By Greg McCulley
Egalitarianism in Free Society?
Drafted 23 November 1999
����������� "All men are created equal, but some are created more equal."� This statement is a cynical one, but it is one that often appears to be true.� The pursuit of equality and liberty has caused much blood to be shed throughout history, but even when an open society exists, will egalitarianism truly exist?� It's a formidable question, to be sure, and this paper seeks to answer it by looking at what I believe are three main obstacles to achieving egalitarianism in an open society. These are variation in individual motivation, confusion about inalienable rights, and the issue of inherited status.�
����������� For the purposes of this paper, I have defined the term "open society" as a society where free speech and thought are accepted, and where open access to the free market is granted. Egalitarianism is a belief in human equality, especially with respect to social, political, and economic rights.� It advocates removal of barriers to those rights.� This is a noble aim.� Unfortunately it is not a environment that is feasibly maintained.�� In this paper, I refer to the United States frequently as a matter of convenience.� I do not believe the US is fully an egalitarian state, but it will serve well for some examples.� In the US, most individuals are born into, on the whole, a level playing field with regard to equality of opportunity.� I say most, but not all.� This essay does not attempt to account for discrimination based on gender, religion, race, or other such factors.� But even given these factors that can lead some to prejudge individuals, chances are pretty good that if you want to do well in the US, you are the creator of your own success, or demise.
Variation in Individual Motivation
����������� One of the greatest barriers to an egalitarian society is the difference in individual motivation levels.� No matter to what extent two individuals are equalized at birth, if one person squanders his talent, and the other develops it, their equality will then dissolve.� Success is often determined by how effectively one utilizes God-given gifts, versus what gifts are given.� P.T. Bauer pointed out succinctly how large of a role motivation plays in economic difference, noting that if all individuals exhibit equal amounts of motivation, "then... economic differences suggest some ...[undefined] malevolent force has perverted the course of events" (10).
����������� Talent is obviously an ingredient of success, and this also varies greatly from person to person.� But individual motivation is often the very substance of skill or talent.� When I started teaching Professional Military Education (PME) for the Air Force, my teacher told me the craft told me that in military leadership, you fake it until you make it.� His strategy worked.� We all have different talents.� Some people are born with the ability to lead, throw a football, or compute a column of numbers quickly.� Motivation to use those skills is at least as important as possessing the skill in the first place.� In an open society like the US, even though we proclaim that all are created equal, this refers more to equality of opportunity, and thus the freedom for people to prove that they are unequal to their peers.
Inherited Status
����������� In the US, your genealogy does not determine anything about your success unless you are a Kennedy.� The fact (or my hope) that the reader can appreciate such a piece of raillery testifies that even though Americans don't actively practice an ascribed-status system, some are inadvertently ascribed status nonetheless.� If you are born into wealth, your chances of being wealthy when you reach adulthood are pretty good.� And that is just the way it should be. Part of the American work ethic is the notion of giving your kids a better life than you were given.� For some workers, this is the very impetus that drives the motivation discussed in the point above.� If one is born poor and climbs to the point of being able to attend an Ivy League school, society will one day ascribe that person a certain amount of status ("a Stanford grad" or "a Yale grad").� This type of status is referred to as achieved status, and my point here is not which type of status is up for grabs in an open society, but that since evidence of both exists, egalitarianism is already thwarted by their existence.� Whether I inherit my wealth or earn it the old fashioned way, once I have it secured I will find myself on a higher de facto social plane in America.� In other countries, where society is not as open as in America, things are no better.� Communist North Korea is no bastion of egalitarianism, nor are the practices of the Iranian Taliban or the edicts of the Indian caste system.
Inalienable Rights
����������� The founding fathers wrote that we have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.�� It is the latter that I am concerned with for the moment.� There is a difference between the pursuit of happiness and the guarantee of happiness.� In the US, I am guaranteed the right to strive for whatever I can achieve that does not infringe the basic rights of others.� If I don't achieve that happiness in the measure for which I had hoped, I have no inalienable right of recourse simply because I am not happy.� Many people who read the words "right to the pursuit of happiness" assume that they have some guarantee to happiness.� Unfortunately, in this world, there are no such guarantees to be had.� But because our version of open society enfranchises the pursuit of happiness, we often become myopically focused on our own happiness as a priority to our fellow man's rights.� This is just a fact of life.� I admit it is rather callous, but I wager we have all seen careerists in one form or another, and many of us have unwittingly given them their power at the ballot box.� I don?t mean to say that the pursuit of happiness is to be disparaged, but again, I use it to point out that such a pursuit, adjoined with the possibility of achieved or ascribed status, and variation in levels of motivation, further mitigate the egalitarian's cause for optimism in an open society.
Conclusions
����������� �By its definition, egalitarianism appears to be a blissful utopia.� In practice, I don't see it as a form of social order that can exist long in an open society.� I stated in my opening that the notion of equality has cost large amounts of blood and treasure. I think one of the fundamental mistakes people make when fighting for their causes of equality lie in definitions of equality.� There are several contexts in which equality can be discussed.� Equalities of result and of opportunity, for example, are not the same concepts.� In a society where equality of result is the norm, I will get my ration regardless of my output; no matter how much effort I put forth; I will get the same result as the next worker.� Equality of opportunity means that I have the same chances to success and failure as the next person.� An entirely different concept is the equality of individuals.� I believe that all men and women should be treated with equal fairness and tolerance, and be afford equality of opportunity, but the bottom line is that people are not equal in composition, and because if this, egalitarianism is not feasible in an open society.