First of all, I would like to thank Mary McCracken, in her rebuttal letter from September, for not reducing herself to the ad hominem attacks typically employed by progressives when they find someone who disagrees with them. She makes some interesting points that I feel represent a misunderstanding of my On the Fence article of late August, “What does a fair and just society look like?”
When I echoed Jefferson’s statement in the Declaration that “all men are created equal,” I was emphasizing that the intent of the Constitution and following amendments were ultimately intended to give equal protection under the law. It is wicked for a society to allow arbitrary or unequal justice based on skin shade, wealth, personal power or influence or the lack thereof. But it is equally wicked for a society to create so called “equity” in every field by discriminating against those who are truly qualified, regardless of gender or skin shade, and promoting those who are less qualified, based on the same criteria. When colleges, medical schools, trade schools, business schools, etc., use gender or racial preferences to favor certain subgroups of Americans, they create the very condition they are trying to mitigate against. They are not creating “fairness” — they are creating tribalism and hatred among subgroups of Americans, who intuitively know that promotion should be based on merit, not appearance or gender.
When Mary stated that I believed we were all born with equal opportunity, she misquoted me. I stated that we were an “equal opportunity nation,” not “an equality of outcomes nation.” To quote Milton Friedman again, “Equality of opportunity simply describes equality before the law and is ‘an essential component of liberty.’” Obviously, we are not all born with equal opportunity. Some are born smarter than others, more athletically gifted, more musically inclined, more likely to understand how to build things, more likely to understand technology, etc. A fair and just society cannot and should not try to erase these distinctions between individuals.
Some are born into single-mother homes and are raised without fathers, which studies show is a distinct disadvantage to young men in particular, but this disadvantage cannot be erased by forcing the rest of Americans to pay for the mistakes of others. A fair and just society would then uphold the original institution of marriage as between one man and one woman for life.
Mary mentions the fact that unplanned pregnancies are not advantageous, but progressives typically exalt sexual freedom over personal responsibility, and want to take the life of a pre-born American away and, to add insult to injury, want the rest of us to pay for that mistake. The premeditated murder of a baby in utero is just as evil as the premeditated murder of someone you don’t happen to like. Similarly, when someone has “gender dysphoria,” it would be fair and just to view that individual with compassion and provide counseling to restore healthy thinking regarding their biology, but not artificially change their sex by providing or taking away parts with which they were not born and make others pay.
The length of this rebuttal does not permit me to go on. Suffice it to say, government can do what it can to promote equal justice, but not equal outcomes, since everyone has different gifts and abilities as well as disabilities.