The Meaning of Equality
Constitution and Law Series
By Timothy B. Lewis
There are several words that carry instant credibility and which drive much of the political debate about what the law should or should not do. In the prior article I discussed one of these words, “justice.” Here I discuss a related word, “equality.”
The Declaration of Independence- What did the Term “Equality” Mean There?
Probably the most famous expression of equality appears in the Declaration of Independence where it says:
“We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
What did Jefferson and the other signers mean by this type of equality? Grammatically, the sentence builds from the most general to the most specific and each successive refinement clarifies what was said earlier and meant by the word “equal.”
In other words, the opening declaratory statement said that God created all men as being equal. But how are they naturally equal? The second phrase answers: they are equal in that they are each endowed with the same unalienable rights. And what are these unalienable rights? The third phrase answers: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Certainly they did not mean that everyone was created equal in talents, intellect, drive, abilities or that everybody should be equal when it comes to material wealth. As discussed in the prior article on property rights, Jefferson, would not equate the modern welfare state with either equality or happiness.
Equality Under The Law
In 1689, John Locke said:
“[F]reedom of men under government, is, to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it; a liberty to follow my own will in all things, where the rule prescribes not; and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man.” [1] (emphasis added)
In an earlier article I introduced the great English legal scholar, William Blackstone, who distinguished “civil liberty” from “natural liberty.” I will repeat the quote in a little more extended version to make a relevant point here. He defined “civil liberty” as:
“no other than natural liberty, so far restrained by human laws (and no farther) as is necessary and expedient for the general advantages of the public….In this definition of civil liberty it ought to be understood, or rather expressed, that the restraints introduced by the law should be equal to all, or as much so as the nature of things will admit.” [2] (emphasis added)
Ultimately, Madison said the spirit of freedom which actuates America would not allow for unequal treatment under the law. Said he:
“If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory… on [all] the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate any thing but liberty.” [3]
I have always appreciated artistic depictions of Lady Justice as a blindfolded woman with a sword in one hand and balance scales in the other. The blindfold implies that the law will be equally administered with no advantage or disadvantage given based upon who the parties are before the court – their individual characteristics like rich/poor, black/white, male/female, young/old, handsome/ugly, etc. are to be ignored before the bar of justice and justice (the sword) will be administered after all relevant evidence is fairly weighed and considered (the balance scales) and the law uniformly applied to the conclusions of fact drawn by the judge and jury.
Most people would endorse the idea of equality under the law because if we do not try to achieve equality under the law, then our law becomes arbitrary and capricious and we lose respect for it. And when people lose respect for the law, they do not feel strongly inclined to voluntarily comply with it. Consequently, order, peace and safety diminish throughout society as people tend to become “laws unto themselves.” Individual freedom expands beyond reasonable civic bounds and conversely, feelings of personal honor, duty, responsibility, and civic obligation diminish. Hence, a critical component of human legal systems is an attempt to apply the law equally to all. It should avoid the creation of differential legal privileges that one group enjoys while others do not. Unfortunately, we have been departing from this type of equality lately in the pursuit of other types of “equality” and the ever-elusive notion of “social justice.”
The foregoing types of equality — equality under the law and equality with respect to our natural God-given rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — make intuitive sense to most people. But let’s now consider other types of equality and see what other worthy societal goals and objectives have to be sacrificed in order to achieve them.
The Dangers of Politicizing Inequality
Thomas Sowell observed that many people:
“assume that politicizing inequality is free of costs and dangers, when in fact such politicization can have very high costs and very grave dangers….Processes designed to create greater equality cannot be judged by that goal [alone] but must be examined in terms of the processes created [and results caused] in pursuit of that goal. It is the nature of these processes – including their addictiveness and the never-ending strife they can engender if equality proves to be impossible to achieve – which creates the dangers.” [4]
He asks: “what are we prepared to do, to risk, or to sacrifice, in pursuit of what can turn out to merely be a mirage?” [5]
Equality vs. Egality
Balint Vazsonyi (the Hungarian refugee who was introduced in the prior article) said:
“‘E3galite3, Fraternite3, Liberte3’or ‘Egality, Fraternity, Liberty’ – these were the slogans the French Revolution of 1789 emblazoned on its banner…
“Note that I translate the French slogan ‘E3galite3’ as ‘Egality,’ and not as ‘Equality.’ Webster’s Dictionary tells us that egality is ‘an extreme social and political leveling.’ Our word ‘egalitarian’ confirms that definition. The process of leveling is worlds apart from equality in the affairs of man, which was the aspiration of the Round Table. Nothing illustrates the point more graphically than the instrument, used indiscriminately by the French, to accomplish this leveling. If someone’s head appeared to stand out, it was simply chopped off by the guillotine. Enforced egality became the primary tool applied to the living by those who made themselves masters of life and death….***“Egality is the elimination of differences. Since people are different, only force can cover up the differences, and then only temporarily. Once force is no longer applied, the differences reappear….***“Thomas Jefferson could not have failed to note the differences that render people unequal. And because he observed that political institutions elsewhere made people permanently unequal, he placed his faith in a political creation. He hoped to set this nation – and through it, the world – on a path that could free everyone of the impediments of inequality. He, and others of his persuasion, believed that we are equal in the eyes of God. But precisely because we appear unequal in every other respect, it is only in the eyes of the law that we may become equal on earth. He, and others of his persuasion, realized that if a permanent framework of fundamental law were to be applied equally, living within such a framework would unlock individual potential to the fullest. Equality would be achieved in the sense that every person could rise to the highest level which that person’s talent, industry, and aspiration allowed.
“Nothing needed to be eliminated but the obstacles in the way of the individual.
“Institutions and guarantees needed to be established so that citizens could not be denied the opportunity to achieve their highest possible status in society and, once achieved, it could not be taken away. That is equality in the practical sense.
“In order to secure such conditions, the legal framework had to be fair. The Legal framework had to be constant. The legal framework had to permit no exceptions.
“This we call the Rule of Law.” [6]
Equality of Outcome vs. Freedom
Lord Acton said:
“The finest opportunity ever given to the world was thrown away because the passion of equality made vain the hope for freedom.” [7]
F. A. Hayek observed:
“Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitute.” [8]
Milton Friedman said:
“A society that puts equality – in the sense of equality of outcome – ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve [this type of] equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.” [9]
Roger Kimball observed: “Equality works to level differences; freedom to increase them.” [10]
Occasionally as a teacher, I come across exceptional essays from my students. Consider one that deals with this particular trade-off from a former student named Meredith Taylor:
“It is freedom from equality that gives those who want to achieve, the opportunity to excel to their highest abilities. It is this beauty of freedom from equality that makes America the land of opportunity and creativity.”
“Economic Equality” vs. “Political Equality”
Madison observed that political equality would not lead to any other type of equality. Said he:
“[Because of the mischief of factions,] 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.” [11]
As discussed in a prior article, Madison called governmental attempts to equalize the division of property among the people, a “wicked project.” [12]
Thomas Sowell adds:
“Economic equality…may be achievable only by political measures which require vast concentrations of power in a relatively few hands in government – and even this momentous exchange of economic inequality for political inequality may leave untouched the vast spectrum of other inequalities in intelligence, talent, physical appearance, charm, articulation, etc., which may have more influence on many individuals’ prospects of happiness than the economic inequalities that have been addressed at such high cost.” [13]
Equality vs. Justice
Most of us would tend to think of “justice” and “equality” as going hand-in-hand and never being in conflict. However, some have taken issue with this assumption. Aristotle, for example, argued that “it is unjust to treat unequal things equally.” [14]
F. A. Hayek in The Mirage of Social Justice, Helmut Schoeck in Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior, and Gonzalo Fernandez de la Mora in Egalitarian Envy: The Political Foundations of Social Justice all “deny the notion that there can exist a perfect social justice, attainable by positive law and social engineering; and…agree that the perfectly egalitarian society would be an unjust society.” [15]
Russell Kirk talks about the “equality of condition” meaning:
“equality of incomes and other material rewards, equality in education, equality of mores, manners, lodgings, and tastes. It is this envious passion for equality of condition against which Tocqueville warned the people of his time and ours. The total triumph of the doctrine of equality of condition would be a triumph of injustice…Zealots throughout the centuries have endeavored to establish communities totally egalitarian; all those endeavors have failed after much suffering.” [16]
Unfortunately, the only equality these efforts approached in the end was “equality of misery.”
Equality vs. Excellence
Kirk continued:
“Some insisted that American education must have both excellence and equity, a manifest absurdity: for the word ‘excellence’ means to exceed, of course, to do better than others; while ‘equity,’ or uniformity, necessarily implies mediocrity. The more equality in schooling, the lower the achievement; and the greater the injustice toward students possessed of some talents. Forty years ago, I resigned a university post in disgust at a deliberate policy of lowering standards in the interest of ‘equity’-that is, accommodating more students who, from stupidity or indolence, ought not to have been admitted to a university at all. Egalitarian pressures are exerted in virtually every country to push into the universities most of the rising generation, however dull, bored, or feckless a young person may be. The consequence of this movement is to make the higher learning lower.” [17]
Equality of Condition
Kirk continued:
“Permit me to suggest some probable long-run consequences of national infatuation with equality of condition.“First, great injury to the leading class that every society requires for its success….[i.e. the best, brightest and most wise, will have little incentive to lead.]“Second, an obsession with equality commonly results in general impoverishment, by diminishing saving and capital accumulation, and by ‘humanitarian’ welfare measures that diminish the incentive to work for one’s own subsistence….Decreased economic productivity…will afflict the poor worst of all….
“A third consequence of deliberate leveling in society would be grave intellectual damage, already in progress. Over the centuries there was developed in all civilized countries an elaborate edifice of schooling, originally religious in character, meant to impart some measure of wisdom and virtue to the rising generation. Aristotle instructs us that the process of learning cannot be made easy. The higher learning is concerned necessarily with abstractions, in large part; but the common man tends to dislike abstractions….“Those intellectual disciplines that nurture right reason and moral imagination, requiring real thought, are unpopular with the egalitarian, who regards them as archaic and snobbish. The egalitarian much prefers utilitarian schooling and vague ‘social studies.’ But both private wisdom and public order require that a substantial number of people be well acquainted with genuine works of the mind. The natural sciences, humane studies, and the philosophical habit of mind neglected, the person and the republic sink into ignorance and apathy; but the egalitarian zealot does not perceive these ruinous consequences until the decline no longer can be arrested.“In short, I have been arguing that it is profoundly unjust to endeavor to transform society into a tableland of equality. It would be unjust to the energetic, reduced to equality with the slack and indolent; it would be unjust to the imaginative, compelled to share the schooling and the tastes of the dull; it would be unjust to the thrifty, compelled to make up for the losses of the profligate; it would be unjust to those who take long views, forced to submit to the domination of a majority interested chiefly in short-run results….Mediocre necessarily, the egalitarian society would discourage or suppress enterprising talents-which would result in social stagnation. Life in a social tableland of equality would be infinitely boring.” [18]
Equality of Opportunity
In most any discussion about equality, it seems that people easily agree that the law should at least be used to promote “equality of opportunity.” But in closing out his essay, Kirk surprises most readers when he concludes:
“Yet don’t I believe in equality of opportunity? No, I do not. The thing is not possible.” [19]
At first the reader tends to resist that conclusion, but it makes a lot of sense once one considers his further explanation:
” First of all, genetic differences cannot be surmounted between individual and individual….Second, opportunity depends greatly upon family background and nurturing; and unless it is proposed to sweep away the family altogether…the rising generation of one stock will differ greatly in opportunity from the rising generation of a different family. For instance, I read every evening to my four little daughters, or told them stories; while my neighbors did not so instruct and converse with their children; accordingly, my children have enjoyed superior opportunities in life. It would be outrageously unjust to try somehow to wipe out these advantages of genetic inheritance or familial instruction.“Inequality is the natural condition of human beings; charity may assist those not favored by nature; but attempts to impose an artificial equality of condition and intellect, although in the long run they fail, meanwhile can work great mischief in any society, and-still worse-damage human nature itself.” [20]
Ernest van den Haag observed:
“In the past, inequalities, however undeserved, were attributed to God’s inscrutable will, or later, to ineluctable nature. Today they are often attributed to inequality of opportunity, which is used to explain almost all actual inequalities. The intellectuals who inveigh against such inequalities seldom are aware, however, that if we could equalize opportunity, if we had a level playing field (which nature nowhere provides and which society can only approximate), we would probably have even more unequal outcomes than we currently do, because people’s talents and inclinations vary enormously, as do the results of their efforts and the value placed on such efforts by the market. Inequalities can be redistributed but they cannot be eliminated. The gap between rich and poor may actually increase when opportunity is more equal. Even if incomes were somehow equalized by redistribution, the poor would remain with us, since people spend their income, however equal, at different rates [and for different things].“Some contemporary philosophers find morally objectionable the ‘natural lottery’ which distributes talents unequally. Among the natural differences they would like somehow to equalize is the capacity, as well as the inclination, to make efforts. Both differ from person to person and may contribute to the poverty of some and the wealth of others. Equality of opportunity, however desirable, would not help much here, unless diligence can be equalized as well.“At best, equality of opportunity is procedural justice, seldom regarded as meeting the goal of social justice, as long as unequal outcomes remain, as they will….” [21]
Presumably, by “procedural justice” he means judicial procedures to resolve disputes that are fair, unbiased, and apply the law equally to all — the same thing that Sowell called “traditional justice” in the prior article and was discussed above regarding Lady Justice.
Summary Regarding “Equality”
So Vazsonyi cautions us to distinguish between equality and the egalitarian leveling of society. He argues that equality, in the practical sense, amounts simply to setting up a legal system that allows individuals to achieve their highest individual potentials (which, of course, are all inherently unequal by nature) and gives equal protection to the fruits/property derived therefrom. Acton, Friedman, and Kimball set up a conflict and trade-off between equality and freedom. Madison and Sowell warn us to avoid politicizing inequality and recognize a conflict and trade-off between economic equality and political equality. Kirk, Hayek, Schoeck and de la Mora set up a conflict and trade-off between equality and justice. Kirk further sets up conflicts and trade-offs between equality on the one hand, and excellence and economic prosperity on the other. He argues that even equality of opportunity, which most people have a natural affinity for, is really impossible to achieve through human law. And finally, Van den Haag argues that trying to equalize social outcomes is ultimately futile since productive human character traits which naturally affect those outcomes are so unevenly distributed by nature and cannot effectively be equalized by the force of law.
From all of this we can see that whenever we take an expansive view of the concept of equality, we brush up against what economists call “opportunity costs,” “perverse incentives,” and “unintended side effects.” In other words, we box ourselves into corners requiring us to make difficult choices requiring trade-offs between many desirable things. “Perverse incentives” are policies which unintentionally encourage people to act in ways that harm societal interests. They represent the “harm” portion of the expression: “it will do more harm than good.”
Contrary to what many people today tacitly assume, the foregoing thinkers argue that when it comes to using the force of law to promote equality, of necessity the concept of equality must have a very limited and confined connotation lest we inadvertently sacrifice many other desirable principles, goals, and objectives in the process, which brings us back to where we began – we have the right to expect the equal application of the law administered by our judicial system in a fair and unbiased way as we individually enjoy our equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
If you are one who believes we should take an expansive view of the concept of equality and think we should use the force of law to try to guarantee it, how far are you willing to go and when will you know when to stop? What non-arbitrary criteria will you use to limit your efforts? What societal costs, side effects, unintended consequences, and/or perverse incentives would likely result from the legal policies you would propose in hopes of producing the type of equality you desire? Would the societal costs of your efforts outweigh the benefits you could realistically (as opposed to idealistically) hope to achieve?
Religious Addendum
In the following discussion of a religious perspective of things, please remember that I am only stating my own personal opinions – any errors are mine alone.
What about the religious injunction to be free with our substance to those in need and the idea that we are our brother’s keeper? These are all true moral principles concerning which we will all ultimately be judged, but here we have been discussing what our man-made law should or should not do in order to optimize our mix of desirable goals and objectives within human society – not how God will ultimately judge us.
The scriptures tell us that where much is given, much is expected, but do the scriptures speak to us individually or collectively? If one were to look at them as collective injunctions/mandates, then I could see how one could favor government action through the force of law to achieve these moral mandates. But what about free agency? We are here to be tested to see if we will be obedient and good of our own free will and choice (God’s plan) and not by force (Satan’s plan.) In judging us and determining which kingdoms we qualify for, I doubt God will give much weight to the fact that we were taxpayers and that our forcibly extracted tax dollars were used to do good.
While there cannot be equality of opportunity from a temporal perspective because of natural genetic and nurturing differentials, and differentials among legal/political/economic systems, etc., we do believe that there is equality of opportunity from a spiritual perspective. In other words, every human being has the potential for ultimate spiritual achievement in the highest degree of glory, for in that realm, we are not competing with each other for limited spots. See. 1 Nephi 17:35; 2 Nephi 26:24, 27, 28, & 33; 2 Nephi 30:1-2; Jacob 2:21; Helaman 3:27-29, etc. The Parable of the Talents tells us that even though our talents may be modest relative to others, we can obtain equally high commendations if we do the best we can with what we have been given. The story of the Widow’s Mite illustrates the same idea.
Despite such spiritual equality of opportunity, we expect there will be vast disparities among actual outcomes because of the way people will differ regarding the use of their free agency. Why would God tell us of three degrees of glory if they were not all meant to be inhabited?
Rather than be content with God’s plan, many don’t like His plan. God doesn’t act the way they think He should act, so they deny His existence and set about to play God themselves through the force of human law. This happens in both the political and scientific realms.
For example, I watched a PBS program recently talking about how we cracked the first stages of the DNA mystery. One of the pioneers in the field was at a political rally in favor of genetic engineering. With great personal satisfaction he arrogantly said: “If we don’t play God, who will?” We can infer from this statement that he did not believe God existed. In this context, presumably his proof was the fact that people suffer from genetic imperfections. Any type of human suffering is immediately latched onto as “proof” that God does not exist. But that is not any sort of factual proof – it is just the statement of a premise or article of faith from which the rest of their reasoning proceeds. It doesn’t seem to me that man’s successful scientific search to cure disease and genetic defects on the one hand and God’s existence on the other, are mutually exclusive things.
I once read an interesting article by a Jewish Rabbi stating that according to Jewish belief, God gave man an imperfect world to build upon – that it was man’s obligation to improve on what God gave us.
In the political realm, some think that there is no God and thus, there is no ultimate justice in the hereafter so if justice (as they define it) is to occur, it will have to be during this life or not at all. Consequently, they tend to come up with utopian schemes of egalitarian leveling. Of course, even God-fearing people could be inclined towards the same type of scheme – not out of a belief that there is no such thing as divine justice, but under the duty to improve upon what God originally gave us as explained by the Rabbi above or, to collectively apply the scriptural mandate to be good to one another.
From either perspective, they will force the redistribution of wealth under the false notion that everyone deserves the same (or something close to it) material and economic outcomes regardless of personal merit. But the Lord criticizes idle people and says they are not entitled to equal benefits. See D&C 42:42; 68:31; 75:29.
Throughout history various secular political and economic planners have pursued their notion of utopia through the force of law but always managed to achieve dystopia instead. Why? Because they were always blind to all the powerful perverse incentives and unintended side effects that always came along as part of the packaged deal. By taking away the immediate economic reward structure associated with hard work, innovation and creativity, few saw any need to do anything above and beyond the bare minimum. They always overestimated the inherent strength of altruism in motivating human behavior, and they always underestimated man’s natural inclination to match laziness with laziness when they judged other members of the collective team as not pulling their “fair shares.” Such systems always seemed to inadvertently encourage people to sink to the lowest common denominator rather than rise to the highest.
What about the United Order based upon free will and choice rather than force? We have scriptural accounts of success but no modern example. We tried it in the church but we failed – the people were not righteous enough to live it — we too fell prey to the weak side of human nature described above. If people find it very difficult to achieve utopia even when motivated by religious principles, it would be nigh unto impossible to successfully achieve such a utopia based solely upon secular philosophic principles.
And even if we were shooting for something less than outright utopia, we have to be careful about the damage we inadvertently cause to systemic economic incentive structures (as discussed in the prior article) when we legally impair individual freedom and property rights in the name of social justice and equality.
If and when the Lord decides to reestablish the United Order, it will be based upon His omniscient reasons, but until then, the most effective economic/political model seems to be based upon Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations theory of free political systems with free markets. I remember hearing somebody joke something to the effect that “the absolutely worst political/economic system in the world is a democratic free market system – except for every other alternative.”
We believe the founding generation was raised up by the Lord to create a free nation within which the gospel could be restored and from which it could be spread throughout the world. But could it be that God’s hand even extended beyond our shores to inspire others to help create this nation? Personally, I believe people like Edmund Burke, Adam Smith and others played important roles from the other side of the Atlantic in that divinely scripted play. As discussed in a prior article, Adam Smith published his seminal economic treatise, The Wealth of Nations, in 1776. It was the most current economic thinking of those times and was widely read in America. Our economic system was built upon his economic theories of free markets.
Two of the Ten Commandments (i.e. “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not covet”) seem to be directed at the preservation of property rights which is absolutely essential for democratic free market systems to work and for free agency to operate. While they may enjoy many material things during this life, the rich who are stingy with their wealth will ultimately pay a price in the next for their stinginess here – see D & C 56:16-19; Luke 16:19-31, etc.
From the foregoing, I conclude that God’s second-place choice behind the United Order is a democratic free market system such as we have here in America. After all, such systems tend to create widespread economic prosperity and excess wealth for lots of people who are then placed under a moral obligation to do good with their excess financial resources.
Look what the church is able to do with the excess wealth created by members of the church who are fortunate enough to live in such free-market economies. The church is able to expand across the globe building temples and churches in places where the local members are economically incapable of providing such things for themselves. Likewise, it is able to use fast offering funds, humanitarian funds, perpetual education funds, etc. to satisfy pressing human needs in countries not yet blessed with well-functioning free-market economies.
In the United Order, the prime motivating forces are the love of God and love for our fellow man. If we cannot successfully live it in its purest form, then shouldn’t we choose the system that provides the best economic results for the most people and which can produce the excess financial resources needed to provide for those in need? While the free market system is morally neutral, the Lord still superimposes over that system the same moral obligations to be charitable towards everybody else out of the same prime motivating forces of love towards God and man that are behind the United Order. This is a better system than trying to make people to be good to one another through the force of law since (1) such a free-market system produces more wealth to spread around to bless the lives of people and to spread the gospel around the world, and (2) it conforms better to the idea of free agency and individual moral accountability.
So if you think some of the things I said in prior articles seemed heartless, please remember that underlying all of it is a strong belief in individual moral obligation and ultimate moral accountability regarding the wealth with which each of us is blessed. Let me illustrate these things with a story.
Story Of A Colleague’s Misfortune
In the winter of 1998 one of my fellow faculty members had an accident. He hit some black ice and spun out of control eventually hitting some fence posts and trees. In good humor, he called this his “grand ice-skating experience.” Fortunately, he was not injured personally but his car suffered quite a bit of damage. He had a wife and three children and this was his only car. Unfortunately, although he had basic liability insurance, he did not have any collision or comprehensive insurance – he didn’t understand the difference.
When we discovered his misfortune, several teachers offered to lend him a car until he could figure out what he was going to do. Although grateful, he said that he would be fine.
The next day one of his colleagues went around to each faculty member of the business department, explained our friend’s situation, and indicated that it would be a nice gesture of goodwill for us as friends to help him out in his time of need. They all were asked if they would be willing to contribute whatever they felt they could to the cause.
Of the twenty people solicited, seventeen (85%) contributed. In all, we contributed about $900 which was pretty good considering most were still struggling to dig out from under our recent Christmas bills.
Several gave checks which were cashed so that we could give him an anonymous envelope of cash. We then attached a note expressing our love and respect for him as a hard-working colleague and friend, got the Dean to open his door, and placed the envelope and note on his desk. Late-comers put their own envelops under his door and in his mailbox.
Independent of the foregoing efforts, the Dean and Department Chair got the auto shop class on campus to agree to help him do the necessary body work.
We were very surprised at what happened next. Each of us received a copy of the following note signed by this good man. Even though he was originally from mainland China and was expressing himself in what to him was a foreign language, we were all impressed with his eloquence.
The Letter
“Dear Colleagues and Friends:“Throughout my life, I have never picked up anything so heavy as the envelopes that were left on my desk, in my mailbox or under my door today, for what they contained were your kind and noble hearts! Words simply cannot express how much my family and I appreciate your heart-warming love, care, and generosity. How fortunate I am being in your midst!“The year of the tiger has so far brought a little variety into our lives. Around the Chinese New Year time, the illness of my wife prevented us from making our annual Chinese New Year treats; shortly after her recovery, she was greeted with a parking lot car collision with the hitter carrying no insurance of any type. Ten days later, came my grand ice-skating experience in the snow followed by my three-year-old son’s dental infection. While some might call these “bad luck”, we know we have been greatly blessed. As of today, all of my family members are healthy and well (since dental problems are really not health problems). And neither automobile accident caused any personal injuries. Besides, as a family, we have been taught some very much needed lessons through these events; it is only fair for us to pay a little tuition for the great lessons.“Two and a half years at SUU have helped me realize how financially disadvantaged EVERYONE on the campus is. I can’t think of anyone on the campus who does not need to stretch every dollar. On the other hand, even though SUU has not enabled us to save much, our family have always tried to live within our means, and during my years prior to SUU, we managed to have an emergency fund set aside. Thus, despite what we are experiencing, we feel that financially, we are still quite well covered. Therefore, both my wife and I strongly feel that we cannot accept the money you have so generously donated out of your already-tight family budgets. And we pray that we might somehow be able to convince you without offending or disappointing any of you. And PLEASE KNOW that your love, care and generosity as well as the warm message they convey will be forever cherished in the depths of our hearts.“Please, we plead with you, forgive us for appearing to be so ungrateful. God knows how deeply we appreciate each and every one of you!“Most gratefully, Taowen”
Wow! — I can only imagine how good he is at expressing himself in Chinese! His letter is a miniature sermon on love, gratitude, humility, empathy, optimism, frugality, independence, faith in God and ultimately, wonder of wonders, success. I am convinced this man and his family will never go hungry and will always enjoy an abundant life that goes well beyond mere material things. Imagine what society would be like if everyone thought like he and his wife. I was told by a colleague who knows the Chinese far better than I, that Taowen’s attitude, as expressed in the foregoing letter, was very consistent with the general Chinese cultural ethic.
Lessons Taught By This Letter
As I pondered the foregoing events, I saw what I believe to be some other very useful lessons. First, when a person has a will to succeed, or more importantly, the will to personally work for his own success, people will take notice and help. Allies will seem to appear out of nowhere on all sides to help him achieve that goal.
Booker T. Washington once said: “I believe that any man’s life will be filled with constant and unexpected encouragement, if he makes up his mind to do his level best each day, and as closely as possible to reach the high-water mark of pure and useful living.” [22]
If Taowen had been viewed as an undeserving sort of person, I doubt that very many people would have been so willing to sacrifice and rush to his aid. They probably would have said something like “Boy, I’m broke right now. I would really like to help him, but I can’t. Sorry.” However, in Taowen’s case, we all knew that he was a very hard working, dedicated and good man. It was a pleasure and joy to sacrifice for him. A rich and deep sense of personal satisfaction accompanied the effort. I never feel these same sensations when forced to do anything – they only come through the voluntary exercise of choice.
Second, everyone involved – both the would-be givers and the would-be recipient – grew in character. Through attitudes of voluntary charity and personal responsibility, everyone was lifted. Rather than taking offense at Taowen’s refusal to accept our gift, our admiration, respect and love for him grew and likewise, his towards us. Collectively, society gained a little more strength, depth and size that day.
Contrast With The Model Of Compulsion
By contrast, consider the counterfeit substitute we have allowed ourselves to foster as a nation. In the modern-day welfare state, people are stripped of the dignity of free will. We have confused the terms “compassion” and “compulsion.” The former is a free and voluntary gift and when it occurs, everyone is lifted in the process. But in the latter case, human character shrivels and shrinks on all sides.
The recipients demand “their fair share of the economic pie.” In response the greater populace says “Your ‘fair share’ is determined by what you are personally willing to contribute to that pie – not by mere demands!” Then Uncle Sam, the referee, steps in and calls those in the latter group “stingy, mean spirited, greedy and selfish.” And with that rebuke, he puts his hand in their back pockets and steals their wallets in order to make them be more “socially responsible.” Consequently, the victims of this institutionalized robbery (or in Bastiat’s words, “philanthropic tyranny”) are rendered less willing and less able to give much more of their own free will and choice to what they consider to be worthy causes.
To illustrate what I mean, one morning on the radio spot called “The Osgoode File,” the announcer informed us of a study which showed that those states with the highest tax regimes tended to have the lowest per capita charitable giving numbers.
After forcing taxpayers to be good, we then try to dignify the whole process in a backwards sort of way. Rather than honoring the givers (taxpayers), we vilify them and bend over backwards to dignify the takers instead. As a result of all this, the givers are angry and resentful and the recipients are indignant and ungrateful. In the process, society weakens and fragments. Our collective character diminishes and we all become smaller members of a smaller whole – a far cry from what could have been, had the experience we had with Taowen been multiplied millions of times over throughout the country.
There But For The Grace Of Whom/What Go I?
Under the modern welfare state, all are deemed to be “worthy recipients” under the notion of “human rights.” “There but for the grace of God go I” has been transformed into “There but for the grace of government go I.” And who needs God when government intercedes to provide our every need? Marx’s goal of replacing religion with a secularized substitute seems to be moving forward apace.
Progess Is Not Always Achieved By Looking To The Future-Sometimes It Is Achieved By Rediscovering The Past
In contrasting the uplifting experience we all enjoyed with Taowen, with the mandatory substitute provided by the modern welfare state, it seems to me that it is time that we return to the days:
–when societal stigma was not placed upon the industrious but rather, upon the indolent,–when those with means could freely discriminate between worthy and unworthy petitioners and not be called selfish in the process,–when Uncle Sam did not rob us of our abilities and desires to be more charitable and compassionate,–when there was no compulsory “social safety net” that effectively negated the natural moral lessons taught by failure,–when such a social safety net was the product of free will and choice and the would-be giver could judge the worthiness of each case before making any decision to sacrifice personal resources for the cause,–when, through such voluntary arrangements, the people who exhibited an attitude like that of my friend Taowen would simply not be allowed to fail because of a voluntary outpouring of help from those around him,–when people without such attitudes found few voluntary benefactors and thus were forced to ask themselves a lot of soul-searching questions about why they were in the predicament they were in and forcing them to make whatever changes in personal attitude they needed to make in order to reverse their own self-induced (or at least, self-perpetuated) misfortunes,–when failure prompted humility, teachability, and, as Taowen put it, a willingness “to pay a little tuition for the great lessons learned” rather than the prideful and indignant attitudes of entitlement we see so much of today,–when prosperity was not the product of “human rights” but rather, individual choice and effort, and finally,–and perhaps most importantly, back to the days when looking to God for help was considered to be a wise and necessary thing to do.
In short, we need to recapture the dignifying, character-building, and society-enhancing power of voluntary charity, individual responsibility, and faith in God; and eschew the compulsory welfare state and the moral dregs and poverty it spawns in the name of social justice and equality.
_____________________________________
[1] . John Locke, Two Treatises on Government (1689), Book 2, Chapter 4, Section 22.
[2] . 1 Blackstone’s Commentaries *125, footnote 5 to Sharwood’s edition.
