Defining Equality

Everyone talks about equal rights, very few would disagree that they want them in some form, but the issue is what equality actually means. As I see it, there are three types of equality: being, means, and ends.

Equality of Being

This concept comes down to equal rights under the law – meaning that the law applies the same to everyone. It's a very simple concept and is the one which the original liberals based all their philosophy on. They believed in “natural laws” which they considered to be either god-given or somehow provable by observation. I don't agree with this notion because all methods empirically prove that this has failed and in fact point toward all rights and morals being defined relatively by some form of social contract – known as positive law. This form is alive and well in the spirit of our laws today – but not all of them.

Most people think they believe in this form of law above all else, however in practice this is rarely the case.

Equality of Means

This form usually comes about as a reaction to inequalities created by having equal laws. That is, by nature, certain individuals generate more wealth than others and those who generate less are envious of their advantages. Many of them blame legacy issues for this, such as generational wealth accumulation by the rich or white privilege. In order to try to give everyone a good starting point, the proponents of this system support adjusting the laws so that the people with lower standards of living are given the tools to succeed. A good example of this would be affirmative action programs.

Equality of Ends

Finding that further equality of means still leads to inequalities of ends, this group set out to directly take money from the rich and give it to the poor. The good example would be a distributive a tax system where the rich pay more to subsidize the poor with welfare or tax rebates.

Comparison

As you've probably noticed, the first system seems very intuitive and in small groups most people would still agree, however the latter two come in when certain people feel like they're getting a raw deal.

The middle type was tried in the United States, and I've seen data (links welcome) that indicate that affirmative action programs did help those they targeted. However, they also screwed those they didn't target. Many would say that since they didn't consider only merits that the must have subtracted value, and I tend to believe this at first take. I do remember Malcolm Gladwell talking about how black law students performed equally well on the job even against their fellow white classmates (who got better grade before and during). This would mean that little is subtracted. There is also some added benefits of perhaps curing social ills which may be holding back part of society.

I could see these programs having positive net benefits, however I disagree with the type of coercion required to mandate them. It seems like they set a bad precedent in long term lawmaking – which is a net loss in my opinion.

The last type, “ends”, is by far the worst. Instead of letting individuals make the decisions it allocates from the top down – which experiences massive dis-economies of scale, improper asset allocation, disincentive for effort, etc. I see no redeeming feature of this form of equality other than from the perspective of dead beats. This overall decreases the value of wealth in society for everyone.

Thoughts?

Comments

[Justin Kownacki]

In theory, everyone WANTS to believe in equality... as long as they're not being disadvantaged. But as soon as one person has an edge over another, well, then we're no longer equal, are we? So we need to impress upon our government (or our employer, or our family) new rules that will level the playing field.

It's a slippery slope, because "equality" encompasses logical givens like freedom of speech and racial equality... but what about marriage rights? Or social services? Or health care sliding scales? At what point does the altruistic concept of "equality" run headlong into "survival of the fittest"?

[Nick Pinkston]

Yea, I'm with you Justin. It's a very slippery slope, but with all of such problems there's probably a pendulum effect: it swings back and forth between the extremes.

I also see "survival of the fittest" in two ways: those who can actually get there by working vs. those who can just beg our mercy and still receive the reward.

It seems Darwin rewards both the grazers and the parasites.

[Chuck Davis]

The fact of the matter is that people have to be given equal opportunities. It is what people chose to do with their opportunity is where the inequality lies. In a sense it is survival of the fittest. If a person can make the best of the equal opportunity given to them then they are more fit to exist in this society. What we must do as a society is give everyone an equal opportunity to become better than the rest.

Furthermore in every species we see survival of the fittest the whole reason it can exist is because everything is given the same level playing field. It can be compared to the control of an experiment. It is a variable that can be eliminated. Therefore allowing the truly fit candidates of the species to prevail and improve the species as a whole.

As human beings we have the ability to adapt better than almost every other living thing and those who lack the skills are detrimental to the overall well-being of the species. It is all about what you do with what liberties you are given

[Nick Pinkston]

The issue is how "opportunities" is defined. I think you're using it in the "being" way, but others would believe that "means" would better define it.

I don't think evolution works because of a level playing field though, and I'm not sure how to define that either.

Some species have split into breeds that use different systems to survive and have become genetically very different.

For instance, domestic dogs have evolved to look cute and be good companions, where as wild dogs are better at hunting and survival. This is because their niche has biased selection in this way.

I think the workers and dependents in our society could be viewed in similar terms. We're sympathetic toward their cause - even though they drag us down.

I think we'll be better off by aligning incentives so that our species as a whole can survive.

[Anthony Russo]

"The fact of the matter is that people have to be given equal opportunities. It is what people chose to do with their opportunity is where the inequality lies."

Not sure I totally agree with this comment, Chuck. While this can be true (and certainly is in a lot of cases), it's not always the case. There are certain segments of society that literally have no chance in a competetive world -- people grow up with parents who are not loving, not mentors, people live surrounded by senseless violence. They know nothing of a competetive world, a good education, and are literally incapable of understanding their "opportunity." They're doomed from the start.

Not sure how we fix it, or even if we can.

[Nick Pinkston]

Anthony, I think Chuck is taking a full "being" type of argument, while you're coming at it somewhere between there and "means". It's hard to make a clear judgment for either way.

On the one hand, I don't like incentives that aren't completely aligned with performance, however I can sympathize with people who grow up in bad circumstances who really don't have those opportunities.

I think one's outlook on life is everything in personal success, and a lot of these kids have nothing to look toward. At this point, we need to differentiate though between our feelings and results. It might not be "fair" that the kids are in this situation, however we need to do an ROI calculation before we commit resources to any program.

As far as how that'll work, you'd have to see if what you take from those who have opportunity (tax money, jobs, etc.) returns more than if the situation had been left alone. The answer could be education, mentorship, vouchers or even something as out-there as drug legalization.

I think there's a good chance in having a high enough ROI from programs that target youth to justify them. I'm still not sure what form - but that's the framework in my mind.