Significant work on the Equality section

01-principles/01-principles-apologia.md

@@ -90,12 +90,42 @@ In a republic, changes to law may sometimes come rapidly where the values of an
 
 ## A word on "Equality"
 
-`WS` would like to make it clear and unambiguous that it the **only** form of equality which it values is equality of the application of laws (i.e., "Rule of Law", or "Republicanism"). WS explicitly does **not** value equality of opportunity or equality of outcome as policy goals. This is not to in any way disparage efforts to create equality of opportunity or equality of outcome pursued in the **private sector** via market mechanisms. The Gov't however shall not pursue equality of opportunity or outcome through policy. The gov't notwithstanding **shall** pursue equality of the enforcement of the laws on **all** conagents.
+### Why we must graduate past "Equality" as our foundation for rights:
 
-- Any law which pursues equality of outcome shall be unenforceable.
+Equality is a false doctrine which destroys liberty.
-- Any law which pursues equality of opportunity outside of equality of access to the courts for justice, shall be unenforceable.
+
+It is important that we abandon "equality" as a foundation for rights. A fool could see with the naked eye no two humans are equal and in fact often because people desperately assert it as being true when it is plainly false, it creates room for groups like racial-nationalists and so on to claim that they have "special wisdom" as a recruitment tool. When the entire mainstream adopts a lie, simple truths appear to be revolutionary; and in such an environment, bigots are enabled to style themselves a voice of reason and truth against the mainstream current of lies.
+
+### Special appeal to Judeo-Christian believers.
+
+It is important to address a specific audience, namely the followers of Judeo-Christian morality and appraise them of an error they have accepted as being part of their code of values when it is absolutely **not** - the aim of the next paragraph is to offer an olive branch to the (not insignificant) following of Judeo-Christian morality and hopefully make it easier for them to give up the "equality" doctrine.
+
+A commonly quoted bromide is that supposedly the Judeo-Christian god "created all men equal" -- curiously, this maxim does not appear anywhere in the Judeo-Christian bible even once. The Judeo-Christian moral framework does **not** say that the Judeo-Christian god created all men equal, but rather that he created all men *in his image*. Those are two very different statements with very different ramifications. The Judeo-Christian ethical framework is modeled not on equality as the impetus for morals, but on the contrary, it states that you should treat your neighbour as yourself because he was made in God's image, and has value in the eyes of his creator **in spite of** inadequacies clearly visible in him; not because he is your equal. Judeo-Christian believers treat the disadvantaged with respect because their god has a purpose for every individual. "Equality" is actually a humanist ethical foundation.
+
+### An analysis of the two main traditional arguments for rights:
+
+The aim of this section is to examine the efficacy and reliability of both of the traditional rights foundations and point out why they fail to meet the need for an objective, shared view of rights among all the agents within a polity. Please note that this section is a political discussion. `WS` makes no claims about whether or not a god does or doesn't exist. `WS`'s aim is to find a model from which all agents can argue for their rights irrespective of the world view of the court of appeal which they must convince.
+
+This section examines a scenario where we pit believers in both of the traditional foundations against a would-be violator of their rights, and they have no defense against him unless they can convince bystanders of their rights.
+
+#### The "God-given rights" tradition:
+
+Let's assume that the would-be victim is a Judeo-Christian "God-given rights" believer.
+
+To convince the audience, he would say, "God created all men in his image, and in each person is the potential to become a son of god - and so god values all human lives because they are all potentially his children. When you violate a human life, you potentially deprive god of a future child, and you also disrespect the image of god inherent in that person. Therefore, you, audience, should fear god and come to my aid."
+
+This would-be victim's rights rest entirely on whether or not the Judeo-Christian god exists. If he doesn't exist, or if a god exists but is not the Judeo-Christian god, his argument is invalid and his claim to rights has no strength. His would-be violator need only say, "Your god does not exist," and unless the would-be victim could prove that his god exists, he loses the argument.
+
+The "God-given rights" foundation cannot serve as a common framework for asserting rights among large numbers of people who have wildly divergent world views.
+
+#### The "Equality" tradition:
+
+The "Equality" foundation cannot serve as a common framework for asserting rights among large numbers of people who have wildly divergent world views.
+
+### A better way - a New Ideal to serve as the foundation for rights:
+
+There is no harm in acknowledging that we are not equal. The fabric of our defense of the rights of the individual will not come undone because there is an even **better** foundation for rights waiting for us.
 
-Equality is a false doctrine which destroys liberty. Judeo-christian morality does not state that all men are equal. It states that you should treat your neighbour as yourself because he was made in God's image, and has value in the eyes of his creator in spite of inadequacies clearly visible in him; not because he is your equal. A fool could see with the naked eye no two humans are equal.
 
 This constitution however, not being founded on torah, but on private property morality, states that every man is sovereign and his private property rights absolute without exception. Upon this foundation no two humans are equal, but every claim of individual sovereignty over private property is equally sacrosanct, because the dignity, liberty and potential of every person is worth protecting.