Which Animals Are More Equal Than Others?

Conservative talk show host Dennis Prager caused a minor stir a while back when he passionately claimed that "equality . . . is not an American value." I think his comments provide an excellent starting point to discuss precisely what we all mean when we use the slippery term "equality."

But first, lest you think I'm kidding, take a listen:

Yikes. Where to begin? The Republican Party is better at protecting the right to pursue happiness? I suppose . . . as long as the person pursuing happiness is not female, a minority, gay, atheist, Muslim, a pot smoker, an immigrant, foreign, named Clinton or otherwise pursuing happiness in a non-traditional manner. And what's with the overwhelming antipathy to European ideals? But I digress.

Let's talk equality. Cenk Uygur at the Young Turks called out Prager for his rather stunning omission from his speech of the Declaration of Independence's preceding clause (something about "all men are created equal," I think): Uygur's commentary prompted others to say that Prager had been "libeled,"since he was clearly speaking against "economic equality" not "equal rights." Given the speech in the above video, I'm not sure Uygur actually defamed Prager, but YouTube's Advocate1234 does have a point that we should take seriously, since it forces us to examine our understanding of "equality."

So, what do we mean by "equality?" Are progressives really monolithic in their call for "spreading the wealth?" Is the American left really Communist? Of course not. So, when Uygur reminds us that the Fourteenth Amendment requires that states deny no one the "equal protection" of the laws, precisely how would Prager disagree? Would he disagree? They'd probably disagree somehow if face to face, but if so, what is it we're all demanding when we demand equality and equal rights?

Okay, here's the Libeqrat's position: Understood in isolation, "equality" can be a problematic concept, and even undermine civil liberties. Instead, we should understand equality as a function of liberty. Liberty has substance, and that substance must be enjoyed by all persons equally.

Heh, let's unpack that. :)

First, the word "equal" is a term of comparison. In order to determine whether I am being treated "equally" to everyone else, we have to know how everyone else is being treated. Of course, we have to acknowledge that if we are all being locked in cages all day, we are all being treated equally.

But, we don't want the law merely to be equally applied. We want something substantive to be equally protected.

For a Libeqrat, one of the paramount substantive things to be protected equally is the pursuit of happiness. Each and every person must be equally entitled to choose her own means to achieve happiness.

Now, does that mean that as long as a person invokes the pursuit of happiness to justify what she's doing that society may not interfere? Of course not. It depends on what she's doing. Because if each of us has the equal right to pursue happiness, then we each only have the right to pursue happiness in manners that do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same.

So, may the government legitimately stop you from smoking pot? No. You are entitled to pursue happiness that way, and you're not infringing on anyone else's rights by doing so. May the government prevent you from smoking pot while driving a car? Yeah. You're now risking the right to life of non-consenting other people, and they have rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that are equal to yours.

But the pursuit of happiness is not merely a negative right, that is, you are not free to pursue happiness just because the government will leave you alone. The pursuit of happiness has positive substance, and the government is not its only threat. Indeed, sometimes government is necessary to secure it.

So, now consider the concept of equal, substantive liberty in the context of social programs. To the extent that they are designed to ensure a substantive and equal pursuit of happiness, they are legitimate. For instance, when people do not have access to any form of health care, they are often pursuing survival, not happiness. While everyone might be treated equally under a system where the government provides no health care at all to anyone, such a system does not actually protect everyone's rights equally. However, the government should discipline itself by ensuring that it is indeed working to ensure just that --- that everyone's substantive rights are being equally protected, and not simply creating bureaucracy upon bureaucracy in pursuit of an unrealistic utopia that ultimately doubles back and infringes on liberty.

So that's the Libeqrat's view on equality. This explanation is not entirely complete, but it I hope it will spark some interesting discussions.

Thanks to Think Progress for allowing the video to be embedded.