Equality as security‑enabled luxury

The article makes the central claim that egalitarian human rights depend on secure, functioning national communities—literally the same argument in the existing idea that equality norms are contingent on state security and integration. Dustin Sharp’s examples (Sahel, failed state contexts) map directly to the ‘security‑enabled’ mechanism described in that idea.

The review echoes the argument that egalitarian expectations depend on baseline security and integration: Banfield’s warning about 'guilt‑laden elites' and the fragility of reform resonates with the idea that certain normative demands are historically contingent on material security.

Hanson invokes the contingency of individualism and tolerance on historical security and institutional circumstances — echoing the existing idea that egalitarian norms depend on underlying state capacity and integration rather than arising automatically.

The existing idea argues egalitarian norms depend on state capacity and public‑good provisioning; the article shows a major left government deliberately shifted from public childcare (a state‑enabled egalitarian tool) to privatized cash, illustrating how political judgments about the role of the state reshape equality‑promoting infrastructures.

Maitland’s historical argument that political thought (including ideas about liberty and property) is contingent on context echoes the notion that broad egalitarian commitments depend on secure social conditions; the article’s emphasis on historical contingency and the remit of government connects to that pattern.

Both the article and this existing idea argue that egalitarian ideals depend on background security and integration: the article says the warmth of collectivism resonates because humans evolved for small, secure bands and that large‑scale communism recreates ancient dynamics badly; the existing entry frames belief in equality as contingent on secure living conditions. The author’s appeal‑to‑evolution provides a psychological mechanism that complements the existing policy framing about when equality is politically feasible.

Smith invokes the long historical arc where liberal ideals advanced unevenly and required underlying material and institutional stability; this echoes the idea that egalitarian progress depends on secure state capacity and integration rather than purely moral argument.

Henderson’s paradox — freer, richer societies reveal genetic and personality differences while public culture insists on blank‑slate equality — connects to the argument that egalitarian norms are historically contingent on security and integration.

Ellis’s line: “Gens una sumus is a modern luxury made possible only by living conditions that are far more secure than those of 1500.”