Murderous Equality

[Mister D]

Andrew Nowicki over at Altright gives a offers a brief article on the evolution of a troubling concept.
---

Snip

The term “equality,” of course, isn’t exactly new; it first sprung up as a vogue among the Western intellectual elite over two centuries ago. It in large part inspired two major political upheavals, one in America and the other in France. Upon deciding to be unencumbered states, representatives of the thirteen former English colonies in the New World signed the Declaration of Independence, which holds it to be “self-evident” that “all men are created equal”; meanwhile, those guillotine-happy men of Gaul made “egalite” one of their watchwords of revolution.

Far be it from me to mock and deride America’s founding fathers—they were in many ways an impressive lot. Still, their collective signing on to the concept of mankind’s equality was an astoundingly stupid gesture, which has ushered in all kinds of ideological mischief. Whatever Thomas Jefferson’s reason for including the phrase in the Declaration of Independence, this ill-defined assertion of men’s equality is vexingly vague.　“All men are equal,” how exactly? Equal under the law? Equal in the eyes of God? Equal, as in “deserving the same level of income as everyone else”? TJ doesn’t say. And the matter is complicated, since—as has often been pointed out in our selectively iconoclastic age—this supposed believer in the self-evidence of human equality was also an owner of slaves.

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/zeitgeist/murderous-equality/

[Mister D]

Indeed, this early modern, liberal notion of human equality had a relentness logic from the very beginning. Once the genie was out of the bottle and the old ways of life discarded the realization of equality became a fixed feature of modern ideologies.

[KC]

Thomas Jefferson was a man of interesting contradictions. It is important to keep in mind, however, that his ownership of slaves did not conflict with his egalitarian ideology. The truth of the matter is that freedmen had no rights in Jefferson's time, in a number of states, and Jefferson knew that letting his own slaves go would be a mistake for their security.

[Mister D]

Thomas Jefferson was a man of interesting contradictions. It is important to keep in mind, however, that his ownership of slaves did not conflict with his egalitarian ideology. The truth of the matter is that freedmen had no rights in Jefferson's time, in a number of states, and Jefferson knew that letting his own slaves go would be a mistake for their security.

I agree but there is still a certain vaugeness to Jefferson's egalitarianism. Those early liberal formulations would be expanded on precisely because the logic of egalitarianism logically demands it.

[KC]

I agree but there is still a certain vaugeness to Jefferson's egalitarianism. Those early liberal formulations would be expanded on precisely because the logic of egalitarianism logically demands it.

I think Jefferson was wary of the possible contradictions that could come with egalitarian doctrines. After all, he violated his own Constitutionalist principles in purchasing the Louisiana territory specifically because he feared having a large class of landless farmers would lead to jumps in thought about what equality meant. So it's clear that Jefferson thought that some degree of equality of opportunity was necessary to keep the lower classes from pursuing equality through the well of others.

[Mister D]

I think Jefferson was wary of the possible contradictions that could come with egalitarian doctrines. After all, he violated his own Constitutionalist principles in purchasing the Louisiana territory specifically because he feared having a large class of landless farmers would lead to jumps in thought about what equality meant. So it's clear that Jefferson thought that some degree of equality of opportunity was necessary to keep the lower classes from pursuing equality through the well of others.

I'd imagine that TJ had a different idea of what equality meant in practice. I'm just saying that it couldn't contained in the way he would have liked.

[KC]

I'd imagine that TJ had a different idea of what equality meant in practice. I'm just saying that it couldn't contained in the way he would have liked.

I see. Is there a way to contain the doctrine of equality so it doesn't spread into all aspects of life?

[Mister D]

I see. Is there a way to contain the doctrine of equality so it doesn't spread into all aspects of life?

As far as the vague formulations of early modern liberals are concerned history answers with a emphatic no.

[KC]

As far as the vague formulations of early modern liberals are concerned history answers with a emphatic no.

I think that opportunity is the best check on government enforced economic equality. After all, though there was rampant economic inequality in the large, industrial urban cities throughout the nineteenth century, the Federal government for the most part did not try to legislate egalitarianism, mostly because there was a frontier which promised opportunity to those who wished to seek it. Only after the disappearance of the frontier did progressive movements to enforce economic equality become successful.

[Mister D]

I think that opportunity is the best check on government enforced economic equality. After all, though there was rampant economic inequality in the large, industrial urban cities throughout the nineteenth century, the Federal government for the most part did not try to legislate egalitarianism, mostly because there was a frontier which promised opportunity to those who wished to seek it. Only after the disappearance of the frontier did progressive movements to enforce economic equality become successful.

I think a certain detente has settled in among liberals of all stripes. The market economy and the welfare state are both here to stay. That's probably why we see socialists/progressives reaching further into social issues. There is an accomodation in that progressives will accept free market capitalism as long as the welfare state cares for its losers. Back in the era you referred to, this was by no means settled.

[Ivan88]

To comprehend what is meant by "All men are created equal" requires one to define what a man is.

Obviously, Man does not include all males. Nor does it include hoodlums, thieves, murderers, etc.

So, what is a Man?

A Man is a male human that puts "nature and nature's God" first in his life. Thus the ego in all its forms is broken and crushed so that the Man can please "nature's God" and build Heaven on Earth with God's Word in full effect among humanity.

http://mysite.verizon.net/ress8ouv/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/Calif8flaga.JPG562

[KC]

To comprehend what is meant by "All men are created equal" requires one to define what a man is.

Obviously, Man does not include all males. Nor does it include hoodlums, thieves, murderers, etc.

So, what is a Man?

A Man is a male human that puts "nature and nature's God" first in his life. Thus the ego in all its forms is broken and crushed so that the Man can please "nature's God" and build Heaven on Earth with God's Word in full effect among humanity.

http://mysite.verizon.net/ress8ouv/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/Calif8flaga.JPG562

Why must it be a male? And why do you say that it does not include all males?

[Ivan88]

Why must it be a male? And why do you say that it does not include all males?

We commonly use "man" for all of humanity. But I am limiting 'Man' to a narrower definition. A Man is a male, and a Woman is female.

But not all females are Women. A woman is one with a Man. So, generally, you can't have Women without Men.

Our language equates woman with female and male with man. But this is not an accurate use of the words.

I suppose that it is possible for a female to have more of the attributes of a Man than other Men. But, even then, it is more interesting to attribute her accomplishments to her virtues as a female.

And when females are more heroic and virtuous than most "men", such females are making up for the deficiencies of the males in not being genuine Men. Such females are fulfilling their natural calling to nurture and heal despite the problems that exist.

Some examples, Tamar, Judith, Mary Magdalene, Deborah,