I think the problem with equality as we use the term in political and economic debate is that it implies the existence of an axis when it comes to the measurement of prosperity.
After reading David Schmidtz's lead essay on this month's Cato Unbound topic, When Inequality Matters, I started thinking about whether equality was absolute or relative. Well, it's both, I thought.... no, wait a minute, it's neither.... wait, what was the question?
Or rather, how good is the question?
The problem with the seductive notion of "equality," in actual use, is that it's really a crippled concept to start with. Imagine you had ten kids, and someone asked you whether or not they were "equal" in your eyes. You'd answer, "Of course they are!" while thinking all the while, "What a stupid question; this person I'm talking to obviously doesn't have kids."
That's pretty much how you feel when the IRS asks you if you're "rich", too.
It's a bit ludicrous to think that there exists a truly rational means of measuring success, whether economic or personal or otherwise. The unspoken truth is that our judgments as to whether or not a person is successful or wealthy are emotional and impressionistic at root. Like art, wealth is something about which I can safely say, "I know it when I see it."
Scmidtz writes:
Liberal political equality is not premised on the absurd hope that, under ideal conditions, we all turn out to be equally worthy. It presupposes only a traditionally liberal optimism regarding what kind of society results from giving people (all people, so far as we can) a chance to choose worthy ways of life. We do not see people’s various contributions as equally valuable, but that was never the point of equal opportunity, and never could be.
Makes me wonder whether or not our collective failure to grasp the meaning of prosperity comes from the fact that we keep calling it equality. As euphemisms go, it's a sloppy one. Distracting, too.
By endlessly parsing equality instead of prosperity we keep 90% of our discussion focused on the relatively small "grey area" of the debate. It's a bit like trying to define what a celebrity is by endlessly debating whether or not the people on Celebrity Fit Club are "really" celebrities. The real answer to that particular question isn't to be found on an axis, nor in any relative valuation--the real answer is: It doesn't matter. Except perhaps to Chastity Bono, but I doubt that even she cares.
Tags: Cato, David Schmidtz, equality, inequality, economics, wealth, prosperity
Powered by Qumana
Comments