Citizens’ Equality in the United States Essay

As time goes on, it becomes increasingly clear for more and more Americans that there is something definitely wrong about the functioning of the country’s governmental institutions.

This reason for this is simple – quite contrary to the official agenda of the advocates of social egalitarianism and political correctness, which during the course of recent decades have been in charge of designing America’s domestic policies, the gap between the country’s rich and poor has been widening in an exponential progression to the flow of time (Miringoff & Miringoff 152). Yet, there are good reasons to believe that this is happening not due to the policy-makers’ lack of enthusiasm in promoting the concept of a welfare state.

Quite on the opposite – this is taking place because the currently deployed approaches to ensuring a social fairness within the society are based upon utterly unscientific assumption of citizens’ equality, regardless of what happened to be the specifics of their genetically predetermined rate of Intellectual Quotidian (IQ). In my paper, I will aim to explore the validity of this suggestion at length.

One of the main argumentations, as to what causes a growing number of Americans to suffer from poverty, deployed by neo-Marxian social scientists, is the assumption that the country’s GNP continues to be unequally distributed among citizens (Rawls 245).

In its turn, this causes many left-wing politicians to suggest that, in order for the rate of inequality within the American society to be kept under control, the government should consider hiring more bureaucrats, whose job would be concerned with ensuring a fair distribution of the national wealth among ‘underprivileged’ Americans.

Some of these politicians go as far as proposing the institutialization of the so-called ‘Peace Department’, the representatives of which would be endowed with the executive powers to exercise an administrative control over the functioning of the country’s free-market economy – all for the sake of advancing the cause of ‘equality’ (Cronkite par. 4).

Nevertheless, even though that the equality-obsessed social scientists prove themselves thoroughly insightful, once the distribution of wealth is being concerned, they appear to lack the basic understanding of what causes the GNP to be generated, in the first place, and what accounts for the discursive aspects of the wealth’s generation in a post-industrial era.

This partially explains these people’s unawareness of the fact that, as of today, the value of ‘human capital’ continues to increase; whereas, the value of ‘physical capital’ is steadily declining (Milanovic 7). And, it is specifically the varying measure of people’s endowment with the ability to operate with utterly abstract categories (intellect), which defines the extent of their objective value, as ‘human resources’.

The reason for this is apparent – the more a particular individual is being capable of relying on its intellect, while facing life-challenges, the more he or she is capable of acting as the agent of a technological progress. And, the more a particular country’s economy is being technologically-intense, the less it requires natural resources to sustain its continual functioning. Nowadays, people’s intellect has assumed the subtleties of a ‘physical capital’, in the literal sense of this word.

Therefore, contrary to what the hawks of ‘equality’ suggest, there is nothing unnatural about the fact that; whereas, software designers are being commonly paid as much as $500 per hour, the country’s manual laborers (whose number is growing, due to the ‘multiculturalism’ policy) rarely receive more than $10 for an hour of their work.

The objective principles of the free-market economy functioning’ determine such a state of affairs – not the money-greedy capitalists. In its turn, this explains the continual growth of the so-called ‘red market’, where people sell their bodily organs for money (Carney 32). Apparently, being unable to sell their intellect, impoverished people from the Third world countries are left with no choice but to sell the parts of their bodies – in full accordance with the Darwinian laws (Dillard 6).

Yet, in the light of recent discoveries in the fields of biology and genetics, these people’s continual poverty (and consequently, their willingness to sell their organs) cannot be solely explained by the fact that they have been denied an opportunity to receive a good education. Rather, this situation reflects the fact that, due to the specifics of these people’s genetic makeup, the rate of their IQ is doomed to remain very low – hence, making it impossible for them to attain a social prominence.

Given the fact that, due to the institutionalization of the ‘celebration of diversity’ policy in this country, America is now being flooded with legal and illegal immigrants from the Third World, known for their unsurpassed talent in baby-making, there is nothing utterly surprising about the fact that, as time goes on, the educational and living standards in this country continue to deteriorate rapidly. In its turn, this contributes even more to the problem of ‘inequality’.

However, instead of admitting the scientifically proven fact that the very laws of biological evolution (which apply to the representatives of Homo Sapiens species, as much as they apply to plants and animals) expose the fallaciousness of the assumption of people’s de facto equality, the governmental officials prefer to remain in the state of an intellectual denial, in this respect. Consequently, this causes them to address the problem of inequality extensively.

That is, instead of revealing the inequality’s objectively predetermined roots, they simply strive to conceal its true causes by the mean of legislating a number of ‘equality promoting’ policies (such as the ‘affirmative action’) and subjecting citizens to the censorship of political correctness (Valenzuela par. 4).

Moreover, in order to be able to finance the implementation of their ‘equality facilitating’ policies, these politicians meddle with the functioning of America’s free-market economy, while trying to turn the U.S. into an essentially Socialist state. Yet, as it was implied by Gladwell, the idea that the capitalist economy can be simultaneously ‘free’ and ‘supervised/planned’ is conceptually wrong, because it does not take into account the Heisenberg’s ‘uncertainty principle’, which defines the very essence of the universe’s workings (164).

As a result, the economy’s functioning continues to become ever more inefficient, which negatively affects the process of the GNP’s generation – hence, reducing the amount of ‘wealth’ that is supposed to be equally shared among ‘underprivileged’ citizens and establishing objective prerequisites for them to continue suffering from poverty.

I believe that the provided line of argumentation is being fully consistent with the paper’s initial paper. Apparently, in order for American policy-makers to be able to set this country on the path of becoming socially fair, they would have to reassess the validity of the ideology-driven paradigm of people’s ‘equality’. The reason for this is simple – it would make possible for politicians to adopt a scientific approach towards increasing the extent of ordinary citizens’ economic well-being.

Works Cited

Carney, Scott. The Red Market: On the Trail of the World’s Organ Brokers, Bone Thieves, Blood Farmers, and Child Traffickers. New York: HarperCollins, 2011. Print.

Cronkite, Walter. A Department Of Peace? Web.

Dillard, Annie. Pilgrim at Tinker Creek. New York: Buccaneer Books, 1974. Print.

Gladwell, Malcolm, 2002, Blowing Up. Web.

Milanovic, Branco, 2011, More or Less. PDF file. Web.

Miringoff, Marc and M. Miringoff. The Social Health of the Nation: How America Is Really Doing. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Print.

Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Print.

Valenzuela, Luisa. The Censors. Web.