It is difficult to find a seemingly more unobjectionable term that “equality” is the modern West and America. Equality is often understood to be an unqualified good and part of the American creed: “all men are created equal.”
The main reasons politicians love “equality” are because it is supposedly unquestionable in its obvious justice, slippery in definition, and unachievable. Consider the shifting definitions. “Equality” can mean equality before the law or rule of law—as Thomas Jefferson and others used it—which actually is an limitedly achievable and just ideal, but then the same word can be used to designate egalitarianism (sometimes distinguished by degrees: “equity,” “equality of outcome,” “equality of opportunity”).
Rule of law or equality before the law (sometimes even called “equality of opportunity,” which is actually different from rule of law) is incompatible with egalitarianism. Rule of law means that the law and legal system—though imperfect in providing justice—seek legal impartiality and judge people according to the same standard, not unduly favoring or disfavoring certain individuals. Admittedly, this ideal is never reached by imperfect and limited humans, but it is just and achievable by degree.
Egalitarianism—whether called “equity,” “equality,” “equality of outcome,” or even “equality of opportunity”—is the opposite of rule of law or impartial equality before the law. Egalitarianism necessitates treating unequal people unequally with the hopes of reaching a more equal result. Choosing egalitarian equalism—enforced by the state—results in inequality before the law and legalizes a caste system against people based on their belonging or not belonging to certain groups which are thought to have or lack certain amounts of power/privilege (see the Intersectionality Wheel of Privilege and Power).
When it comes to “equality,” we have to ask a few questions to assess it correctly: What is it? Can it be achieved? Is it just? Rothbard lays out an explanation that takes the definition of “equality” seriously and its consequences,
There is one and only one way, then, in which any two people can really be “equal” in the fullest sense: they must be identical in all of their attributes. This means, of course, that equality of all men—the egalitarian ideal—can only be achieved if all men are precisely uniform, precisely identical with respect to all of their attributes. The egalitarian world would necessarily be a world of horror fiction—a world of faceless and identical creatures, devoid of all individuality, variety, or special creativity.
Human Nature and Egalitarianism
Humans always and necessarily exist in a world of scarcity, change, temporality, finitude, diversity, subjective valuation, judgment, action, and choice. Rothbard writes that, “[mankind] is uniquely characterized by a high degree of variety, diversity, differentiation; in short, inequality.” Given those realities, there is no reason to expect any two—let alone more—diverse human beings to ever be equal or be made equal, either in exact “results” or “opportunities.”
Technically, equality is a spatial and mathematical term of measurement. Even if we skip the problem of unique, diverse, humans with varied subjective preferences being calculated by numerical terms of measurement, so-called equality between humans cannot exist in a world of change, diverse space, time, action, and choice. Only non-acting, non-choosing, non-human quantities, existing in a state of static equilibrium, could possibly even get near “equality.”
Why Politicians Love “Equality”
Generously admitting the convergence of some sloppy definitional thinking, not considering the consequences, and a desire to do what is right regarding people in some cases, I believe that politicians and many others love “equality” because it is seemingly unquestionable and eternally unachievable. In fact, it might be better said that political elites actually love “inequality” because its continued, stubborn existence allows them to blame others for their moral failures by not being equal. Were it possible—though it is not even theoretically possible—interventionists and political elites would be disappointed if “equality” was ever reached. They would be out of a job!
The supposed obviousness of the justice of “equality” (egalitarianism) shields it from scrutiny. This allows political elites—who always like to be “more equal than others” themselves—to violate the rule of law, intervene constantly in the economy, create castes, enrich themselves, and treat people unequally. Whenever inequality is present, it is supposed to be sufficient justification for the fact that some ethical injustice has taken place and intervention is necessary to correct it. Equality and inequality are also supposed to be measurable statistically, which then implies that every statistical disparity represents an injustice that requires redress (especially by the political state). Thus, the elite obsession with data and statistics—every difference is an opportunity.
Conveniently for the egalitarian interventionist, Sowell reminds us, “Statistical disparities extend into every aspect of human life” in Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality? (p. 19). These statistical disparities—for whatever reasons they exist—are irresistible to interventionists. These differences give opportunity for the use of power. Hoppe explains, “the egalitarian doctrine achieved this status not because it is true, but because it provides the perfect intellectual cover for the drive toward totalitarian social control by a ruling elite.” And Rothbard reminds us that “ideologues and researchers…dream up and discover new groups that need egalitarianizing.” There are some that see through this and recognize that empowering egalitarian interventionists does not achieve equality, but it does accrue power to these interventionists. This was the disillusionment of former communist Michael Bakunin,
I am not a communist, because communism concentrates and swallows up in itself for the benefit of the State all the forces of society, because it inevitably leads to the concentration of property in the hands of the State, whereas I want the abolition of the State.... (cited by E. H. Carr, Michael Bakunin, p. 356, emphasis added)
Historically, this has led to perpetual revolution to achieve egalitarianism, always further empowering the state. Every difference is supposed to justify a revolutionary overthrow of society, always empowering collectivism. For example, Mao’s China was described the following way in The Messiah and the Mandarins: Mao Tsetung and the Ironies of Power (p. 187), “Revolution was the proper occupation of the masses, Mao believed, for only through perpetual revolution could he realize his vision of an egalitarian collective society.” The quest for egalitarianism did not make people more equal—though perhaps closer to equal misery—but it did empower the state and lead to millions of deaths.
The continual existence of inequality allows for an envious power elite to gain greater power by convincing people that they are on an altruistic quest for justice, defined in terms of “equality.” Though no two unique individuals are or ever will be equal, especially in a voluntary society, this situation necessitates “the permanent imposition of a power elite armed with devastating coercive power.” Ironically, in order to make us all “equal” requires a “powerful ruling elite to wield the formidable weapons of coercion and even terror” to achieve it. Further, if individuals—A and B—are unequal, the supposed way to “correct” this is for A to give money to C (state elites), for C to keep quite a bit (making C unequal), then giving some to B.
We are also supposed to trust that if we just give these “compassionate” and “wise” individuals enough power—making them vastly unequal to us in power, decision-making, and wealth—that social equality will be the result. The English philosopher, quoted by Rothbard on this topic, said,
...the Procrustean ideal has, as it is bound to have, the most powerful attraction for those already playing or hoping in the future to play prominent or rewarding parts in the machinery of enforcement.
Further, Rothbard also quoted the Marxist-Leninist sociologist Frank Parkin, noting that he missed the obvious implications of his own statement,
Egalitarianism seems to require a political system in which the state [a group of power elites] is able to hold in check those social and occupational groups which, by virtue of their skills or education or personal attributes, might otherwise attempt to stake claims to a disproportionate share of society’s rewards. The most effective way of holding such groups in check is by denying the right to organize politically, or, in other ways, to undermine social equality. This presumably is the reasoning underlying the Marxist-Leninist case for a political order based upon the dictatorship of the proletariat. (Class Inequality and Political Order, p. 183)
Egalitarianism versus Rule of Law
Equality before the law or rule of law is incompatible with egalitarianism. A society must pick one because it cannot have both. The US is in a constant and contradictory toggle between these two ideals. Appealing to so-called “equality of opportunity” (if different than rule of law) will not help and, in fact, shares the foundation with egalitarianism—a government elite must create legal castes and treat people with legal partiality to guarantee an “equal starting-point” (an impossibility for any unique individuals).
Politicians, progressives, and other interventionists love “equality” and “inequality” because—wherever they find differences in the unique, diverse, varied experience of individuals and/or groups (“classes”)—this allegedly provides the opportunity and necessity for intervention, especially by the state, in the name of “justice.” This so-called “justice” does the exact opposite of what it claims to oppose—creating castes by legally privileging and/or disadvantaging individuals based on shared classifications. People admit that the goal is worthy and quibble over “equality of opportunity” versus “equality of results.” The goal is also never achieved, therefore, following the previous interventions for “equality” that inevitably failed, the next rounds of interventions are justified.
Egalitarianism—often shielding itself under the slippery term “equality”—cannot be achieved and is not just. The “government”—really a euphemism and political class of egalitarian interventions—gets to pose as the neutral, compassionate, unbiased referee-rearranger, armed with the right to measure disparities, determine which ones are important, then treat citizens with legal partiality in order to allegedly make us “equal.”
