Social inequality?

We live in a world that many view as a dark and evil place. One week certain regimes might seize power, the next week, nations fall. Inherent in these conflicts are struggles between groups of people opposed to each others culture, religious beliefs and political ideologies.

There is equality-a strong principle upon which the United States was founded. Equality is an ambitious goal, which we strive to attain. But what exactly is meant by the term equality? It is obvious that people are not equal. There are those who are physically superior, others more so mentally. Some inherit massive wealth, while others have to labor in order to acquire their riches. These characteristics arise from nature, and being the created, we have no choice in the matter.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that “all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.” The only common characteristics inherent at birth are those provided by nature. These are our natural rights, rights that encompass life and liberty. It would then follow that a system of government be created, one that guards these rights and is itself subject to the law.

Equality is a misconception. It should properly be understood as “equality of opportunity,” a concept protected by the United States constitution. However, many academics, politicians, and other activists argue that the law does not provide social equality, and as a result favors particular groups within society.

The law is not supposed to provide social equality. Let’s consider the Islamic community. In a predominately Christian country, this particular social group is part of a minority. Clearly they are outnumbered, and it follows that these people will be misunderstood, discriminated against and even become victims of criminal acts committed by certain individuals within the majority that are not Muslim.

Ironically, the government tries to involve itself in such dilemmas, creating laws such as affirmative action that favor a particular social group in an attempt to solve the problem. This is not necessary, nor does it promote equality. The law already protects these individuals, and is not selective of whom it prosecutes and defends. The problem is social, not political.

A similar situation is the so-called “war on poverty.” Critics argue that poverty places an undue burden on the individual, and prevents one from achieving his or her potential. In an attempt to relieve their suffering, the government will often institute various social welfare programs. The chief function of theses programs is the redistribution of wealth. By increasing the taxes on the wealthy, the government allocates this revenue to those with lesser income. How is this fair? The government takes the money that an individual has earned, and gives it to someone else. Increasing taxes also reduces productivity, because it increases costs.

The reader should bear in mind that creating incentives for more business results in the creation of jobs and higher revenue. Therefore, eliminating the need for an increase in tax rates. The government knows that it cannot continue to burden the corporate elite because business will fail, so instead of creating business, the rest of the burden is placed upon the middle class. This is commonly demonstrated in socialist countries such as but not limited to Britain, Canada and Australia. Look at it this way. For a percentage of every dollar you earn, you are essentially working so that someone else can receive that money.

Private citizens are able to contribute to the poor much more effectively than government can. Hurricane Katrina was a disaster, but it was private enterprise that got there first. All this stresses the importance of the individual. We should be learning to take care of our own problems with social programs that arise from our independence, not coercion. Traditional values such as hard work, strong education, and faith are of increasing importance. We do not need someone else to tell us how to live our lives.