Barnyard Inequality

[Purple Knight]

The stipulative name of this phenomenon is inspired by the quote from Animal Farm: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

Question for debate: Is barnyard inequality a thing, and is it meaningful?

The basic idea is that in a free society that respects rights, the clever have an extreme advantage to argue for their rights, while the less clever simply have no choice but to obey and stop what they are doing when a clever person explains how his rights are being violated. A powerful example is the prominence of lawyers in a free society and the relatively common knowledge that having a good and high-priced lawyer allows you to get away with some things that someone without that advantage would not be able to get away with, but it's not limited to the courts.

It extends to conduct between individuals everywhere in a free society that respects rights. Those who successfully argue that their rights have been violated at work, at the park, at a restaurant, or on the street hold a special power over those who are not as able to make those arguments. The former can, whenever they can successfully argue, control the actions of the latter. This type of power extends to those who have many friends who will agree with them, and allows them to control the actions of those who do not have a group they can rely on.

It's even possible this creates an underclass of slaves who are jointly owned by the higher class of star arguers who need only make a good case that their rights are being violated, to exercise their total control of the slave class. This is very likely an overstatement but only if both of 1) the slave class isn't entirely cowed into obedience even if they can't prove they're not violating rights and 2) the courts will, at least sometimes, see through the chicanery of the clever and enforce the rights of the non-clever when the matter is ultimately brought to court. If both 1 and 2 are true, there is incomplete control and it probably doesn't qualify as slavery. (But, contrary to popular opinion, this doesn't mean it's not bad.)

Even if the control is incomplete, it can continue to accrue. For example, the clever can jointly start crusades against things like owning pets. They could start with tadpoles, convince everyone that owning more than 1,000,000 tadpoles is immoral, then argue their way down to 1, then include frogs, then everything but dogs and cats, then everything but dogs, and finally remove dogs too. This is not a statement that this absolutely will happen if you agree that owning 1,000,000 tadpoles is immoral. This is a statement about the power of the clever to constantly move the bar toward their side. The bar won't move in the opposite direction if those with the power to argue and convince have collectively taken a side.

Arguably, the fact that the US has more laws than a single person could ever know is a direct result of the power of the clever to get those laws made, and the powerlessness of the non-clever to argue against them. But again, this isn't just about the courts.

It's also about simply lying about what the laws are, and being convincing. One could lie to a neighbour that his pitbull is illegal due to a breed specific law and threaten him with an immediate call to the police, scaring him into getting rid of it before he can look up the law.

In a free society that respects rights, the cry of, "you are violating my rights" holds perhaps unreasonable power.