The Idea of Equality; J. Wollstein

The rallying cry of the French Revo lution was ~~Liberty, Equality, Fraternity." A central goal of com munism and socialism is ueconomic equality." The American Civil Rights Movement seeks ~(equality of opportunity." And the modem wom en's movement champions Hequal rights for women" and uequal pay for equal work." While the meaning and compati bili ty of this mul ti tude of ~(equalities" is far from clear, it is Mr. Wollstein is a founder of the Society for Individ ual Uberty, author of Society Without Coercion, and currently heads his own typesetting and publIca tions firm in the Washington, D. C. area. obvious that they do not all mean the same thing. Just what does equality mean? What is Equality? For two things to be equal means for them to be identical in some respect. Thus if two trees are both precisely 6 feet tall, they are equal in height. If two men both earn pre cisely $9,500 a year, they are equal in income. And if two people both have the same chance of winning a lottery, they have (in that respect) equality of opportunity.

However, while two things may be identical with respect to one or a limited number of attributes, no two physical objects can ever be identi cal with respect to all attributes. For example, all atoms differ in position, direction and history. And all human beings differ with respect to anatomy, biochemistry, tempera ment, knowledge, skills, goals, vir tue and a thousand other charac teristics. Here we will primarily be con cerned with three types of equality: 1. Political equality, a major goal of 221 222 THE FREEMAN April both the American and French revo lutions, has traditionally meant equality of individual rights and equality of liberty. Stated simply, political equality means that the in dividual's right to life, liberty and property is respected and that gov ernment abstains from conferring any special advantage or inflicting any special harm upon one individ ual (or group) in distinction to another. Clearly, political equality is at best only approximated and never exists completely.

2. Economic equality means in es sence that people have the same income or total wealth. 3. Social equality generally means either (a) equality of social status, (b) equality of opportunity, or (c) equality of treatment. Social equality is also increasingly coming to mean (d) equality of achievement. Equality and Liberty A little reflection will quickly dem onstrate that economic and social equality can only be achieved at the expense of political equality. Be cause people differ in ability, drive, intelligence, strength and many other attributes it follows that, with liberty, people' also will differ in achievement, status, income and wealth. A talented singer will com mand a higher income than a ditch digger. A frugal, hardworking man generally will accumulate more wealth than an indolent spendthrift. A brilliant scientist will command more respect than a skid row bum. Nor are all of these differences of social and economic achievement the result of environment. Because people are individuals-genetically, biochemically, anatomically and neurologically-differences in strength, intelligence, aggressive ness and other traits will always exist. While environmental factors can and do exaggerate physical and mental differences between People, diversity and non-equality remain the natural biological order and hence are the natural social and eco nomic order.

There is only one way to make all people even approximately economi cally or socially equal, and that is through the forcible redistribution of wealth and the legal prohibition of social distinction. As Dr. Robert Nozick, of the Har vard Philosophy Department, has pointed out in Anarchy, State and Utopia, economic equality requires a continuous and unending series of government interventions into pri vate transactions. Even if people's incomes are made equal once, they will quickly become unequal if they have the liberty to spend their own money. For example, many more people will choose to pay $10 to hear Linda Ronstadt sing than will pay $10 to hear me sing, and Linda Ronstadt will very quickly become far wealthier than I am.

1980 THE IDEA OF EQUALITY 223 Economic equality can thus only be maintained by totalitarian con trol of people's lives, and the sub stitution of the decisions of a hand ful of state authorities for the free choices of millions of men and women. Political equality is fundamen tally inimical to economic and social equality. Free men are not economi cally equal, and economically equal men are not free. Because the achievement of social and economic equality inherently requires the forcible interference with voluntary choice, I will subsequently refer to the doctrine that social or economic equality should be imposed upon a society as coercive egalitarianism. Equality as an Ethical Ideal In reality people are unequal: Americans are-on average-far wealthier than Russians, doctors tend to earn more than garbage col lectors, and so on. But should people be unequal? At its root, egalitarianism is an ethical doctrine. It is often asserted that ~~ethics is just a matter of opin ion" and that ~~one moral system is just as good as any other." But in fact any ethical code can be judged by at least three critera: (1) is it logical-have the basic concepts of the doctrine been meaningfully de fined and are the arguments for it valid; (2) is it realistic-is it a doc trine which human beings can live by, or does it require that people act in a way which is fundamentally contrary to their nature; and (3) is it desirable-are the consequences of adopting the doctrine what are claimed, or would they be something entirely different; and if people adopt this doctrine will it lead to the creation of a society in which they are happy and fulfilled, or will it lead to a society of hopelessness, repression and despair?

Let us now apply these criteria to the doctrine of coercive egalitar ianism. 1. Is coercive egalitarianism logi cal? Egalitarianism states that all people should be equal, but few coer cive egalitarians define ~~equality." As stated previously, complete equality between people is an im possibility, so it can be rejected at once. But we are hardly better off when we speak of social or economic equality. Does ~~economic equality" mean equal income at a given age, for a given job, for a certain amount of work, or for a particular occupa tion? Does ~~equal wealth" mean identical possessions, possessions of identical value, or something en tirely different? Does ~~social equal ity" mean equal status, equal popu larity, equal opportunity, equal treatment, or what? All of these con cepts of economic and social equality are distinctly different, and until they are defined, the doctrine of egalitarianism is illogical.

224 THE FREEMAN April 2. Is coercive egalitarianism realistic? People are different and have different values. To some hap piness requires many material pos sessions, to others material posses sionsare relatively unimportant. To some people intelligence is a great value, to others strength or beauty are far more important. Because people differ both in their own characteristics and in the way in which they value traits in others, people will naturally discriminate in favor of some persons and against others. Since variety and distinction are natural parts of the human condi tion, by demanding that people abandon such distinctions, coercive egalitarianism is contrary to human nature. 3. Is coercive egalitarianism de sirable? Coercive egalitarianism, the doctrine of complete social and economic equality of human beings, logically implies a world of identical, faceless, interchangeable people.

Such a world sounds much more like a nightmare than a dream, and in deed it is. Perhaps no nation on earth has come closer to complete economic and social equality than Pol Pot's Cambodia. Under Pol Pot's regime entire populations. were forcibly marched out of cities and everyone, regardless of age, sex, skills or pre vious social status, was forced to labor with primitive agricultural implements on collective farms. In Pol Pot's Cambodia, everyone had to think, work and believe the same; dissenters were killed on the spot. In northern Cambodia stands the remains of one of Pol Pot's ((model villages." The houses are neat, clean and completely identical. Nearby sits a mass open grave with hun dreds of human skeletons-the piti ful remains of those who displayed the slightest individuality. The vil lage and mass grave are a fitting symbol of the fruits of coercive egalitarianism. While coercive egalitarianism masquerades as an ethical doctrine, in fact it is the opposite. Ethics pre sumes that one can make a distinc tion between right and wrong for human beings. But coercive egalitarianism demands that we treat people equally, regardless of their differences, including differ ences in virtue. To demand that vir tuous and villainous people-for example, Thomas Edison and Charles Manson-be treated equally, is to make ethical distinc tion impossible in principle.

In summary, coercive egali tar ianism is illogical because it never defines precisely what ((equality" consists of; it is unrealistic be cause it requires that we deny our values; and it is undesirable because it ultimately requires a society of human insects. While coercive egalitarianism 1980 THE IDEA OF EQUALITY 225 fails as an ethical doctrine, many contentions based upon coercive egalitarianism nevertheless remain emotionally compelling to many people. Let us now examine some of those contentions. Myths of Egalitarianism 1. Social and economic inequality are a result of coercion, an accident of birth, or unfair advantage. Let us consider these contentions one at a time. It is certainly true that some in equality is a result of coercion in such forms as conquest, theft, con fiscatory taxes or political power. But it is hardly true that all inequal ity is a result of coercion. A person can, after all, become wealthy or popular because he or she is highly talented or extremely inventive, and talent and invention coerce no one.

Being born wealthy certainly constitutes an advantage, but hardly an insurmountable or unfair one. Sociological studies in the United States and Europe show tremendous mobility between lower, middle and upper classes, despite advantages and disadvantages of birth. Except for all but the greatest fortunes, one's parents' wealth and success are no guarantee of one's own wealth or success. And there is noth ing immoral about helping out one's own children as much as possible. Such aid takes away nothing to which anyone else is entitled. Last, there is the argument that being born with below average intel ligence, or strength, or attractive ness constitutes an ((unfair disad vantage." Here egalitarianism re veals itself to be (in the words of Dr. Murray Rothbard) ((a revolt against nature." We can either act ration ally and rejoice in our diversity and make the most of the abilities we do have, or we can damn nature and hate everyone who is in any way better than we are and attempt to drag them down to our level. I leave it to you which is the more rational and humane policy.

2. If people would only share the world's bounty equally, there would be enough for everyone, and no one need starve or be seriously deprived. This contention is based upon two false assumptions: (a) that wealth is a natural resource, so one person's gain is another's loss; and (b) that if the world's wealth were equally re distributed it would remain con stant. Wealth in fact is a product of human productivity and invention. Some people are poor not because others are wealthy, but because the poor are insufficiently productive (often because of authoritarian political systems). Any attempt to redistribute the world's wealth by force would also greatly diminish the total wealth in existence for at least three reasons: (a) large scale redistribution would 226 THE FREEMAN disrupt the world's productive machinery, (b) confiscation of wealth would destroy the incentive to produce more (why bother produc ing if it's going to be taken from you anyway), and (c) the process of redis tribution would require an enor mously costly and essentially parasitic bureaucracy. (Not to men tion losses from shooting people who resist, and starvation from bureau cratic inefficiency and mistakes.) The cure for poverty is more pro ductivity, less state economic inter vention, and an end to barriers to trade. The cure is not redistribution of wealth.

3. It is better that everyone be poor than for some to have more than others. Better for whom? For the middle class and wealthy stripped of their property? For the poor robbed of the possibility of ever improving their lot? The production and accumulation of wealth is the benchmark of human prpgress. Wealth in the form of better communications systems, environmental control, pest control, improved transportation, better medical care, more durable and at tractive clothing, more comfortable housing and so on, ad infinitum, improves the quality and increases the quantity of human life and makes possible leisure, science and art. To attack wealth is to attack an essential condition for the achieve ment of virtually every human value from the fulfillment of physiological needs, to safety, to the pursuit of beauty and truth. This argument reveals the ulti mate and ugly motive of many egalitarians: A hatred of human ability per se. By that hatred they betray their human heritage and would condemn men to exist at the level of barbarians.

Free and Unequal vs. Coercive Egalitarianism Equality of rights and equality under the law are preconditions for any just and humane society. But such political equality is the very antithesis of coercive egalitarianism. Coercive egalitarianism asserts that people ought to be made equal by force, and that ability and virtue should be ignored or punished to bring all people down to the lowest common denominator. The disabilities of others should evoke our compassion. But those disabilities do not justify the forced looting of the productive or the ob literation of liberty in the name of some undefined concept of equality. The natural order of human soci ety is diversity, variety and inequal ity. The fruits of that natural order are progress, productivity and in vention. In the final analysis, virtue and compassion can only flourish in a world of men and women free and unequal. @ William L. Baker Frederic Bastiat: Harmonious Warrior Ah! whenever you come to pronounce these words~ I BELIEVE you will be anxious to propagate your creed~ and the social problem will soon be re solved~ for let them say what they will it is not of difficult solution.