Equality of Unequals

All people are not equal naturally, even though formal indoctrinated equality may attempt to claim so within a "just" society. Some people are born strong, while others are born weaker relatively speaking. People differ by virtue of health, age, talent, intelligence and material means of life at their disposal. These differences my be trivial or highly important in terms of demands that are imposed upon them in everyday life.

Ironically, the notion of equality is often used for dealing with people on highly unequal terms: the same burdens are imposed on very disparate individuals who have very different abilities to deal with them. The "equal and exact" rights they require become meaningless for those who cannot exercise them because of physical or material liabilities. Thus, justice becomes very unequal in substance precisely because it is established in mere form through definition. Therefore, an inequality of equals may grow out of a society that deals with everyone as judicial equals without regard for their physical and mental conditions.

What this means is that for a truly just society, compensatory mechanisms need to be established in order to establish substantive equality. Irrespective of status, capacities, or even a willingness to contribute materially to the community, everyone must be entitled to basic means of life. These means can not be denied to anyone that is a member of the community.

The attempt to equalize unavoidable inequalities that no one has a control over, in fact, forms the point of departure for a free society. This takes an outlook that manifests itself in a sense of care, responsibility, and a decent concern for human and nonhuman beings whose suffering, plight, and difficulties can be lightened or removed by our intervention. This concept of the equality of unequals rests on emotional determinants such as a sense of sympathy, community, and a tradition that evokes a sense of solidarity. The libertarian notion of what usually passes for justice, "exact and equal," is woefully inadequate to form the foundations for the ideal of freedom. For people to freely realize their potentialities and achive fulfillment presupposes that these very potentialities are realizable because society lives by an ethic of the equality of unequals.

Anyway, there are my thoughts on the concept of justice that is required for a society based on the ideal of freedom. Any thoughts, comments, or objections?

The attempt to equalize unavoidable inequalities that no one has a control over, in fact, forms the point of departure for a free society. This takes an outlook that manifests itself in a sense of care, responsibility, and a decent concern for human and nonhuman beings whose suffering, plight, and difficulties can be lightened or removed by our intervention. This concept of the equality of unequals rests on emotional determinants such as a sense of sympathy, community, and a tradition that evokes a sense of solidarity. The libertarian notion of what usually passes for justice, "exact and equal," is woefully inadequate to form the foundations for the ideal of freedom. For people to freely realize their potentialities and achive fulfillment presupposes that these very potentialities are realizable because society lives by an ethic of the equality of unequals.

Why should people be substantively equal? In modern interdependent society, your "compensatory mechanisms" necessarily requires the subjugation of some moral subjects to become the means to others ends.

What about a person's natural potentials serves as justification for the forceful application of their means to another's ends, and to what extent does this mirror slavery?

Doesn't this just set up a different kind of elitist inequality? "Oh we feel so much sympathy for those who are naturally unable to take advantage of equal rights laws. Oh we are so charitable." This is simply the rationalization for an elite class once again granting a marginalized class their "inalienable rights". It encroaches on many of the same Entitlement arguments now used against the ultra-liberal. Would solidarity really be galvanized in the community? The people who are "more equal" than others, how are they going to change their elite status of I'm elite because I'm better than you to I'm elite because I'm better than you?

Didn't the Soviets theortically already try that?

My conceptualization has nothing to do with entitlement or elite status, but rather as a means of limiting their possiblities. As things stand now, many people are entitled to better environments and living conditions at the expense of others based on living locations. But those people are more responsible for the reasons why others are forced to live in less than desirable conditions due to pollution. By compensating the less fortunate through either health care, clean up costs, community investment, education, or through paying the community with stipends (much as Alaska pays residents for oil), a more just society can be formed.

This has to do with responsibility and justice. There is no reason that people should be marginalized without compensation by those who are better off.