What Does “Created Equal” Mean?
Dec 3, 2018 15:58:16 #
I came across an interesting, but fairly long article from Milton Friedman on the topic of e******y. I post this in part because I am disturbed at how politics has shifted. Even my own Representative, Joseph Kennedy III has begun speaking of a "moral capitalism", which seems to me to be a euphemism for SOCIALISM. Who will get to decide the morality of any particular capital enterprise?
Anyway, without further ado, find the attached link to Friedman's article.
Just a head's up. It's fairly long.
https://www.hoover.org/research/what-does-created-equal-mean
What Does “Created Equal” Mean?
by Milton Friedman
Thursday, March 8, 2018
Editor’s note: This essay is an excerpt of the new Hoover Press book Milton Friedman on Freedom, edited by Robert Leeson and Charles G. Palm. This essay by Friedman originally appeared in the book Free to Choose: A Personal Statement.
“E******y, liberty”—what precisely do these words from the Declaration of Independence mean? Can the ideals they express be realized in practice? Are e******y and liberty consistent one with the other or are they in conflict?
Since well before the Declaration of Independence, these questions have played a central role in the history of the United States. The attempt to answer them has shaped the intellectual climate of opinion, led to bloody wars, and produced major changes in economic and political institutions. This attempt continues to dominate our political debate. It will shape our future as it has our past.
In the early decades of the Republic, e******y meant e******y before God; liberty meant the liberty to shape one’s own life. The obvious conflict between the Declaration of Independence and the institution of s***ery occupied the center of the stage. That conflict was finally resolved by the Civil War. The debate then moved to a different level. E******y came more and more to be interpreted as “e******y of opportunity” in the sense that no one should be prevented by arbitrary obstacles from using his capacities to pursue his own objectives. That is still its dominant meaning to most citizens of the United States.
Neither e******y before God nor e******y of opportunity presented any conflict with liberty to shape one’s own life. Quite the opposite. E******y and liberty were two faces of the same basic value—that every individual should be regarded as an end in himself.
A very different meaning of e******y has emerged in the United States in recent decades—e******y of outcome. Everyone should have the same level of living or of income, should finish the race at the same time. E******y of outcome is in clear conflict with liberty. The attempt to promote it has been a major source of bigger and bigger government and of government-imposed restrictions on our liberty.
E******y Before God
When Thomas Jefferson, at the age of thirty-three, wrote “all men are created equal,” he and his contemporaries did not take these words literally. They did not regard men—or as we would say today, persons—as equal in physical characteristics, emotional reactions, mechanical and intellectual abilities. Thomas Jefferson himself was a most remarkable person. At the age of twenty-six he designed his beautiful house at Monticello (Italian for “little mountain”), supervised its construction, and, indeed, is said to have done some of the work himself. In the course of his life, he was an inventor, a scholar, an author, a statesman, governor of the State of Virginia, president of the United States, minister to France, founder of the University of Virginia—hardly an average man.
The clue to what Thomas Jefferson and his contemporaries meant by equal is seen in the next phrase of the Declaration—“endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Men were equal before God. Each person is precious in and of himself. He has unalienable rights, rights that no one else is entitled to invade. He is entitled to serve his own purposes and not to be treated simply as an instrument to promote someone else’s purposes. “Liberty” is part of the definition of e******y, not in conflict with it.
E******y before God—personal e******y—is important precisely because people are not identical. Their different values, their different tastes, their different capacities will lead them to want to lead very different lives. Personal e******y requires respect for their right to do so, not the imposition on them of someone else’s values or judgment. Jefferson had no doubt that some men were superior to others, that there was an elite. But that did not give them the right to rule others.
If an elite did not have the right to impose its will on others, neither did any other group, even a majority. Every person was to be his own ruler—provided that he did not interfere with the similar right of others. Government was established to protect that right—from fellow citizens and from external threat—not to give a majority unbridled rule. Jefferson had three achievements he wanted to be remembered for inscribed on his tombstone: the Virginia statute for religious freedom (a precursor of the US Bill of Rights designed to protect minorities against domination by majorities), authorship of the Declaration of Independence, and the founding of the University of Virginia. The goal of the framers of the Constitution of the United States, drafted by Jefferson’s contemporaries, was a national government strong enough to defend the country and promote the general welfare but at the same time sufficiently limited in power to protect the individual citizen, and the separate state governments, from domination by the national government. Democratic, in the sense of widespread participation in government, yes; in the political sense of majority rule, clearly no................(See Link for full article)
Anyway, without further ado, find the attached link to Friedman's article.
Just a head's up. It's fairly long.
https://www.hoover.org/research/what-does-created-equal-mean
What Does “Created Equal” Mean?
by Milton Friedman
Thursday, March 8, 2018
Editor’s note: This essay is an excerpt of the new Hoover Press book Milton Friedman on Freedom, edited by Robert Leeson and Charles G. Palm. This essay by Friedman originally appeared in the book Free to Choose: A Personal Statement.
“E******y, liberty”—what precisely do these words from the Declaration of Independence mean? Can the ideals they express be realized in practice? Are e******y and liberty consistent one with the other or are they in conflict?
Since well before the Declaration of Independence, these questions have played a central role in the history of the United States. The attempt to answer them has shaped the intellectual climate of opinion, led to bloody wars, and produced major changes in economic and political institutions. This attempt continues to dominate our political debate. It will shape our future as it has our past.
In the early decades of the Republic, e******y meant e******y before God; liberty meant the liberty to shape one’s own life. The obvious conflict between the Declaration of Independence and the institution of s***ery occupied the center of the stage. That conflict was finally resolved by the Civil War. The debate then moved to a different level. E******y came more and more to be interpreted as “e******y of opportunity” in the sense that no one should be prevented by arbitrary obstacles from using his capacities to pursue his own objectives. That is still its dominant meaning to most citizens of the United States.
Neither e******y before God nor e******y of opportunity presented any conflict with liberty to shape one’s own life. Quite the opposite. E******y and liberty were two faces of the same basic value—that every individual should be regarded as an end in himself.
A very different meaning of e******y has emerged in the United States in recent decades—e******y of outcome. Everyone should have the same level of living or of income, should finish the race at the same time. E******y of outcome is in clear conflict with liberty. The attempt to promote it has been a major source of bigger and bigger government and of government-imposed restrictions on our liberty.
E******y Before God
When Thomas Jefferson, at the age of thirty-three, wrote “all men are created equal,” he and his contemporaries did not take these words literally. They did not regard men—or as we would say today, persons—as equal in physical characteristics, emotional reactions, mechanical and intellectual abilities. Thomas Jefferson himself was a most remarkable person. At the age of twenty-six he designed his beautiful house at Monticello (Italian for “little mountain”), supervised its construction, and, indeed, is said to have done some of the work himself. In the course of his life, he was an inventor, a scholar, an author, a statesman, governor of the State of Virginia, president of the United States, minister to France, founder of the University of Virginia—hardly an average man.
The clue to what Thomas Jefferson and his contemporaries meant by equal is seen in the next phrase of the Declaration—“endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Men were equal before God. Each person is precious in and of himself. He has unalienable rights, rights that no one else is entitled to invade. He is entitled to serve his own purposes and not to be treated simply as an instrument to promote someone else’s purposes. “Liberty” is part of the definition of e******y, not in conflict with it.
E******y before God—personal e******y—is important precisely because people are not identical. Their different values, their different tastes, their different capacities will lead them to want to lead very different lives. Personal e******y requires respect for their right to do so, not the imposition on them of someone else’s values or judgment. Jefferson had no doubt that some men were superior to others, that there was an elite. But that did not give them the right to rule others.
If an elite did not have the right to impose its will on others, neither did any other group, even a majority. Every person was to be his own ruler—provided that he did not interfere with the similar right of others. Government was established to protect that right—from fellow citizens and from external threat—not to give a majority unbridled rule. Jefferson had three achievements he wanted to be remembered for inscribed on his tombstone: the Virginia statute for religious freedom (a precursor of the US Bill of Rights designed to protect minorities against domination by majorities), authorship of the Declaration of Independence, and the founding of the University of Virginia. The goal of the framers of the Constitution of the United States, drafted by Jefferson’s contemporaries, was a national government strong enough to defend the country and promote the general welfare but at the same time sufficiently limited in power to protect the individual citizen, and the separate state governments, from domination by the national government. Democratic, in the sense of widespread participation in government, yes; in the political sense of majority rule, clearly no................(See Link for full article)
Dec 3, 2018 18:59:38 #
Dec 3, 2018 20:19:06 #
Dec 3, 2018 21:28:27 #
SharpShooter wrote:
So what’s it mean???
SS
SS
Mister 'created equal' owned his children and their mother. What's wrong with this picture?
Dec 4, 2018 00:36:27 #
thom w
Loc: San Jose, CA
hondo812 wrote:
I came across an interesting, but fairly long arti... (show quote)
I didn't read every line of it. Did he bring up a******n (I didn't see it) or did "right to birth"ers just hijack the feed back, as is their norm.
With capitalism and the right to inheritance in effect (I'm not staking out a position) how can there be e******y of opportunity?
Dec 4, 2018 10:38:57 #
SharpShooter wrote:
So what’s it mean???
SS
SS
Essentially "E******y" has become a moving target. What it meant to the Founders is not how it is perceived today. We've gone from "created equal before God" to "equal opportunity" to "equal outcomes". And of course George Orwell has his famous line regarding e******y, "...some are more equal than others". No doubt there will be another definition of "equal" further down the line.
Representative Joe Kennedy III has been speaking lately to a "moral capitalism" in which success is measured not just by profit but by e******y. Sounds a lot like a call for socialism to me.
Dec 4, 2018 10:51:57 #
thom w wrote:
I didn't read every line of it. Did he bring up a******n (I didn't see it) or did "right to birth"ers just hijack the feed back, as is their norm.
With capitalism and the right to inheritance in effect (I'm not staking out a position) how can there be e******y of opportunity?
With capitalism and the right to inheritance in effect (I'm not staking out a position) how can there be e******y of opportunity?
A******n wasn't mentioned and I can't imagine why you brought it up.
Capitalism and the right to inheritance.....
It seems to me that in many cases, the Vanderbilts for example, the fortunes that one generation worked for are eventually lost on future generations due to poor choices and new policies. I have no doubt that the fortunes of todays "robber barons" Gates, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Trump, etc. will become extremely diluted given the passage of time.
Dec 4, 2018 15:17:02 #
Eph. 2:8-9 is the basis for our e******y before God. 8 By grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves. 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
"Works" covers the high and low, rich and poor, s***eholder, s***e, industrialist, worker. Who your are, what you do, does not affect your standing before God. It is one's faith...and even that faith is provided by God. Individuals from every walk of life stand equally before God based upon one thing...their faith. It is the reason that the rich and poor both stood together in the medieval Church. While equals before God, however, it did not mean, commensurately, that their lives on earth would or should be the same. In fact, a lower economic household rooted in faith and the love of God would be much richer than an aristocratic home lacking nothing financially but knowing nothing of God.
"Works" covers the high and low, rich and poor, s***eholder, s***e, industrialist, worker. Who your are, what you do, does not affect your standing before God. It is one's faith...and even that faith is provided by God. Individuals from every walk of life stand equally before God based upon one thing...their faith. It is the reason that the rich and poor both stood together in the medieval Church. While equals before God, however, it did not mean, commensurately, that their lives on earth would or should be the same. In fact, a lower economic household rooted in faith and the love of God would be much richer than an aristocratic home lacking nothing financially but knowing nothing of God.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.