There are few phrases more abused today in the English language than the line in the constitution which goes "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal." These words, born of the desire to secure for the citizens of the new nation of America freedoms which had been lacking in the Old World, have today been pressed into the service of all those who would seek to subvert those freedoms.
Who are those of whom I speak? They are none others than the very voices which cry out most loudly against injustice in our society, who are quickest to find oppression in the differences between a man and his neighbor. Does one man have more money than another? This is a sure sign of oppression! Is one man smarter than another?
It is only because the other man has been deprived of the chance to be all that he can be! Any differences between men in their achievements and possessions are by definition evils to be eradicated, or so these fellows would have it.
To be sure, not all demands for equality are bad. Certainly the demand for equal treatment before the law, regardless of race, religion, sex and origin is a worthy ideal, an ideal which should be at the heart of any truly just society. People should be judged on their merits for the roles they seek, and nothing else. The problem with truly equal treatment before the law is that, under any regime that rigorously applies such a principle, the natural differences in ability and character between men will manifest themselves in achievement in all their force. This is a situation which all those who advocate "social justice" and "equality" find unbearable to contemplate.
A reasonable fellow might well ask if those individuals in search of social justice and those who desire meritocracy are not asking for the very same thing, but I say certainly not. People really do differ in what they are capable of, and no amount of social engineering can alter this fact. One can try to train a tone-deaf child to be a concert violinist, but no matter the resources at one's disposal that child will never be a Yehudi Menuhin. Similarly, some people are quite disposed to working and saving while others are simply lazy spendthrifts. While environments do differ, some differences really are inborn, and they will come to the fore most strongly in a society where there truly is equality of opportunity.
If one sees a regime in which talent is denied its rightful due as a morally unjust one, then one cannot help condemning any attempts to institute "social justice" in any form. For, just as equal opportunity means the chance to excel on one's merits, it also means the chance to fail on one's personal qualities. It may well be that one man has the means to feed a whole town of starving people, but if he has achieved his wealth by his own efforts, in a free and transparent atmosphere, he most certainly has the right not to do so, regardless of how others may feel about the injustice of the situation. For those who may have forgotten, this right is called the right to be secure in one's own possessions. It is the linchpin of the modern free state, and the reason we have policemen and soldiers.
The right to be secure in one's own possessions is also one of the few truly justifiable reasons for taxation. Another is the need to provide everyone with a decent enough education that reasonably meritorious competition is possible. However, all government programs based on the forcible transfer of wealth from one party to another go against the right to property and are immoral, in that they penalize those who succeed simply for having done so. It does not follow that if I am sipping Chardonnay and you are rifling through rubbish bins that I am oppressing you and you deserve a share of my wealth. To say so would be tantamount to saying that a man, simply by existing, is owed a living by the rest of the world.
No doubt many would condemn the ideal I have set forth as harsh, inhumane even. It may well be harsh, but life does not come with a guarantee of ease and comfortable repose. What one should expect from life is a fair shot, not a free ride, and it comes as no surprise that those who agitate most loudly for wealth-transferring programs are those most afraid they will fail in an atmosphere of laissez-faire. Under a truly liberal system one would still be free to give all one has to the poor. The only difference would be the lack on any coercive agency in this generosity.
Does taxation for the purpose of achieving greater income equality signify "fairness"? Is the pursuit of equal outcomes instead of equal opportunity the pursuit of "justice"? If so, then I am all for unfairness and injustice. Some men are, and should be, more equal than others.
