The Myth That All Men Are Created Equal

One of the most quoted passages from the United States Declaration of Independence is "all men are created equal," and despite the best of intentions, it remains a phrase whose meaning is misunderstood. Logically it simply cannot be true that all humans are equal as measured by socio-techno-economic achievement, otherwise all countries and ethnic groups would be on equal footing by now.

The Library of Congress offers a snippet into the interpretation issue:

The concept that all men are created equal was a key to European Enlightenment philosophy. But the interpretation of "all men" has hovered over the Declaration of Independence since its creation. Although most people have interpreted "all men" to mean humanity, others have argued that Jefferson and the other authors of the Declaration meant to exclude women and children. Within the context of the times it is clear that "all men" was a euphemism for "humanity," and thus those people, such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King, who used the Declaration of Independence to demand equality for African Americans and women seized the historical as well as the moral high ground.

What is missing from the interpretation is the fact that they rejected the monarchy, and the declaration goes on to read that "...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...," or that government is not the domain of kings and queens. Thus, the logical argument is that royalty had no place in society because "all men are created equal." Although one can understand why the phrase was eventually used to address racial inequalities, slavery was very much alive in 1776, and the founders were referring to Anglo-Saxons, maybe Western Europeans. Had they anticipated the events of 1865, they wouldn't have left anything to the imagination.

On the "created equal" idea, there's an utterly fascinating story coming out of Virginia, and is the latest example of attempting to force equality upon society when the organic process fails. The article is titled "Democrats Seek To Outlaw Suburban, Single-Family House Zoning, Calling It Racist And Bad For The Environment."

– Virginia House Del. Ibraheem Samirah introduced a bill that would override local zoning officials to permit multi-family housing in every neighborhood, changing the character of quiet suburbs.
– Oregon passed a similar bill, following moves by cities such as Minneapolis; Austin, Texas; and Seattle.
– Proponents say urban lifestyles are better for the environment and that suburbs are bastions of racial segregation.

Ignoring the idiocy of the proposal for the time being, the broader tactic and misplaced logic is becoming far too pervasive, as the quest for elusive equality continues unabated, while conveniently ignoring the underlying issues.

It always starts with the usual complaint that certain groups relentlessly exploited other groups, and that amends must be forthcoming, but that position runs counter to the premise that "all men are created equal," because long lasting defeat and inability to build and succeed would have never occurred if everyone was intellectually equal. To the point, slavery was not abolished by black people because they were powerless to do so, as outlined in "Slavery: You’re Free Thanks To White People."

We shall be reminded that as inconvenient as facts may be, they are never hate speech—whatever hate speech is—or some other imaginary social disease in violation of safe spaces and silly sensibilities and resorting to name calling in the absence of valid arguments, further validates the initial narrative.

But one must ask if anybody stopped to ask why suburbs are mostly inhabited by middle- and upper-class white people? They certainly did not seek refuge, welfare or economic opportunity in Somalia or anywhere outside of Western Civilization. Did Steve Jobs prevent anyone from acquiring knowledge and building something in their garages? Did Isaac Newton impede anyone on Earth from being curious about gravity? Why didn't some witch doctor in Africa fly a kite and beat Benjamin Franklin to it?

There's a boisterous segment of society that is enjoying the benefits of an economic system built by Western Civilization, not their ancestors, and then conspiring to change the current social infrastructure to accommodate their cultures and shortcomings with a thoughtless, self-serving push, while ignoring their broad lack of success as a group. The concept is rather simple and is described as wanting a piece of the somebody else's pie because they can't bake. In Virginia, they want to bring their tents to somebody else's front yards, although the proponents are extraordinarily ignorant about the economic fallout.

The main problem is that they continually seek equal outcomes when they aren't able to equally process the inputs as proven by history, regardless of all the aid that they receive. Proposals like the one in Virginia are not entirely unexpected but are adding fuel to a fire that is already burning and is well on its way to being increasingly aggressive, unmistakable, and irreversible.

Here's the core question: Why would anyone think that transforming Western Civilization to accommodate outsiders would be a good idea when the outsiders have failed to build successful civilizations of their own? Either embrace logic and prosper or succumb to emotion and wither.