Principle of Equality in American Politics

The Principle of Equality in American Politics

Introduction to Equality

• The principle of equality is a fundamental concept in American politics, originating from the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

• The term "self-evident" doesn't necessarily mean obvious; rather, it implies that the definition requires no further argument once understood.

• The concept of equality is derived from Locke's ideas, influencing Jefferson.

• The initial question is whether human beings are truly created equal, acknowledging the complexity of defining equality.

• Equality is not about being equally tall, short, or smart, as people clearly have different attributes.

Defining Equality

• The discussion should clarify what Jefferson meant by equality.

• Equality of opportunity, suggesting everyone has the same opportunities, is one interpretation.

• Equality of results, focusing on outcomes, is another interpretation, but it's distinct from the inherent equality at creation.

• Equality is a sensitive topic, often stirring strong passions regarding justice and fairness.

Tocqueville's Perspective on Equality and Freedom

• Alexis de Tocqueville, in "Democracy in America," observed Americans' natural inclination towards freedom.

• However, he noted an intense passion for equality, describing it as an "ardent, insatiable, eternal, invincible passion."

• Democratic societies desire equality alongside freedom but prioritize equality even to the point of sacrificing freedom, as long as equality is maintained.

• This intense focus on equality can be problematic, potentially leading to irrationality in discussions about it.

Complexities and Potential Downsides of Equality

• Defining equality in certain ways may lead to undesirable outcomes.

• Tocqueville critiques the idea of making men and women alike, rather than equal, suggesting it can lead to negative consequences.

• He posits that blurring the distinctions between the sexes, giving them the same functions, duties, and rights may result in "weak men and disreputable women," and a decline of social values.

• Our society seems to reflect Tocqueville's idea, where strict interchangeability equates to societal imbalance.

Initial Complexities

• The complexities are presented as a starting point, leading into the examination of Locke's and Jefferson's meanings of self-evident equality.

• A supplementary video illustrates the challenges of discussing equality rationally in today's society, featuring Jordan Peterson in a discussion with a female host, highlighting the difficulty in maintaining a rational, non-combative dialogue.

Rejection of Aristotelian Ideas

• The principle of equality involves comparing and contrasting Aristotelian and Lockean understandings of human nature.

• Jefferson suggests the world is recognizing the flaws in Aristotle's views and embracing Locke's concept of equality.

• Jefferson notes that all eyes are opening to the rights of man during that era.

• The spread of science reveals the "palpable truth" that most aren't born with saddles on their backs for the few "booted and spurred" to ride.

• This suggests an older view is dividing humankind into those meant to be ridden (the masses) and those who are meant to rule (the elite).

Deeper Dive

• The equality principle denies the division of humanity into those with saddles and those with boots and spurs.

• Aristotle's perspective views politics as ruling and justice as citizens doing noble deeds.

• Aristotle argued that some are naturally suited to be slaves due to their nature, while others are meant to be masters.

• For Aristotle, slavery is not based on race but on intellect.

• Smart individuals are naturally suited to lead, while those lacking intelligence are naturally slaves.

Snapshot of Aristotle View

• Human nature, according to Aristotle, is radically unequal, with some meant to rule and others to be ruled.

• People are radically dependent on society and must submit if they are among the inferior.

• Politics, in this view, is about using societal institutions to instill human virtue through the duties of citizenship.

• Justice involves enforcing a collective moral order, which is quite invasive.

• This perspective predates the Declaration and John Locke and was rejected during Jefferson's time in favor of the rights of man.

Locke's Influence

• Jefferson's ideas are derived from John Locke.

• Locke connects justice, politics, and nature.

• Logically, nature determines politics, which shapes the understanding of justice.

• Understanding political power requires considering the natural state of all men.

• The natural condition is perfect freedom to act and dispose of possessions within the bounds of the law of nature, without dependence on others' will.

Locke's Idea

• Locke believes that human nature is such that everyone is born free, making it just for individuals to manage their actions, possessions, and selves as they see fit within natural law.

• This freedom doesn't require permission from anyone else.

• This concept greatly differs from Aristotle's view.

• The natural condition of human beings is equality, meaning that political power and jurisdiction are reciprocal.

• Every person possesses the same political authority.

• It's self-evident because creatures of the same species and rank are equal without subordination.

• Being equally human means not treating others as non-human or acting as more than human.

• God can rule because we're not equal to God, but humans are politically equal.

Contrasting Locke and Aristotle on Key Principles

• Human Nature:\

  • Locke: Man is by nature equal and individual.\

  • Aristotle: Man is radically unequal and radically dependent.

• Politics:\

  • Locke: Politics is for the necessary protection from evil and evildoers, guarding people from being violated, and focusing on preventing crime rather than making people virtuous.

• Justice:\

  • Locke: Justice protects life, liberty, and property through law, rather than enforcing a collective moral order. For example, Locke would disagree of the government not making the baker bake a cake because it's not the governments job to enforce justice on the baker, as long the baker isnt killing, or stealing other people's liberty and properties.

• Therefore, Locke does not agree with Aristotle. There's a huge difference between the views.

Thought Experiment

• A scenario from the show "Lost" presents a thought experiment about government formation on an uninhabited island.

• If people like Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Mother Teresa, Einstein, and Winston Churchill were stranded on an island, how many governments would form?

• Aristotle would say the number of governments depends on how many "boots and spurs" people there are.

• If all were boots and spurs people, it'd be a pure democracy.

• Locke would argue the total number of governments equals the number of people on the island.

• Each individual has the right to act as their own government until they make deals with others.

• This concept is impractical, which is why people enter civil society to delegate governance to specialists. Government gets its authority from individuals who initially possess that authority.

Addressing the Contradiction of Slavery

• The question arises: How could Jefferson advocate equality while tolerating slavery?

• The answer is complicated and involves federalism.

• Opposition to slavery existed even before the United States was formed and there were voices opposing slavery even before the Civil War.

• African Americans have been citizens and could vote in some states at the time of America's founding.

• Racism has always been a part of American history, and the nation has been trying to improve on it.

• Racism is still present and it's the nation's biggest challenge on becoming one.

• An example from Georgia before the Declaration of Independence shows opposition to slavery, deeming it immoral, unjust, and unnatural.

• The group pledged to free their slaves, showing early American opposition to slavery.