One commentator yesterday in his column praised the health care bill as a step forward for social justice. What is 'social justice'? Can or should it be achieved by governmental means?
Various parts of the Constitution deal with equal opportunity, as does the Declaration of Independence. Although slavery was implicitly embedded in the Constitution in the counting of slaves as 3/5 of a white person for census purposes, that was corrected after the Civil War. Equality before the law, and a speedy public trial are part of our governmental founding. The bill of Rights makes explicit a variety of guarantees for citizens- speech, peaceable assembly or free association, habeas corpus, bearing arms. The Declaration begins with saying that people have inalienable rights from their Creator, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Nowhere do the documents establishing our government describe as an inalienable right to happiness, only its pursuit. Nowhere is equality of outcome guaranteed, only equality of access (to the law) and opportunity for happiness.
Increasingly over the last 45 years, since our civil rights laws, equality of opportunity has been interpreted as equality of outcomes. A logical fallacy is perpetuated here- if outcomes are different along racial, sexual or religious lines, this must be evidence of prejudice. Since government is involved in so many parts of our lives, government is increasingly involved not in equality of opportunity, but in legally mandating or creating equality of outcomes in the name of eradicating 'prejudice'.
Thus we are engaged in a fool's errand. It is simply not possible to make equality of outcomes a measure of social justice, only equality of opportunity. We are perpetuating this error in the way we fund public education, in rigging exams for teachers, policemen, firemen and unionized workers, ongoing use of affirmative action in preferential hiring for government contracts.
How far do we pursue this logical error? We have decided, as a nation, that the ability to receive health care is a right, not a privilege. That being the case, access must be guaranteed for all through federal legislation. The more broadly we define equality of outcome for social purposes, the less our society looks like a democracy, not more.
What if we extend 'equal outcomes' to economic issues. What about job availability through governmental make-work programs. What if we come to feel equality of outcomes means equal income, regardless of ability, education and effort. What if we state that those who have a great deal must give to those who have nothing through their own choices and actions.
These applications of equal outcomes are simply restatements of socialism and communism. I say this not condemning either, but simply stating fact. Churchill said 'the inherent curse of capitalism is unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery'. While not confusing economics with political stances, we are, or purport to be, a democratic capitalistic country. Our efforts to equalize outcomes rather than opportunity has eroded our democracy, and the same 'principle' erodes capitalism as well.
I am in favor of making available for all public education, health care, courts, parks. We must not confuse equality of access with equality of usage or outcomes. The logical error being pursued as policy by both parties leads away from the principles of our founding, not toward them. The spending they engender is a danger to our country. Eventually, I hope, someone will articulate the truth, which is that equality opportunity in no way means equality of outcomes, any more than it does on a basketball court, a football field, or a spelling bee.
Ted
Various parts of the Constitution deal with equal opportunity, as does the Declaration of Independence. Although slavery was implicitly embedded in the Constitution in the counting of slaves as 3/5 of a white person for census purposes, that was corrected after the Civil War. Equality before the law, and a speedy public trial are part of our governmental founding. The bill of Rights makes explicit a variety of guarantees for citizens- speech, peaceable assembly or free association, habeas corpus, bearing arms. The Declaration begins with saying that people have inalienable rights from their Creator, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Nowhere do the documents establishing our government describe as an inalienable right to happiness, only its pursuit. Nowhere is equality of outcome guaranteed, only equality of access (to the law) and opportunity for happiness.
Increasingly over the last 45 years, since our civil rights laws, equality of opportunity has been interpreted as equality of outcomes. A logical fallacy is perpetuated here- if outcomes are different along racial, sexual or religious lines, this must be evidence of prejudice. Since government is involved in so many parts of our lives, government is increasingly involved not in equality of opportunity, but in legally mandating or creating equality of outcomes in the name of eradicating 'prejudice'.
Thus we are engaged in a fool's errand. It is simply not possible to make equality of outcomes a measure of social justice, only equality of opportunity. We are perpetuating this error in the way we fund public education, in rigging exams for teachers, policemen, firemen and unionized workers, ongoing use of affirmative action in preferential hiring for government contracts.
How far do we pursue this logical error? We have decided, as a nation, that the ability to receive health care is a right, not a privilege. That being the case, access must be guaranteed for all through federal legislation. The more broadly we define equality of outcome for social purposes, the less our society looks like a democracy, not more.
What if we extend 'equal outcomes' to economic issues. What about job availability through governmental make-work programs. What if we come to feel equality of outcomes means equal income, regardless of ability, education and effort. What if we state that those who have a great deal must give to those who have nothing through their own choices and actions.
These applications of equal outcomes are simply restatements of socialism and communism. I say this not condemning either, but simply stating fact. Churchill said 'the inherent curse of capitalism is unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery'. While not confusing economics with political stances, we are, or purport to be, a democratic capitalistic country. Our efforts to equalize outcomes rather than opportunity has eroded our democracy, and the same 'principle' erodes capitalism as well.
I am in favor of making available for all public education, health care, courts, parks. We must not confuse equality of access with equality of usage or outcomes. The logical error being pursued as policy by both parties leads away from the principles of our founding, not toward them. The spending they engender is a danger to our country. Eventually, I hope, someone will articulate the truth, which is that equality opportunity in no way means equality of outcomes, any more than it does on a basketball court, a football field, or a spelling bee.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment