Why equality of outcome can never, ever work – IOTW Report

Why equality of outcome can never, ever work

AT-

A sharp, divisive cultural debate in the United States is that of equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome.

In the early 20th century, in support of equality of outcome, Soviet communist dictator Vladimir Lenin coined the phrase, “Who, Whom.”  The concept was simple.  In a socialist society, where equality of outcome takes precedence over equality of opportunity, a critical question arises: who plans, directs, and redistributes the resources of a society, and to who is the beneficiary, or victim — the object, the “whom” — of said redistribution?  Politically speaking, the central maxim is to represent “disenfranchised” groups, provide them with monetary resources and government or state positions, and reshape any imbalances of power that have come to exist.  The catch is that once power is given to central planners to initiate such action, “there will be no economic or social questions that would not be political questions in the sense that their solution will depend exclusive on who wields the coercive power” (Hayek, p. 138).  In other words, the question of Who, Whom is what equality of outcome hinges upon.  All internal struggles are squashed. 

In a society structured to foster equality of opportunity, three things tend to determine how successful someone is or isn’t: intelligence (or skill), industriousness, and luck.  more

15 Comments on Why equality of outcome can never, ever work

  1. Equality of outcome is very possible as long as the outcome is what happens every time leftists take over a country: universal poverty (except for the ruling and enforcer classes). It happened in the Russia in the early 1900’s, in the Eastern Bloc after WWII, in Cuba, in Venezuela, in North Korea, ect.

    7
  2. …it doesn’t work because humans are involved, an no human can be trusted with that much power over another human.

    It’s really that simple.

    We are not worthy.

    10
  3. God gave us all different gifts to use to fulfill the destiny he planned for us, leaving us to discover what those gifts are and how to use them. Some folks have financial brains, which I do not. Some folks have a talent for growing things, which I do not. Some folks can draw beautifully, sing angelically, dance majestically, or act convincingly, none of which are things I can do. These things can be very highly paid if these gifts are developed, but all are venues closed to me because God did not design me for those purposes.

    Should I rail at God for it? Reject Him because He does not serve MY desires Demand? Instead, should I demand the State use ITS power to declare me a dancer by fiat, because I belong to a group woefully underrepresented at dancing, and further have them force people to pretend to like me or be ostracized and cancelled as bigots if they do not, and reward me the same as someone who who actually HAS that skill?

    Were I a Communist, the answer would be YES.

    Provided I belonged to a group, party, or clique that was in political favor with the people doing the distribution at gunpoint, that is.

    Otherwise, both me and the ACTUALLY skilled dancers can go take a flying leap, with wildly varying levels of grace, in favor of someone who DOES “know” someone.

    Unless I have enough cabbage to BUY their favor, that is. When Government controls buying and selling, the first thing bought and sold is Government.

    …and THAT’S why it can never work. Politics knows no skill other than politics, so it inherently ruins EVERYTHING it touches by using a metric other than performance. Always has, always will.

    …but it will always be with us, too, as long as some want control and others give it to them.

    …after all, being able to rise to the top of a government to seize the reins of power and force others to bend to your will is a talent, as well…

    6
  4. There was an old saying in China: “The unemployed guy makes a dollar more than the employed guy – because he doesn’t have to pay bus fare!”

    That was under the “old” communist regime – not the “new” communist one.

    izlamo delenda est …

    2

Comments are closed.