Majestic Equality: Justice for All?

The ‘majestic equality’ of any legal system is misleading in that it does not garner justice for all. This idea is presented in Anatole France’s The Red Lily, wherein France says, “The law, in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” Although he said so in a satirical manner, this essay considers the real-life implications of his statement, and the moral saliency of its treatment of the poor versus the rich. In response to the question, “Are the rich and poor equally (un)free in this case?” I assert that they are not because the ‘majestic equality’ of law perpetuates large disparities between the two groups, restricts a person’s rights or freedoms caused by forces of circumstance, and implies neutral treatment when the poor ought to have better legal accommodations. By examining normative-ideal theories, components of contemporary law, and case studies, I conclude that the poor are disproportionately (un)free—or in other words, legally burdened—compared to the rich because their stake in ‘majestic equality’ is a commitment to unfair legal burdens.