Consider this as a clue to how fucked we are as a country.

[malthaussen]

39. Well, that's because we didn't have sidewalks.:)

As to privilege, I think it is a question of expressed ideals conflicting with accepted practice. Hutcheson argued that one of the imperfect rights was the right to deference. His system was all the rage around the time of the Revolution, and IIRC, there is evidence that Jefferson was guided by his principles in many respects (Hutcheson, himself, summarizing and embodying the traditions of the Commonwealthmen, on which contemporary "liberalism" was based). Now, the thing about deference (and privilege) is, how is it earned? As an imperfect right, it does not inhere in the individual by grace of the Creator. In a society where aristocracy is founded exclusively on birth, deference and privilege are owed to those of the right blood, but even in an aristocracy such as that, the "nobility of the pen" had taken hold, so that (for example), a college degree automatically made one a gentleman. Now, in the American colonies, the nobility of blood was not so well-established (although we do see the same names recurring again and again in several colonies and states), and there was no nobility of the sword on which to draw. So the problem for the Founders (IMO, this is my interpretation) was how to justify the deference (and privilege) they felt was their due. This ties in with the "outs and ins" theory of the American Revolution, which I believe has some merit: the Founders were, largely, not of the established aristocracy of the colonies, and were in it to receive the deference and privilege they felt was their due. This is clear in the case of a snob like Washington, who once refused a militia commission from the governor of Virginia because he felt the rank offered was beneath his dignity.

Confronted by the need to legitimize their own ambition for proper deference and privilege, the Founders allowed the framers of our state papers to advocate for a modicum of "equality," and what it really comes down to is whether you believe their rhetoric or not. Note that there were some real radicals among the founders, but they are not household names (and were mostly anti-Federalist to begin with (well, Sam Adams, maybe, but he's a beer company now)). The moderates managed to suppress the radicals and establish a system under which they attained their desires, while apparently advocating for a less-structured society.

-- Mal