"The information you need today, for the principles you will defend tomorrow."
Fundamentals of  Equality
               When men first appeared on Earth, they were nothing more but sole judges, proprietors, and navigators of their own lives. There was little or no interaction between groups of humans on a large scale, and therefore small individual affairs required nothing beyond self-government. As men begun to develop further and form groups of several members, leaders begun to emerge and oversee them. As these groups united into even larger bodies, some compacts between them begun to formulate, applying certain terms upon all its members, and requiring them to comply with a code of mutual settlements. From that point onward, upon the same principle, regions were formed, and then cities, and states, and ultimately - nations. Thus, as we expand this orbit of mutual human existence we can clearly track the birth of government and its corresponding expansion. Furthermore, inversely to this expansion, fewer and fewer freedoms were visible among the members of society. Why? -Because as more guidelines and rules are created, the less natural freedom an individual retains. This point is furthermore underscored by Thomas Paine: “Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness Positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher... Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an in tolerable one…For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest.”


The latter truth, at its fundamental appearance, is an appealing thought to a ruling human mind. A society in which natural freedoms of men are diminished allows for a capability to design, alter and sculpt it to whatever form and shape deemed appropriate by the few elite. It invites fantasies of domination and innovation- an ongoing experiment in which a whole country could be altered by the snap of the fingers of one man- a pure, unopposed control of the entire society. However, those who pursued this tyrannical fantasy knew well the lessons of basic human nature. A suppression of human liberties never guarantees full compliance, philosophical or practical, with the will of the ruling class. One element persistently stood in their way- faction.


At the same time, but from a different degree of political observation, stood a group of individuals who rightfully disagreed with this noxious temptation to control many by the will of the few. They have recognized the dangers of such mentality to the free people, and puzzled themselves not on how to shape the society based on their individual schemes but rather how to manage a nation of extraordinary sizes without suppressing individual liberty. Before them stood a monumental task of increasing the size of the federal government and at the same time preserving an individual’s role in a democratic process. They too knew well the lessons of human nature and understood that tyranny of the many could corrupt the indispensable principles of the intended government. One element persistently stood in their way- faction.


However, despite the fact that in both of these circumstances the same principle of faction stood in the way of progress, the two methods of overcoming it were anything but similar. Faction, broadly defined, is the environment from which the diversity of human interests, passions, actions, and goals originate. It articulates the truth that we are in fact all dissimilar and unequal. No two human beings are exactly alike. This is not to say, however, that faction always fosters positive results in a community. When explaining the nature of this subject in Federalist 10, James Madison referred to faction as “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” In other words, faction as an obstacle seen by the Framers of the Constitution was tyranny of a group of citizens motivated by some passion, or a rule of a mob. So how exactly, if it is even possible, can faction and its negative side effects be overcome in a community? James Madison continues: “There are two methods of curing the mischief’s of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects…There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.”


When the minds of those who targeted a creation of an all powerful authority confronted the nature of faction, they too pondered upon finding a proper remedy to its unwanted side effects. In their view, faction allowed for diversity of opinion. It illustrated the capability of galvanized citizens to unite under a cause more just and proper, to denounce the iniquity of rulers who demand complacency in the name of innocuous tyranny. It proved that the public could have an opinion more powerful to that of the government, and with it threaten the pure and unopposed control over the society. Therefore, under these circumstances, the experiment is doomed to fail. It becomes only a matter of time before the oppressed citizens repudiate their tyrannical government in a quest for pandemic liberty. Unless of coarse, faction is removed… entirely. Thus it follows, that for an institution of an unstoppable government authority, the principle of faction must be erased from the society by means of removing its causes.


Meanwhile, James Madison and the Framers of the Constitution saw the necessity of faction. They observed that “The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.” Private property and its existence was the fundamental core of the American society. Its protection was to be the “first object of government”. Therefore, seeking to remedy faction through an elimination of its causes would consequently annihilate private property and the very purpose of a constitutional government. Thus, the Framers reasoned that in order to institute a constitutional government which would embrace the existence of private property and at the same time guard against a tyranny of the majority, the mischiefs of faction must be erased from the society by solemn means of controlling its effects.

           

       The different methods of overcoming faction have therefore created two opposing political environments. One abolished the faction’s causes and the other its effects. However, how exactly do you abolish the causes of faction? The answer is simple – by “destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence” and by “giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.” In other words, to build utopia, you have to have equality; equality in opinions, equality in passions, equality in interests, equality in infrastructure, equality in property and equality in economic outcomes. This reasoning was rejected by our Framers. They knew well that it not only defeats the purpose of the proposed government but is also incompatible with human nature: “Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency. The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed.” In other words, this type of equality was not a product of our Framers thought and consequently not that of our Constitution. It embraces truths which undermine the existence of a free society by assaulting, in the first place, the engine of liberty and in the next place liberty itself, thereby enslaving a citizen to total dependency on an all-powerful government. It is often disguised as fairness, civil duty, and perhaps most notably as a magical paradisaical “right” given to us by the most benevolent and caring government. The reasons behind such “rights” are constructed to sound just, fair and humanitarian. After all, a natural tendency of a mind is to welcome new entitlements, for the very nature of a word “right” creates a positive vision of a more powerful individual, and not an all powerful state.


There is, however, another type of equality - the equality which was visualized by the Founding Fathers and the Framers. It originated not from a desire to remove the causes of faction, but from a self evident truth of human existence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Equality, as seen through the eyes of the Founders, referred to all humans having the same fundamental rights. All humans are in fact human. The same laws of physics, chemistry and biology apply to all of us equally. There is no divinity amongst us. All of us live and all of us die.


To say that equality in the former is identical to equality in the latter is to say that liberty is identical to tyranny. Such message would ignore the entire derivation of this subject and deliberately fabricate the central message of the Founders. Yet modern American liberalism embraces this ideology fully or in part. One of the most famous expressions of Barack Obama proves this point entirely. “[America]…where everyone pays their fair share and everyone plays by the same set of rules”. When the mentality of a politician is to “fundamentally transform” a society into a post-constitutional state with an all powerful central government, a politician has to transition toward equality of economic outcomes. After all, he can not immediately jump into embracing the principles of the desired vision without dimming the reality in the eyes of popular judgment. Transition, therefore, becomes a crucial necessity; a bridge, if you will, into a constructed model of fundamental reform. Consequently, modern American liberal turns to the secret weapon of anti-constitutionalism – language. He sees that equality in its pure state can be intertwined with equality of utopia and thus seeks to unite them into one, as if creating some unitary theme of American democracy. The quote above shows evidence of this mentality. An America where “everyone plays by the same set of rules” underscores the proper natural equality projected in our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. After all, we are all in fact equal before the law, and comply with the supreme law of the land which is the Constitution. However, when Obama describes a desired vision of America as everyone paying “their fair share”, he shifts toward embracing the utopian equality, alien to our Constitution. Indeed, the “fair share” referred to in this context demands for a progressive redistribution of wealth, where the wealthy pay more taxes simply because they can. Thus the image created in this one small sentence is consistent with two opposing truths which cannot coexist if we are to still faithfully embrace the Constitution and Federalism. It prioritizes not the proper control of the effects of faction through embracing the equality of our natural origins, but rather a rapid and aggressive transformation by means of removing the causes of our fundamental diversities.


The full derivation of this subject to its basic elements is perhaps too detailed and intricate for a daily discussion of politics with your family and friends. However, it is absolutely crucial in understanding the truths of origin of the philosophies which threaten the existence of our constitutional republic. In so many ways the damage done to our Constitution is irreversible, for the mentality of the public has been successfully altered to embrace principles which are non-existent in its text. But nonetheless, it is the effort we must take to rescue what is left standing of our dear country, our sacred homeland, and our beloved union.