Equality is an important concept in America. If equality can be respected and actualized to any degree across a country, it cannot mean equality of circumstances. Without someone being in control (and above other members in society—inequality), citizens will receive different pay for different jobs, experience different climates, interact with different people, be subject to different crimes, etc. Inequality of circumstance is a matter of degree; equality of circumstances is all or nothing.
Equality of status can be respected by a government in actuality. Since human actions can be at least conceptually divided into the categories of ‘harmful’ or ‘helpful’, these categories can aid an understanding of equality and liberty. First, instigating harmful behavior is unjustified. People do not own each other. Instigating harm against another is acting as if one has more value than another or as if another is one’s property. This is directly against democratic principles.
Most Americans would agree with that, but what equality says about helpful behavior is more controversial. Equality does not forbid helpful actions or charitable causes, but it disallows forcing others to perform any given positive action for the good of another. Just as two people cannot justifiably demand that someone give $500 to a charitable organization, so too a whole country cannot justifiably demand a humanitarian ‘donation’. It is wrongheaded to think that the statuses of individuals in groups are tallied and weighed against the status(es) of the targeted individual(s) to determine whether the desired coercion is acceptable. The prohibition of instigating harm precludes taxation to promote ‘charitable’ goals. Money is a good, and taking it away to give to others is harmful.
One can consistently hold that one person is morally obligated to be charitable to others whenever possible and that government has no right to demand people’s money for humanitarian causes (for our citizens or nations across the world). Demanding money for an admittedly good cause surely requires the government coercion respect equality. Many Americans seem satisfied that they support the cause without being concerned about unjustifiable government force.
Many who support government-run projects giving aid to unfortunate people stress the interconnectedness of individuals in a society as a justification for such a government program. “No man is an island,” they say. This is true, but it does not support their conclusion: we can justifiably impose taxes on citizens, especially the rich, to pay for good causes, i.e., efforts to help fellow citizens. The rich “can afford to give a bit more back,” as Obama recently stated. In the same sense, the rich can more afford for their cars to be blown up because they will be able to purchase another. “Afford” suggests choice, and none is found here. More accurately, their justification is, “The rich have more money than they need, and we want some of it."
In what universe is that equal?
