I recently read this outstanding essay by the late economist, Murray Rothbard. He did a great job of explaining why ideologies and political systems that advocate "egalitarianism" (the desire to make everything equal) have always failed, and always will.
Despite such an abysmal track record, they still have their appeal. Those on the political Left (liberals) espouse and preach these messages, because they appeal to emotion, and a sense of justice. When you convince people that the system is rigged against them, and if they give you enough power it will make things right, you will go far politically.
Those on the Political Right (conservatives) are often attacked and despised for wanting to maintain the "status quo", because things are not fine (or in some peoples' views, ideal) the way they are.
I think that both sides miss the point, but for different reasons.
The 20th century should have proven to everyone (particularly those on the political Left) that government managed societies run in the name of "justice" and "fairness" have always ended poorly. The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, China (the communist system as operated under Mao, not today's China), all drove people into desparate poverty, not to mention the millions of lives lost. The largest genocides in history occurred under Mao, Stalin, and Hitler, in that order.
I think that perhaps one of the biggest problems with the "utopian" mindset, is that there seems to be little regard for how to get there. The ends supposedly justify the means, no matter how bad they are. The millions that died in the farm collectivization in the USSR was "for the good of the people".
These men all came into power on the guise of "justice" and "equality". Hitler didn't run for election promising World War 2 and the Holocaust. It wasn't even on the horizon.
The word "liberal" has been bastardized. A "classical liberal" was someone that believed in limited government, and individual liberty. (Today's "libertarians".) A modern liberal, or a "progressive" (a name from the early 20th century, that has simply been resurrected.) believes in a more powerful government that is more active in peoples' lives.
The word "conservative" technically means someone who wants to keep things the way they are. So in many respects, the term is misused. A staunch communist in the USSR in 1989, was a "conservative" by definition. Conservatives shouldn't try to present themselves as preserve the status quo, but by asserting the enlightenment of old ideas, and ways that the current system can be reformed.
The advantage the Left has in the political process, is that their egalitarian ideas come across as "new", "progressive", "socially just" and "enlightened". The old ways were set in place by supposedly "less enlightened" and "backwards" people.
Depending on what it is, I would usually argue the opposite:
We used to have much more economic freedom. It was far easier for a person to come here from a far away land with nothing, work, save some money, and start a business. The American economy grew the fastest between 1870-1913. The vast majority of the major companies that we have today were founded between the 1870's and the 1950's. It was the greatest economic expansion in the history of mankind. This was without any income tax, the excessive regulations of today, the sprawling bureaucratic government, or Federal Reserve.
We used to have a dollar that was much more valuable. It is currently worth about $.05 of what it was worth in 1913, relative to what it can buy. Thank you Federal Reserve!! (You can read my blog about the Fed if you want a more in depth explanation of this.) We also had a dollar that was backed by gold. (The government originally printed $20 for every once of gold that it held. FDR reduced it to $35 for every ounce of gold, and then Nixon removed the link to gold entirely.) The dollar actually had REAL value worldwide, not just the value of what people put on it. 5 quarters that were made from real silver from the 1950's or earlier, would be worth $25 in today's currency.
Unemployment and illegitimacy in this country, particularly amongst minorities, used to be much lower than it is today. Many don't know this, but African American unemployment (particularly amongst teens) in this country was the lowest during the late 1940's and early 50's. Some years, it was even lower than white unemployment. This was at the height of Jim Crow, and before the Civil Rights movement even happened.
The number of people, (of all races) and the amount of money going into the welfare system has risen dramatically since the system was imposed... yet the rate of people rising out of poverty (again, particularly minorities) was the highest between 1940-1960. Welfare did exist, (FDR started Aid to Families with Dependent Children) but it was far less significant than today. As Charles Murray documents in his book "Losing Ground" the numbers of people rising out of poverty started stagnating about two decades after these programs started. That, and illegitimacy, crime, drug addiction, etc. all sky rocketed.
Something that particularly the modern feminists don't think about either, is that women being able to stay at home instead of working is a luxury. There were more women in "Who's who in America" in 1902 than 1950. Why is that? A woman had to work to support her family in the late 19th, early 20th century. After World War 2, America reached a level of prosperity so that a man could support a family on his own, and a woman could stay out home. The second income wasn't necessary. My paternal grandfather was able to support a wife and 2 children with only a high school diploma, and could afford to send his kids to college AND graduate school. My maternal grandfather was college educated, and could support a wife and 6 children on his own. He was also able to retire while in his 50's. In today's America, two college educated spouses working barely make ends meet, and are very lucky if they can retire in their 60's.
In spite of all these historical facts that I just stated, the "egalitarian" philosophies espoused by today's activists still have their appeal.
Why egalitarianism fails:
First off, what is equality? And what type of equality is trying to be achieved?
No two people are exactly alike. We are all gifted with different attributes, physical and mental. We all look different, think differently, and have different views. This means lots of strengths and weaknesses.
There will always be something to envy. There will always be somebody that is smarter, someone that is better looking, someone that has had a nicer upbringing, and someone that has more money, etc.
I may know more history than the average person, but am not athletic whatsoever. That's fine with me.. It just means I have to utilize my intellectual drive to get ahead, and not my physical agility (or lack thereof :P ).
Life is not fair. (I could probably write a list of the things that I have only witnessed, not even experienced in my life that are unfair.) Any person over the age of about 10 has to accept that. There are innumerable factors that go into one's starting point in life. None of us can choose where we are born, or who to.
I'm grateful, to not have been born to a single teenage mother in the worst parts of the Bronx. Then again, I wouldn't mind having been born and grown up in Scarsdale, NY, or Bel Air. Everything is relative. It's a matter of what we do when we get there.
So what is wrong with trying to make things "fair"?
Well, equality implies that everything is the same. Nobody has any "unfair advantages" over others.
However, the "unfair advantages" are what make people special. People do benefit from having them, but the also benefit others in the process.
Did they really deserve their money?
Somebody might complain that it's "socially unjust" for Bill Gates to have so much money. But how did he get it? He didn't steal it from anyone. He produced products, such as the operating system that's powering the computer that I'm using now to type this. I willingly gave him my money, but he also gave me something in return. He also employes 100,000+ people. I don't do that, and neither do the people complaining about the money he has.
It might seem "unfair" that athletes make so much money. I used to be of this mindset. I'm not really that into sports, so to someone like me it seems like they're overpaid. However, I acknowledge the economic reality of it. People are willing to pay a fortune to see them play. I once knew a girl with seasonal Yankees passes, which costs thousands of dollars. In spite of this, the stadiums are still packed full. The advertisers also love athletes because of the attention they receive, and will pay them to endorse their products.
What determines a salary, anyway? It's not some arbitrary number that the government imposes. Salaries rose, well before the minimum wage was even an idea. It's a question of what the market wants. It's not right to get a degree in "Sociology" and just childishly demand a $60,000 a year job to be waiting for you just "because". It's a question of if there is demand for it, and if people value the skill that you have to offer enough that they will pay for it.
State imposed equality:
Is it fair that some are better looking, or smarter than others? Of course not. But so what? The better looking and smarter people don't necessarily have all the advantages. And what would society look like if this were to be changed by government intervention?
Professor Shoeck explained this in the depiction of the British dystopian story, "Facial Justice", by L.P. Hartley:
"The state was in charge of operations, making sure that all the girls were operated on to look the same. Nobody was better looking than anyone else, and there was nothing to envy. "
See how horrific this would be? Sure, everything would be "equal" but would it be right?
Or an even more chilling depiction would be in the Kurt Vonnegut story, "Harrison Bergeron":
"The year was 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anyone else. Nobody was better looking than anyone else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anyone else. All the equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General."
Here's how the "mental handicapping" worked:
"Hazel had perfectly average intelligence, which meant that she couldn't think about anything in short bursts. And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a government transmiter. Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains."
Absolutely terrifying.
I hear people complain about the lack of "fairness in our society". I've actually been told "not all people can be smart like you."
A few problems with that:
1) There are many, many, many people that are way smarter than I am.
2) I wasn't born, knowing what I know now. In fact I could probably write volumes about things that I would have done differently. Each year, I look back on something and think: "Wow, I was so stupid for doing/saying that!"
3) If we were all equally intelligent and constrained to a certain level.. what incentive would there be to learn more?
Again, life isn't fair. And it never will be...... Not without a huge price.
What we lose from all this:
By taking away what makes people special, we lose their benefits to society. If everyone has the same athletic ability, why go and watch people play? I wouldn't have been interested in basketball at a young age if Michael Jordan had played the same as everyone else.
If business people like Bill Gates were constrained, how would we get all these new products? People that bash him and other successful business people are taking too much for granted.
If all people are equally intelligent, where will the new ideas come from? How will society progress forward? Would the technology that we have today even exist, if this sort of system had been in place in an earlier time?
Society would be reduced to the level of an anthill. No new ideas, no creativity, no advancement. Everyone just falls in line, and does what they are told. We become (equal) drones that exist to serve the hive. (Compare "the hive" to the "greater good" rhetoric that we hear today.)
There's nothing "progressive" about trying to make things equal. It's just an emotional appeal to those that feel/are disadvantaged.
I think that this is sick, in a way. Many of the policies that these people promote, like "affirmative action" the welfare programs, quota hiring, and others, have done more harm than good. This isn't just my opinion: it's backed by research and evidence, like the book mentioned earlier. If anyone wants more information on this, I would be happy to direct them to some books and videos.
Yet, the people that push these ideas either don't look at the hard evidence, accuse it of being dishonest, or come up with some sort of excuse for why "they haven't succeeded yet." I don't know how anyone can praise the welfare state, in spite of its real record.
Some have even argued that about communism, despite history. Others know the truth, they just tune it out because it doesn't suit what they believe.
(I wrote about that truth behind the whole "Women earn $0.77 for every $1.00 that a man earns" myth in my blog about Political Correctness. This is a good example of that.)
What about those that ARE disadvantaged?:
I'm an "egalitarian" in the sense that I believe in equal opportunity and equal protection by law. I believe that everyone should have a fair shot at success.
I'm well aware that minorities and women have disadvantages that white men, like myself don't have to deal with. I'm all for laws that protect against discrimination, but I don't think that people should be given a position based on gender or skin color. As I wrote in the other blog: I don't see how you call other people "sexist" with a straight face, and then vote for Hilary Clinton just because she is a woman.
Some solutions to get our country moving again:
I would reform education. I believe in the voucher system. That is, poor children are given a "voucher" which allows them to go to a private school of their parents' choice. This would allow those in the ghetto to escape the lousy public schools that they are forced to go through, and get a solid education. I would eliminate tenure, to hold teachers more accountable for what their classes learn, and make sure that the students are actually learning, rather than just hanging out. I'm fine with teachers collecting pensions, but I want to hold them responsible for the quality of their teaching.
I like Wayne Allyn Root's idea on how to reform college. Allow the student loan money to be guaranteed, but on one condition: The colleges have to help the student find a job upon graduating. The salary of the job has to run in proportion to what the tuition costs. If they don't help the student get a job of that caliber, they have to pay off the student's debt. If the colleges complain that those high paying jobs aren't available? Well, then they have to lower tuition to a level proportionate to what the jobs out there pay. If they don't do that, they're cut off, and have to stand on their own two feet as they used to. It's college's job to make their students productive members of society, not get rich off of tax payer dollars.
I would reform welfare,. I believe that the poor should get aid, but I want the money to go to those that actually need it. That way people stop having children that they can't support, for the sake of getting more government cheese. If a person is disabled, they can collect disability. I would also require that welfare recipients do some sort of work, whether it be working for the post office, digging ditches, directing traffic, etc.. The recipient refuses to work, their money gets cut off. There is plenty of work to be done, and I see no reason that an able bodied person should get a check for doing absolutely nothing.
I would decriminalize many drugs. The "War on Drugs" has been a complete waste of money, and has only enriched drug cartels and corrupted police and politicians. I would repeal the "Crack laws" which impose a harsher punishment for crack than straight cocaine, which is more potent. It was just imposed as an easier way to lock up blacks.
Government spending needs to be slashed across the board. I believe that the government should actually spend less that it takes in. Am I some sort of radical for thinking this way?
Along with this would come massive tax cuts, allowing people to keep more of what the earn. This would fuel spending and investment.
Entitlements like Social Security and Medicare are bankrupting us. I'm not sure of a solution off the top of my head, but I believe that they need some kind of reform, potentially partial privatization. The country can't go on like this forever.
I think that there needs to be a comprehensive study done on which regulations are actually necessary, and which just impose unnecessary barriers to erecting small businesses. The unnecessary regulations and expensive start up fees should be repealed.
I think that government agencies should face more scrutiny for what they accomplish versus what they claim to do. The unnecessary agencies get shut down. I would also cut back on pensions for government employees and outlaw government collective bargaining.
I would remove all farm and oil subsidies, as well as all sorts of corporate welfare. I would remove the quotas on imports such as sugar, so the consumers are free to buy what they want.
This would be a start at least, towards a real, equal opportunity society. . Not saying that all the solutions are there, but just throwing out a few ideas.
Thank you all for reading! Check back soon!
-STK
