Seeing Citizens as Individuals is Key

I would especially like feedback on this post. I don't feel as sure as I usually do about this one.

The government's seeing its citizens primarily, if not exclusively, as individuals--as opposed to members of groups--promotes equality before the law. Citizens are people. All citizens fit into group, it is true, but not all citizens are members of all the same groups. If the government treats citizens as members of specific groups, it is more likely to use stereotypes--and not treat the members of particular groups equally. It will be more likely to have skewed dealings with members of group X without knowing that person's situation. "Oh, this person is an Irishman. He probably drinks a lot." In situations in which government emphasizes the groups one is in above the person one is, the level of justice will be diminished. If an Irishman is being tried for being in a bar fight in which he was not involved, it does not matter whether the Irish drink a lot. The case involves where that individual was, whether he was drinking, whether he had a part in the fight.

This does not mean that individuals' rights to associate will not be protected. It seems the rights to associate, when viewed as a part of individual rights will be more easily guarded. The question will not be "Should this specific religious group be allowed to stand on this specific street and chant their specific message?" When we talk about popular groups, we have certain responses, depending on whether we agree or disagree with the groups' messages, and perhaps wrongly whether we hold a grudge against a group based on their ethnic background, e.g. If we could avoid talking about groups when possible, it might promote the ability of jurors, judges, politicians, and others to see the situation with less bias. Pro-life people might support the loud protests right on the border of the property belonging to an abortion clinic because they support the protesters. However, if the situation is considered focusing on individuals, the situation might be cast as "Should an individual be able to stand on the border of a business' property, intruding by noise on the business' property?" This would promote a more fair review of the situation, and it comes from a proper view of citizens primarily as individuals.

Affirmative Action and Equality

Remember equality before the law? It applies to affirmative action. "Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, sex or national origin"[1] into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group, usually as a means to counter the effects of a history of discrimination" (Wikipedia).

As I understand it, there are two kinds of affirmative action: affirmative action in government actions about government employees/admission to public educational institutions/etc. and affirmative action taken by private institutions, companies, etc. I want to consider both.

First, a point that needs to be made is that affirmative action is bias toward particular groups based on race, color, etc. (things we generally consider characteristics that should not be held *against* someone in the hiring process, even though many people are okay with 'valuing diversity' and giving the job to someone in an 'underrepresented group'). My point is that equality before the laws implies equality NOW. Although those underrepresented may be disadvantaged compared to their situation had their parents not been discriminated against, the inequality was not directly against them. Even if affirmative action for an individual who was directly discriminated against could be justified, giving an advantage based on race, religion, etc. cannot be neither politically justified for governments nor morally justified for private individuals (except for positions like Black Americans Group President or Methodist minister).

Second, one cannot give preference to one group of people without disadvantaging others. It seems nicer to talk about giving preference to the children of those who have been discriminated against in the past--and whose discrimination has adversely affected the children's situations (not all discrimination does this in every case)--than to disadvantage someone who has worked hard whose parents have not been historically discriminated against for being White, Protestant, or heterosexual, doesn't it? Yet, it is intuitive that giving preference to one group discriminates against another.

Government Affirmative Action

Some people think equality before the law meshes with affirmative action. The government is trying to bring about equality between the various social groups, right? However, I think some people who realize that preferring one social group disadvantages another would see that equality before the law cannot coincide with a purposeful disadvantaging of any social group, especially in the name of equality. Therefore, affirmative action is improper for a government of the people.

Private Affirmative Action

Affirmative action by private institutions and individual is something quite different. Private institutions are not institutions 'of the people'. We do not have the right to be equal before Hannaford, McDonald's, Steckle and Smith Law Firm, or Boston Medical Center (assuming these are privately run). They can choose whom they desire, valuing to the extent they wish or not valuing the social groups from which they applicants and employees hail. Whether it is morally right for private individuals to value 'diversity' or not is not my concern here. A company inflicts no harm on individuals by not hiring them, not giving them a 401k, or not giving them vacation time. If they don't want the job with the pay and benefits, they don't have to do it.

Racism as Idea

Let's assume I've made the idea that government should not dictate what people believe except if it harms or if the idea promotes (not merely increases the risk of) harm to others. The individual should be able to choose from the range of lifeviews available in his or her free society. The government should not coerce someone into various religious, social, or other views.

What about the idea of racism? It's bad, right? We'll take the racism of Whites against Blacks as an example. Racists are prejudiced against other people simply due to the color of their skin. That's unfair and wrong. Skin color has to do with how much melanin is in one's skin; the level of melanin in a person's skin is no basis for a judgment of their person or a reason to look with disfavor or hate on them.

Should the government criminalize racism? It depends. The government should criminalize racism of the type that leads to groups of White citizens hanging Blacks. However, there are other types of racism that do not meet the harm requirement. Some people see Blacks with disfavor because they are Black. This will affect their choices in employment, housing, and other areas. As citizens conducting their private lives with their own property, however, not giving someone something does not meet the harm principle. People are not (should not be) obligated to rent to, employ, or otherwise deal with anyone (excepting binding contracts and the like). People should be free to dislike, hate, ect. other people, as long as their views do not advocate inflicting harm on them.

So, am I saying the government should not take a stance on racism? No, absolutely not. Remember equality before the law. Government should be against all racism in all its actions, not favoring or penalizing based on skin color. However, the government should not criminalize its citizens racism and racist actions--as long as they do not inflict harm on others or have something that strongly encourages the inflicting of harm on others.

Morality is Not an Ultimate Justification for Legality

In a society which respects the right of citizens to think for themselves, moral claims cannot be the ultimate justification for outlawing certain actions. We begin to erode individual liberty of thought if we begin justifying laws based on our own moral structures. We still, however, need to make certain things illegal. Why should some acts be illegal?

In order to preserve the autonomy of individuals and the freedom to think for oneself, the government should embrace something like the harm principle. Mill and others have written about the harm principle. I understand it as saying that the only reason for the infringement of liberty is to prevent harm to others. This infringement takes place in the creating of laws and the punishment of those who break these laws.

If the government criminalizes anything but acts of positive harm, i.e., inflicting harm on others, (or perhaps believing things which promote the positive harm of others, e.g., believing that all race car drivers are evil and it is the responsibility of good people to assassinate them), it is showing disregard for equality because it limits the autonomy and freedom of thought among its citizens. This goes against equality before the law.

Equality Before the Law - Enlightenment and Autonomy of Thought

The idea that government should not interfere with its citizens holding certain ideas, except ideas which advocate or incite the violation of others' rights, can be recognized from an Enlightenment-valuing perspective.

The Enlightenment, as I understand it, had as its central tenet that it is up to individuals to decide what to believe. The king does not have the right to tell his people what to believe, nor is truth determined by what he says. Neither can priests and religious institutions. "Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding without the guidance of another" (Kant, What is Enlightenment?). One must decide for oneself what one believes because one is responsible for one's beliefs.

What we have lost to a large degree in America is our respect for individual responsibility for one's ideas (both that it is X's place to determine what he believes and it is X's fault if he chooses to embrace false ideas). As long as ideas are not advocating or inciting harm of others, neither the law nor the government should exert influence on which political/religious/social beliefs people hold.

With this in mind, those who appreciate Enlightenment ideals should agree that the government should neither condone nor outlaw ideas for its citizens. The government should stay as far away from prescribing a set of beliefs for its citizens as possible.

Equality Before the Law - Christianity and Religion

This idea of equality before the law applies to people's ideas themselves, in the sense that the law ideally does not make religious decisions (i.e. which ones are good, which ones are bad)--except for those which call or incite violence or other harmful actions. (Harmful actions are violations of legitimate rights.)

Those coming from a Christian perspective ought to agree with this because of the basics of Christianity. Christianity focuses on the relation between our ideas, beliefs, etc. and God, primarily. We believe (truly, not just a profession) and are saved. We merely profess to believe or believe something importantly different from the Truth and are not saved.

Under a right Christian perspective, ideas and beliefs are primarily between God and man. Christianity's emphasis on true belief, and not mere profession, should persuade Christians (1) that we should oppose a government's promoting Christian beliefs and ideas because that would encourage hypocrisy and (2) that we should certainly oppose a government which represses Christian beliefs because that would scare people away from Truth and make our job of telling others about Christianity much more difficult.

I think this should apply to all ideas. The government should not interfere, except to keep citizens from infringing on others' rights to gather information about ideas and decide for themselves.

Humans' Equality Before the Law

What is equality before the law?

'Before the law' must be taken seriously. This principle is focused on the laws' equal treatment of the nation's (state's, community's, etc.) people. The law cannot justly favor rich people over poor people. The government's treating its citizens equally does not mean it should enforce equality of circumstances; that would be doomed to fail. One's equality is not one's being equal. All humans were created equal--but they are not the same.

It is natural and right for a government to attempt to procure the maximum amount of equality among its citizens. Rights emanate (at least) from the equality of constitution. No individual is naturally justified in harming his fellow human. No individual is naturally more deserving of being harmed by fellow humans. The government has a right to protect its citizens from those who seek to harm or actually do harm fellow citizens.

The matter is different when considering equality before the law regarding ideas. Our equality of constitution does mean we are not to infringe on others' bodies (and property), but our equality also means we are all seekers of truth. We have our own minds as well as our own bodies, and it is proper that we are allowed to think what we will as long as we do not infringe on others' bodies or minds.

Since people under a government are in a social context and because we are influenced by the ideas around us, infringing on another's mind would have to be intense in order to justify action by the government; it would have to be something along the lines of one's forcing another to believe certain things (e.g., hooking another's brain up to a brain programmer). Otherwise, the government's curtailing of liberty to think certain thoughts due to the effect on others' brains is curtailing the liberty to think of the one 'causing the problem' in the first place.

Much value can be seen in 'equality before the law'. If equality before the law were a fundamental principle of the government in the United States, we would be much better off.