In praise of inequality
Wherever we go today, one of the great rallying cries is that inequality is bad. Inequality is measured around the globe and countries that are “more equal” are praised, countries that are “less equal” are vilified.
People on “the left” aspire for greater equality in outcome, people on “the right” espouse greater equality of opportunity.
There’s only one problem with it: it’s all utter bollocks.
Human beings are not created equal. It is true to say that one human life is not worth more than another, but in every other way, humans are not equal.
The combination of talents, interests, motivations, values and desires are unique in each one of us. Even if the bleak, dull, grey world of completely equal opportunity existed, what we all did with that opportunity would inevitably differ. And soon enough, the opportunities would be unequal.
But first, just think about the horror of a world of equal opportunities: every school you went to would have the same dreary, formulaic education. Lessons would be delivered by drones, or by video. Every restaurant would have the same menu prepared to the same standard – if restaurants were even allowed! Maybe the opportunity to eat out would have to be given to everyone equally, so on Friday nights, you’d have to go out for dinner and fight with the rest of the country for a table. Every job would have to have the same career path, and your career progression would be as inevitable and slow as everyone else’s. Well, there wouldn’t be career progression, because if there were, some people would not be equal to others.
And that’s without the truly egregious horror that is equality of outcome. Imagine if the most brilliant and successful salesman or financial trader or doctor earned the same as the person delivering newspapers. Imagine a stultifying world where no matter what you did, how hard you worked, how hard you studied, no matter how often you “went the extra mile”, you still got exactly the same pay packet as someone who just sat there scratching their … nose.
But it’s all (wonderful-sounding) nonsense. People aren’t equal. It’s not something to aspire to, because it’s completely counter to mutual co-operation and specializing in things you want to do or enjoy. It’s far better to accept difference and celebrate the many good things our inequalities give us. Banish the endless beige tedium of equality.
Vive la difference!
-
May 17, 2012 at 11:42 -
I just love the irony of Communist despots enjoying a far-better standard of living than their ‘comrades’.
-
May 17, 2012 at 11:54 -
Surely what you mean is we’re not all the same? For example, one of the reasons we all don’t eat in the same restaurant is that we all have different tastes and like different foods. The aim of being equal and having equal opportunities is about not denying opportunities to minority groups – so a job opportunity would not be off limits to you if you were a certain gender, creed or race.
-
May 17, 2012 at 14:04 -
Unless of course “Positive Discrimination” or “Quotas” have to be achieved.
-
-
May 17, 2012 at 12:12 -
The left-liberal/socialist drive for equality deliberately ignores this basic fact of human nature. One thing that such a philosophy engenders is a lack of aspiration for anything better – after all, if nobody else is doing better than you, what is there to aim for? One abiding problem that Western businessmen found in the post-Communist countries was a lack of initiative in the people. It had been culturally squeezed out of them by decades of this very kind of claptrap. But then, that’s the ultimate purpose, isn’t it? The architects of these repressive political cultures know what they’re doing. It’s called keeping the plebs down..
-
May 17, 2012 at 12:12 -
Thaddeus,
On form today my fine fellow!
-
May 17, 2012 at 13:17 -
Hear hear!
-
-
May 17, 2012 at 13:25 -
Even worse than equality: The ‘Lake Woebegone’ Effect?
“…all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average.”
-
May 17, 2012 at 13:30 -
I love the irony that we are suffering huge cost and inconvenience this summer to celebrate physical inequality and excellence but refuse to acknowledge intelectual inequality and excellence in our schools. A
-
May 17, 2012 at 21:36 -
Nail, hammer, head.
-
-
May 17, 2012 at 14:23 -
It isn’t just about differences in what we can or cannot do, physical and intellectual skills, whatever. Rich or poor, there are many that do not wish to ‘achieve’, and no amount of lefty handwringing about equality will change that. There’s no duty to max out on achievement.
Clearly a rich man’s idle son will have a better quality of life than a sink estate dole addict, but is that a problem requiring enforced redistribution of wealth?
For those that really are ambitious the go-getter will likely do better with the advantages of wealth, but is that actually unfair? Should the best racehorses be hobbled?
As a wrinkly old escapee from a sink estate, I feel entitled to suggest that an ounce of self respect is worth several tons of equality entitlement or empowerment.
Just a view.-
May 17, 2012 at 14:53 -
Quite.
You can ‘provide opportunities’ till you’re blue in the face, but the simple fact of human nature is that some people will grab them with relish, and some people won’t. What do you do about someone who just won’t take opportunities? Paying them to sit watching daytime TV certainly won’t give then any incentive to.
-
May 17, 2012 at 15:54
-
-
-
May 17, 2012 at 14:57 -
If there has to be socially engineered equalising going on, better to try to equalise up rather than to equalise down – better to give the poor the chance to make themselves richer than to make the rich poorer.
-
May 18, 2012 at 11:49 -
If equality is such a wonderful thing, why do gaurdianistas think only their ideas are worthy of adoption ?
-
-
May 17, 2012 at 19:53 -
I am not the only one to mention: remember communism? It didn’t work did it? Apart from “all pigs are equal, just some pigs are more equal” …
It sometimes takes courage to grab an opportunity – and effort. Some of us do and others don’t. That’s life …
-
May 18, 2012 at 00:50 -
If inequality was acceptible then politicians whould have nothing to say or do.
Every government offere the voters something which is gotten from somebody else. Under the guise of ‘justice’ , ‘fair’ etc.
Wre all live ‘on the air promise crammed’.Comments are closed.
{ 17 comments }