Home / The Great Hoax of Equality  
Image of The Great Hoax of Equality

History repeats itself. Men have constantly fought and died in the war for equality throughout the centuries. However, not all of them had in mind the same idea of equality when they gave their lives in battle. Under the current legal framework in the US, equality means a belief that everybody should have equal opportunities. To that end, the government regulates multiple sectors of the society, such as education, healthcare and private businesses in order to enforce those standards. Ultimately, all members of the society must end up equal. Therefore, there are different means by which the government implement those ideals into practice.

Redistribution of material goods

I think most of us would agree that the government nowadays plays Robin Hood successfully by stealing from the rich and giving it to the poor and weak. They do it in forms of taxation with the purpose of creating an equal society. Sounds fair, isn't it? The resources that individuals produce through hard work are taken away from them to be spread equally among those who have not earned them, which is to say that the state takes the wealth from the producers and gives it to those who have no ability to produce (but live off others' goods) so that, in the long term, everybody can be equally poor while the government collapses. Needless to say, production is time- and life- consuming. Assuming you believe that a person has a right to their own life, from a moral perspective, taking wealth away from the producers constitutes a negation of their right to own their own time, effort, life and earnings. Essentially, in order to create equality, the state gives itself permission to rob you by enforcing taxes, and turning the so called 'social contract' into an act of intellectual dishonesty, especially, because there was never a contract in the first place.

The abolition of free-choice

Since we all must be equal, everybody is forced to live under the same standards when it comes to free-choice. It's not more complicated than that. Affirmative action is a perfect example of the enforcement of equality of opportunities which, in the ambit of labor, basically means that federal contractors are sent to control businesses when it comes to hiring workers without regard to race, religion or national origin. In other words, the owners of the businesses do not have the freedom of choice to hire workers based on their own standards, regardless of whether or not these standards are rational.

Considering the previous points, I think we can safely say that equality nowadays means the right of the state to enforce unconstitutional laws that regulate individual freedoms and ownership and, as such, it constitutes a violation of human rights (such as life, freedom and possessions). Ultimately, this addresses an interesting question: is that real equality, or is it just a fallacy to increase government power?

The actual meaning of equality

By definition, equality is "the state or quality of being equal". Since we are born conscious, independent individuals, and because we have minds, being equal implies that we all shall live with the basic right that allows men to survive and thrive: the entitlement to the ownership of our own lives. Therefore, in order to be equal, every man must be able to act freely in the context of his life, and to decide over the factors that affect it.

Having said that, we could still ask ourselves: why is the ownership of our life something that makes us be equal? Well, by nature, all human beings are entitled to life. In order to be equal, we must share the right to our lives in the first place. When such a right is taken away (e.g., by murder), there is no way that we all can share the same basic quality, so there is no room for equality. Additionally, if we extend that view into a further example (let's say mass murder, like in wars), there is no room for equality either because it must exist in the context of life. Ergo, if there is no life, there can't be anything else, including equality.

Furthermore, the ownership of our lives gives us the freedom to use our minds and make free choices. We can choose to use our intelligence in order to produce goods and improve our quality of life, for example. However, if we no longer have free choice or the ability to control the goods that we produce because of someone's use of force, these aspects of our lives will be restricted and we could never live fully in a context of equality and justice. As a result, our standards of life will decrease significantly and so will the value we get in our lives. To go back to my previous example, affirmative action abolishes the ability of business owners to choose, so it is an attempt against one of the aspects of their lives. Since this law constitutes the restriction of certain aspects of human life, there is no room for equality because it doesn't allow men to live equally and fully on their rights.

Ayn Rand stated: "Equality, in a human context, is a political term: it means equality before the law, the equality of fundamental, inalienable rights which every man possesses by virtue of his birth as a human being, and which may not be infringed or abrogated by man-made institutions". I think this is the only proper way to look at equality.

Being equal does not mean being the same

All men ought to be equally entitled to their rights; however, not all men are equal. Not everybody is the same. It is our differences that shape our own progress within the context of society. What makes men different is NOT their ethnicity, age, gender, or any other factor outside human control. The differences come from the use of their own abilities (i.e., their merit). As a result, every individual has different values to offer and, since different men seek different values, there isn't any need for government to enforce assistance to some groups over others. Under a free market society, competition would establish justice and give different people the opportunities that they seek, and that would eliminate the use of force. For example, let's say that there are two grocery stores on the same street. One of them has access for disabled people, while the other one does not. As a result, all disabled people (and even people who support the idea of helping others), will come into the handicap accessible store instead of going to the other one. Therefore, the store that has more resources to offer will be the one that sells more of its products. And that's why the one that offers access will succeed in the long-term.

Ultimately, individuals should be able to take advantage of opportunities according to their own ability. For example, a painter could not get a job as a math teacher but, at the same time, the math teacher could not teach a painting class, since his abilities on art are limited. Both of them have great values to offer, but they both are different and ought to adapt to different environments where the values they offer are demanded.

By eliminating the use of physical coercion (e.g., enforcing laws), I think we would have a more successful society. Equality nowadays is just physical coercion to force someone's standards on someone else. To me, that doesn't sound like equal treatment.


Original posting by Gala on Apr 6, 2012 at http://www.braincrave.com/viewblog.php?id=683

You need to be logged in to comment.
search only within braincrave

About braincrave




You might be lonely but you aren't alone.



Latest Activity