Isonomia

Wikipedia has a fine trace of the usage of the term isonomia. In essence, isonomy, or isonomia, means "equality before the law", or, to use a traditional term "equal justice." This is a term that is not readily found in common usage, even though there are a number of crude approximations of the meaning in common postmodern usage. These approximations tend to be confused with notions of economic, social and political equality, among other things.

UN gurus have assembled a "progressive" notion of universal human rights. See Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This highly expansive notion reminds me of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's book, The Cost of Discipleship, in which he distinguishes between cheap vs. costly grace. Here, we might note that the cost of universally established rights envisioned in this UN document is a matter of speculation. There is no country on the face of the earth that has succeeded in establishing such a regime, and no alliance of nations that has made any more significant progress.

For example:

1. Definitions are always key. The UDHR declares "Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law." (See Article 6.) Does that apply to the unborn? If not, why not?

2. Context is equally important. The UDHR declares "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile." What does this say about persons entering a country without legal permission? Are laws governing the flow of immigrants to be discarded in order to establish universal rights? Article 14 speaks to this point. Part 1 "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution." Part 2 puts this is a reasonable context, "This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." The mere existence of Article 14 implies that entry into a country can be regulated, and limits can be imposed upon the vast majority of immigrants who are not fleeing persecution. The "open society" movement denies this and would erase such contextual considerations.

3. Article 16 uses language that appears to be focused on traditional marriage, i.e., between a man and a woman. Postmodern thought eliminates that requirement and effectively erases any procreative context for the married state.

4. Article 20 declares, in part 2, "No one may be compelled to belong to an association." Yet, there are laws requiring union membership or political party membership in some "progressive" nations.

5. Article 22 speaks vaguely about a right to social security and economic, social and cultural fulfillment, hinting that governments were responsible for their realization. Today there are calls for government to pay for everything and calls for class warfare if governments fail to obtain necessary revenues to afford endless "rights fulfillment."

In our postmodern world, even some of the rights recognized in the UDHR have had to give way to new rights invented by "progressive" governments.

Isonomia has, itself, had to compete with economic equality (considered as a right), sexual expression/preference equality (with attendant rights to the fulfillment of social aspirations hitherto regarded as inherently impossible - also considered as a right), gender equality (which presumes negligible inherent gender differences in achievement potential), and, more recently, and counter-intuitively, certain religious minorities have been granted special privileges in the establishment of legal and governmental conclaves and other forms of insulation from the reach of the common law.

So, in a word, isonommia, as such, is an antiquated concept.