Political Correctness: Equality....or Else!

[PoliticalChic]

1. Every Leftist is, essentially, a Marxist…even though most eschew the title since the fall of the Soviet Union. Even so, Left-wing ideas are predicated on Marx’s materialist view. Philosophically, the term implies that only material things are real.

a. Therefore, emotions, such as love, are no more than chemistry. And it suggests that it is only genes and environment that determine our actions, and free will plays no role. And, of course, God and religious beliefs are nonsense.

2. The Left’s concept of materialism broadens into the overarching desire to see every individual equal in every way. The Left is less interested in creating wealth than in distributing it, and has been far more interested in fighting material inequality than tyranny, which is why Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc., tend to have the support of Leftists around the world.

a. End social and economic inequality and one will have Utopia! Sadly, attempts toward creation of utopia in this world lead to dystopia. Which leads to this comparison: conservatives marvel at how good America is, Leftists want to ‘transform’ it.
Prager, ”Still The Best Hope”




3. The Left’s insistence on equality in every endeavor continues! Comedian Adam Corolla tells this story of the need for ‘equality.' During his appearance on ‘Dancing With The Stars’: he and some other contestants were discussing who would win, and he said, ‘Obviously, Kristi Yamaguchi, because she is a trained Olympic athlete. But we have one thing in our favor: she’s Japanese…and they have a terrible work ethic!” The others laughed….then accused him of being racist. Of course, the joke was based on the fact that Japanese are known to have a terrific work ethic, and that’s why the others laughed.

a. But Corolla makes the point that even pointing out the positive of trait of the Japanese confronts Liberal political correctness: one cannot comment on any difference…even positive ones.

b. Political correctness: There can be no differences of any kind admitted! Equality in every dimension!





4. Care to guess why the Left will never sign on to American Exceptionalism? Right….it acknowledges that there are differences. And, of course, nationalism is a no-no!

5. On another level, it explains the Left’s dislike for capitalism, a system which produces winners and losers, a painful fact that the Left would rather not see. In fact, for the left, it is mere luck that determines who the ‘rich’ turn out to be, not hard work and taking risks. After all...'You didn't build that!'




6. And, have you noticed the same treatment in at the Academy Awards, yet another example of the demand that everyone in every way be ‘equal? What happens when the rules are broken:

a. In 2010: “Rather than the politically correct, nonjudgmental phrase that has been foisted on presenters for more than two decades — "And the Oscar goes to ..." — presenters this year introduced each winner with the blunt, old-fashioned but perfectly accurate phrase "And the winner is ..."
Academy Award Presenters Revert from 'Oscar' to 'Winner' - TIME

b. “Rival awards shows, which, like the Oscars, have for years forbidden the "winner" phrasing, were quick to notice the change. "I was surprised to hear that. It was kind of jolting," says John Leverence, a senior vice president of the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, which gives out TV's Emmy awards. The rationale for the "award goes to ..." format is twofold: it plugs the award continuously, and it doesn't make losers feel any worse than they already do.” Ibid.



Of course.....the Left's obsession for 'equality' seems to come to a grinding halt at taxation...which they demand be 'progressive'......

 

[Katzndogz]

The left loves equality because equality and freedom cannot exist together.

 

[DaGoose]

You're full of shit PoliticalChic. Just sayin'......

 

[NYcarbineer]

Which stereotype is more inaccurate?

All liberals are Marxists?

or

All Asians are smart?

 

[Mad Scientist]

You're full of shit PoliticalChic. Just sayin'......

This "Political Chick" knows too much about origins of Marxism and how it is connected to modern day Socialism and Authoritarianism.

She must be re-educated.

 

[Oldguy]

1. Every Leftist is, essentially, a Marxist…even though most eschew the title since the fall of the Soviet Union. Even so, Left-wing ideas are predicated on Marx’s materialist view. Philosophically, the term implies that only material things are real.

a. Therefore, emotions, such as love, are no more than chemistry. And it suggests that it is only genes and environment that determine our actions, and free will plays no role. And, of course, God and religious beliefs are nonsense.

2. The Left’s concept of materialism broadens into the overarching desire to see every individual equal in every way. The Left is less interested in creating wealth than in distributing it, and has been far more interested in fighting material inequality than tyranny, which is why Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc., tend to have the support of Leftists around the world.

a. End social and economic inequality and one will have Utopia! Sadly, attempts toward creation of utopia in this world lead to dystopia. Which leads to this comparison: conservatives marvel at how good America is, Leftists want to ‘transform’ it.
Prager, ”Still The Best Hope”




3. The Left’s insistence on equality in every endeavor continues! Comedian Adam Corolla tells this story of the need for ‘equality.' During his appearance on ‘Dancing With The Stars’: he and some other contestants were discussing who would win, and he said, ‘Obviously, Kristi Yamaguchi, because she is a trained Olympic athlete. But we have one thing in our favor: she’s Japanese…and they have a terrible work ethic!” The others laughed….then accused him of being racist. Of course, the joke was based on the fact that Japanese are known to have a terrific work ethic, and that’s why the others laughed.

a. But Corolla makes the point that even pointing out the positive of trait of the Japanese confronts Liberal political correctness: one cannot comment on any difference…even positive ones.

b. Political correctness: There can be no differences of any kind admitted! Equality in every dimension!





4. Care to guess why the Left will never sign on to American Exceptionalism? Right….it acknowledges that there are differences. And, of course, nationalism is a no-no!

5. On another level, it explains the Left’s dislike for capitalism, a system which produces winners and losers, a painful fact that the Left would rather not see. In fact, for the left, it is mere luck that determines who the ‘rich’ turn out to be, not hard work and taking risks. After all...'You didn't build that!'




6. And, have you noticed the same treatment in at the Academy Awards, yet another example of the demand that everyone in every way be ‘equal? What happens when the rules are broken:

a. In 2010: “Rather than the politically correct, nonjudgmental phrase that has been foisted on presenters for more than two decades — "And the Oscar goes to ..." — presenters this year introduced each winner with the blunt, old-fashioned but perfectly accurate phrase "And the winner is ..."
Academy Award Presenters Revert from 'Oscar' to 'Winner' - TIME

b. “Rival awards shows, which, like the Oscars, have for years forbidden the "winner" phrasing, were quick to notice the change. "I was surprised to hear that. It was kind of jolting," says John Leverence, a senior vice president of the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, which gives out TV's Emmy awards. The rationale for the "award goes to ..." format is twofold: it plugs the award continuously, and it doesn't make losers feel any worse than they already do.” Ibid.



Of course.....the Left's obsession for 'equality' seems to come to a grinding halt at taxation...which they demand be 'progressive'......

Do you think you could possibly fit any more stereotypes into a single post?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're full of shit PoliticalChic. Just sayin'......

I am never so pleased as when I am able to inspire one like you to carefully analyze, mull over, and apply every bit of insight that they have available to them, to posts such as the OP, with which you so vehemently disagree!!

....and pen the type of pithy rebuttal that you have come up with!

Bravo!


But....now, you must be exhausted!

That post of yours must represent a week....nay, a month's cerebral capacity for you!!


I commend you for giving your all, 100%!!



I always give 100% unless I’m donating blood.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The left loves equality because equality and freedom cannot exist together.

Hmmmm....

I guess the Declaration of Independence was wrong then,

when it said that All men were created Equal, and All were endowed with the inalienable right of Liberty.


...the two can't exist together?

You remain the least intelligent poster on USMB (although Windbag mounted a spirited challenge to your title last week, lol)

 

[Clementine]

The left isn't really interested in true equality, where we all have the same opportunity to do something with our lives. They want equal outcomes, regardless of effort on the part of each individual.

Even if they took all the money right now and divided it up equally, within a short time, people would be back where they started. Some would foolishly spend all their money while others would continue to invest and create more wealth. It's all about the decisions people make. The level of intelligence, ambition and dedication all play a huge role.

Funny that the left cannot figure out why that guy who was a nerd in high school and spent all his time studying and staying on the honor roll is now wealthy, while the kid who slid by with Ds, eventually quit school and got arrested for stealing a car isn't doing too hot right now. They think they can take people from one extreme to the other and make them exactly equal in the way they live their lives and they think redistributing money is the answer. It's not true equalizing. It's punishing the nerd to benefit the thief.

Never mind that a host of personal decisions on the part of individuals is what determined their standard of living. Liberals think they have the power to make people the same.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Every Leftist is, essentially, a Marxist…even though most eschew the title since the fall of the Soviet Union. Even so, Left-wing ideas are predicated on Marx’s materialist view. Philosophically, the term implies that only material things are real.

a. Therefore, emotions, such as love, are no more than chemistry. And it suggests that it is only genes and environment that determine our actions, and free will plays no role. And, of course, God and religious beliefs are nonsense.

2. The Left’s concept of materialism broadens into the overarching desire to see every individual equal in every way. The Left is less interested in creating wealth than in distributing it, and has been far more interested in fighting material inequality than tyranny, which is why Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc., tend to have the support of Leftists around the world.

a. End social and economic inequality and one will have Utopia! Sadly, attempts toward creation of utopia in this world lead to dystopia. Which leads to this comparison: conservatives marvel at how good America is, Leftists want to ‘transform’ it.
Prager, ”Still The Best Hope”




3. The Left’s insistence on equality in every endeavor continues! Comedian Adam Corolla tells this story of the need for ‘equality.' During his appearance on ‘Dancing With The Stars’: he and some other contestants were discussing who would win, and he said, ‘Obviously, Kristi Yamaguchi, because she is a trained Olympic athlete. But we have one thing in our favor: she’s Japanese…and they have a terrible work ethic!” The others laughed….then accused him of being racist. Of course, the joke was based on the fact that Japanese are known to have a terrific work ethic, and that’s why the others laughed.

a. But Corolla makes the point that even pointing out the positive of trait of the Japanese confronts Liberal political correctness: one cannot comment on any difference…even positive ones.

b. Political correctness: There can be no differences of any kind admitted! Equality in every dimension!





4. Care to guess why the Left will never sign on to American Exceptionalism? Right….it acknowledges that there are differences. And, of course, nationalism is a no-no!

5. On another level, it explains the Left’s dislike for capitalism, a system which produces winners and losers, a painful fact that the Left would rather not see. In fact, for the left, it is mere luck that determines who the ‘rich’ turn out to be, not hard work and taking risks. After all...'You didn't build that!'




6. And, have you noticed the same treatment in at the Academy Awards, yet another example of the demand that everyone in every way be ‘equal? What happens when the rules are broken:

a. In 2010: “Rather than the politically correct, nonjudgmental phrase that has been foisted on presenters for more than two decades — "And the Oscar goes to ..." — presenters this year introduced each winner with the blunt, old-fashioned but perfectly accurate phrase "And the winner is ..."
Academy Award Presenters Revert from 'Oscar' to 'Winner' - TIME

b. “Rival awards shows, which, like the Oscars, have for years forbidden the "winner" phrasing, were quick to notice the change. "I was surprised to hear that. It was kind of jolting," says John Leverence, a senior vice president of the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, which gives out TV's Emmy awards. The rationale for the "award goes to ..." format is twofold: it plugs the award continuously, and it doesn't make losers feel any worse than they already do.” Ibid.



Of course.....the Left's obsession for 'equality' seems to come to a grinding halt at taxation...which they demand be 'progressive'......

Do you think you could possibly fit any more stereotypes into a single post?

Well, picking up where you left off, if a stereotype is something 'conforming to a fixed or general pattern' you don't seem ready to deny the stereotype of the left identified in the OP.


Try, if you can.


Now...if you would like to define stereotypes as a pejorative description.....

...well, then....guilty as charged.

 

[G.T.]

ayn rand believed emotions were no more than chemistry

 

[LeftofLeft]

The left loves equality because equality and freedom cannot exist together.

Hmmmm....

I guess the Declaration of Independence was wrong then,

when it said that All men were created Equal, and All were endowed with the inalienable right of Liberty.


...the two can't exist together?

You remain the least intelligent poster on USMB (although Windbag mounted a spirited challenge to your title last week, lol)

Where does the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, or Constitution guarantee income equality?

 

[bullwinkle]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if in our youth we all had to spend one year in the shoes of whomever we understood the least. Sort of like the Swiss youths who have to spend one year (or two) after high school in the army. I am thinking of the book called, I think.."Nickles and Dimes" by a woman who lived on minimum wage for one year, or the experience of the author of "Black Like Me" who lived as a black man for one year back in the 50s

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if in our youth we all had to spend one year in the shoes of whomever we understood the least. Sort of like the Swiss youths who have to spend one year (or two) after high school in the army. I am thinking of the book called, I think.."Nickles and Dimes" by a woman who lived on minimum wage for one year, or the experience of the author of "Black Like Me" who lived as a black man for one year back in the 50s

I'm familiar with "Nickles and Dimes" by moan of arc.

You might consider reading about success rather than whiners and victims.

Well, then....I have just the book for you:

1. For a real-world perspective on the American ethic, find the Adam Shepard book, “Scratch Beginnings, in which the author recounts his own social experiment, at age 24, starting out at the lowest rung of the economic ladder. The question: could he conquer poverty in one year at his best efforts?

2. He left his home with nothing but a tarp, sleeping bag, an empty gym bag, the clothes on his back, and $25. The went to Charleston, South Carolina…a city where he had never been before, and where he knew nobody. He didn’t use his college education as a resume, nor any family or other contacts.

3. The first night he finds the Crisis Ministries homeless shelter, and, next morning, begins working odd jobs. Within a few weeks, he gets a regular job with a moving company. He moonlights on weekends to make extra money.

4. He makes friends and contacts, and these help him to find jobs and housing…Within five months, he gets a raise from the moving company to $10/ hour. And another, to $11/hour in less than nine months.

5. Progress was retarded by breaking his foot on the job, yet by three months he was able to move out of the homeless shelter and rent a room in a large house in an upscale part of town. (It was owned by a friend he met while working a second job on weekends.) Then, just a month later, he moved into a two-bedroom duplex with the cousin of one of his co-workers. It was a bit rundown, so the two of them spent a week-end making it like new. (His share was $325 because he took the master bedroom.)

6. After just ten months he was living in his own furnished apartment, with his own car, and he had $5,300 in savings.

a. The book also tells of other low-income people he met, and how they, also, would like a safety net second to their own work,

"Scratch Beginnings: Me, $25, and the Search for the American Dream" [Paperback]
Adam W. Shepard (Author)




Or....you can continue to believe 'You didn't built that.'

 

[Obamanation]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if in our youth we all had to spend one year in the shoes of whomever we understood the least. Sort of like the Swiss youths who have to spend one year (or two) after high school in the army. I am thinking of the book called, I think.."Nickles and Dimes" by a woman who lived on minimum wage for one year, or the experience of the author of "Black Like Me" who lived as a black man for one year back in the 50s

I'm familiar with "Nickles and Dimes" by moan of arc.

You might consider reading about success rather than whiners and victims.

Well, then....I have just the book for you:

1. For a real-world perspective on the American ethic, find the Alan Shepard book, “Scratch Beginnings, in which the author recounts his own social experiment, at age 24, starting out at the lowest rung of the economic ladder. The question: could he conquer poverty in one year at his best efforts?

2. He left his home with nothing but a tarp, sleeping bag, an empty gym bag, the clothes on his back, and $25. The went to Charleston, South Carolina…a city where he had never been before, and where he knew nobody. He didn’t use his college education as a resume, nor any family or other contacts.

3. The first night he finds the Crisis Ministries homeless shelter, and, next morning, begins working odd jobs. Within a few weeks, he gets a regular job with a moving company. He moonlights on weekends to make extra money.

4. He makes friends and contacts, and these help him to find jobs and housing…Within five months, he gets a raise from the moving company to $10/ hour. And another, to $11/hour in less than nine months.

5. Progress was retarded by breaking his foot on the job, yet by three months he was able to move out of the homeless shelter and rent a room in a large house in an upscale part of town. (It was owned by a friend he met while working a second job on weekends.) Then, just a month later, he moved into a two-bedroom duplex with the cousin of one of his co-workers. It was a bit rundown, so the two of them spent a week-end making it like new. (His share was $325 because he took the master bedroom.)

6. After just ten months he was living in his own furnished apartment, with his own car, and he had $5,300 in savings.

a. The book also tells of other low-income people he met, and how they, also, would like a safety net second to their own work,

"Scratch Beginnings: Me, $25, and the Search for the American Dream" [Paperback]
Adam W. Shepard (Author)




Or....you can continue to believe 'You didn't built that.'

Learning to try to emulate winners would not be politically correct.

 

[OriginalShroom]

The left loves equality because equality and freedom cannot exist together.

Hmmmm....

I guess the Declaration of Independence was wrong then,

when it said that All men were created Equal, and All were endowed with the inalienable right of Liberty.


...the two can't exist together?

You remain the least intelligent poster on USMB (although Windbag mounted a spirited challenge to your title last week, lol)

Being created equal does not mean that everyone has an equal outcome.. Which is the goal of Liberals everywhere.

And we know Liberals don't like Liberty or else they wouldn't work so hard to limit the liberty of so many people.

 

[Katzndogz]

Sorry to break the bad news but freedom and equality are mutually exclusive. If you have freedom you may succeed or fail on your own terms. You will not be the equal of any other success or failure. Equality is the opposite. It is imposed to make success the equal of failure. No one suceeds no one fails they are equal. Equality of outcome must necessarily remove freedom.

 

[editec]

1. Every Leftist is, essentially, a Marxist…even though most eschew the title since the fall of the Soviet Union. Even so, Left-wing ideas are predicated on Marx’s materialist view. Philosophically, the term implies that only material things are real.

a. Therefore, emotions, such as love, are no more than chemistry. And it suggests that it is only genes and environment that determine our actions, and free will plays no role. And, of course, God and religious beliefs are nonsense.

2. The Left’s concept of materialism broadens into the overarching desire to see every individual equal in every way. The Left is less interested in creating wealth than in distributing it, and has been far more interested in fighting material inequality than tyranny, which is why Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc., tend to have the support of Leftists around the world.

a. End social and economic inequality and one will have Utopia! Sadly, attempts toward creation of utopia in this world lead to dystopia. Which leads to this comparison: conservatives marvel at how good America is, Leftists want to ‘transform’ it.
Prager, ”Still The Best Hope”




3. The Left’s insistence on equality in every endeavor continues! Comedian Adam Corolla tells this story of the need for ‘equality.' During his appearance on ‘Dancing With The Stars’: he and some other contestants were discussing who would win, and he said, ‘Obviously, Kristi Yamaguchi, because she is a trained Olympic athlete. But we have one thing in our favor: she’s Japanese…and they have a terrible work ethic!” The others laughed….then accused him of being racist. Of course, the joke was based on the fact that Japanese are known to have a terrific work ethic, and that’s why the others laughed.

a. But Corolla makes the point that even pointing out the positive of trait of the Japanese confronts Liberal political correctness: one cannot comment on any difference…even positive ones.

b. Political correctness: There can be no differences of any kind admitted! Equality in every dimension!





4. Care to guess why the Left will never sign on to American Exceptionalism? Right….it acknowledges that there are differences. And, of course, nationalism is a no-no!

5. On another level, it explains the Left’s dislike for capitalism, a system which produces winners and losers, a painful fact that the Left would rather not see. In fact, for the left, it is mere luck that determines who the ‘rich’ turn out to be, not hard work and taking risks. After all...'You didn't build that!'




6. And, have you noticed the same treatment in at the Academy Awards, yet another example of the demand that everyone in every way be ‘equal? What happens when the rules are broken:

a. In 2010: “Rather than the politically correct, nonjudgmental phrase that has been foisted on presenters for more than two decades — "And the Oscar goes to ..." — presenters this year introduced each winner with the blunt, old-fashioned but perfectly accurate phrase "And the winner is ..."
Academy Award Presenters Revert from 'Oscar' to 'Winner' - TIME

b. “Rival awards shows, which, like the Oscars, have for years forbidden the "winner" phrasing, were quick to notice the change. "I was surprised to hear that. It was kind of jolting," says John Leverence, a senior vice president of the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, which gives out TV's Emmy awards. The rationale for the "award goes to ..." format is twofold: it plugs the award continuously, and it doesn't make losers feel any worse than they already do.” Ibid.



Of course.....the Left's obsession for 'equality' seems to come to a grinding halt at taxation...which they demand be 'progressive'......

Death to all strawman commies!

Give em hell, PC.

 

[OKTexas]

1. Every Leftist is, essentially, a Marxist…even though most eschew the title since the fall of the Soviet Union. Even so, Left-wing ideas are predicated on Marx’s materialist view. Philosophically, the term implies that only material things are real.

a. Therefore, emotions, such as love, are no more than chemistry. And it suggests that it is only genes and environment that determine our actions, and free will plays no role. And, of course, God and religious beliefs are nonsense.

2. The Left’s concept of materialism broadens into the overarching desire to see every individual equal in every way. The Left is less interested in creating wealth than in distributing it, and has been far more interested in fighting material inequality than tyranny, which is why Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc., tend to have the support of Leftists around the world.

a. End social and economic inequality and one will have Utopia! Sadly, attempts toward creation of utopia in this world lead to dystopia. Which leads to this comparison: conservatives marvel at how good America is, Leftists want to ‘transform’ it.
Prager, ”Still The Best Hope”




3. The Left’s insistence on equality in every endeavor continues! Comedian Adam Corolla tells this story of the need for ‘equality.' During his appearance on ‘Dancing With The Stars’: he and some other contestants were discussing who would win, and he said, ‘Obviously, Kristi Yamaguchi, because she is a trained Olympic athlete. But we have one thing in our favor: she’s Japanese…and they have a terrible work ethic!” The others laughed….then accused him of being racist. Of course, the joke was based on the fact that Japanese are known to have a terrific work ethic, and that’s why the others laughed.

a. But Corolla makes the point that even pointing out the positive of trait of the Japanese confronts Liberal political correctness: one cannot comment on any difference…even positive ones.

b. Political correctness: There can be no differences of any kind admitted! Equality in every dimension!





4. Care to guess why the Left will never sign on to American Exceptionalism? Right….it acknowledges that there are differences. And, of course, nationalism is a no-no!

5. On another level, it explains the Left’s dislike for capitalism, a system which produces winners and losers, a painful fact that the Left would rather not see. In fact, for the left, it is mere luck that determines who the ‘rich’ turn out to be, not hard work and taking risks. After all...'You didn't build that!'




6. And, have you noticed the same treatment in at the Academy Awards, yet another example of the demand that everyone in every way be ‘equal? What happens when the rules are broken:

a. In 2010: “Rather than the politically correct, nonjudgmental phrase that has been foisted on presenters for more than two decades — "And the Oscar goes to ..." — presenters this year introduced each winner with the blunt, old-fashioned but perfectly accurate phrase "And the winner is ..."
Academy Award Presenters Revert from 'Oscar' to 'Winner' - TIME

b. “Rival awards shows, which, like the Oscars, have for years forbidden the "winner" phrasing, were quick to notice the change. "I was surprised to hear that. It was kind of jolting," says John Leverence, a senior vice president of the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, which gives out TV's Emmy awards. The rationale for the "award goes to ..." format is twofold: it plugs the award continuously, and it doesn't make losers feel any worse than they already do.” Ibid.



Of course.....the Left's obsession for 'equality' seems to come to a grinding halt at taxation...which they demand be 'progressive'......

Do you think you could possibly fit any more stereotypes into a single post?

Stereotypes exist for a reason, they contain truth.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The left loves equality because equality and freedom cannot exist together.

Hmmmm....

I guess the Declaration of Independence was wrong then,

when it said that All men were created Equal, and All were endowed with the inalienable right of Liberty.


...the two can't exist together?

You remain the least intelligent poster on USMB (although Windbag mounted a spirited challenge to your title last week, lol)

While you regularly prove to be dumber than a soup sandwich, your suggestion that the Founders intended everyone to be equal in any fashion beyond the law shows an ability to resist education equal to the job Scotchgard does on carpets.




The following is from Glenn Greenwald's “With Liberty and Justice for Some; How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful.”

And Greenwald is a far Left Lib....


He writes:

1. The central principle of America’s founding was that the rule of law would be the prime equalizing force; the founders considered vast inequality in every other realm to be inevitable and even desirable…. A small number would of individuals would be naturally endowed with unique and extraordinary talents while most people, by definition, would be ordinary. So the American concept of liberty would be premised on the inevitability of outcome inequality- success of some, failure of others.

a. Law was the one exception; no inequality was tolerable. It was the sine qua non ensuring fairness.



2. What the founders feared most was that a centralized federal government would erode liberty, forcibly override local rule, obliterate self-governance, and transgress every limit. The Constitution was the attempt to prevent that.




3. None of the founders believed in equality as a general proposition. The opposite is true: they considered inequality on every level, other than law, to be the natural, inevitable, and just state of affairs. Even Jefferson, one of the most egalitarian of the founders, held that there was “a natural aristocracy” among men, based on “virtue and talents.” This was not only natural, but desirable: “The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and the government of society."

a. Adams the same. “It already appears, that there must be in every society of men superiors an inferiors, because God has laid in the constitution and course of nature the foundations of the distinction.”