Mean-spirited Equality

Egalitarian: “The rich have so much more wealth than the poor, it is deplorable! The rich and the poor ought to be made more equal. There ought to be more economic equality.”

Brian: “Easy enough to do. Simply find a way to reduce the standard of living of everyone else to that of the poorest member of society. It shouldn’t be too hard to think up a way to do that.”

Egalitarian: “No no, that’s not what I meant. I simply meant that the poor should be given more wealth than they have currently.”

Brian: “I hope that’s what you meant. But if that’s what you truly meant, then why use the term ‘equality’? 1 is equal to 10-9. 10 is equal to 9+1. But if we are talking in terms of economic standards of living, it matters a great deal whether this ‘equality’ occurs at 1 (a low standard of living) or at 10 (a high standard of living).”

Egalitarian: “Alright, I take your point. I should rather have said that we should have economic equality at a decent standard of living.”

Brian: “But why equality at all? If your wish is to help the poor, why not say that we ought to help the poor achieve a higher standard of living, even if it must come at the expense of certain rich people’s standard of living? A desire for equality as an ideal implies that not only is lifting the poor up a good thing, but pulling the rich down is also a good thing.” 

Egalitarian: “Hold on, but even you must agree that we must have equality in some things? How about equality before the law, surely you don’t oppose that?”

Brian: “I have no desire to see equality before the law. If the law says that 20 year old men are to be conscripted into the army and must serve for 2 years, I do not wish to see equality before this law. I do not wish to see this law extended to include women as well as other age groups so as to apply it more equally. I would rather see this bad law repealed and forgotten about altogether.”

Egalitarian: “Alright fine, so you don’t want equality before bad laws, fair enough. But surely if we agree that a law is good, you would want people to be equal before it?”

Brian: “I would not put it in those terms. I would say only that I would like people to be better served by the law. If a law best serves the most people when it is applied to everyone in society uniformly, then so be it, I want that. But I put value always on the positive side, never on the negative side. If someone is privileged by an absurd law, I would like to see the privilege eliminated, not in order to take something away from the person privileged, but in order to give something to those who were previously not privileged. The ideal of equality puts value on both the positive and the negative side, which is why it leads to so many absurdities.”

Egalitarian: “But how about fairness? Fairness is a very important thing, and inequality is unfair.”

Brian: “Fairness is just a manifestation of the ideal of equality, and is equally dangerous as a concept. Is it fair that some people are born with ample natural endowments while others are born with less ample natural endowments? No, it’s not particularly fair. But who cares? If you feel sympathy for those born less fortunate, then go help them out, I support you fully. But if you seek to hobble those born more fortunate in the name of the ideal of ‘fairness’, than I must oppose you with all my might.”

Egalitarian: “But how about jealousy and envy? Many people are envious of those born more fortunate, of those with more wealth, or of those who have special legal privileges. For them, tearing these lucky people down is almost as important as raising themselves up.”

Brian: “Ah, at last we reach the root of the matter. I gladly leave the ideal of equality to jealous and envious people. That means that I, and every other non-envious person, can forget all about equality. A welcome relief indeed!”