Ball So Hard? That Shit Cray!
Toward a More Equitable Wealth Distribution
Well over two hundred years ago now, Thomas Jefferson famously wrote, “All men are created equal.” Today, we still struggle with the essence of that historic truth.
What does it really mean that all men are created equal? We could go back many centuries to look at the nature of land ownership and how it’s dispersal has moved gradually from those who came up with the idea to the general populous. We could reflect on the ever expanding nature of civil rights protections, the extension of basic civil liberties to people of every race, creed, sex, gender, etc. We could note how we often think of meritocracy and diversity as ideals yet to be realized. But, if we conceive of societal equality as newborns entering into the world with an equal shot at success, rebellion ensues.
No parent would think it equitable to restrict the ability to pass on wealth or privilege to its offspring. In this manner, as a society, we clearly practice social Darwinism; the success and influence of each generation is transferred to the next through wealth, fame and even power. At the same time, we have long established institutions (e.g. estate taxes) to reduce our natural tendency toward social Darwinism. Ultimately, there is a balance between equality and pure social Darwinism that represents our current definition of equality. However, the current state of affairs differs significantly from our intuition of true equality, which would provide basic rights and healthy living conditions for all people. How is this possible?
First, social Darwinism is a self-reinforcing tendency that promotes social stratification. Money makes more money, and people in positions of power or fame tend to cling to their circumstances by whatever means necessary. On the other end of the spectrum, the most neglected people will exist in whatever state society has deemed acceptable. As long as we feel like situational homelessness is okay, people who want shelter will sleep on the street. As long as we feel like it’s fine for people to suffer in pain because they can’t afford medical treatment, people will suffer. Certainly there are limits to what can be sustained as acceptable, and we will always be forced to recon with the balance between that sustainability and what we deem to be minimally acceptable circumstances. Even so, is the status quo what we want that balance to be? Intuitively, we know we can do better.
Second, humans have yet to create a policy framework that successfully counter-balances our tendency toward social Darwinism. And for good reason: it’s very difficult to accomplish. Perhaps even historically impossible. It’s been said that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And because the equal distribution of power in society is and has always been inhibited by a need for efficient decision making processes, we consolidate power. Maybe that’s why some people say that democracy is the worst form of government people have ever tried, except for all the other forms of government.
Because social Darwinism is such a powerful force in modern society, and because it’s a prevailing force throughout recorded history, we need to try new things if it is a force with which we truly want to reckon. We need to experiment with stronger policies that ensure we are living our self evident truth: “All men are created equal.” Currently, we allow social Darwinism to the extent that some people have nothing, others too much. Regarding both the destitution and the extravagance we allow today, “That shit cray!”
