All Men Created Equal????

This is a quick thought about the myth of equality among humans. I wrote this comment for a blog I read explaining what was meant by the Declaration of Independence stating “All men are created equal”. The conclusion was that it we had equal worth. But I disagree with the Declaration of Independence. I like its implementation in our society but don’t believe it is true. Here is why:

Are all men really of equal worth? What supports this belief? What is a man’s worth based on? I don’t believe that all men are of the same value. This is a myth. This idea is really part of our social contract. We promise to treat each other as if we were of equal worth. This compromise is to everyone’s benefit. I like it but the argument for it is weak.

Some thing’s worth or value is a function of another’s perspective. To who is it valuable? Something’s value is correlated with its usefulness and necessity. Usefulness and necessity are also dependent on the circumstantial situation at hand. Because of these truths there can be no absolute standard for worth and it can never be said that all things always have the same worth, including humans.

In social animals there is usually a hierarchy. Inherently in a hierarchy there is no absolute equality between members of the group. Humans are social animals. We function best in groups, so naturally there will always be a hierarchy. Thus there is no real equality. Even from the groups perspective a lazy or nonproductive member cannot have the same worth as a fruitful one.

In the wild the animals whose design allows it to best exploit its environment and survive lives on, while the worst suited for the environment die off. In this sense there are no equals. Every animal is not identical to the next, and in most cases even within its own species (even bacteria mutate). Therefore if humans in comparison with each other are not identical in design and abilities, how can it be said that they have equal worth?

This phrase (all men….) in the Declaration of independence was meant to express that contrary the feudal system in Europe (where the King and nobility ruled), Americans believed that your families class or wealth should not dictate your worth in society. The Kings of Europe were said to have divine rights. Our founding fathers believed that if according to Bible, we were all created in God’s image, we were of equal worth. Well, since there is no evidence for a God, nor is God relevant in what really dictates social class (wealth & power), this founding argument for equal worth is not worth much. Besides being in the likeness of a God doesn’t infer equality among men. The bible itself condones of slavery.

Equal worth among humans is a delusion that helps maintain a cohesive, stable, productive society. If we all share in this delusion we will feel better about ourselves and our society. It is a functional delusion.

The Government Fingering Your Brain

I was watching the BBC series Horizon today and came across a most interesting topic. It concerned possible future advancements in artificial intelligence. They spoke of decoding the human brains language and translating it into computer code. With this achievement one could possibly read a human’s thoughts and memories. I was in awe at the possible implications and applications of this technology.

We currently live in a world where information is vital to people as well as governments. I asked myself, who would be interested enough in reading another human’s thoughts to develop this technology? Well, our government is currently in the business of ease dropping on human communications foreign as well as domestic, with the pretense that it is its “moral” obligation to “protect” it’s citizens (though I suspect it is in the business of protecting itself and its interests). This technology would be a marvelous addition to their surreptitious arsenal of privacy despoiling weapons.

This would be the ultimate invasion of privacy. This would be the equivalent of God knowing your every thought and judging you on them. The religious masses should not abhor this idea because they live with this paranoid thought daily and accept it passively. However this thought should startle the rationally inclined and those who value free thought.

If this technology is to be introduced into a society I believe it will be through the judicial system. It is easier for the public to accept the invasion of their liberties if there is a moral excuse. Everyone empathizes with the families of victims. However not everyone has the intuition to rationally analyze in depth and weigh the consequence of forfeiting a liberty even if the cause seems superficially just. This concept of relinquishing liberties in exchange for security, or the enforcement of moral codes, is similar to placing iron bars on all your house windows and doors. You’re relatively safe but you don’t realize that in keeping unwanted intruders out you have also enclosed yourself in a cage. Worse so however, because you are not just forfeiting your freedom, you are also giving up your children’s without their consent.

This whole idea brings up the question of whether or not morality trumps an individual’s freedom. Do we really want to live in a world where morality is the absolute? Do we really wish to live in a world where morality is enforced by any means necessary including invading your thoughts. One might argue that if you are a law abiding citizen you have should have no fear of this. But what if the law is evil?

What is right or wrong? Morals are arbitrary ideas. We all agree to abide by laws (moral codes) in order to keep a common peace and escape the nasty, brute realistic term of “survival of the fittest” that the rest of the wilderness abides by (” eat or be eaten”). Morals are artificial conditions human society abides by; and our government’s purpose is to ensure the enforcements of these conditions. We surrender our innate terms for survival, to do whatever to whomever in order to ensure our survival, for a passive submissive but enjoyable life. The moment this mutual understanding between individuals does not reap any benefits or jeopardizes our survival, we revert back to our primal instincts (take “looting” during Hurricane Katrina as example). Morality is circumstantial, it is not an absolute. Otherwise wars would never be fought.

What is the function of liberties? The liberties societies agree on protect the individual’s interests and keeps life pleasurable. Liberties act as checks that keep a balance of power between society’s interests and the individuals. What if the Government becomes corrupt and oppressive (imagine that farfetched idea)? What if you are under the control of an oppressive majority? Wouldn’t you like the ability to protect yourself and your interests? We all do and so did our forefathers. They agreed to respect the liberties we enjoy today.

Liberties protect us from the same selfish and apathetic aspect of human nature that we form governments to guard us against. So in my opinion morality does not trump liberties. This is not to say that liberties are absolute. The two must exist harmoniously in order for the individuals in the society to live pleasant lives. One should not be allowed to take absolute precedence over the other. It is the will of the group versus the will of the individual. The two are interdependent. Liberties must be held as something sacred in most circumstances in order protect the individuals that make up the whole of society. This is because Society’s collective happiness is directly correlated to the individuals. Morals can only authentically and fruitfully exist in free societies where people of good nature consciously agree to live by social codes in order to mutually enjoy their benefits’. Laws otherwise are the will of despots and enforced by immoral oppressive regimes. This is why protecting individual rights is vital.

So when would it be right to read a person’s thoughts? Should we not hold our minds as sacred? This of course is a speculative futuristic idea, but the fundamental underlying concept is a very real dilemma.

A Very Brief Rebuttal of Socialism and Gun Prohibition

I wrote the following as a response to a fellow My-Spacer’s blog on why he is a Democratic Socialist and against guns. I added and edited little bit from the original.

I wish you allowed for comments, oppressing free speech already? lol. First off, the idea of socialism is not a natural one. Nature’s law is survival of the fittest. Natural selection provided the method by which humans evolved as a species to what we are now. Life was never meant to be fair. Why do humans seek equilibrium when nothing about our universe is static? Our earth is not a static environment; it is in constant motion and perpetually changing. We live in a dynamic universe. Socialism strives to make everyone equal. We are not all equal, species are not all equal, and the forces that drive our universe are not all equal. Some of us are smarter than others, some of us are stronger than others, some faster, some shorter, taller, fatter, agile, astute. To pretend everyone is in the same class is ridiculous. We are not all in the same class. I believe in the fair treatment of people, but fair does always mean equal treatment.

Like different species of animals who have found their evolutionary survival niche, so have the rich. They have chosen to use their wits versus a workers brawn. People make the rich as fat and lazy snobs. Well most that I have encountered are not fat, and lazy they are not. To stay on top you can’t be stagnant, you have to be progressive. The working class hates on the rich because they envy them. They wish they didn’t have to toil in the soil and sweat unlike the rich. They wish they enjoyed the same prosperity. Since they don’t, socialism, like crabs in a can when one reaches the lip of the can another yanks it down, is an attempt to strip the wealthy from their harvest, as to relieve themselves from the sense of inadequacy by artificially making everyone equally adequate. This is something to the likes of killing your opponent if you can’t compete with him.

While I don’t believe we are in the same class, I do believe everyone should have similar opportunities. This is what makes the United States so appealing to the rest of the world, there are endless opportunities. Virtually anyone here can get a higher education. But do we all? Usually the poor lack education not because they can’t but because they choose not to. It is a lot easier for most after high school (if they finish that); to get nine to five jobs rather than to work hard at a higher education related career or founding businesses. If there is no job available to them, then criminal hustles like drug dealing, prostitution, and theft is what they resort to. Some say they have no choice, but life itself is full of choices. Everyone makes choices and is accountable to themselves for the choices made.

Money is not what separates the wealthy from the impoverished, it is education and knowledge. I think what can narrow the gap between the rich and the poor is education. Socialism to me seems to be an artificial way of fixing the problem. It treats the symptom (money), versus the addressing the cause (education and opportunity). A pretty reliable stat is the uneducated have plenty more children than the educated. Children being the major priority in most parents’ lives, the opportunities to escape poverty diminish with an every child.

And frankly, some people have a lot more drive and will than others when it comes to success. The truth is these ambitious people are the movers and shakers of society. Without competition no one would have the need to do things better. This allows for a dynamic progressive society. Like animals compete in the wild, humans also compete with each other, resulting in the fittest design surviving. Likewise, competition in a society bring out the best, not just business wise, but in ourselves. Adversity separates the weak and the obsolete from the best suited for a task (life). As humans we have a need to feel good about ourselves. We feel good when we achieve. We feel good when we are the best or at least talented. Nothing refines talent like competition. It is a natural pressure that pushes us to excel like hunger.

So before we blame and chastise the rich, blaming others for our problems, let’s self-reflect on what we can do better. For one instill the importance of an education in our working class children and secondly be more active in politics and government. Societies only change if the people that constitute them want to and care to make a change.

About guns, criminals in jail don’t have guns, yet they find very creative ways to end life or injure. Before guns people still murdered each other just the same. But that’s not my point. There is a reason why our founding fathers placed that clause in our social contract. It is a “just in case” clause; just in case government becomes oppressive (which by the way its on its way to being). Guns are a means by which the people can rebel and protect themselves from oppression. Many misuse freedoms, the 911 hijackers misused many of our liberties. Do we now strip everyone from these freedoms and rights for safety reasons, like the patriot act blatantly does? As Americans we stand for liberties and rights, this is who we are, our very identity. We are a free society (supposed to be at least). Would you choose an oppressed and safe life over a free life? Life is full of dangers; we don’t live in kindergarten class where everything is child proof. Life by its very nature is dangerous and unfair, period. Survival of the fittest is the only rule that applies.

If poverty is the problem, then let’s fix poverty. If un-education is a factor of poverty, let work on that. Treating the symptoms never cures the illness.