We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal…
–
Declaration of Independence, American colonies
against Britain
Liberté, égalité, fraternité…
–
The national motto of France; origins in the
French Revolution
The ideas behind this sentiment had an
origin in the Enlightenment and even before with, for
example, John Locke.
Enlightenment included a range of ideas
centered on reason as the primary source of authority and legitimacy, and came
to advance ideals such as liberty, progress, tolerance, fraternity,
constitutional government, and separation of church and state.
It is obvious, by mere observation, that
all men are most certainly not created equal: some gifted in different
ways, some gifted not at all. This was not necessarily the point of the
idea of equality. Conceptually, at least, “equality” was
considered equality under the law. This ideal did not last long.
For example, as early as the Jacobin period of the French Revolution, it was
enforced as equality of results. The “National Razor” (aka the
guillotine) enforced this version of equality.
This ideal also did not last in the United
States – there is certainly not equality under the law; instead, virtually all
of the population suffers under the weight of countless laws, regulations, and taxes
designed to move toward equality of results.
Does it have to be this way? Is it
inevitable?
The Enlightenment was a push back against
the prevailing social order in Europe, the social order of the Middle Ages:
kings, nobles, serfs; authority of the Church; conflicting spheres of power and
authority; a social order of a greatly decentralized political system.
All men are created equal: it all sounded
good on paper. I have spent much of my life almost in the worship of the
phrase; even at this moment, I struggle with questioning it. Like many
political theories, good on paper does not mean good in the real world.
On Power: The Natural History of its Growth,
by Bertrand de Jouvenel
Every central authority which follows its
natural instincts likes and favours equality; for equality more than anything
else facilitates the working of this sort of authority, and extends and assures
it.
Alexis de Tocqueville
What was the prevailing authority that
needed to be broken? Call it the authority of the clan leader, the
natural aristocrat – which, at its root, had a family. The king had no
authority over members of the clan; he only had authority over the clan leader
– and even in this, only the authority that the clan leader granted to the
king.
The idea of equality broke this
relationship: slowly but surely, equality gave the king power over not only the
clan leader but also the son and the daughter; slowly but surely, equality
required that the authority of the clan leader be eliminated: after all, if all
men are equal, why should the clan leader be more equal?
This idea of equality was welcomed by the
masses – a chance to break down the authority of the natural aristocracy.
They welcomed this “secular work of destruction.” The result? A
great centralization: the displacement of many private dominions by one general
dominion.
In addition to the initial euphoria, the
people were co-opted into this centralization by the gaining of power – being
invited into the administration; a “statocracy” of individuals who gain their
position via the state to replace the natural aristocracy.
The kings, who are most set on destroying
the feudal baronies, are also the best friends of the merchants, the bankers,
and the master manufacturers.
We see this latter phenomenon in the world
around us: would Krugman, Bernanke, any number of the below-average
entertainers, CEOs of the major banks or industrial conglomerates gain such a
position or status without the apparatus of the state pushing them to the fore
and otherwise ensuring their success? They know to whom they owe their
position. They act accordingly.
As offered by de Jouvenel, a ship owner is
not the chieftain of a gang of sailors; he merely employs their labor, to be
made available to the king when demanded. A banker is assigned to amass
wealth that can be used in service of the king when required.
Where will it end?
In the destruction of all other command for
the benefit of one alone – that of the state.
In each man’s absolute freedom from every
family and social authority, a freedom the price of which is complete
submission to the state.
In the complete equality as between
themselves of all citizens, paid for by their equal debasement before the power
of their absolute master – the state.
In the disappearance of every constraint
which does not emanate from the state, and in the denial of every pre-eminence
which is not approved by the state.
Read each sentence one by one, and consider
each carefully. It cannot be denied that this is a reality under the
state; it also cannot be denied that it is a pathetic, miserable reality for
all of us who are now “created equal.”
When “perfect” is not held as the ideal, is
this “equality,” led by statocrats, a better condition than what was before – a
great, decentralized society organized by natural aristocrats?
Conclusion
In a word, it ends in the atomization of
society, and in the rupture of every private tie linking man and man, whose
only bond is now their common bondage to the state. The extremes of
individualism and socialism meet: that was their predestined course.
(Emphasis added.)
Unless one believes a man can live without
social connection to other men….
Communism has crashed on this shore. There
are some libertarians – both on the left and those who believe a pure
libertarian theory can be applied to society of humans – who have yet to learn
this lesson.
Libertarianism, in theory, is
decentralization in practice.
