Equality - A Utopian Fantasy

Yes Equality, Marriage Equality, Equality for Everybody and everybody for equality.

Etc.

Nice idea, especially if you only look at it superficially and from a feel-good perspective.

One wonders if those who give so much lip service to equality even know what it means, or what it would mean to have it universally imposed.

To Atlantic Philanthropies patron Chuck Feeney, for example, who does so much to promote the yes equality referendum, it would not mean that everyone in the world could be a billionaire like him. Nor is it certain that this is what he intends by his support for equality.

A more likely result of complete equality would be that Mr Feeney would become a relative pauper like the rest of us, which is hardly the outcome he is seeking.

Equality is a chimera, an unrealisable dream. And who really wants it anyway?

For most people it suffices in life to be able to pay the bills and enjoy moderate comforts and leisure.

Making everyone equal, or trying to, doesn’t contribute to that ideal. In fact, the desire for equality only sows envy and discord.

Being equal to Bill Gates, with all his responsibilities as well as his money, is not an attractive prospect for the vast majority of people – in spite of the almost universal fascination with his enormous wealth.

What, then, can be said of those who promise an equality that they can never deliver?

Samuel Johnson (1709 – 1784) famously said that: “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” Well, that was in the 18^th century, and perhaps it was indeed so then.

But today, far outrunning even the most false patriotism to that last refuge of the scoundrel, is the promise of equality to the masses.

And those who do so are either complete charlatans or invincibly ignorant, in as much as they either know the dire consequences of the false utopian ideology they promote, or they are unaware of those consequences.

Either way they are guilty of the fraud they are perpetrating and responsible for the outcome of their dishonesty or stupidity.

The 20^th century stands as a testament to the dangers of pretending that we can, or should, have perfect equality in this life. Rivers of blood have been spilt in its name.

Ironically, the same people who are so determined to inspire egalitarian ideals in the masses are often loud in their declamations of religion as the cause of wars. Of the religion of equality, perhaps it is true.

This is not to deny that all are due certain inalienable rights, such as the right to life and to at least the minimum conditions that will enable them to live their lives with dignity. Above all, everybody has the right to know and practice the true religion.

So all are essentially equal, but the accidental differences that result from genetic or environmental influences are infinite, so that no two people in the history of the human race were completely equal.

We differ from one another in age, appearance, wealth, strength, skills and in a huge variety of ways. This is what makes the world so interesting. Just imagine what it would be like if everyone were the same.

And what about Marriage Equality, a topic on which much ink has been spilled in the past weeks?

Marriage is currently defined as being between one man and one woman. Before that definition, everyone is equal.

But if equality means allowing some of those who reject the current definition of marriage to have their way, why not allow everyone who rejects it to have their way?

For example, there are those who want to marry animals, children or multiple partners, who will still be excluded from the new definition of marriage.

It seems that, as well as redefining marriage, those supporting the referendum want to redefine the concept of equality as well.

This is not entirely new. According to the ruling pigs of George Orwell's Animal Farm: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

Strange Priorities in Modern Ireland

What should we make of the fact that the government, the media, and several representative bodies of society are pushing for the introduction of same sex “marriage” and even making of it the number one issue of our time?

It seems utterly surreal to observe our rulers sycophantically competing with each other to be the first and greatest champion of this dubious cause.

One might be excused for thinking that the burning issue of the day would have something to do with the survival of the human race or of what remains of civilisation.

This should be especially obvious in times like these, when society seems to be close to complete meltdown – socially, economically, politically and morally. Faced with this reality the Irish government can’t think of anything better to do than to make same-sex “marriage” its top priority.

Here are some of the issues that are being de-prioritised to make way for same-sex “marriage”:

- Top military analysts believe that this year will not pass without a major increase of hostilities between Russia and the West. Already Russia is provoking the West, testing our defences. Each day brings new threats, veiled or open, from the Russian regime. Even Irish controlled airspace has been violated several times, at least twice by nuclear armed Russian bombers, which actually interfered with Irish civilian flights;

- A new caliphate is being established in the Middle East, terrorising the world with its extreme level of violence. ISIS has opened up several cells throughout Europe and has carried out several attacks against Europe and the USA. Meanwhile the West is opposing it with half-hearted and ineffectual campaigns. We occasionally see reports that some militants of ISIS have been killed – even hundreds or thousands of them. But that is not going to stop a force of 200,000 fighters that is attracting hundreds of new recruits every day;

- Economists, forecasters, investors – many of them the top in their field – are foreseeing the likelihood of an economic crisis worse than that of 2008. Some of them go so far as to predict total economic collapse, pointing to the budgetary crisis in countries like Greece as an indicator of the direction in which world economy is going;

       

- Dissatisfaction with government throughout the West has never been higher. Protests and even riots in the streets over political and economic measures are becoming commonplace. Prosperous countries such as France, Germany and the USA are experiencing widespread rioting. And we can expect it to get worse too;

- Corruption at every level of government has reached critical levels;

- Hospitals, schools and other public services are in crisis;

- Even for those who don’t have time to follow world events, and for whom economic collapse and world war are remote menaces, it is no longer possible to ignore the very real danger of complete disintegration of society through escalating crime rates responded to with ever softer and more ineffectual punishments.

But the tranquil lives of our rulers must not be disturbed by such burdensome thoughts of dangers and existential threats. Issues that are less apocalyptical – if not less destructive of society – are easier to deal with, at least in the short term.

This short-term outlook will enable them to continue to bury their heads in the sand, in the certainty (or at least the hope) that the consequences of their insouciance won’t arrive until after they have departed their political office, if not this life.

So they attend to reproductive rights (meaning the right to not reproduce), adoptive rights (the rights of adults, that is) and, of course, the rights and privileges accorded on the basis of sexual orientations.

Thus they encourage the pursuit of rights without responsibility.

In this the action of the State is the opposite to that of the Church, which reminds us that rights always have corresponding duties and responsibilities. The Church teaches that sexual activity is only legitimate within marriage, which is between one man and one woman, for life, and that it must always be open to bringing new life.

Meanwhile the government is euphoric about reports that the economy could be recovering. In fairness, they might actually believe their own propaganda although, if they do, it is just another indication of the degree to which they are out of touch with reality.

Economic growth depends on population growth. There is not much of that going on, as our birth rates are below replacement level, and will continue to drop the more legislation and culture are focussed on self-gratification and relieving marriage of the responsibility for procreation.

This is a European-wide problem, and not exclusively Irish.

But, how far do we have to fall before our political elite are shaken out of their stupor of indifference and induced to turn away from their secularist, politically correct and morally bankrupt ideology?

Irish Government’s Confusion about its Raison d'Être

A complete list of the misconceptions and illusions that the Irish government entertains about its role in society would be excessively long for an article on the subject.

Of all of such misconceptions, by far the most prevalent is the idea that the government should micromanage and police every aspect of the lives of the citizens.

This idea, at least implicitly, runs through the vast majority of elected representatives as well as the non-elected permanent government in the Civil Service, quangos and other agencies of the State.

But worst of all, many people have come to accept that it is their lot to have their entire lives monitored and regulated by the government.

And a large proportion of the media, the fourth estate, who one would expect to alert society to this lurking danger, have instead become a veritable fifth column in imposing it on the citizens.

There is literally no limit to how this tendency in government manifests itself. A recent and rather extreme example is the compulsory micro chipping of dogs. If God intended dogs to have been fitted with microchips He could have done it Himself.

While it is true that stray dogs can be a nuisance, and dogs do get lost, making it compulsory to microchip them, like all such nanny-state type legislation, essentially transfers responsibility from the citizen to the State.

But while a ludicrous example like that is illustrative of how far we have deviated from the natural order, it is in the tyranny of everyday regulation of the lives of the citizens that we are being asphyxiated by an overbearing State.

And, before long, microchips in dogs will be found by government to be so useful and convenient that they will want to have them implanted in humans as well.

It is bad enough that the government thinks it has to regulate every aspect of the economy, about which its members and agents have little or no clue as to how it works, much less an ability to predict the potential outcomes of its interventions. With respect to this, suffice to recall the well known assertion of Milton Friedman:

“The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem.”

The veracity of this assertion is ever more evident the more intensive involvement by government in the day-to-day life of a people fails to produce positive results. It is as if government sets out with the object of proving Friedman’s dictum to be correct.

But State intervention in the economy is far from the only area in which government action is excessive, nor is it the worst.

Even on issues that have nothing to do with State revenue, raising taxes and controlling public expenditure, our government still seems to believe that it has the duty to control them.

This is especially serious when it involves regulating what the citizens are allowed to say or even to think.

So, for example, we have incitement to hatred legislation which effectively judges the intention behind any words uttered. One of the many problems with this kind of legislation is that any such judgement is necessarily arbitrary as there is no standard reaction, no uniform way of feeling about what people say, nor how offended any sector of society will or won’t be by a statement.

And, by the way, government ministers and others who support the statist line can be entirely disparaging and contemptuous of the citizenry without any apparent risk of prosecution.

Equality legislation and the newly announced anti-trolling legislation being proposed by Senator Lorraine Higgins are along the same lines of excessive government regulation of what are essentially moral issues – how we treat our neighbours.

It would be hypocritical in the extreme for a government that legislated to allow the killing of the most defenceless person in society, the unborn child, to expect its citizens to be nice to each other on their own initiative. Being nice and killing defenceless babies are not really all that compatible.

Instead of trusting the citizens to treat each other with respect, the State will force us to be nice.

From a moral, and even a social, perspective, sincere feelings of respect and goodwill are preferable to the legislatively induced version thereof. Or, for that matter, even sincerely held hatred is less objectionable than State enforced fake niceness.

Our government seems to be oblivious to the fundamental contradiction between, on the one hand, its delusional admiration of and subservience to the international environmentalist lobby which promotes a tribal lifestyle as the ultimate expression of human freedom, and on the other hand, its own hyper-regulation of its citizens.

Among other misconceptions about the purpose of government that are dearly held by our political leaders, we often hear, especially from Enda Kenny, about how various government initiatives will be sending a message to other governments about how Ireland has advanced, evolved or is well disposed towards them. How can anyone take seriously a political leader who thinks that legislation is to be used to send messages rather than to solve problems?

If he wants to send them a message, he should write them a postcard or an email rather than abuse the legislative process for this purpose.

Legislation can indeed send out powerful messages, and for this reason it needs to be used with great restraint, and carefully analysed with respect to its consequences before being enacted.

A large proportion of the Irish public has long since reached the conclusion that the message actually being sent to those who wield power and influence beyond our shores is that, considering how compliant our government ministers have been in enforcing the political, social and economic agendas and ideologies of various transnational bodies, they should be considered for well paid positions to some unelected office when the Irish people expel them from Government Buildings in the next election.

And then there is the illusion expressed in relation to family legislation as well as numerous other areas, that government’s role is to reflect the realities of life in Ireland today. In so far as the government has a role in relation to the realities of life, its role is to restrain the excesses and errors of these realities, and to promote and facilitate their good aspects. But that concept would be lost on our present rulers.

In fact the realities of life are well capable of continuing to exist without the need of a government or legislation to reflect them. Such foolish ideas coming from prominent people in government only serve to bring the very concept of government into disrepute, and leave to the populace with the mistaken idea that they don’t really need a government at all.

To fully appreciate how ridiculous it is to legislate to reflect the realities of life, try applying the same “principle” to every reality of life in Ireland today – for example, murder, burglaries, suicide, violence, organised crime, fraud and political corruption.

But probably the worst type of misuse of the legislative process is to use legislation to directly undermine democracy, as was the case with the Children and Family Relationships Act, which was rushed through the Oireachtas in order to influence the upcoming referendum on the redefinition of marriage.

So, if the purpose of government is not to micromanage the citizens, and not to enact legislation to send messages to the world, and furthermore not to bring legislation into line with the reality of life, nor to influence the outcome of referenda, what else is there?

What is the role of government? It is to promote and defend the common good.

While there isn’t universal agreement on what constitutes the common good, most people (at least those ordinary folks who aren’t part of the government or state apparatus) would probably agree that government control of every aspect of life to the point of choking off all basic freedoms is not in the interest of the common good.

For far too long we have outsourced all our interests and responsibilities to a government that has less interest in our welfare than we do, as well as less of a clue how to facilitate it. The decline of our civilisation is an acute consequence of this.

But the question is: why? Why do government and opposition parties alike zealously unite to usher in such profound and almost irreversible changes to society? What sense does it make?

We can only guess the answer.

Once government loses sight of its raison d’être, that is to serve and promote the common good, it must find a new motive or ideal by which it will be guided. And almost always, on abandoning its responsibility to serve the common good, that new motive, a new ideology really, will be the perpetuation of the State.

Rather than ruling benignly and essentially by consent, the State and its agents in government now prefer to rule by raw force. It looks on its subjects with disdain and suspicion.

When government is directed towards the common good it prefers strong and responsible citizens, strong families, strong communities. It doesn’t fear strong regional government.

However when the government becomes statist, its preference is for weak citizens, families and communities, because weak is easier to keep under control.

Statist rulers tend to centralise all powers in the hands of the executive. They diminish the power of local government, or rather they absorb that power into the executive of a centralised government, as is happening in Ireland today. 

One only needs to look at the plan to abolish county and urban councils. At the same time, small Garda stations are being closed, while the force is becoming ever more centralised and militarised.

And while this is going on the family is being undermined and weakened through legislation. Communities are being destroyed by crime – which the government shows little interest in, or intent of, stopping.

So much for the concept of the balance of powers, of which some of our public representatives speak a lot, but do nothing to put the concept into practice.

Delicate at the best of times, this balance of powers is being systematically demolished under our current government.

The principle of subsidiarity  is essential to the proper functioning of society. We have heard much about subsidiarity from the EU, which claimed to uphold and promote it, even while systematically suppressing it.

According to this principle, social problems should be resolved at local level, only depending on higher authority for support when, and to the degree that, the lower authority can’t resolve them.

What this means is that local and regional authorities should be able to resolve their own problems, without unnecessary interference from the State. And this doesn’t just apply to local government. Families, associations of businessmen or of workers, as well as any groups that represent local or specialised interests, should be free to resolve their own problems as far as possible.

For this to work would depend on the government having at least some degree of confidence in the people. But, ironically, they don’t reciprocate any of the unlimited trust they expect from the citizens.

We would perhaps be a happier society if the government tried to foster more of a sense of responsibility among citizens rather than reducing us to a demeaning subservience.

But to encourage a sense of responsibility may require them to acknowledge a moral law higher than that of the State. Are they likely to do that?