Equality & Equity
I was talking to Eric on the phone this afternoon and he said my thoughts on water this weekend weren’t feasible. Or at the very least unfair. To which I agree. His point was that each house shouldn’t be rationed the same amount of water. That it wouldn’t be fair for a house of 6 to get the same amount of water as an apartment of 2.
Again . . . I wholeheartedly agree. My point was simply that it also isn’t fair that a family of 2 (us) who uses about $10 of water a month shouldn’t be punished for our conservation. When I take marine showers and Anna takes short showers . . . when we’ve installed low pressure flushing accessories to our john . . . when we don’t take baths or multiple showers in a day . . . when we combine loads when we do laundry and air dry half of our stuff . . . we shouldn’t be punished when we want to keep our lawn as green as possible while we try to sell our house. Or when we want to wash our dirty car.
My point is that there needs to be a more equitable system.
Eric makes a great point. That equality is not a suitable alternative to our water crisis. However, there is a difference between equality & equity. Something that Brian McLaren develops in his latest book Everything Must Change (review forthcoming).
EQUITY is all about fairness and justice. While EQUALITY is about sameness.
There is certainly a place for both. And this is not an attempt to discredit equality. Equality can certainly be a value when it is in regard to our humanity, rights, and opportunities. But in the context of economic systems or even sharing . . . the arbitrary nature of equality is in desperate need of it’s relational cousin . . . equity.
Equality tends to end up focused on black and white rules or concrete morals. While equity is much more contextual in nature and focuses on fairness and justice. It’s more conversational and dynamic.
So in regards to this water situation . . . I’m not advocating a Communist equality system where every one is alloted a certain concrete amount that is the same across the board. But rather a system framed by equity that is more conversational to the legitimate aims of some at conservation and the hyper-consumption actions of others at waste and excess.
I like the distinction. The government sucks at imposing equity, though, because statutory rules are black and white. Laws tend to allow loopholes and, at the same time, fail to take certain cases into account and thus end up causing unnecessary hardships.
This is also related to why government charity doesn’t work (people have a statutory claim to assistance, and thus it is too easily abused), and why government schooling seems to absurd sometimes (zero-tolerance abuses, like elementary school children being thrown in jail for slapping another kid’s butt or expelled for accidentally taking a butter knife to school). I’m sure I could think of plenty of other examples if I took the time to do so.
Laws are good for black and white cases, where a judge or a jury can consider whether or not a certain action or situation fits into one category or another. But to achieve equity requires things that the government cannot enforce. Namely, love, submission to one another, and commitment.
good points derek. especially the last sentence.
although i think the same flaws are inherent whether its individuals practicing equity with each other or the government practicing with its citizens.
and i think if justice and fairness are the high moral aim of individuals, then the government should at least make an attempt at equity. there is no reason love, submission, and commitment can’t be a central or defining theme of a national politic.
but i’m with you . . . it begins with the individual.
Individuals are much better equipped to discern inequitable situations than the government is, and can also determine an appropriate course of action, (as well as demand an appropriate form of response in exchange).
I think charity is a prime example of this - individuals can easily discern who truly needs assistance, and how much assistance they need, and who is slipping into pauperism by refusing to work according to their ability. Government laws have no way of discerning that - and, in fact, for the last 100 years socialism has been arguing that the government should dispense charity indiscriminately (a mantra which liberalism continues with today).
“there is no reason love, submission, and commitment can’t be a central or defining theme of a national politic.”
Sure there is, because government can’t enforce it. When it tries, it fails. Always. The government can neither appropriately demand love (or submission) nor can it appropriately dispense equity. I am convinced true equity only exists within the context of voluntary participation in community. As soon as participation is coerced, you lose the capacity of actions being out of love.
This is central to the idea of the fall of man - God had to make our participation in His kingdom voluntary so that we would also know how to love. You can’t have one without the other.
[...] we are. So it’s a small change that we’re incorporating into our lives. I’m no Josh Brown, but it’s a [...]
[...] not able to enjoy, afford, or consume themselves. I’m not advocating for equality (but rather equity). Nor do I advocate a communist system where the government divides the pie up equally. But we need [...]