|
"No, it's not. No matter how legally equal you are, it does you no good at all if you're not accepted as an equal by society."
Actually it is. The phrase and idea obliquely referenced in the original question is from a document that was instrumental in the formation of the USA. The idea is core to much of the country's concept. It is a guideline for government, nothing more.
In essence, you're refutation is weakest because it is comparing apples to oranges. The actual idea of "legally equal" is wildly different from "socially equal", which is what you are suggesting. The reason being that the govt does not dictate societ, it merely dictates what rules interaction within society are governed by, and only to a certain point. No govt can force me or you to like or dislike anyone, nor can it force me or you to treat them fairly on an individual level. It can, however, put in place controls to see to it that no one is unfairly discriminated against for intangibles beyond their control.
I care not one whit if I am not your social equal. You live in different circumstances than I. I may not care to be in your circles any more than you care to be in mine. We may receive differing service at restaurants or wherever. It affects me not one bit. I do care that I am your legal equal. I do care that we will receive equal basic treatment by govt services. We will both be read our rights, given access to counsel, each have an equal vote in national elections, etc. That I care about.
"Equal under the law" is equality via similar starting point and baseline. Where you go from there is up to you and your ability. "Socially equal" is equality via limitation. Everyone must be treated precisely the same regardless of who they are and what they've accomplished. The former promotes merit. The latter promotes an entitlement mindset.
|