Fairness and Equality – What are we doing to ourselves?

By Sam Frescoe
samfrescoe@gmail.com
http://samfrescoeproject.blogspot.com/
The Sam Frescoe Project

Who wants fairness and equality in their lives? I do. I must admit, at first glance, the idea of more fairness and equality seems like a great American idea. Let’s face it, it sounds good to say, and it feels good to consider.

Thinking of myself before others, my initial thoughts are along these lines: “Okay, Sam, how are you going to get more fairness and equality in your life?” “Okay, Sam, how are others going to provide more fairness and equality in your life?” However, if I think of others before myself and begin again, then my thoughts begin to change: “Okay Sam, how are others going to get more fairness and equality in their lives?” “Okay, Sam, how are others going to provide more fairness and equality in their lives?” And, because these are simply thoughts and opinions, there are thousands of additional questions that can be asked as well.

However, when ideas of “fairness and equality” become entrained in discourse, law, and the American Way of Life, then the context of “fairness and equality” is no longer confined to the “thoughts and opinions” of a person; but, expands to influence the “culture and governance” of a society. In turn, the ideas of “fairness and equality” take on moral and virtue tones, and demand careful examination in such terms.

“So What?”

So what is an all-American solution to the question of “fairness and equality”?

If the United States of America is to remain true to its founding principles (self-evident and inalienable right to life, liberty, and pursuit of wealth), then how should those principles be folded into daily life?

If America is a nation of freedom loving People, then what is the role of government relative to The People and The People relative to the government?

What is the value of “fairness and equality”?

“Fairness and Equality” in America

The subjective nature of “fairness and equality” is well suited to sustaining the seemingly never-ending back-and-forth of rivals. This is not unique to America, nor is it a recent development; and, this turbulence weighed on the minds of The Founders.

“The public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.” – James Madison, Federalist #10

“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. – Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would at the same time be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.” – James Madison, Federalist #10

Understanding subjective nature of “fairness and equality” is as critically important today as it was before the Constitution was ratified. Madison warns us of this nature and describes it as follows: it’s un-just and oppressive; it’s chaotic and conflict-oriented; it’s in opposition to natural law; it’s violent and leads to death of accordance; it’s contrary to human nature.

The People – The Government

I subscribe to the following ideals: For a free People to flourish, then the government must be restrained; everyone is singularly responsible for their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and the circumstances in which they are found; no one has the right to do what is wrong. – In other words, with regard to The People, the government can take a flying leap.

“Just because it is important, does it follow that we should have government provide it?” – “Obedience to law is liberty,” L. Tom Perry

If The People turn to the government in matters of “fairness and equality”, then how should the government (the monopoly holder over use of force and determination of justice) be constrained? If The People expect the government to be impartial, then by what framework does should government abide? If a “fair and equitable” framework exists, then how would The People create, recognize, and protect it? Again, Madison points us in the direction to go.

For a free People to flourish under a limited government, then that government must secure the following ideals on behalf of The People: promote the natural law, individual justice for all, and collective oppression for none.

Today’s Discourse

America’s history is rich and troubled by movements seeking to adjust the “fairness and equality” equilibrium across society. From the 1920’s to today, the struggle for “fairness and equality” continues. But, has all of this effort actually benefited The People? Well, truth be told, yes and no. Again, it depends on your point of view.

Movement	Individual Justice	Collective Oppression
Labor (1920-1950)	Workers	Business Owners
Civil Rights (1950-1970)	Minorities	Everyone Else
Women’s Rights (1960-1980)	Women	Men
LGBTQ Rights (1960-Now)	LGBTQ	Everyone Else
Environmental (1960-Now)	Government	The People
Disability Rights (1970-Now)	Disabled	Business Owners
Racial Justice (1980-Now)	Minorities	Everyone Else
Reproductive Rights (1980-Now)	Women	Born and Unborn
Justice Movements (1980-Now)	Those Selected	Those Blamed

My first question is this: where is the natural law? – A natural law is an individual right that is given by no person, is taken from no person, and exists regardless of government recognition.

Movement	Natural Law
Labor (1920-1950)
Civil Rights (1950-1970)	Human value of individuals regardless of how that individual was created.
Women’s Rights (1960-1980)
LGBTQ Rights (1960-Now)
Environmental (1960-Now)
Disability Rights (1970-Now)	Human value of individuals regardless of how that individual was created.
Racial Justice (1980-Now)
Reproductive Rights (1980-Now)
Justice Movements (1980-Now)

My second question: why are we doing this? – The answer is deceptively plain: to leverage the virtue of justice in order to settle a dispute between society and culture.

Movement	Society-Culture Dispute
Labor (1920-1950)	What is a worker’s value?
Civil Rights (1950-1970)	What is a human’s value?
Women’s Rights (1960-1980)	What is a woman’s value?
LGBTQ Rights (1960-Now)	What is the value of the different?
Environmental (1960-Now)	What is the value of the environment?
Disability Rights (1970-Now)	What is a human’s value?
Racial Justice (1980-Now)	What is the value of feelings and the past?
Reproductive Rights (1980-Now)	What is the value of personal choices?
Justice Movements (1980-Now)	What is the value of feelings and the past?

Going Forward – A Solution

First things are first. For a freedom loving People to live a free individuals, then two things must exist is equal measure: moral straightness, and government restraint. Both begin with the recognition of natural law as an absolute. 

Second, individual justice for all means that each individual person is singularly responsible for their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and the circumstances in which they are found. There are no qualifiers.

Third, collective oppression for none means that no one has the right to do what is wrong. To do otherwise, is a violation of natural law and accountability of the individual.

Finally, courageous people of high moral character must rise up with a common voice to accomplish three things: subordinate the government; permit, promote, and do that which is good (not feels good, but is good); ostracize and punish that which is evil (the actor and the bystander).

Thank you. – Sam Frescoe

Your View

Your thoughts and perspectives are important. I invite you to tell me what you believe with the comment section below or at samfrescoe@gmail.com. Please check out The Sam Frescoe Project on Facebook.

© 2016 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com – All Rights Reserved