Egalite? W. A. Paton

w. A. Paton Egalite? Sheer Illusion! THE VIEW that equality is a goal. which the human race should strive to reach is widely accepted and sup_· ported, in one form or another, al-· though this hazy concept has always been found wanting when subjected to careful scrutiny. Perhaps a few comments on the limitations of the egalitarian dream, in some of its current manifestations, are not in·· appropriate at this time. To begin with I'll take note, briefly, of two fundamental obsta cles to achieving complete equality among individuals or groups, large or small. One is the impossibility of W. A. Paton is Professor Emeritus of Accounting and Economics, University of Michigan. He is author (or co-author) of a score of books and many articles, largely in the field of accounting. Since his retire ment at Michigan, he has continued his writing and lecturing activities and has done part-time teaching at a dozen colleges and universities, in ten states.

providing each of the several bil lions of our present population with precisely the same endowment of the natural resources of benefit to man. Mother Earth's bounties are not uniformly distributed over the habitable surface of the globe, and there is literally no practical way by which each of us can be equally endowed with sunshine, rainfall, fertility, timber, mineral resources, and so on. Substantial mitigation of the impact of these differences would be possible in a condition of permanent peace plus expansion of international trade, but to date the human race has failed to move deci sively in this direction. Even more inherent and insur mountable is the variation plainly in evidence in the native qualities of individuals and groups. Diversity is 157 158 THE FREEMAN March a commonplace in nature and we humans are not exempt. Aside from sex, individuals vary in height, weight, eye color, and a host of other physiological characteristics. And each of us arrives on the scene with a separate package of traits, tenden cies, and intrinsic talents. Even among individuals with the same parents important variations in physical and mental qualities are not at all unusual.

What our progenitors were like millions of years back is somewhat conjectural, but we do know that today homo sapiens, ((the only sur viving species of the genus Homo", is not made up of a mass of homo geneous units. Ignoring Hereditary Influences I want to pursue a bit further this matter of variation in native ap titudes and abilities. There seems to be a cult today of wishful thinkers who are pushing the fanciful notion that each of us is born with precisely the same potential, that we all start abreast, and that what happens from then on is entirely the result of environment, including how we are treated by our fellow men. This idea is manifestly absurd, even if we rule out those who start life with major congenital mental or physical hand icaps. True, the life course of the individual is often greatly influ enced by environmental circum stances, but this doesn't mean that heredi tary factors are generally of no consequence in shaping our careers.

And what an unimaginably drab world this would be if all individuals were identical in every particular and committed to identical life ex periences! We can be thankful that this is not the case and not even a remote possibility. Perhaps the con cept of a race in which all members are supermen is not beyond the realm of imagination, but who would want to find himself in such a situation! I might also note here that our complex modern economy, with its intricate network of facilities bringing a marvelous array of products to the ultimate con sumer, includes a great range of functions and tasks. We can't all be top executives; somebody must work on the assembly line. Minimizing Economic Disparity Right here the equality fan might well interpose a question: Even if we concede that it is not feasible for all individuals to be endowed with pre cisely the same cross section of climatic conditions and natural re sources, and that people will con tinue to vary in their physical and mental equipment, isn't it desirable to foster programs designed to minimize differences in standard of living and economic power gener ally?

This is an interesting question 1979 EGALITE?-SHEER ILLUSION! 159 and deserves attention. To provide a partial answer let's reword the question more concretely: Are cur rent reform and welfare movements and projects-consumer protection legislation, taxation that favors the people with low incomes, subsidized housing for the poor, special assis tance to the elderly and those with mental and physical handicaps, and so on-desirable and deserving of support? I believe a negative answer is justified. There are two ways, as I see it, by which to reduce the disparities in personal incomes, in the amount of economic goods and services at the command of the individual. One is to harass and block the efforts of the hustlers, the go-getters, the front runners, the innovators, until their pace is slowed to that of the less able, the less qualified and talented, the incompetent, the shiftless, the handicapped. The other is to provide an economic and governmental milieu that encourages, stimulates, the more capable and productive in dividuals, that provides incentives for those among us with the most potential to do their best. Such a society, I submit, is actually the best way, indeed the only way, to reduce the inequalities so galling to our egalitarian friends. In such a society technology advances, output ex pands, and per capita income rises.

The laggards are not damaged. In stead they are given the opportunity to improve their own performances as they are carried along on the fast-moving coat-tails of the inher ently superior. It should hardly be necessary to add that in referring to the able, the talented, the productive, I am not including the destructive, or those who gain by preying on their fel lows. * * * The socialist road we are now marching on is not the route to in creased total productivity and in creased per capita standard of liv ing, and if we believe that these are desirable goals we should alter our course, and not dillydally in doing it.* The relatively free, competitive market, not a bewildering array of government agencies, operated by fumbling politicians and bureau crats, remains the only proven road to widespread economic prosperity. , *There is room for argument as to the basic effects on the human being of an increasing standard of living. Perhaps the real danger to the people of the United States right now is the impact of an· amazing upward surge of living standards in the last century on our vigor, our character, our will to accomplish and survive in a dangerous world. See my piece, ~~Can We Sustain Prosperity?" in the January, 1972 issue of The Freeman.