The Fallacy of Equality: How to make Egalitarians Squirm

               To anyone for whom equality is a driving political motive, whether they be egalitarians, socialists, communists, or really any sort of political or philosophical '-ist' deriving from the folly of the Enlightenment, there exists one singularly disparaging conundrum which has yet to be adequately answered. Quite simply, "When will we know that equality has been achieved? How will we know when the Great Task is completed?"

                For any undertaking or objective, in order for it to be of rational order, it must be achievable. As such a purpose necessitates a metric, a system by which completion of the task may be gauged. Before we can reasonably claim a particular intention, we must then first determine by what means we will assess the task. In the case of equality how then can we determine that the aim has met its mark? Simply, there are two broad categories of egalitarian which I will be addressing, though rest assured there are more, I will be addressing these two and their conceptions of equality to begin with.

                Of the first order of egalitarians there are those on the most radical limb who honestly and openly drive towards equality of outcomes. That there will be similarity in how people are, the facets of their lives and in the way they think and how they moralize. To paraphrase a right-wing political philosopher, "They hate diversity. To them diversity means for everyone to act like a stupid, gullible, middle class white person and simply have a wonderful myriad of varying skin colors and hair textures." An accurate description of the position if ever there was one. This position is readily assailable for a number of reasons, and though it ventures into areas which I will not cover here, it is necessary to frame this position before addressing the second form of egalitarianism. The argument as follows is one of logical inconsistency. I will grant that this egalitarianism of the first order is at the very least, consistent, though I find it personally repugnant.

                Egalitarianism of the second order is that which stakes the claim of 'equality of opportunity' as its goal. Within this category are groups as wildly disparate as Social-democrats, Libertarians, Socialists, Republicans, and in essence every major popular political party or group with any real weight in American Society. However, they do not address the Metric Question, or how will we determine when equality of opportunity has been reached? As of yet, I have not received, nor can I conceive of a reasonable response. With that in mind, consider then how these groups claim to know that we don't already have equality of opportunity?

                Consider the normal modus operandi our society places for this question when it is delivered inversely as a statement. That is to say: "X" group is unsuccessful because they were not granted equality of opportunity. Whether that group be the impoverished, the 'oppressed' women living under the tyranny of the patriarchy (lol), or any one of the many ethnic minorities which live within this country, this is always the formula for determining an inequitable opportunity on the part of the unsuccessful.

                Notice that this argument uses group success (outcomes) as the means to determine whether equality of opportunity has been reached, or whether equality of opportunity is necessary at all as a desirable outcome,  without ever considering that this argument is simply one logical step removed from the one delivered by Egalitarians of the First Order. That group the Second claims so strongly to be "different" from.

               

                A purpose is no purpose at all if it cannot be achieved, unless the achievement is the act in and of itself. However, such an aim is one of personal growth, the sort of act undertaken by an individual whose values are clear, given to a personal hierarchy, and which in any given moment can be conclusively  ordered. Within a society, this is an impossibility for there are intentions, desires and values which are legion. Thus, equality for the sake of equality is no counter.

                When framed in this way, that is framed not in theory but in practice, social equality becomes an untenable position. Barring a conclusive answer to the Metric Question which can be agreed upon to some degree (another problem similar in nature, democracy) Egalitarians of all stripes will quickly find themselves either recognizing and rejecting the inevitable drive of such thinking, or embracing it and once and for all openly admitting they hate diversity and dissent and anything which remotely challenges their world view. They will be forced to become steely eyed realists, or petulant children who insist on their world view being accepted, or by God they will take their ball and go home.