Is Fair Equal? (and Vice Versa)

Is Equal Fair?

Millions of Americans are being affected by so-called ‘supply-chain’ problems, but how many recognize unions’ role in it all? (& vice versa)

Americans have By TIMOTHY R. SNOWBALL a visceral need Litigation Counsel to level the playing field — even when it means trampling rights & empowering our already out-of-control government.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men were created equal …” — U.S. Declaration of Independence

Except they weren’t.

In fact, contrary this soaring rhetoric, the Founding Fathers clearly recognized that humans are born with unique attributes that can either help or hinder them in life. Consequently, they envisioned a system of government that acknowledged undeniable differences while safeguarding the rights of all.

Precisely because nature didn’t see fit to make us all equal, we need laws and Constitutional protections that treat everyone fairly.

And therein lies the conundrum.

In most everyday conversation, the words “equal” and “fair” are treated as virtual synonyms. We need look no further than cable news, the Internet or social media for evidence of this fact.

As an abstract concept, Americans admire few things more than fairness and equality. But what’s fair equal isn’t always fair. And vice versa.

Consider, for example, two bakers receiving the same pay even though one bakes 50 loaves a day and the other can produce only 10. Their compensation is equal, but no one could credibly argue the arrangement is fair

Fairness is just that — an abstraction. It has no concrete definition. Fairness is purely subjective — and easily misrepresented.

Governments, however, are populated by people, not abstract principles. And people who aspire to remain in government very quickly learn to pander to voters by making lavish promises that play to the electorate’s biases and perceptions, no matter how skewed or unrealistic they may be.

Not only do equality and fairness have different basic definitions, they also have differing legal definitions. And the widespread misunderstanding of this reality breeds a lot of bad policy outcomes.

In their quest to ensure “fairness” for themselves, too many Americans are willing to destroy any semblance of true equality for others through the application of unequal government intervention.

Conversely, in their eagerness not to discriminate, our elected leaders very often tip the balance in favor of perceived equality and devise “solutions” that, again, disregard how many loaves of bread the baker bakes.

If we want to gain a better understanding of what “equal” means in the United States, it is best to begin at the beginning.

In the original statement of our national principles, Thomas Jefferson proclaimed that it was a self-evident truth that “all men are created equal.”

But when it comes to truths, you’d be hard-pressed to find anything on this earth less self-evident.

People differ in intelligence, backgrounds, income and educational attainment.

And it is not just social or economic differences.

Some people are taller than others, or more beautiful/handsome or even happier.

And yet, in certain circumstances, each of these accidents of birth could prove hugely beneficial to the possessor — seemingly disproving the maxim that all are created equal.

So, what exactly did Jefferson mean when he penned these famous words in the Declaration of Independence at the birth of our country?

“Equality,” in the sense that Jefferson and the other Founders used it was not an equality of conditions. This proposition would have been baffling indeed coming from a man who, along with his southern contemporaries, owned human slaves.

It was also not an equality of outcomes, as the lives of man of Jefferson’s colleagues, among them John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, attested to the Founders’ respect for the value of hard work and the freedom to reap the rewards of one’s labor.

Which explains why Jefferson’s famous phrase was immediately followed by the proviso: “…that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

As a governmental imperative, the United States denies neither the existence of unique talents nor the serendipity of pure luck.

What it does stipulate, however, is that, irrespective of one’s situation or skill set, he or she is equal in the eyes of God and, thus, equally entitled to the protection of their basic natural rights.

Hence, “equality” as understood by the framers of the Constitution is a condition in which the rule of law ensures that no matter the material differences in individuals, all are treated equally, and their rights respected under the law.

Under this conceptualization, it is this deliberately leveled playing field that legitimizes any disparity in material conditions.

In America, everyone has the same shot at success (or failure), based on their respective efforts or lack thereof, and we assume government won’t give anyone a leg up over their neighbor.

No picking of winners and losers or putting a thumb on the scales to produce an arbitrary outcome. Just an unbiased enforcing of the rules.

Like a referee.

This is precisely what makes the modern conflation of equality and fairness as enforced through government programs, meddling and force so problematic.

Take two of the most hot-button issues in the current debate over social “fairness” masked as a quest for equality — sex and race.

In September 2018, California lawmakers approved a gender quota for corporate boards that required all publicly held firms headquartered in the state to have at least one appointed female director by the end of 2019, and two female board members by the end of 2021.

Subsequently struck down as unconstitutional by a California state judge, this law serves as a case in point.

A truly “equal” system would be one in which all individuals aspiring to rise to the highest ranks of corporate America would do so without any help, or hindrance, from the government.

To paraphrase Martin Luther King, Jr., what truly matters is the content of one’s character rather than the composition of their chromosomes.

Relatedly, this was one of the primary issues that turned off conservatives to the recent nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Biden.

It is not that Judge Jackson is not a qualified lawyer and jurist. She obviously is.

PAGE 8 n FREEDOM MATTERS

Equality Fairness Reality (Once government Intervenes)

It is the idea that the main reason Biden selected her not for her resume, but for her sex and the color of her skin.

Which brings us to the everpresent (per the liberal agenda) issue of race.

In a society with true racial equality, an individual’s skin pigmentation would make no difference to their academic or professional advancement. Yet consider the issue of affirmative action.

For decades there have been attempts to introduce quotas to regulate the racial content of elite public high schools and universities. Even though many of these attempts have been struck down as unconstitutional violations of, you guessed it, the Equal Protection Clause, the idea that seats should be reserved for individuals based not on their achievements, but on their race, persists.

Most recently, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted a case for review that addresses the issue of racial discrimination … against Asian students.

Of course, none of this is to deny that women, African-Americans and other groups in our society have suffered horrific discrimination in the past, often at the hands of government itself.

After all, we can’t learn anything from history if we airbrush away those episodes that should rightfully make us feel ashamed.

Instead, the appropriate response is not to repeat the mistakes that caused the injuries in the first place by inviting self-serving lawmakers to use the sledgehammer of government to stitch together the torn fabric of feelings.

Right idea, perhaps, but the wrong tool for the job.

How then can we as a society do all we can to help individuals to reach their full potential?

Through those institutions that have long formed the bedrock of what we call Western Civilization — the family, the church and the community.

Until we’re ready to step up and admit that in many situations it is culture, rather than any lack of opportunity, that leads young people astray, we will only perpetuate the myth that fairness and equality are one and the same.

In their wisdom, the Founding Fathers devised an economy based on free markets and free will. Allowed to operate as designed, their creation produced the most prosperous nation in the history of the world.

The marketplace of ideas requires no less.

Just as we don’t need a government bureaucracy to tell us which brand of toothpaste to buy, we don’t need the heavy hand of government telling us which ideas are acceptable and which aren’t.

Millions of Americans, making hundreds of buying decisions in their own best interest every day, whittle down the field of options by eliminating products and services no one wants. Just as surely, Americans understand fairness and will ultimately reject unfair, inferior ideas.

Fairness, like beauty, may reside in the eye of the beholder. But the version demanded by many individuals making voluntary decisions in a free market will always have a stronger claim to legitimacy than an arbitrary construct imposed by government edict.

Instead of chasing abstract phantoms and government solutions that are inherently unequal, each of us must face the fact that one person and one person alone is responsible for our lot in life.

Ourselves.

FREEDOM MATTERS n PAGE 9