Consistent Egalitarianism

Egalitarianism is usually the manifestation a fundamental belief in fairness. A belief in equality of outcomes, far from being fundamental to such an outlook, is simply a belief that inequality is undeserved, since the egalitarian believes that it derives from unearned advantages, such as good parenting, growing up in a good neighborhood, etc, etc.

If therefore, according to the egalitarian premise, we want to go to the root of inequality in opportunity, the way to do it is not by handing out healthcare and welfare and social security. These efforts miss the fundamental engenderer of inequality by decades. The only consistent application of the egalitarian ideal is to nationalize child-rearing, and removing that right from parents.

There is no argument for the redistribution of wealth which cannot be applied, and more consistently, to nationalized childcare. If one requires a certain amount of resources to “get off the ground” economically, how much more does a child require a certain baseline of care to succeed in life? If a man’s poor economic situation in a free economy is the fault of external factors like exploitation and oppression, how much more is his disposition the fault of external factors like poor parenting? Where redistributionists want to level the economic starting point after the fact, the consistent egalitarian knows that the starting point can only be leveled at birth.

The only solution then, is national standards in childcare. Each child is raised in the same manner, and from there chooses his path in life, allowing his natural talent and disposition to shine through. With each child raised in the exact same manner, the rest of the economy could be quite free. Parents may not bestow any resources upon their children except as a donation to the general fund, for one child may not be given an “unfair” or “unnatural” advantage over the rest, whether developmentally from loving care, or through resources.

The solution, in short, is complete homogenization. The only tolerable differences will be those arising purely from biological disposition. This is the essence of the egalitarian aesthetic: individualism is threatening, both economically and politically. The principle could even be taken so far as to outlaw free procreation and forced sterilization, as free choice in pairings engenders inherent biological inequality as well.

The rest of the egalitarian ideal must necessarily collapse after this, however. Though the government may (and probably will) still have a safety net for those who make especially poor decisions as a matter of disposition, there is no longer any excuse for redistribution. In fact, redistribution cannot be an ideal under any political theory, for even if we accept that the ills it purports to fix are indeed ills, it is only an ad hoc solution; a bandage that falls apart as a generally applicable principle.

So, to those egalitarians who would advocate redistribution to remedy inequality, stop piddling around with inconsistent, feel-good, ex post policies and take your ideas to their logical conclusion. Unless, of course, that reveals your moral and just ideals to be unacceptably immoral and unjust.