ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, April 09, 2018

Fantaisie, utopie, égalité

As I have repeatedly observed, there is no such thing as equality, the grand rhetorical flights of Thomas Jefferson notwithstanding. The artificial distinctions that conservatives attempt to make between equality of opportunity and equality of result, and between equality before the law and  equality of condition, simply do not exist. Literally every day we see material evidence to the contrary.
A rookie cop whose dad is an NYPD chief avoided getting fired after an off-duty arrest for groping a woman at an Atlantic City casino, police sources told the Daily News. The department’s handling of Officer Joseph Essig’s case raises questions among police sources who suspect high-ranking officers and those close to them are treated with kid gloves in discipline cases.

Just 15 months into his brand-new NYPD career — on Oct. 8, 2015 — Essig was arrested at Harrah’s Casino in Atlantic City on a felony charge of criminal sexual misconduct. New Jersey authorities downgraded the charge to a health code violation. Essig pleaded guilty, was ordered to stay away from the victim, and paid a $1,000 fine.

Officers facing similar charges with less than two years on the force are typically fired, say sources. But Essig remains on the job. A police source said that’s “shocking.” “Other probationary cops have been fired for way less,” said the source.
This is not at all surprising, of course. Just as one does not expect off-duty police to receive speeding tickets or DUI citations, one does not expect the influential or their family members to be treated just like anyone else in the courts of law. But as petty as it is, this episode serves to effectively demonstrate that the conservative concept of equality is just as fantastic, just as utopian, just as nonexistent, and just as ludicrous a basis for societal policy, as the leftist concept of equality.

God does not believe in equality. Nature does not believe in equality. Neither should Man believe in it, must less attempt to order his societies around it, because it does not exist.

The reason that Jefferson found it necessary to claim it was self-evident that all men are created equal is because he could not find a single observable example of that imaginary equality to cite, not in religion, philosophy, history, nature, or law. The assertion is not a self-evident truth, it is nothing more than a logical and empirical falsehood, and easily proven to be so by every possible standard.

For a deeper dive into the mythical nature of equality, one cannot do better than to read Equality: the Impossible Quest by historian Martin van Creveld.

Labels: ,

170 Comments:

Blogger Shane Sullivan April 09, 2018 7:17 AM  

Wasn't that line from Jefferson an intentional corruption of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which stated that "All men are born equally free"?

Blogger McChuck April 09, 2018 7:17 AM  

All men are created equal. And then they are born.

Except near the inner city abortion mills.

Blogger lazlo azavaar April 09, 2018 7:20 AM  

Old illusions die the hardest.

Blogger Brad Richards April 09, 2018 7:26 AM  

Surely VD does not find the special treatment of the rookie cop to be a desirable situation? Stuff like this happens, yes, but it is something worth fighting against. Corruption destroys a society - look at the countries where it is rampant, and tell me you really want to live there.

Is equality an inherent part of nature? No, of course not. "Red in tooth and claw", "survival of the fittest" - that's nature. We have improved somewhat on raw barbarism - it's what we call "civilization".

Equality is an ideal worth striving for.

Blogger VD April 09, 2018 7:31 AM  

Equality is an ideal worth striving for.

Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. But whether it is or not, there is a massive difference between "an imaginary ideal potentially worth striving for, depending upon the cost" and "a self-evident truth that serves as the basis for a political philosophy, a political movement, and government policy".

Blogger Mr.MantraMan April 09, 2018 7:40 AM  

Sure, go tell a leftist you are their equal.

Blogger Duke Norfolk April 09, 2018 7:41 AM  

Oh yeah, the result in this case is shocking, shocking I say. Right. What world do these people live in?

They must have just fallen off the proverbial turnip truck.

It truly is amazing how many people can still be so naive and gullible in this day and age. Even the Silent Gen types who understandably may have been so early in life, when we still had a high trust society (for the most part). But if they haven't learned better by now...

Blogger Bobo #117 April 09, 2018 7:41 AM  

"Equality is an ideal worth striving for."

...and we should all be 6'tall. Even the chicks.

Blogger Uncle John's Band April 09, 2018 7:43 AM  

The problem with the Jefferson types is that they seem unable to see beyond their own frame of reference, and assume that the experience of a highly socialized, intelligent patrician is scalable.

Anonymous Anonymous April 09, 2018 7:52 AM  

"Equality is an ideal worth striving for."

My goal has always been to be superior to my peers.
Hasn't always worked out that way, but equality just never appealed to me.

Blogger VD April 09, 2018 7:54 AM  

Equality is an ideal worth striving for.

This raises an obvious question. How does one strive to be created equal? Precisely what equality should one strive for? Height, beauty, or before the law?

Blogger YIH April 09, 2018 7:55 AM  

And as much as it pains me to contradict Mr. Wright's beautiful and emotionally compelling tribute to the conservative concept of equality, to "judge all men by the content of their character" is not, and has never been, "the definition of conservative philosophy".
Yeah, "judge all men by the content of their character" (author unknown, plagiarized and wrongly attributed to MLK) is simply impossible. Just like the famous ''don't judge a book by it's cover'' it's false. People judge books by their cover all the time, I bet Vox puts more than a bit of thought in book covers - his own, and those he publishes. Because the cover often sells (or doesn't) the book. I remember years ago Jessie Jackson complaining ''I'm relieved when a glance over my shoulder and see a White guy''. When I see an African that's not on a stage or a sports field with a ball, it makes me quite uneasy too.

Blogger Ryan G April 09, 2018 7:56 AM  

@Brad Richards - I have to second your opinion. I'd also add that equality before the law is clearly implicit within the Bible. Unlike many ancient texts dealing with laws (ex. The Code of Hammurabi)there were no special rules for special people. For example, in the case of adultery both adulterer and adulteress were put to death (which itself was a novelty in the ancient world).

Granted, it's also explicitly stated that mankind cannot possible live up to the standards set by God, which is why we need Jesus, but that doesn't change the fact that we are all held equally accountable before the Supreme Law. That seems to be the crux of Vox's post - the conflict between the actual and the ideal. Ideally, and according to US laws as written, everyone is held to the same standards. In actuality, this isn't always the case. Nevertheless, the pursuit of that ideal is all but required for a modern, democratic society.

Blogger Aeoli Pera April 09, 2018 7:57 AM  

The reason that Jefferson found it necessary to claim it was self-evident that all men are created equal is because he could not find a single observable example of that imaginary equality to cite, not in religion, philosophy, history, nature, or law. The assertion is not a self-evident truth, it is nothing more than a logical and empirical falsehood, and easily proven so by every possible standard.

If the premise is true, then it follows that, logically, it would be impossible to empirically falsify it.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch April 09, 2018 7:58 AM  

What Wright wants for all men is equity, not equality.

However, he stubbornly holds onto the idea that he really means the word "equality".

And so, he continues to incorrectly argue that we should be a society that puts equality on a pedestal.

The Right have, to their detriment, tried to cheer for a sense of equity among peoples in this continent--all the while calling it equality. The result is the confusion we have before us.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd April 09, 2018 7:58 AM  

When I was a child, my parents told me that ``all men are created equal'' meant only that Americans rejected the hereditary nobility. It seems self-evident.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch April 09, 2018 7:59 AM  

@4 EQUITY is an ideal to be striving for. Not equality.

Blogger Aeoli Pera April 09, 2018 8:00 AM  

That is, if your premise is that a known unknown has biased the result, you would have to trace the entire chain of causality back to God to eliminate all possible influences. Which is basically what anti-IQ researchers are trying to do with early intervention studies.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch April 09, 2018 8:02 AM  

For what it's worth, here's something I've written against Jefferson, as well as Wright's mistaken notion of equality:

Jefferson, the 'Philisophic Cock'

http://forge-and-anvil.com/2017/11/12/50/

Blogger manacap April 09, 2018 8:06 AM  

It seems like there are three ways to view the statement. 1) Are we all created equal? 2) Are we all born equal? 3) Do we all make choices in life that make us equal? We certainly are not born equal nor do we make equally good choices in life, hence our differentiation. Still not sure that the first statement is false.

Blogger YIH April 09, 2018 8:10 AM  

Two examples: How would you ''judge this book by it's cover''? (Me? In three words, ''here comes trouble'')
Or if a book has the words ''John Scalzi'' on the cover? (Me? ''Aw crap, he's still alive and typing? Well I guess Shut up Wesley will love it, but no one else'').

Blogger Uncle John's Band April 09, 2018 8:15 AM  

There is an argument for equality as a counter to nepotistic governing structures - the equality under the law thing. Access to whatever civic structures you deem necessary is the only way any sort of "equality" is workable in reality. Beyond that, it's on you.

Blogger Robert Pinkerton April 09, 2018 8:20 AM  

IIRC, a certain Fisher Ames, signer of the Declaration of independence, replied to "... created equal..." with, "But they differ in the sequel."

Blogger lannes April 09, 2018 8:21 AM  

"It is only shallow people who do not judge by appearances" (Oscar Wilde)

Blogger Johnny April 09, 2018 8:24 AM  

"The assertion is not a self-evident truth, it is nothing more than a logical and empirical falsehood, and easily proven so by every possible standard."

Yeah. Exactly.

To understand Jefferson you have to get the cultural framework he operated in. The French three estates are the easy example because the Brits were semi reformed. The classes were the Peasant who were little more than property, the Nobles who judged themselves and the peasants in the king's court. And the Clergy that had separate rights and (I think) a separate court system. Rights were something you got from the king, and at first at least, all property belonged to the king. That was what we were moving away from. I doubt Jefferson would been at sympathy with our current idea of equality.

Blogger Rocklea Marina April 09, 2018 8:25 AM  

"Equality is an ideal worth striving for."

It is 2018 after all...
https://wwos.nine.com.au/2018/04/09/11/10/nz-transgender-lifter-to-compete-at-games

Blogger Johnny April 09, 2018 8:26 AM  

The thing about equality is that it sells well even if it isn't true. Thus it is tough to do away with. And it does have its expedients when implemented. The problem we have right now, the big one, is that we are unwilling to be harsh enough to implement effective social policy. Thus we are going through the gradual decline of the historic social norms that used to be enforced. No home for unwed mothers, none of that sort of crap. And no "poor farm," nobody has to work and conform for their handouts. And we now give citizen rights to people who are too crazy to be held legally accountable for their own behavior. Thus reducing the responsible citizen concept to zero. Even the bare minimum of legal culpability is no longer enforced. The old up tight protestant culture was a pain at times, but it did produce a working society.

A group has to be demonized or disparaged to be treated as less than equal. They become the outsiders to the core (((group))), the infidels in Islam, the non members in the sacred tribe, or the Krouts or Gooks or Huns or Japs in war. The outsiders, the step-and-fetch-it, or the dangerous and diseased hobo, best avoided.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan April 09, 2018 8:27 AM  

I skimmed the piece that was linked, it was emotional, written by the kind hearted Conservative Papa type.

Appeals to equality and the better angels is the Conservative Papa's attempt to reign in the effects of female's ceaseless battles for their place in their hierarchy.

Blogger 357Delta April 09, 2018 8:29 AM  

This raises an obvious question. How does one strive to be created equal? Precisely what equality should one strive for? Height, beauty, or before the law?

That's easy. It's obviously the type of equality which when one speaks of it you feel good.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd April 09, 2018 8:29 AM  

Square ``created equal'' with Downs Syndrome. God loves His retards equally, but they aren't created equal.

``Created equal'' is at best a statement of God's intent, and probably a mistatement of it. It certainly is not testable, and cannot be acted upon. Actions based on ``created equal'' are going to be inconsistant, like actions based on unicorn eggs.

Blogger Rick April 09, 2018 8:29 AM  

I can’t cite anything for this, but my interpretation of the statement, “all men are created equal” was a warning. A warning to those who believed in or claimed the divine rite of kings or “assumed the throne” that you were created by God just as me, subject to Him, and you will die just as I surely will one day and you will face the ultimate Judge. Get your house in order.
Oh, and you can’t take my shit.
This interpretation is not in conflict with any of the Ten Commandments, to cite something at least (A Mighty Big Something).

Blogger Rick April 09, 2018 8:36 AM  

The divine right if kings was the first fake news.

Blogger Azimus April 09, 2018 8:37 AM  

VD:
The reason that Jefferson found it necessary to claim it was self-evident that all men are created equal is because he could not find a single observable example of that imaginary equality to cite, not in religion, philosophy, history, nature, or law.


If I'm not mistaken, I believe "all men being created equal" was a concession to the men from New Jersey to help them feel like they belonged.

All joking aside, my take on this (certainly not authoritative) originally meant "Colonists are every bit the man you English are"... tying back to the "...and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station..." statement of the prior paragraph.

If that were the case, in the matters of war at least, Jefferson need not look too far to see examples of where "inferior" peoples dominated the superior - the colonists were certainly about to prove it to George III. George Washington himself was a witness to this in the Braddock expedition. Today 1st world powers spend billions to dominate tottering insignificant 4th rate powers like Syria and yet they can't be put away. It really depends on the measure of men being created equal.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd April 09, 2018 8:38 AM  

Rick wrote:I can’t cite anything for this, but my interpretation of the statement, “all men are created equal” was a warning. A warning to those who believed in or claimed the divine rite of king ...

I think that was a common assumption until post-WWII. I wonder if we could find writings, perhaps pre-Civil War, which explicitly state that? Certainly institutionalizing slavery and the 3/5 rule suggests that the Founding Fathers accepted that some men were more equal than others.

I think it's untenable to regard the phrase as anything more than rejection of a hereditary nobility.

Blogger Salt April 09, 2018 8:40 AM  

Jefferson's idea of all men created equal may be what is referred to in the Constitution, at Article 1, Section 9, clause 8; No Title of Nobility.

Blogger David of One April 09, 2018 8:48 AM  

It would seem that the first heartbeat to the last is an empirical example. Moreover there is likely to be others for which are currently unknown to us as our empirical knowledge is very limited. We are a creation on a very tiny speck in the cosmos and our knowledge is much less in comparison.

Blogger Daniel Paul Grech Pereira April 09, 2018 8:53 AM  

Even a man's own two balls are not equal in size. This is pure fantasy.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan April 09, 2018 8:53 AM  

My reading of the David Reich threads at Sailers is that Reich is trying and will successfully tell his (((people))) that the Blank Slate Theory is about kaput as elite opinion thinking.

John is doing what conservative writers do, they tailgate the Left. One simple question of the "elite", "Do you believe in the Blank Slate Theory?", but no conservatives reach for the obscure, must be the ego.

Blogger David The Good April 09, 2018 8:53 AM  

Reading Crevald's "Equality: The Impossible Quest" will open your eyes. https://www.amazon.com/Equality-Impossible-Martin-van-Creveld/dp/9527065526/

It's quite an entertaining read. He covers everything from the democracy of Athens to utopian cults and how man has forced equality over the centuries.

Blogger Johnny April 09, 2018 8:53 AM  

I am not in favor of cruelty for its own sake, but a certain amount of harshness is necessary to run a sustainable society. What it seems like is that people will not impose enough harshness on themselves to have a soundly run population, so you end up needing an outside group to do it. Thus a ruling class. The usual problem that develops is the unwillingness of the ruling class to self impose rigor on itself.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd April 09, 2018 8:55 AM  

Salt wrote:Jefferson's idea of all men created equal may be what is referred to in the Constitution, at Article 1, Section 9, clause 8; No Title of Nobility.

It is self evident ...

There is no other interpretation that doesn't devolve into unicorn farts and pixie dust. As I said earlier, that connection you made was standard in America, among Americans, up through the time my parents were raised.

Blogger Jerry27 April 09, 2018 8:58 AM  


The Jews and Their Lies: multiculturalism, cultural marxism, equality and just more attempts at subversion of the master race by the Talmudic Tribe.

thanks,
Jerry

Blogger Peter Gent April 09, 2018 8:59 AM  

Nature and Man's God both speak against equality of anything except requirements under the law. Genetic variability which makes some tall, some short, some slim, some fat speak against it, while the Parable of the talents as well as the hierarchical nature of God's created order also speak against it. We all have our places in the grans scheme and they are not all equal. We must remember that "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required," reads Luke 12:48 which also speaks against it.

Blogger Solaire Of Astora April 09, 2018 9:05 AM  

I've always been dubious about the people who talk about 'equality of opportunity NOT equality of outcome'. They never detail what the hell they actually mean. How will they guarantee equality of opportunity? Will they outlaw nepotism? If they blind themselves to the reality of IQ variance will they regress back to square one and assume that a lack of unequal outcomes is a result of a failure of equal opportunity? In some ways leftists are smarter than these people, albeit much less honest, because they've clearly reasoned all this out and have just jumped right to totalitarianism. I honestly think the equality of opportunity idiots just want to take the slightly longer road to hell.

Blogger pyrrhus April 09, 2018 9:05 AM  

My reading of the David Reich threads at Sailers is that Reich is trying and will successfully tell his (((people))) that the Blank Slate Theory is about kaput as elite opinion thinking.

The Blank Slate Theory has been dead for millennia. Just read Tacitus for example. It was resurrected in the last 150 years as a tool of the (((communists))) for suppression of the white middle class. No one except a few idiot feminists actually believes it, but they all pretend to believe it...Reich will not succeed in convincing his co-ethnics because this absurd contention, which flies in the face of all known facts, is too useful for purposes of destroying the goyim.

Blogger Teleros April 09, 2018 9:07 AM  

Brad Richards wrote:Equality is an ideal worth striving for.

"Equality before the law is a good rule of thumb for human societies."

That's as close as I can get to your line. There are always going to be inequalities - and they will in fact be desirable ones, if you want that society to function.

Consider the act of killing a person. If a soldier kills an enemy soldier in wartime, or if you kill someone in self-defence (except in the UK :P ) it's fine. If an assassin kills your head of state, it's pretty clearly of more importance than someone killing a homeless guy.

= = = = =

Laramie Hirsch wrote:What Wright wants for all men is equity, not equality.

However, he stubbornly holds onto the idea that he really means the word "equality".


Mr Wright's position is that the Left has corrupted the word "equality", and that he's arguing for the real thing (what we call equality before the law), not their corrupted version:

http://www.scifiwright.com/2016/11/equality-and-egalitarianism

Blogger pyrrhus April 09, 2018 9:08 AM  

Greg Cochran is doing his usual great job in explicating Reich's valuable work, and demolishing Reich's nasty attacks on greater men like Watson and Harpending to cover his tracks...

Blogger The Observer April 09, 2018 9:09 AM  

Jefferson's idea of all men created equal may be what is referred to in the Constitution, at Article 1, Section 9, clause 8; No Title of Nobility.

The funny thing is, you can't legislate away reality. And now you have nobles and noble families with all of the privileges, decadence and rot, but since they're just equal citizens like anyone else and their power is far more informal than that of formalised nobility, no duties or noblesse oblige can be pinned upon them.

Blogger VD April 09, 2018 9:12 AM  

Nature and Man's God both speak against equality of anything except requirements under the law.

My point is that even Nature and God speak against equality before the law. A born priest may do what a born non-priest may not. A woman may do what a man may not.

There are no exceptions to my statement that stand up to my assertion that there is no equality of any kind whatsoever. Not material, legal, spiritual, natural, or genetic.

People keep running back to "before the law" as a shelter, but it is no shelter at all. If there was genuine equality before the law, there would be no judges. We would not need them to make all the exceptions before the law that they are there to make.

Blogger VD April 09, 2018 9:14 AM  

Mr Wright's position is that the Left has corrupted the word "equality", and that he's arguing for the real thing (what we call equality before the law), not their corrupted version.

It's the standard conservative position. Hence the fact that I address it independently of the standard liberal/progressive/Leftist version.

Blogger pyrrhus April 09, 2018 9:17 AM  

@46 Wright does not deal with reality very well, which may be important and useful for his line of work. Equal opportunity, in fact, is simply used to confer benefits on certain favored groups. This always happens.....
Rule of Law is important for functional societies, and is quite different from egalitarianism...The elites will always receive favoritism, but if it reaches levels that cause public disdain for the law and law enforcers, as we are seeing in America, it destroys societal cohesion.

Blogger Salt April 09, 2018 9:17 AM  

The Observer wrote:no duties or noblesse oblige can be pinned upon them.

Exactly. No lowly man may claim to being a mere serf and laying any charge to one above him. No man has protection from above. It's not about equality before the law as that does not exist, and I believe Jefferson knew that. It's equality of responsibility, and depending on oneself the consequences may vary.

Equality is residing on one's own hook, and not all hooks are the same.

Blogger Teleros April 09, 2018 9:20 AM  

VD wrote:If there was genuine equality before the law, there would be no judges. We would not need them to make all the exceptions before the law that they are there to make.

Because I feel like nitpicking... they might exist under the common law, because you'd need someone (may as well call them judges) to create new precedents whenever a case doesn't conform to existing ones.

Blogger Johnny April 09, 2018 9:24 AM  

How will they guarantee equality of opportunity? Will they outlaw nepotism?

Just to expand the discussion a little.

Nepotism is the normal function of a tribal society. You favor your family over your clan over your tribe. That breaks down in large scale societies because it becomes unworkable. And there are laws against it, sort of. Special reporting requirements if you hire or borrow to a relative using somebody else's resources, that sort of thing. And sometimes an all out prohibition.

We had a local banker who get fired because of loans made to a relative. Also in violation of law because he didn't report it.

Blogger Zaklog the Great April 09, 2018 9:25 AM  

Vox, a thought which has been troubling me, and I wonder if you'd care to comment: Has anyone who's had the power to enforce otherwise seriously valued free speech? Or has free speech literally always been a position advocated by the less-powerful? Even the First Amendment was not intended to prevent any speech controls, but to remove it from the federal level. It did not originally apply to the states at all. That is, it was not "free speech" but a mutual agreement not to interfere with one another's speech controls.

Blogger pyrrhus April 09, 2018 9:28 AM  

From the new Z-man piece on Peter Leyden's despicable piece about California uber alles....
"
Whether you know it or now, you are at war. It’s not a shooting in the street war, at least not yet, but it is a war. Specifically, the people in charge have decided to wage war on segments of the American society. To paraphrase the late historian Christopher Lasch, the managerial elite has turned their back on average Americans and opted instead for a ruthlessly cosmopolitan view of life, one that values rootlessness, internationalism and transience. Increasingly, their ends are in direct conflict with liberal democracy.

Blogger VD April 09, 2018 9:32 AM  

Has anyone who's had the power to enforce otherwise seriously valued free speech? Or has free speech literally always been a position advocated by the less-powerful?

Not that I can think of off-hand. Historically, it was mostly a weapon used by atheists against Christian blasphemy laws and by revolutionaries against sedition laws.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch April 09, 2018 9:33 AM  

@46 Mr Wright's position is that the Left has corrupted the word "equality", and that he's arguing for the real thing (what we call equality before the law), not their corrupted version

He's wrong. "Oh! We conservatives know the REAL MEANING of equality!" No, no, good Heavens, no. A simple use of the word equity is what ought to happen.

I mean, the man is a writer and a lawyer. "Equity" should be a part of his standard lexicon.

The various peoples of America--and the world--will NEVER be equal. Ever. But empires can strive for equity between the different peoples. That is possible.

I think modern Americans are genetically modified to argue for "equality," and it is unnatural for them to go against their base instincts, elevate their minds, and think of anything other than that.

Hence, cuckservatism.

Blogger Eze Garcés April 09, 2018 9:34 AM  

I always though that "All Men Are Created Equal" was something against monarchy and the belief that kings and their sons and daughters have divine rights that make them special and put them above everyone else.I also though that it was about equality under the law.Somebody told me that it was about the christian dogma that says "everybody is created equal in image of God,with a body,mind and soul" but I'm not sure if that was the intention.

Blogger pyrrhus April 09, 2018 9:35 AM  

@53
Yes, the English Common Law was probably the greatest creation of British society, and was used to adapt civil law to the changing realities of the world. It did not particularly favor the Ruling Class...Lord Coke's statement that any legal rule must be negated when its rationale disappears was emblematic.

Blogger James April 09, 2018 9:42 AM  

"God does not believe in equality. Nature does not believe in equality. Neither should Man believe in it, must less attempt to order his societies around it, because it does not exist."

I continue to believe that the sensible people of 2 centuries ago had the concept of man-made aristocratic nobility in mind when they considered the term "equality." The idea was that instead of the arbitrary assignment of leadership to those who descended from leaders of the past people should select leaders based on relevant competencies and merit. Which seems like common sense consistent with Nature and Nature's God.
I think the problem is not the idea of equality at all. I think the problem here is that the demon infested winged monkey servants of Satan have managed to impose a system of Anarcho-Tyranny, and Dirt Bag Supremacy, an inversion of the merit system where the worst rule over everyone else. We're not equal with the Dirt Bags, we are beneath them and subject to them and they exercise lordship over us.

Blogger VD April 09, 2018 9:47 AM  

I think the problem is not the idea of equality at all.

It's not the core problem. It is the relevant tool utilized by the problem, however, which is why we address it in lieu of simply pointing out, yet again, that Satan is to blame.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch April 09, 2018 9:49 AM  

@61 I continue to believe that the sensible people of 2 centuries ago had the concept of man-made aristocratic nobility in mind when they considered the term "equality."

Yes. Thomas Jefferson was an Agrarian Romantic. He hated the urban proletariat and he wanted an aristocracy to rule America. The natural consequence of driving us into Jefferson's direction is the wonderful oligarchy we get to enjoy today.

The English, also, get to enjoy horrific oligarchy, courtesy of those "Rights of Englishmen" we and they extol so often.

Blogger VD April 09, 2018 9:49 AM  

Pyrrhus, it's great that you're enthusiastic about the Z-man's blog, but go comment there, not here. We really don't have any use for the off-topic blurbs here, unless they're actually relevant to the thread.

Blogger Amy April 09, 2018 9:50 AM  

Equality before the Law cannot even be a thing, because biological, physical, intellectual, chemical, etc. and so forth, is impossible.

You cannot give the same sentence for a crime or suit to a person with “diminished capacity” or retardation or autism or insanity, because they’re...um...not equal to a person who isn’t any of those things?

“Equality” boils down o making everyone else responsible for the poor hand life dealt you. Kid is a pile of genetic refuse? Oh well, society says equal so let’s make everyone responsible for my problem.

I’ve seen SJWs passing around a new meme. That’s it’s not *REALLY* about equality, it’s about justice. The pic they use, it’s to laff. It brings kids up to the level of adults, in the image. Which the Parkland thing is trying to do with the push for lowered voting age, etc.

It is rhetoric twisted beyond insanity. But they’re all Charlie Sheen sure of the Winningness of it all.



http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MA87CaGfL10/UTkJIAUOYiI/AAAAAAAAWs8/HIFU05aZPVg/s1600/Equality_Justice.jpg

Blogger Johnny April 09, 2018 9:51 AM  

@60 pyrrhus

I think the way common law evolved was that it was an effort by the king to assert the authority of the king over the commoners. At the very beginning what it did was to require a judicial procedure (due process) that would impose the punishment that would have been imposed by the locals, the commoners, spontaneously. It imposed on the commoners what the commoners would have imposed on themselves, only with a legal system that was the creature of the king.

Not a bad idea. Now days in the US it is more like we are imposing the sensibilities of the officers of the court system itself.

Blogger VD April 09, 2018 9:54 AM  

You cannot give the same sentence for a crime or suit to a person with “diminished capacity” or retardation or autism or insanity, because they’re...um...not equal to a person who isn’t any of those things?

Precisely. We live in an "equal" society where a woman can shoot a sleeping man who has never physically harmed her in any way in the back and it is deemed to NOT be murder.

There is no equality before the law. None whatsoever and all of our customs and traditions reflect that. The assertion is utterly ridiculous.

Blogger Kat April 09, 2018 9:54 AM  

Midwit here - I thought that equality before the law just meant that there was an equal expectation of justice regardless of station or status. Obviously we don't have that now because otherwise lawyers would be much less prevalent, but the ideal of being to go to Moses and get justice no matter who you were did exist for a time.

Blogger Amy April 09, 2018 10:01 AM  

@ Kat, that might be an example of slippery slope.

What is justice? Balancing the scales. And Justice is depicted as blind.

So, the Howling Fantod autistic kid I see sit and scream every day commits a crime. Personal property damage. How does the victim get justice?

Blogger Amy April 09, 2018 10:05 AM  

Meaning, can you expect someone who is of unequal soundness of mind and body to comprehend the crime or the need for restitution? And how would one so unaware go about procuring the means of restitution?

It probably IS a very slippery slope to tread, for then we can say all crime is committed out of diminished capacity, especially if, as certain psychosocial scientistrists have found, there is no “normal.”

Blogger tz April 09, 2018 10:11 AM  

Spending far to many words, buried in the post is the sentence that says he merely means equality before the law, and that is the ONLY equality.

There is something obsessive about his condemnation of the alt-right (Methinks the man doth protesteth too much).

Two errors - first the law is NEVER neutral, so although we can be equal before it, it will encourage some virtues or vices and discourage others. The law says we will take from stable families to subsidize out of wedlock births. It encourages or discourages the very content of character he would use as a basis to judge, and is encouraging evil and persecuting good.

And that is just the written law. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry that the law protects rich and poor alike - see Hillary Clinton (yes, "lock her up" but see if it happens). You have as much "law" as you can afford lawyers to attack or defend. Even Johnathan Swift in section 5 of Gulliver's travels begins a long section explaining to the hoynhnhnym that "if a man means to have my cow he will hire a lawyer...". He died before 1750. Jefferson's idea is to be judged by a JURY of your peers who would have the bible and Black's Law Dictionary and understand the law, not this monstrosity we have today.

Second for both persons and history, there is a Telos. A Final Cause. That is the key concept we've discarded that causes nothing to make sense. Sex and Marriage? procreation and to a lesser extent unity (one flesh) - but we have contraception and divorce and wonder why Gay Marriage is now a right. Nature was created by and for God with a purpose. As was man. As was every person. Wright's description that no man was born for a station so he can choose ANYTHING for himself is nihilistic. God arranged the circumstances of your birth no less than he arranged for his own son to be born of the Virgin Mary with Joseph as the father, and for them to be in Bethlehem and the Magi to give them treasures. Samuel and Esther were in their places for their times. Isaiah named Cyrus centuries before he was born.

Your race, sex, station, etc. are neither a nihilistic tabla rasa that you can define your own existence (see Justice Kennedy in Casey), nor a strict deterministic fatalistic unavoidable destiny. You can accept grace and Divine Providence or reject it.

Blogger Mr. B.A.D. April 09, 2018 10:12 AM  

Nationalism is the natural evolution of the Libertarian, once they learn that not everyone wants to be free, or is capable of being free. The battle cry goes from "Liberty for thee" to "Liberty for We".

Blogger pyrrhus April 09, 2018 10:20 AM  

@64 VD--I agree, my bad....got a little confused early in the morning...

Blogger Kat April 09, 2018 10:37 AM  

Amy wrote:@ Kat, that might be an example of slippery slope.

What is justice? Balancing the scales. And Justice is depicted as blind.

So, the Howling Fantod autistic kid I see sit and scream every day commits a crime. Personal property damage. How does the victim get justice?


Well, the little I've studied of OT law suggests that if victims can't expect any redress from their aggressor because of mental deficit or the like that the victim's claims would fall on whoever has oversight of that person. I'm thinking of the case law regarding an ox who gores. If legal justice in the OT is based on restitution and victim's rights then it makes sense that those who cannot make restitution must be in the care of those who can on their behalf (ie legal guardian).

Blogger Bilroy April 09, 2018 10:41 AM  

Equality only exists in mathematics. And even then, there's infinitely more inequality.

Blogger Hammerli280 April 09, 2018 10:42 AM  

This argument comes up occasionally, and keeps degenerating into a debate over terms and theory versus reality.

My take on it is that there are observable differences in capability between individuals. A healthy society will allow people to rise or fall according to their individual merits. The problems come when this natural stratification by merit is interfered with.

Blogger Amy April 09, 2018 10:44 AM  

If they require legal guardians, Kat, they are not equal in capacity or representation or responsibility.

Not equal before the law.

God will judge fours as fours, not eights; blues as blues, not greens. So, in death, then, and before God, we will receive justice. It is folly to assume we can create Heavenly justice on Earth. Earthly justice is all we have.

The Equality Doctrine is just another form of secular utopian thought used as a cudgel to flatten us all down to bare ground, to clear space for a new breed a rarefied equal hoomans who can finally use this planet as intended.

Blogger Hammerli280 April 09, 2018 10:45 AM  

I'll add that real equality before the law is not popular in the courts. They lose power...and arrogance is the chief trait of the American judiciary these days.

Anonymous Anonymous April 09, 2018 10:46 AM  

To those who believe all men are created equal I give you the Ayn Rand villains gay Rob Mook of the Clinton Campaign & gay vegan Chrissy WyLie who cried about TRUMP doing the same as Obama with facebook.
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/03/19/christopher-wylie-the-gay-vegan-who-made-steve-bannons-psychological-warfare-tool/

Equality is an ideal worth striving for.

One of my earlier red pills is that liberals would rather drag Asians & Whites down than raise black/brown up. The elite fear a coal miner's daughter is smarter than a jew princess.

You cannot give the same sentence for a crime or suit to a person with “diminished capacity” or retardation

The liberals who argued that the wetback who was caught on video tossing the dead body of 8yo white girl Maddie Middleton into a dumpster after he raped her to death was too stupid to face consequences, would all criticize an employer that wouldn't hire him for being too stupid.

Who is victim in this story? https://www.mercurynews.com/2015/07/31/maddy-middleton-murder-a-teens-turbulent-family-life-and-the-death-of-a-santa-cruz-8-year-old/

OT: PIZZAGATE Claim that Epstein island is being raided now https://gab.ai/seniorontherun/posts/23373240

Blogger Ronin F9 April 09, 2018 10:48 AM  

"all men are created equal"

Who did Jefferson and his generation consider "men"? Certainly not merciless Indian savages. Not Africans. Not women and children. Not the feeble minded. I doubt very much they considered brutes, cowards, and petty criminals to be real men.
So if "manhood" was not conferred automatically to all biological males but only those that demonstrated their worth as a real man then those meritorious men are created equal, at least as far having natural rights that deserve respect.

Blogger James April 09, 2018 10:49 AM  

"It is the relevant tool utilized by the problem"

It's rather amazing how even good and true and pure doctrines can be twisted around for evil purposes. Like when wicked people turn the doctrine of grace and forgiveness into a license to sin as much as possible so that grace may abound.

There ought to be a way to express the notion that everyone deserves to be treated justly and fairly without having it turn in to a demonic doctrine of Anarcho-Tyranny and Dirt Bag Supremacy. But maybe there isn't.

I wish there was a way not to be racist without being even more evil and oppressive with the anti-racism, but, maybe there isn't.

Blogger Amy April 09, 2018 10:57 AM  

That’s like wishing Eve had never tasted the forbidden fruit, nor Pandora opened the box

Blogger Brick Hardslab April 09, 2018 11:03 AM  

You should have included the picture of the officer in question. He's the very model of intelligence, character, and personal bravery needed in modern law enforcement. Sorry, modern prison cells is what I meant to write.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine April 09, 2018 11:07 AM  

"Is equality an inherent part of nature? No, of course not. "Red in tooth and claw", "survival of the fittest" - that's nature. We have improved somewhat on raw barbarism - it's what we call "civilization"."

Civilization just means that the interplay is more complex. It's still red in tooth and claw, but when the claws are political, social, or intellectual, the red can be a rather different shade, if no less lethal.

Regardless, all of civilization is rooted in power and the capacity for violence, without which it will also cease to exist. Immigration, for example, can only occur when the exercise of violence and physical power have been separated so severely from the people that they become unable to practice these necessities upon foreign invaders and strangers.

Make no mistake. When the roots of the tree of civilization rot out, the whole tree returns to the Earth.

What irony that a people can believe in the virtues of both diversity and equality simultaneously. Such is the soul of evil.

Blogger Dire Badger April 09, 2018 11:31 AM  

It still amazes me that so few people understand that the declaration was nothing more than propaganda designed to Energize Americans and piss off the British to the point where they would do something to start a fight.

Most Americans didn't want a revolution... the elites had to goad England into starting a fight

Blogger Azure Amaranthine April 09, 2018 11:32 AM  

"It probably IS a very slippery slope to tread, for then we can say all crime is committed out of diminished capacity,"

The perfectly logical endpoint of that slope is the wholesale slaughter of nonfunctioning humans. You don't let a "broken" dog with rabies run around biting people. Doesn't matter that the dog can't help it, it's a net drain and thus needs to die.

Inevitably, the definition of "nonfunctioning" in such a system turns out to be whatever faces the executioner doesn't like. And who are they to argue? If they were fully functional they'd either be one of the executioners themselves, or otherwise able to defend themselves, at least such is the line of thought.

Even beyond that, the executioner isn't entirely wrong. For example, claiming that homosexuality is genetic, nature rather than nurture? Homosexuality is reproductively nonfunctional. If it's a person's fate rather than a choice, the logical thing to do is to kill them. Assuming that homosexuality is a choice, at some level, is actually giving the homosexual the benefit of the doubt.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 09, 2018 11:32 AM  

"Created" is a legal term of art. All men are created equal in the same sense that a man is created a baronet or marquess. God did not make him a baronet, the king did. Just so, God id not make an American equal to another one, the Constitution did.

Blogger WATYF April 09, 2018 11:34 AM  

In a fallen world, aren't all ideals "imaginary"? Which ideal has ever been achieved 100% anywhere?

So equality before the law hasn't been accomplished. Big deal. Neither has a 0% murder rate. It's still a good idea to have laws against murder. I've lived in a place where gov't/police corruption is right out in the open and legal. It is decidedly less pleasant than living in the US, even with the things cops get away with here. So I'm going to go with pursuing equality before the law even if it's not a goal that can ever be reached.

WATYF

Blogger James April 09, 2018 11:44 AM  

""Created" is a legal term of art. All men are created equal in the same sense that a man is created a baronet or marquess. God did not make him a baronet, the king did. Just so, God id not make an American equal to another one, the Constitution did."

Colonel Colt is who done made us equal is what I heard.

Blogger Dire Badger April 09, 2018 11:45 AM  

There is no such thing as justice. Restitution can NEVER be made. If you rob someone, and are forced to pay for what you stole, can you give them back their peace of mind? Can you recoup them for the stress of having their possessions stolen? The fear that someone else is going to break in? If you murder someone, can you bring them back?

No. JUSTICE is impossible and as ridiculous as equality. Intelligent Law has always been about minimizing the crimes, not about Justice, because justice is unattainable.

The punishment needs to be just terrifying enough to prevent as much crime as possible, while not being terrifying enough that someone who committed the crime will lose all hope and go on a rampage. A good balance between those two extremes of fear is the closest we will ever come to the concept of 'Justice'

Blogger RobertT April 09, 2018 11:46 AM  

You should write a book of quotes and put this in there ...

"God does not believe in equality. Nature does not believe in equality. Neither should Man believe in it, must less attempt to order his societies around it, because it does not exist."

Blogger Azure Amaranthine April 09, 2018 11:47 AM  

"God id not make an American equal to another one, the Constitution did."

Except it didn't.

This is the exact same folly of people claiming that a person killing a nonchristian is sending them to hell. The killer (murderer or not) has no such authority or capacity. The person in question goes to hell (if they are fit for it) not because of their killer, but because of their own chosen relationship to God (or lack thereof).

Certainly, they have capacity (and sometimes authority) to kill the physical body, but it is the person's dead spirit that ensures the path of their soul to hell.

Blogger Amy April 09, 2018 11:47 AM  

Azure you’ve stated my thoughts, in detail.

If we are all equal we are all equally responsible and not at all. Equally culpable and not at all.

If equal, the Fantod Boy is just as worthy of award for any achievements as the average intelligence guy and the high IQ genius who paved the way.

Down’s syndrome males are sterile but females are not. Her kids can be stellar geniuses and whom are we to deny her the opportunity?

Equality!

It. Is. Insane. In. Sane. Follow it down to Hell and you can still get deeper than Satan’s frozen mouth. Judas couldn’t ask a higher price for his Lord than his own mental cleanliness and health.

Blogger Andrew April 09, 2018 11:50 AM  

The idea was that instead of the arbitrary assignment of leadership to those who descended from leaders of the past people should select leaders based on relevant competencies and merit. Which seems like common sense consistent with Nature and Nature's God.

I don't know. Conferring power to heirs seems a lot less arbitrary than giving power based on "competence" or "merit." Whatever those words mean. First born son leaves a lot less wiggle room.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine April 09, 2018 11:53 AM  

" So I'm going to go with pursuing equality before the law even if it's not a goal that can ever be reached."

It's not even a goal that should be reached. If such a thing could exist there could be no law.

That the law should be written on men's hearts certainly does not mean that the law should not be written.

The nature of law itself is not to equalize. Rather, the purpose of law is to recognize inequality as finely and capably as possible, and to deal with it as justly as possible.

Blogger Dire Badger April 09, 2018 11:54 AM  

WATYF wrote:In a fallen world, aren't all ideals "imaginary"? Which ideal has ever been achieved 100% anywhere?

So equality before the law hasn't been accomplished. Big deal. Neither has a 0% murder rate. It's still a good idea to have laws against murder. I've lived in a place where gov't/police corruption is right out in the open and legal. It is decidedly less pleasant than living in the US, even with the things cops get away with here. So I'm going to go with pursuing equality before the law even if it's not a goal that can ever be reached.

WATYF


Many things are goals to be striven for, not achieved. Striving for something as an individual is almost always to be applauded, no matter how much of a fantasy it is...THAT is an ideal.

The Horror comes when you decide to demand that OTHERS adhere to what you are striving for. When it is a shared goal, it can lead to civilization, but when it is something that others do not wish for, it's slavery.

If you strive to treat all others equally, it's your personal goal... If you succeed, of course, you will be a complete dick to at least half the people you know who deserve better treatment, but whatever floats your boat.

But if you try to force OTHER people to adopt your dickish goal, well, you are trying to enslave them.

It's like charity... Individual charity is beautiful, but when you force others to be charitable, it's stealing.

I support your right to treat people equally, but if you 'push for equality among all people' I call you an evil monster.

Blogger Starboard April 09, 2018 11:55 AM  

Typo: Neither should Man believe in it, must (much) less attempt to order his societies around it, because it does not exist.

Even communists don't believe in equality:
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his need."

Blogger Azure Amaranthine April 09, 2018 11:55 AM  

"There is no such thing as justice. Restitution can NEVER be made."

False. It is just that all sinful men should die forever.

Restitution is made through blood. Infinite restitution is made through the blood of The Lamb.

Blogger Dire Badger April 09, 2018 11:59 AM  

Andrew wrote:The idea was that instead of the arbitrary assignment of leadership to those who descended from leaders of the past people should select leaders based on relevant competencies and merit. Which seems like common sense consistent with Nature and Nature's God.

I don't know. Conferring power to heirs seems a lot less arbitrary than giving power based on "competence" or "merit." Whatever those words mean. First born son leaves a lot less wiggle room.


Who judges the judges?

Blogger Dire Badger April 09, 2018 12:00 PM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:"There is no such thing as justice. Restitution can NEVER be made."

False. It is just that all sinful men should die forever.

Restitution is made through blood. Infinite restitution is made through the blood of The Lamb.


Sending a murderer to hell does not unmake the murder.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine April 09, 2018 12:02 PM  

"Sending a murderer to hell does not unmake the murder."

Nor does it have any bearing on whether the murder was just or unjust. Nor does it have any bearing upon whether justice is done for the murdered.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine April 09, 2018 12:03 PM  

Correction: "Nor is it the sole determinant of whether justice is done for the murdered."

Blogger Kat April 09, 2018 12:06 PM  

Amy wrote:If they require legal guardians, Kat, they are not equal in capacity or representation or responsibility.

Not equal before the law.

God will judge fours as fours, not eights; blues as blues, not greens. So, in death, then, and before God, we will receive justice. It is folly to assume we can create Heavenly justice on Earth. Earthly justice is all we have.

The Equality Doctrine is just another form of secular utopian thought used as a cudgel to flatten us all down to bare ground, to clear space for a new breed a rarefied equal hoomans who can finally use this planet as intended.


When I say "equality before the law" I'm referring to the directive that judges in the Bible were not to favor a rich man in his case or to favor a poor man in his case. The rich man can't get off lightly because of his influence, and the poor man can't get off lightly because of a warped sense of justice or oppression.

Blogger Dire Badger April 09, 2018 12:09 PM  

Exactly. That's why restitution as a word-concept is pure fiction.

There is god's vengeance, and the vengeance belongs solely to God, but it is vengeance, not restitution. God brought his son back, but he's not doing that for every Tom, Dick, and Harry in order to make 'restitution' to the aggrieved. Perhaps 'restitution' is possible in Heaven (I don't even pretend to know) but in this world? Law is, and needs to be, geared towards preventing certain behaviors, not making the 'victims feel better'.

Restitution is simply impossible because unmaking is impossible. Which is how it should be.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine April 09, 2018 12:12 PM  

"Exactly. That's why restitution as a word-concept is pure fiction."

Because restitution and justice are the same thing, somehow.

Killing a murderer is reciprocity. Obviously no exact physical restitution can be made.

If we're talking about God, do you take issue with the translation of the word "Just" or "Justice" in the Bible? I seem to remember it being one of God's key attributes.

Blogger LP999-16 April 09, 2018 12:12 PM  

Groping? I dont believe her.

Once again, diversity and equality cannot co exist. I strongly 2nd the notion equality does not exist but only the minds of lucid dreamers.

Blogger Amy April 09, 2018 12:14 PM  

but We denizens of Earth want restitution here and now, and I can understand that. We are in this Earthly realm and must reckon with it.

Salvation? I have that. Baptism, faith, works (bloody Papist I am!). We STILL want to see justice, restitution, and some sort of resolution and peace happen from any sort of trespass.

You can’t restore a dead child. You dont make a raped person whole again. You can pay but you can’t expect peace. And for Kat who subscribes to the law of Moses, we’ll, much as I can sympathize with men falsely accused of sex crimes, you probably shouldn’t force a woman to marry her rapist if the crime was evident. Of course under Mosaic law, justice would say she could never have a husband and she would be a sterile ward of her fathers house forever.

It all gets too tangled. Feminism and equality and slaves and women are slaves and women and slaves are equal.

(FWIW Apple changed “slaves” to “skates” in every instance of my previous sentence.)

Point blank: you don’t believe in hierarchy? Or maths? There is a place for you, somewhere...over there. The rest of us will sort out the fine-tuning of our boundaries in real life.

Blogger Dire Badger April 09, 2018 12:16 PM  

Hell, 'campus law' today is the very picture of an attempt to make 'restitution' rather than 'prevention' the rule. That is the realm of 'microaggressions' and 'white privilege'... attempts to make people feel better about a perceived affrontand feel like 'justice has been done for hurting my feelings' rather than creating a workable rule for preventing physical escalation.

Of course, since such Justice is literally impossible, Campus law will instead simply keep escalating farther and farther into the realms of 'restitution' and the fantasy of 'justice for the aggrieved' because the end goal can never be achieved. Justice, and restitution, are simply fantasies.

Blogger Amy April 09, 2018 12:16 PM  

Also, this kind of thing happens all the time: http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/02/nj_state_trooper_on_christies_security_detail_faces_shoplifting_charges_report_says.html

Blogger Allen L. April 09, 2018 12:17 PM  

I'm not sure if anyone has made this distinction yet, but when you look at the idea of equality before the law there is one notable exception. The founders made it explicit in the Constitution that the members of Congress were not bound by any laws they might pass. Inherent in our primary founding document is the idea is that there are exceptions to the rule. If it were not the case Affirmative Action, and any number of other laws, would never have passed muster.

Blogger Dire Badger April 09, 2018 12:20 PM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:"Exactly. That's why restitution as a word-concept is pure fiction."

Because restitution and justice are the same thing, somehow.

Killing a murderer is reciprocity. Obviously no exact physical restitution can be made.

If we're talking about God, do you take issue with the translation of the word "Just" or "Justice" in the Bible? I seem to remember it being one of God's key attributes.


So is 'perfection', which is also a fantasy down here on earth.

Again, I am not trying to judge God or put him in a box. I am talking about here on earth. In heaven, Utopia is indeed possible, but it is not possible here.

When I speak of Law, it is ingenuous to assume that I am also trying to define God's law. When I speak of fiction, it is ingenuous to assume that because it is fiction god is retsrained from creating it. If God decides to make an Easter Bunny, who am I to claim he cannot? But that does not make the Easter Bunny any less a fiction.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine April 09, 2018 12:21 PM  

Dire Badger, in case I've been insufficiently clear, restitution and justice are not the same thing at all.

Restitution is a virtue in precisely the same way as conservation/conservatism is. Is it just that evil be conserved? Is it just that purely evil men receive restitution for their losses? Restitution is not justice. Restitution is no virtue at all.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine April 09, 2018 12:25 PM  

"When I speak of Law, it is ingenuous to assume that I am also trying to define God's law."

The word you're looking for is "disingenuous". If you meant that justice is not perfect in the physical world, this is because the physical world is imperfect, not because justice does not exist.

This argument from imperfection can be used in identical fashion to claim that any virtue does not exist. That claim is still false. The imperfection itself is a lack of virtue in and of itself. It does not bear at all on the presence, absence, or existence of any other virtue.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine April 09, 2018 12:28 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Dire Badger April 09, 2018 12:29 PM  

the pledge of allegiance is meant to be a mission statement, not a law. "With Liberty and Justice for all" is a goal, not a rule.

If you wanted to be autistically precise I suppose you could change the words to "With reasonably defined personal freedom apart from infringing on the personal freedoms of others for as many people as choose to take on the responsibility for those freedoms, and reciprocity for physical offenses to those same people." but frankly, I think that would cost it a lot of rhetorical power. Not to mention being tough for little kids to memorize.

Blogger VD April 09, 2018 12:34 PM  

So equality before the law hasn't been accomplished. Big deal. Neither has a 0% murder rate. It's still a good idea to have laws against murder.

Is it also a good idea to have laws against inequality?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine April 09, 2018 12:34 PM  

The operative words here are "significant" and "sufficient", Dire Badger.

Comparing justice to the Easter Bunny is dishonest. Again, I'll make it direct questions this time:

Do you take issue with the translations of the words "just" and or "justice" in the Bible? Do you take issue with the divine inspiration of the men writing the words so translated? Do you take issue with the precision and/or accuracy of said men?

Blogger Peaceful Poster April 09, 2018 12:40 PM  

Regarding equality under the law, my red pill came at the age of 16 years old when I was taking my driver's test. I exceeded the speed limit by a decent margin on one section, drove with one hand on the wheel at times, and made a couple of other minor infractions.

But the guy passed me with flying colors for some reason. Maybe it was my charm.

Point being, if Authorities like you, they can be lenient. But if they want to nail you, they will find any excuse to do so.

Blogger VD April 09, 2018 12:43 PM  

the pledge of allegiance is meant to be a mission statement, not a law.

The pledge of allegience is no more relevant or meaningful to anything than the score of last night's baseball game.

Blogger VD April 09, 2018 12:44 PM  

The founders made it explicit in the Constitution that the members of Congress were not bound by any laws they might pass. Inherent in our primary founding document is the idea is that there are exceptions to the rule.

Excellent point.

Blogger Hammerli280 April 09, 2018 12:45 PM  

One thing about Christianity is that it sets bounds on our conduct toward each other. That it is wrong for the strong to rob the weak, wrong for the clever to cheat the simple-minded. And equally wrong for a mob of the weak or simple-minded to rob the strong and clever of what they have honestly earned. Whether or not these bounds constitute "equality" I leave to you to debate.

Blogger Julian Kowalczyk April 09, 2018 12:48 PM  

"As I have repeatedly observed, there is no such thing as equality, the grand rhetorical flights of Thomas Jefferson notwithstanding"

I agree. It is mathematically and statistically impossible for two groups of people who were separated for 50 thousand, 60 thousand or more years to suddenly in this day and age have equal physical, mental or psychological outcomes.

Yet somehow there are that many stupid White people who believe this. Itz insanity or brainwashing on a massive scale.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine April 09, 2018 12:52 PM  

"The founders made it explicit in the Constitution that the members of Congress were not bound by any laws they might pass."

I assume you're talking about article one, section six, which is only effective while they're in session. The point of that (as far as I can tell) so that an "overzealous" Executive can't arrest them for "breaking laws" by changing them.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 09, 2018 12:54 PM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:Except it didn't.
Within the limited meaning of the word, it did.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 09, 2018 12:57 PM  

Dire Badger wrote:the pledge of allegiance is meant to be a mission statement, not a law.
The pledge of allegiance is meant as a shit test, to force children to swear to several lies, the most prominent of which is "indivisible", but also including "liberty and justice for all."

Blogger VD April 09, 2018 12:58 PM  

That doesn't pass cursory inspection. Think about it a bit harder.

Close enough. You know perfectly well what the reference was.

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Literal inequality before the law. Designed right into the US legal system.

Also, Azure and Dire Badger, do shut up already. No one is interested in tedious pedantic battles and no one cares how you personally define anything.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine April 09, 2018 12:58 PM  

"Within the limited meaning of the word, it did."

Within the limited capacity and actual practice of the Constitution, fair enough.

Blogger Dire Badger April 09, 2018 1:11 PM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:"When I speak of Law, it is ingenuous to assume that I am also trying to define God's law."

The word you're looking for is "disingenuous". If you meant that justice is not perfect in the physical world, this is because the physical world is imperfect, not because justice does not exist.

This argument from imperfection can be used in identical fashion to claim that any virtue does not exist. That claim is still false. The imperfection itself is a lack of virtue in and of itself. It does not bear at all on the presence, absence, or existence of any other virtue.


Excuse me, I am on crunch time. I haven't slept for 48 hours. Yes, Disingenuous.

I am not going to get into an argument over whether or not virtues exist, because that leads to slippery definitions of 'exist'. Does 0 exist? how about 1? does your mind exist? Not a discussion I want on a lack of sleep, and much more fun when you are drunk.

Obviously they are ideals, and not ultimately possible outside of perfection their 'existence' is not a yes or no question, since, like god, they are unfalsifiable.

The point I am trying to make is that it is stupid as hell to make laws 'forcing' people to adhere to something as slippery as a Virtue. You can absolutely make laws that PUNISH people for doing something that opposes an ideal, but laws are all about what you CANNOT do... if they are about what you MUST do, they are not laws, they are commands.

Blogger Vaughan Williams April 09, 2018 1:13 PM  

What does God think about equality? The Word says:

Exodus 23:3 Neither shalt thou countenance a poor man in his cause.

The context and commentaries agree this verse means that justice is for rich and poor alike.

Numbers 15
16 One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.
29 Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them.

So, equality as it is usually understood isn't Biblical. But in certain ways, equality is very Biblical. Mainly in terms of your right to justice, and risk to your life. When it came time for war, rich and poor paid the same census/registration fee:

Exodus 30:15 The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when they give an offering unto the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine April 09, 2018 1:14 PM  

Okay.

"do shut up already."

Yessir.

Blogger Dire Badger April 09, 2018 1:17 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Dire Badger April 09, 2018 1:18 PM  

Azure, if you are ever close to Utah or Colorado. Utah, because it's nearby, or Colorado, because this kind of discussion works REALLY well when you are wasted...

Blogger Dire Badger April 09, 2018 1:22 PM  

"Also, Azure and Dire Badger, do shut up already. No one is interested in tedious pedantic battles and no one cares how you personally define anything."
Fair Enough
The whole conversation is akin to "Dude, have you ever really LOOKED at your hand?"

Blogger S1AL April 09, 2018 1:30 PM  

The only way that Jefferson could have possible meant the phrase was in the context of birth station. Or, perhaps, "natural station". It was an assault on nobility and Divine Right, and on the treatment of British subjects in the colonies.

And that context at least creates a debate worth having.

Blogger S1AL April 09, 2018 1:32 PM  

"So, equality as it is usually understood isn't Biblical. But in certain ways, equality is very Biblical. Mainly in terms of your right to justice, and risk to your life. When it came time for war, rich and poor paid the same census/registration fee:"

This debate has occurred here before, and the general conclusion was that the correct term was "partiality", and that is was understood as "discrimination in the basis of irrelevant or unjust criteria".

Blogger Ominous Cowherd April 09, 2018 1:33 PM  

tz wrote:I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry that the law protects rich and poor alike ...

The law, in its majesty, forbids both the rich man and the poor man from sleeping under the bridge. Equal treatment isn't just.

Blogger Dire Badger April 09, 2018 1:35 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:Dire Badger wrote:the pledge of allegiance is meant to be a mission statement, not a law.

The pledge of allegiance is meant as a shit test, to force children to swear to several lies, the most prominent of which is "indivisible", but also including "liberty and justice for all."


Up until the 'indivisible' part, it's not bad propaganda.

The question is, after "I swear allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands.", is the second part another oath? Or is it just a descriptor? I mean, the republic part definitely says "And" so it is definitely part of the oath, but the last bit? It sounds more like bragging.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine April 09, 2018 1:36 PM  

"Up until the 'indivisible' part, it's not bad propaganda."

Modern practice has tried as hard as possible to put the lie to the part just before that.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine April 09, 2018 1:37 PM  

I always took it as a descriptor due to the conspicuous pause in between.

Blogger Dire Badger April 09, 2018 1:45 PM  

"conspicuous"

Damned Straight... It's almost like some dude in the last hundred years or so added that bit afterwards.

Like some socialist in 1890 reworded it from it's original. Like maybe it should read "I pledge allegiance to my flag, and the republic for which it stands. I pledge my head and my heart to God and my country. One country, one language and one flag."

But who knows?

Blogger DonReynolds April 09, 2018 2:01 PM  

The Declaration of Independence was addressed to King George III, who actually believed in the divine right of Kings. The "all men are created equal" was a deliberate poke in the King's eye. Divine right is about the King being selected by God before he was even born, so his birth is special and apart from all other (lesser) men.

Not a single man who signed the Declaration would have thought for a moment that all people were equal...women not being the equal of men. A significant number of the signers owned Negro slaves, still others had indentured servants and bondsmen, and practically all had employees, farmhands, and grooms. No, they had none of the egalitarian notions that all men were equal, in part because they had never been and there was no such society nor had one ever existed.

Every person in the room knew exactly what the "all men are created equal" phrase was about. It was an insult and dig at the King and his divine right. Proof? OK....the phrase does not say that all men ARE equal, or we intend to make them so, or they will be in the future (when we are in charge). More proof? OK....none of the signers of the Declaration in subsequent works were in any way egalitarian, there were no egalitarian laws passed, they did not reform the country by agreeing to abolish slavery where it already existed.

British law had made slavery lawful in all 13 colonies for 160+ years and there were colonies who later abolished the practice, but they never pretended that abolishing slavery made all men equal, because nobody believed that nonsense.

Blogger Hammerli280 April 09, 2018 2:10 PM  

Just for the record...

First, the American War for Independence was already over a year old when the Declaration of Independence was signed.

Second, the King had little to do with it, except as a figurehead. This was a jurisdictional dispute between the British Parliment on the one hand and the Colonial legislatures on the other. Specifically, whether or not the Parliment in London could impose internal taxes and laws in the Colonies.

Blogger Mr. B.A.D. April 09, 2018 2:22 PM  

Thomas Jefferson was a case of "when keeping it real goes wrong". His famous quote "for I have sworn upon the altee of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the minds of men" is in fact directed towards churches attempting to establish their own docterines as law. His skepticism of authority went so far as to deny the divinity of Christ and edit his own Bible that excluded any miracles. It's clear that his thinking was clouded by tunnel vision.

Anonymous Anonymous April 09, 2018 2:25 PM  

The law, in its majesty, forbids both the rich man and the poor man from sleeping under the bridge. Equal treatment isn't just.

Now that we have affirmative action bridge builders even driving under the bridge is a bad idea.

Game of CLUE for current year:
Wetback "Obama champion of change" 2015 award winner
kills gay Cuban couple at college with a bridge
http://www.washingtonblade.com/2018/03/22/gay-cuban-couple-among-miami-bridge-collapse-victims/

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener April 09, 2018 2:32 PM  

Is it also a good idea to have laws against inequality?

Certainly not directly, but in the context of a homogeneous society, it is a good idea to have laws that prevent government from acting arbitrarily. We can acknowledge that equality doesn't exist and can never be achieved, but it would be societally detrimental to tolerate the brazen nepotism in the NYPD example.

Blogger DonReynolds April 09, 2018 2:36 PM  

Hammerli280 wrote:Just for the record...

First, the American War for Independence was already over a year old when the Declaration of Independence was signed.

Second, the King had little to do with it, except as a figurehead. This was a jurisdictional dispute between the British Parliment on the one hand and the Colonial legislatures on the other. Specifically, whether or not the Parliment in London could impose internal taxes and laws in the Colonies.


Just for the record.....

First, there was no one who thought that the rebellion would lead to independence from the British Crown during those first 15 months of combat with the British military. Sentiment in the Continental Congress was strongly opposed to independence until June 1776. George Washington and his officers toasted the King at dinner until independence was declared, even as they fought pitched battles with the redcoats and put their own army in the field.

Second, the King was very much part of the government in England. He was not a figurehead. Much of the 15 months between the start of the rebellion and the Declaration was spent making repeated appeals to His Royal Majesty, King George III and to Parliament...all hopes being on the King resolving the crisis between the colonists and Parliament. The revolutionaries were not unfamiliar with the Crown or British government. It was, after all, the only government many of them had ever known. In the end, it was King George III who was the LAST to agree to recognizing the independence of the colonies. He had preferred to continue with the war, so his final assent was NECESSARY. He was by no means a mere figurehead....as his grand daughter (Victoria) would demonstrate for 63 years on the throne.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 09, 2018 2:49 PM  

Dire Badger wrote:Fair Enough

The whole conversation is akin to "Dude, have you ever really LOOKED at your hand?"


No no no, you're doing it wrong. You're supposed to double down on your idiosyncratic definition, dismiss Vox with snarky and insulting name calling and declare victory.

Blogger Dire Badger April 09, 2018 3:23 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:Dire Badger wrote:Fair Enough

The whole conversation is akin to "Dude, have you ever really LOOKED at your hand?"


No no no, you're doing it wrong. You're supposed to double down on your idiosyncratic definition, dismiss Vox with snarky and insulting name calling and declare victory.



What would I have achieved by doing so?

Blogger James April 09, 2018 3:24 PM  

""When I speak of Law, it is ingenuous to assume that I am also trying to define God's law."
The word you're looking for is "disingenuous""

I think he was looking for the word "ingenius," but that's just me.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 09, 2018 3:33 PM  

Dire Badger wrote:What would I have achieved by doing so?
Demonstrating to all the world that you, the Secret King of political thought, are actually the winner of the argument of course.
Ask Sick Duck, Tad, or Rambam if you need some help with this.

Blogger James April 09, 2018 3:33 PM  

"Is it also a good idea to have laws against inequality?"

Private parties have the moral right to treat people as unequally as they desire and the "law" needs to recognize the fact. The government on the other hand should need a good reason to treat people unequally, good reasons being defined according to due processes of law. So, men and women and adults and children can easily be treated differently because of the obvious differences, but other differences might be considered more and more arbitrary and improper as they become more, arbitrary, where the law is concerned.
I have black friends who live in el barrio and Hispanic friends who live in da 'hood. It might not be advisable, but, there is no law against it, and so far they've survived.

Blogger Dire Badger April 09, 2018 3:37 PM  

Everyone has a specialty. One Man's Plato is another man's Steven Bleicher.

Blogger Dire Badger April 09, 2018 3:39 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Dire Badger April 09, 2018 3:41 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Dire Badger April 09, 2018 3:51 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:Dire Badger wrote:What would I have achieved by doing so?

Demonstrating to all the world that you, the Secret King of political thought, are actually the winner of the argument of course.

Ask Sick Duck, Tad, or Rambam if you need some help with this.



Sounds boring.

Blogger Quilp April 09, 2018 4:02 PM  

It seems humanly impossible for many to "strive" for equality, and not have it turn into constant revolution. Trotskyism happens.

Blogger SirHamster April 09, 2018 6:41 PM  

There's one form of equality under the law that should be justifiable, and that is for equal crimes to get equal punishment. It should not be that two men each steal $1000 and one is punished and the other ignored.

Equal crimes get equal punishment; with the kicker being that it's rather hard to determine if two crimes are equal, because of all the variables.

It should be obvious that identity affects action. A woman has a much lower threshold to be in fear for her life than a man. The different capabilities affects what crime, if any, we judge them to have committed.

To tie it up with the Christian perspective, God calls for us to seek justice, whereas equality never comes up.

"Equality under the law" is rhetoric for a just system. Blind pursuit of equality leads to social justice injustice. Equality is a measuring stick that points to justice, but is not itself justice.

Justice must treat equal things equally, and unequal things unequally.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch April 09, 2018 8:19 PM  

On his site, I have argued to Wright that he should use the word "equity," not "equality." He disagreed.

Me: "I've stated this before: "equality" is often a word mistakenly used instead of the word "equity." Should we use the word "equity," we would not have the conundrum the Right Wing has before them."

Wright: "I beg to differ. If we use a word different from equality, not only would the words of our ancestors become incomprehensible to us, the Left, whose main stock in trade is to corrupt words and their meaning, would merely corrupt the meaning of the new word, just as they had the old.

Moreover, the word has a meaning as a technical term of art in the legal field. There is extensive case law on what the word means and how to define it in many particular cases. To change the wording now would be to abandon needlessly a long line of legal precedent."

Blogger The Overgrown Hobbit April 09, 2018 8:59 PM  

Equal rights under the law, like monogamy, is entirely contingent on a well-ordered, Christian society. It is just as,rare, and improbable, but no less desirable.

But I disagree that we should therefore champion "equality" as that word, if it ever meant anything so useful as the above, had been corrupted by the Left centuries ago.

As lief try to get people to use villain only when referring to a base-born peasant.

Blogger Damaris Tighe April 09, 2018 9:19 PM  

was jefferson not calling on secularised natural law principles with his 'self-evident' claim ...

Blogger Laramie Hirsch April 09, 2018 10:32 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch April 09, 2018 10:38 PM  

My response to Wright:

#1. Words are frequently used across disciplines, even academic disciplines. We are not limited to using "equity" within the bounds of jurisprudence. When I say that "John has muddied the meaning of that word into a nebulous, cloudy, confusing new version of itself," I do not have to be a gardener, astronomer, or meteorologist to use the words "muddied," "nebulous," or "cloudy." Nor do I have to be talking about those three subjects. Words can be used from disciplines.

#2. Furthermore, it is not out of the question that Thomas Jefferson was using the word incorrectly. He was a megalomaniac, in my opinion, who was using the word as a rhetorical flourish to oppose King George III. And I believe that he, the Left, AND the Right have been misusing the word "equality" for ages.

#3. If we cannot use "equity," then we cannot use "equality" in this context. Because both "equality" and "equity" are terms used in law. In fact, there are courts of equity. Equality has mainly moral overtones, since we are all, in theory, equal before the bar of justice. Equity has economic overtones, since it guarantees work will be compensated according to effort, and different efforts produce different compensations. The word "equity" has economic, and really, materialistic overtones--in that it deals with the distribution of material goods in a just manner. When referring to a world of currency, labor, flesh and blood, equity is the word to be utilized.

Confusing "equity" with "equality" confuses everything.

Anonymous Anonymous April 10, 2018 1:43 AM  

No earthly legal system will ever yield equal justice under law, but it should aim for justice in the classic sense of giving people what they are due as much as possible. Later on will come the perfect judge and justice will definitely be served there in due measure.

Equality in relations is probably properly speaking only applied to God Himself within the Trinity. Jefferson would have done well to simply state that "all men are created by God" and he would have had a much more accurate statement. As it stands Jefferson was being too cute rhetorically, as the statement is only true if considering the mere fact that all men are created men. The differences begin after that fact.

Looking at the 10 Commandments, the negative proscriptions, i.e. Thou Shalt Not, apply equally to all men, though not all who break them are guilty in the same measure. The two that are not negative - honor the Sabbath and one's parents - are not expected to be performed in equal measure by all, but more is expected of those who can do more.

If going by Jesus's 2 Commandments, they are also not expected to be done equally by all, but to the maximum of one's ability - loving God with all one's being and loving others as oneself. God expects more from those to whom He has given more, and will reward better those who approach closer to the maximum. Heaven has its hierarchy just as hell does.

Blogger Nux Max April 10, 2018 3:04 AM  

Hobbes. leviathan. Chapter 13.

Blogger kurt9 April 10, 2018 1:45 PM  

The purpose of this thread is not clear to me. But it appears that different legal systems for different people are being proposed here. This is interesting to me because I have actually lived in a country where they do this. There are parallel legal systems and courts in Malaysia for Muslims and non-Muslims. The results of this system are mixed.

You might want to spend time in Malaysia if you have the opportunity to do so. Malaysia is the only country that I know of to have parallel legal systems for different people.

Blogger Vaughan Williams April 10, 2018 2:29 PM  

The Law of God says one law, the same for the stranger as for the native. The history of Ireland shows that when you have parallel law systems, then the underclass are cucked; the overclass sex up their women and the underclass can do nothing about it. This is an evil type of warfare. And, over the past 50 years, the laws have been subtly changed so we are essentially in that state again.

Blogger saintCrispee April 10, 2018 5:20 PM  

"So equality before the law hasn't been accomplished. Big deal. Neither has a 0% murder rate. It's still a good idea to have laws against murder."

This is correct...in every respect.

Blogger saintCrispee April 10, 2018 5:25 PM  

"People keep running back to "before the law" as a shelter, but it is no shelter at all. If there was genuine equality before the law, there would be no judges. We would not need them to make all the exceptions before the law that they are there to make."

There are judges for many reasons. The unseen implications of laws are often in dispute. As well, courts exist to explore the facts behind claims made by the state and individuals, facts that must be known before judgments can be rendered. Equality under the law is critical to any proper civilization and it's why America's legal system has always moved in that direction...sometime slower than we would like.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash April 10, 2018 6:00 PM  

saintCrispee wrote:Equality under the law is critical to any proper civilization
Equality under the law did not exist even as a concept before the 18th century.
You like it, we get that, but it is not a requirement of civilization at any level.

Blogger L. Jagi Lamplighter Wright April 11, 2018 11:04 AM  

The purpose of upholding the value of equality before the law is to shoot for it...not to instantly have it.

One can always find exceptions, because life isn't perfect. But better to live in a country that strives for a high ideal than one that does not.

Reality always falls short of ideals. So if your ideals are low, reality will be even worse.


Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts