Thoughts on the Equality Ideology

It is apparent, both from theory and history, that the freedom ideology and the equality ideology are mutually exclusive. They cannot coexist for simple reasons of natural inequalities. We cannot be both free to do as we wish and keep the fruits of our efforts and remain equal, for we are all naturally different, and cannot possibly produce equal results if we tried. Therefore the debate rolls on over the virtues of each distinct ideology.

The theory of equality is a pretty scenario, a utopian society of peace and love. But as of yet, history has been unable to find a system that could successfully implement it. All centrally planned societies: monarchies, dictatorships, fascist regimes, communist nations, have either reigned with fear and terror to maintain itself or has failed to provide a successful economic atmosphere for its citizens and has collapsed, leaving its nation in economic shambles.

Why have all attempts fallen short? It is simply because the theory of equality through central governance is fundamentally and fatally flawed, and in fact cannot succeed.

It is theoretically supposed that equality can be achieved if the achievements of the most talented are balanced in redistribution to the weakest of society, thus maintaining equilibrium at the center, using the successful to balance the unsuccessful. This has proven to be a false supposition. The reason is that human nature gravitates toward justice, particularly with respect to their own being. Thus if a talented individual is compensated for only a portion of his work, that individual will naturally feel mistreated and will instead use his talent and abilities to a smaller extent, thus balancing their work to their compensation. When this happens, the central equilibrium of equality is lowered, since the upper echelon has dropped its tier to what was formerly the center. One the balance lowers, the redistribution is recalculated, the standard lowered, and the cycle starts again. This continues until all talent has become only as effective as the least talented contributors to society.

Thus equalization ultimately cannot bring up the lower tiers of society, except temporarily. Instead it drags down the standard to the lowest denominator.

Some equalization theorists of the past have resolved this issue by proposing an elimination of the less talented members of society. Through genocide, and then further planning reproduction sufficiently, a society may use eugenics to produce a balanced talent and raise the lowest denominator to a high level. This, of course, would certainly solve the issues noted above, and would resultantly produce sufficient output to cover all needs and more. But, of course, it requires the killing of a great many people, as well as the continued weeding out of unacceptable offspring. To even be able to consider this a legitimate option for the sake of equalizing society is frightening. Moreover, this path is completely contrarian to the basis of the equalization ideology for which they fight, that of sympathy for the lower class. Yet a great many participated in this movement under the Nazi ideology and their search for an Arian utopia. Even some of the progressive contemporaries of FDR (including his counselors, leading some to believe FDR was a closet proponent himself) were proponents of eugenics and the breeding of a higher society.

Other nations have resolved this issue with terror tactics. Russia began resorting such tactics as their society declined. China has abused a great part of their society to produce results. Castro, Chavez, etc. have been terrors to their nations (none of whom have achieved any significant level of equality greater than our own), all while maintaining an unimproved and unhealthy poverty level. Their fear tactics may cause effort and results, thus permitting a society to be sustained. But it is no society in which any would choose to live, far from the imagined utopia intended.

I’ve tried to come up with some solution that would make equalization theory plausible. There is only one scenario that could possibly succeed for any reasonable period of time. That scenario is founded on the concept that participation in this equal society is voluntary, and participants charitably choose of their own accord to surrender their talents and wealth for the benefit of the whole. All participants must be anxious to participate in the system. Even still, the society would necessarily be founded on principles of integrity and hard work. For if any are underproducing and leeching the system of a few when they are capable of self-sustenance, it would quickly result in animosity, leading to the cycle explained above.

It's time to give up the false utopian dream for a much more realistic and achievable one: the American dream.