rights of man, and counteract almost all the laws of his nature. It would, perhaps, could it be reduced to practice, place the whole human race in a state of fearless quietude; but it would be a state of tasteless enjoyment, of stupid inactivity, not to be envied by the lowest tribes of the animal creation.
If such be the principles of a republican government, it is a government out of nature. Those have made a wiser choice, who have submitted to the less tyrannical principles of absolute monarchy. These are not the principles of a republic. They are the principles of anarchy, and of popular tyranny.
We have just now enquired into the nature of equality among men, and have seen in what it consists; a free and equal enjoyment of the primary rights, which are, the intellectual rights, and the right which men have of using their powers and faculties, under certain reciprocal modifications, for their own convenience and happiness. The equality necessary in a republic, requires nothing more, than this equality of primary rights. I shall here instance in the right of acquisition only, as being sufficient for my present purpose.
To the security of this right, certain regulations, as to the modes and conditions of enjoying the secondary rights, or in other words, of holding property, are necessary. Not, indeed, as to the quantity, but the freedom of acquisition, use, and disposal. To give to any individual, or class of men, a monopoly, an exclusive right of acquisition in those things, which nature has made the subjects of property, to perpetuate, and render them unalienable in their hands, is an exclusion of the rights of others. It is a violation of the equal rights of man. Of this nature are all exclusive privileges; all perpetuities of riches and honor, and all the pretended rights of primogeniture. Inequality of property, in the possession of individuals, is not directly, nor by inevitable consequence, subversive of genuine liberty. Those laws are, indeed, subversive of liberty, which, by establishing perpetuities, deprive the owner of a right of disposal, and others, so far as they extend, of the right of acquisition; which annex privileges to property, and by making it a qualification in government, create a powerful aristocracy.
Riches are the fruit of industry. Honor the fruit of merit. Both ought, as to their continuance, and the influence which attends them, to be left to the conduct of the possessor. If a man, who, by industry and economy, has acquired riches, become indolent, or profligate, let him sink into poverty. Let those who are still industrious and economical, succeed to his enjoyments, as to their just reward. If a man, who, by noble and virtuous actions, has acquired honor, the esteem of mankind, will behave infamously, let him sink into contempt. To exclude the meritorious from riches and honors, and to perpetuate either to the undeserving, are equally injurious to the rights of man in society. In both it is to counteract the laws of nature, which have, by the connection of cause and effect, annexed the proper rewards and punishments to the actions of men. Wealth, or at least, a competency, is the reward, provided by the laws of nature, for prudent industry; want, the punishment of idleness and profligacy.
If we make equality of property necessary in a society, we must employ force, against both the industrious and the indolent. On the one hand, the industrious must be restrained, from every exertion, which may exceed the power, or inclination of common capacities; on the other hand, the indolent must be forcibly stimulated to common exertions. This would be acting the fable of Procrustes, who, by stretching, or lopping to his iron bedstead, would reduce every man to his own standard length.
If this method should be deemed ineligible, the only alternative will be, either by open violence, or the secret fraud of the law, to turn a certain portion of the well-earned acquisitions of the vigilant and industrious, to the use of the indolent and neglectful.
Let us not, in a Republic, attempt the extreme of equality: It verges on the extreme of tyranny. Guarantee to every man, the full enjoyment of his natural rights. Banish all exclusive privileges; all perpetuities of riches and honors. Leave free the acquisition and disposal of property to supply the occasions of the owner, and to answer all claims of right, both of the society, and of individuals. To give a stimulus to industry, to provide solace and assistance, in the last helpless stages of life, and a reward for the attentions of humanity, confirm to the owner the power of directing, who shall succeed to his right of property after his death; but let it be without any limitation, or restraint upon the future use, or disposal. Divert not the consequences of actions, as to the individual actors, from their proper course. Let no preference be given to any one in government, but what his conduct can secure, from the sentiments of his fellow citizens. Of property, left to the disposal of the law, let a descent from parents to children, in equal portions, be held a sacred principle of the constitution. Secure but these, and every thing will flow in the channel intended by nature. The operation of the equal laws of nature, tend to exclude, or correct every dangerous excess.
Thus industry will be excited; arts will flourish, and virtuous conduct meet its just reward, the esteem and confidence of mankind. Am I deceived? or are these the true principles of equality in a democratic republic? Principles, which will secure its prosperity, and, if any thing in this stage of existence can be durable, its perpetual duration.
The Founders' Constitution
Volume 1, Chapter 15, Document 51
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s51.html
The University of Chicago Press
Yikes! Two weeks into the new year? Oh, well...Happy New Year!!!!
Keep pounding the libs till their heads explode in twitter-land ....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.