Wednesday, 30 November 2016

The Madness of Egalitarianism

“Income inequality is bad and getting worse!” the leftist cries. “Something must be done! Something must be done!”

What uproar is this?! Such a fuss over the composition of a statistical distribution?! What are we to make of this?

Egalitarianism (with the income version of it being the most popular) can be understood as either one of two things: either as madness or as a mask.

For what but madness could it be to deeply concern ourselves with the distribution of personal incomes? Certainly we care about how much income we receive, or how much income our beloved friends and family receive. But beyond this, who but a madman could be bothered by whether the distribution is tighter or more spread out overall? Who but a madman could derive pleasure or pain from the relative girth of a histogram?

Perhaps a mask then. Perhaps our economic egalitarians pretend to care about the overall distribution, while really only caring about increasing their share in it. All ye brave humanities students and struggling artists, a more equal distribution of income would truly be a boon to thy pocketbooks! All ye valiant civil servants and social science professors, greater egalitarian programs shall increase thy departments’ budgets!

But the mask can only explain so much. For amongst the ranks of the egalitarians, we find affluent individuals of all professions, many of whom could only lose financially should more egalitarian policies come into force. It would seem that the opinions of such individuals can only be explained by madness: they have fallen victim to a fixed idea!

What happened is this: the opinion-molders of society (the academics, the bureaucrats, and the young, hip creatives) took steps to pursue their own financial self-interests under the guise of egalitarianism. No blame for these folks, it was a clever ploy!

It was the private sector affluents who were the dupes. They took the egalitarianism of the opinion-molders at face value. They foolishly wanted to appear ‘progressive’ and ‘compassionate’, and so became fanatics of the fixed idea of economic equality. The beneficiaries of the unequal distribution of income became advocates for its destruction! All in the name of wooly, airy ideals whose realization wouldn’t do them a damn bit of good. What can this be but madness?


But madness need not be permanent; the deluded may yet come to their senses! In the foolish ideal of egalitarianism, they have lost themselves. But what is lost, can yet be found.

No comments:

Post a Comment