What if I suggested to you that the price may well be your rights and freedoms as an American citizen? That’s correct, the freedom and liberty clearly defined for you under the Constitution may be the trade-off for fairness and equality as this administration defines it. You see, if I want to take something from you and stay within legal bounds, I must offer you something in exchange which appears to be of equal or greater value. No doubt, people place a value on fairness; especially when the system appears to be unfair in their eyes. They also value equality with the idea that such regard gains them an equal piece of the pie. Really, well no wonder it is such an easy proposition to sell when one controls the bully pulpit of the President of the United States.
Let us be realistic here. If Obama is president of the United States, then I want my turn at being president. Is that not only fair but also equitable? To take it a step further, in the interest of fairness and equitability, you should have your turn, and him, and her…everybody should get their turn just like children on the playground waiting in line for the sliding-board. Everybody gets their turn…it’s only fair, and it is equitable. It is also unrealistic as many folks would die awaiting their turn at the seat thus it is not practical that such fairness and equitability exist in terms of us all gaining the presidency.
But what is fair and equitable in that regard then? It is the fact that the Constitution offers all of us the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have those liberties and part of that process for some may be to seek high office. Now, under those rights, there is no guarantee of outcome. Just because you run for the office does not mean that you will get it. But in terms of fairness and equitability, you do have the opportunity should you elect to exercise it.
What we find in this simple example is the fact that “fairness” and “equitability” are not legislated directly. They are “bi-products” of other actions. Our Founding Fathers designed the Constitution in such a manner as to offer the citizens of this country the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness knowing that those items would breed fairness and equality over time. Would some win more than others? Yes. Would some lose every time? Yes. As I stated earlier, the outcome is never guarantee, only the opportunity.
So what is the big deal, you might ask? So what if the president is talking fairness and equality, who is he hurting? The answer to that question is as clear as the nose on your face. He is potentially hurting you for eventually that general reference to fairness and equality begins to take shape in the form of some categorical requirement, which is supposed to satisfy those issues. Fairness and equality become the argument as to why those considered “wealthy” should pay a greater share of taxes yet it never addresses why those at the other end of the spectrum pay no taxes at all. These same people still receive refunds, refunds paid with other peoples’ money. In other words, it is only fair that someone below a defined poverty line in terms of income pay absolutely no taxes at all. It is only equitable, right?
If we take this approach to the level of absurd, then those capable of earning an above-average living, under the law, should not be allowed to do so because it is neither fair nor equitable. In order to comply with those standards, anyone making more than anyone else must forfeit the difference to the national treasury and that money will then be fairly and equitably distributed to others in the population. Is that, in effect, what happens when you pay taxes? To a degree, it most certainly is because our federal government has immersed itself so deeply into the social aspects of our society and defined itself as the “caretaker” for all mainly driven by the desire of sitting elected officials to tempt particular voting groups. What could be more fair and equitable?
Those on the “Pro-Life” side of the issue in terms of abortion would suggest that we have already traded away a portion of “rights” due our yet “unborn” citizens. With the advent of “Roe vs. Wade”, abortion was legalized on the back of the argument of a “woman’s right to choice”. Consequently, the unborn fetus had to be defined as something less than a living organism otherwise what of its right to “life” under the Constitution. Over time, that rational has taken the defining life further and further out in the pregnancy cycle resulting in a common practice of “partial-birth” abortion in our society today. Like it or not, we have traded away a right relative to life for something defined on the back of “fairness and equality”.
What is next? Is it the 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms? Apparently, in the interest of gun control, that side of the aisle could argue that it is unfair that one man owns a gun and the other does not because the access to the gun is limited by the available money to buy it. If one man cannot afford it, then why should another be allowed to purchase one even if he has the necessary money? Is that not the equitable solution to the problem; just get rid of the guns? There are those out there who would consider such a position as a rational argument and as one that would be the solution to all violence and crime in our nation leaving it to a utopian future.
It is not unusual today to hear the argument put forth that conservative talk radio should be shut down or totally balanced with liberal talk shows in the interest of fairness and equality. If one looks at why any of these shows exists in our media today, it is not difficult to figure out that it is driven by advertising. The shows carry enough listeners to attract advertisers who are willing to sponsor the airtime in exchange for exposure of their product. There is no attempt to deprive. Apparently liberal talk radio has far more difficulty attracting and holding on to a justifiable listener base to gain the balance they cry out for in this medium. They just do not sell enough soap. What does that tell you about the mindset of the country? Yet still the argument is made that in order to satisfy “fairness and equitability”, the government should attempt to regulate it into balance.
Anytime the government must legislate or regulate to achieve “fairness and equitability”, we walk the line of endangering our own freedoms and eventually tossing the Constitution into the trash bin. It might be difficult for some to believe it, but we do have people at work in high places today who desire just such an outcome. In attempting to gain it, they will play on words and twist things into some of the most attractive and seeming harmless positions all designed to gain your support in relinquishing our freedoms as a people and enslaving ourselves to a “Big Brother” federal government bent on redistributing wealth and defining all other aspects of our life…all in the name of power over the people. That outcome will bring many things but none of them will be either “fair” or “equitable” in the end.
This nation, as designed by the Founding Fathers, has offered the opportunity for an oppressed people to come forward and achieve success but only through determination, focus, drive, and hard work. We are not guaranteed victory or success but offered up the inalienable right to pursue both. In that regard, what could be more fair or equitable?
©Copyright WBrown2013. All Rights Reserved.