Equality is commonly supported, we are told by everyone, everywhere, all the time that equality is a virtue, that it is important and something we should strive to. In reality, it is not, it is a vice, and only the weak seem to be demanding it. Before getting to any of the criticisms of equality/egalitarianism, it is important to address what equality, as commonly viewed, is. Equality simply is the belief that all humans are born equal, with the only differences being physical (ie: height, facial features, skin color, etc) and everything beyond that is determined by environmental factors. Although proponents of equality can advocate for variants of things such as economic equality, political equality, etc it is fair to say they all at the very least share the prior assessment of what equality is.
“There is one and only one way, then, in which any two people can really be “equal” in the fullest sense: they must be identical in all of their attributes. This means, of course, that equality of all men — the egalitarian ideal — can only be achieved if all men are precisely uniform, precisely identical with respect to all of their attributes. The egalitarian world would necessarily be a world of horror fiction — a world of faceless and identical creatures, devoid of all individuality, variety, or special creativity.”
“The current veneration of equality is, indeed, a very recent notion in the history of human thought. Among philosophers or prominent thinkers the idea scarcely existed before the mid-eighteenth century; if mentioned, it was only as the object of horror or ridicule. The profoundly anti-human and violently coercive nature of egalitarianism was made clear in the influential classical myth of Procrustes, who “forced passing travellers to lie down on a bed, and if they were too long for the bed he lopped off those parts of their bodies which protruded, while racking out the legs of the ones who were too short.”Murray Rothbard, Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature
Because of this, any disparity between any groups has often been deemed a vice. The reason it is deemed a vice is that the difference, since not caused by any genetic but rather environmental factor must be due to one group taking advantage of the other. The common support equality also believes humanity should strive for equality, ie there is no disparity between any groups, all people are equally “rich” or “poor”. This is why the group that pushes equality always advocates for wealth distribution, in one form or another from the “privileged” group to the “oppressed” group. In short, the belief in equality is that all people are born equal, and any difference is because of environmental factors, and if a group does worse than another it is most likely caused by oppression.
An example of a disparity that has been an issue for a group of self entitled dolts is the “gender wage gap”. Is the issue perhaps that women are paid low wages, is this what these people are upset about? No, they are upset that women are paid less than men, they are upset about the disparity. If a woman made one million dollars, but a man made two million dollars for a similar/same job, these people would be upset because the female made less.
The most obvious differences between certain groups can be found in between the sexes (men and women) and races (White, Black, Asian, etc). Probably the easiest difference to point to between races is IQ.
It is clear there are differences between the races, that is a commonly accepted fact, most of the controversy comes in how the IQ differences come into existence. Egalitarians would say that the differences are caused by environmental factors. While environment definitely can play a role in differences being established, so does genetics. The most common environmental factor that egalitarians say causes IQ differences is poverty. Although poverty can have some affect on IQ, controlling for other factors shows that the differences are not altered significantly.
The most extreme examine in this data-set is probably China, which has a mean IQ of 105.8 despite the fact that the average Chinese is only about one third as rich as the average African American.Ryan Faulk – Race, IQ, and Poverty
If it wasn’t obvious already, the differences still exist after controlling for poverty, but what about other environmental factors? To cover all the possible environmental and provide objections to those would require a whole other article, but there is a sufficient amount of data that already objections to them.
Now that at least one major difference is established it is clear not everyone is the same and equal, there is difference and inequality. Whether we like it or not that is a fact of life. But what is wrong with wanting to at least want to lessen the amount of inequality? Considering that human nature is unequal, it would require intentional effort to create equality. One example of an attempt to create equality is wealth distribution. The logic makes sense – person A has $100 and person B has 50$, if you take 25$ from person A and give it to person B, both will have 75$ and will be more equal.
How can that be? It is not complicated. You can only confiscate the wealth that exists at a given moment. You cannot confiscate future wealth — and that future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated. Farmers in the Soviet Union cut back on how much time and effort they invested in growing their crops, when they realized that the government was going to take a big part of the harvest. They slaughtered and ate young farm animals that they would normally keep tending and feeding while raising them to maturity.Thomas Sowell
Wealth redistribution disincentives the general public from wanting to be successful. What is the point in saving your money, working hard, and trying to be successful if your money will simply be taken from you to give to the bum? People on both sides of wealth redistribution get higher time preferences, person A who has more money that is being taken, starts to prioritize spending instead of saving. Person B keeps prioritizing spending instead of saving, considering that they have a free source of income via the wealth redistribution.
Wealth redistribution pushes away successful people, keeps the lower class poor, and increases time preference as a whole. Because of this it is clear that any form of wealth distribution will have negative effects as opposed to positive effects for the nation and society.
Indeed, it is precisely in horror fiction where the logical implications of an egalitarian world have been fully drawn.Murray Rothbard – Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature
When talking about equality in terms of economics many people differentiate between two different types of equality – equality of outcome, and equality of opportunity. Most people, or at the very least most conservatives and generally speaking “right wing” people would at the very least say something along the lines of “well equality of outcome is bad but I support equality of opportunity”.
Equality of outcome is a complete impossibility, the only way in which this could become a reality is if the state takes complete control over the economy and people’s lives and somehow manages to make everyone have an equal amount of wealth, or at the very least income. This sounds like a bad joke or a horror story depending on how you take it, but even if this was possible, it would not be complete equality of outcome. As the elite would have much more power to decide what their outcome would be.
Equality of opportunity is also am impossibility. Generally speaking the thought process behind this sentiment is that all people would be equal before the law, but beyond that it seems people do not think through this very much. Several things would not be possible if this was the case. Discrimination would not be allowed, as if private actors could discriminate with whom they would like to associate with, not everyone has an equal opportunity to said association. As well with that if this was the case, all peoples would have to be brought up/raised in the same manner. As children of more wealthy parents would have generally speaking more opportunities than children born into poor families. Or even children with good parents having more opportunities generally speaking than children with bad parents.
Why is it the weak that demand equality? The weak perceive themselves as victims and oppressed. Because they perceive themselves as victims and oppressed they do not look to improve their situation on their own circumstances, or at least not entirely on their own circumstances, but rather seek the help of someone else. Generally they want to take from the “oppressor” to “give back to the oppressed”. Not to be confused with privileged people who push equality because of their own issues, mainly being a feeling of inferiority.
.Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)Ted Kaczynski – Industrial Society and it’s Future
It is much easier to demand others fix your situation by making society equal, either by dragging the “oppressor” or “privileged” to your status, or taking from the “oppressor” or “privileged” to give to the “oppressed”. It is abandoning personal responsibility or any seek to self improve. Instead of demanding equality these “oppressed” people could better their situation, but they lack the strength to do so, thus they rely on the “privileged” to give them equality. This can not be entirely blamed on the groups of “oppressed” peoples because of how hard it is pushed by everyone, but one must recognize equality is not realistic, and then move on from there to legitimately overcome the obstacles they face.
It should also be noted that the same proponents of equality also claim that “diversity is strength” and that diversity is beautiful and important. This however seems contradictory, for how can you have a diverse group of people if they are all equal. The sentiment that diversity is good is agreeable. Diversity between peoples and cultures is a beautiful thing, it was what makes each nation and group of people unique, but this is not what these people tend to mean when they praise diversity. They mean to say they support multiculturalism. Multiculturalism of course, is a way in which we can get equality.
For with multiculturalism several things are true – there is lower trust and higher conflict, thus creating a demand for more of an arbiter (the state currently being a monopoly on arbitration – thus has a higher demand). America is deemed the “melting pot” which seems appropriate because they are simply mixing everyone in to create a new identity, and completely destroying all of their unique ones in the process, in which multiculturalism has contributed heavily to.
In short, humans are different and unequal, not as a consequence of environmental factors alone but also genetic ones. Equality can only be “reached” by a totalitarian state that would have disastrous effects on society as a whole. Egalitarianism is not based on reality but a horrible fantasy. Only the weak demand equality.