Second draft: What, then, does it mean to speak of equality? Do we mean to say one man is necessarily to another in any objective sense? Certainly not, for such an assertion is absurd on its face- men are not- men are not all equal in their build, their character (either in their natural or inherent disposition or in the sum of their natural disposition and their experience), or in their physical and mental capacities and potential. Indeed, the market itself, the division of labour, and the specialization which makes the modern age possible are built upon this very fact of nature. Equality, then is not to be misconstrued as the equal nature, potential, attributes, or value of all persons (consider the fair judge against the diseased thief), but is rather to be understood as the equality of all citizens before the law and the equal right of all members of our society to develop their own potential free of discrimination based upon their race, sex, colour, or place and caste of birth. The Liberal and the Progressive have long had great difficulty comprehending the concept of equality. The Liberal loves to speak as though men are widgets or some other mass-produced product of industry, created equal, built to with a micron of some standard, and devoid of individual variation and potential. Yet the very Laizze-Faire market they espouse depends upon the inequality of men in their shrewdness, ingenuity, ideas, industriousness, and mental and physical capacities in order to function. Furthermore, the birth of ill and misshapen children, the variation of human skin colour, and common experience with a number of individuals all show us the variation with our species and render absurd such assertions of human equality and uniformity. Only by appealing to vague metaphysics or simply refusing to address the issue can the Liberal respond to these realities. The Progressive (as they dub themselves), on the other hand, takes the Liberals rhetoric of equality as a commandment that men must be made equal by Taking from the successful to enrich the incompetent and showing favour in all things to failures and the idle over the competent and industrious. Yet such measures of authoritarian collectivism yet the Progressives have enacted and continue to advocate have not resulted in the equal condition and results they promise, as the incompetent squander what is handed them and the successful become more cunning in protecting their earnings from seizure. Rather than moving us towards egalitarianism, they perpetuate class antagonisms and add fuel to class warfare- hinting, perhaps, at the neo-Marxian roots of much of their philosophy. Whether they do this merely to secure votes and further their own careers, or out of total ignorance, or for more nefarious reasons, I leave to your own judgment. Regardless, the results remain unchanged. And what is the result of this indefensible and intelligent preference shown towards the wicked, the incompetent, and the incredibly flawed? It's that the ills which afflict them and which they inflict upon the rest of humanity are perpetuated and magnified indefinitely as a culture of vice, laziness, and incompetence is cultured and nurtured. This is not equality and it is most certainly not progress. Doubtless, both the Liberal and the Progressive have failed us. We do well to recall the spirit of J.B.S. Huxley, which can be expressed thus: A society composed of uniform perfect beings would be most imperfect. A nation of perfect Proletarian factory workers might excel at the manufacture of automobiles, but can it succeed without farmers? Can a society of Mozarts or Einsteins be sustained without breeders of chickens and cattle? What is a nation of engineers without chefs and captains of industry? Clearly, the very wellbeing and wealth, both material and cultural, of a society is found in the variety, the individuality-the inequality- of its People, from the economic shrewdness of its businessmen to the industriousness of the simple labourer to the impressive feats of its athletes and the richness of its cuisine and music. The Advancing Society, indeed, any great society, must recognize this and, while the common People and Culture must be safeguarded against attack and destruction, we must always accept those elements which promise to further enrich our own culture, industry, and society, and always beware of and safeguard against those who preach the gospel of homogeneity. Just as population needs new blood to remain healthy and the inbreeding of a homogeneous group leads to disaster, so to must a healthy nation and culture embrace the heterogeneity and variety which enriches it and makes it great. Thus,, the role of eugenics is not homogeneity but simply health, the role of economic policy is not isolationism but simply sustainability and security, and likewise in all matters must this balance be struck between the true meaning of social equality properly understood and the beauty and health inherent in Mans inequalities.