Photo illustration by John Lyman

Culture

/

Equal Results Attack Equal Rights

Two kinds of equality are at war with each other in society today: equality of rights and equality of results. However, it’s impossible to have both simultaneously. Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek once wrote, “It is just not true that human beings are born equal;…if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual positions;…[thus] the only way to place them in equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are, therefore, not only different but in conflict with each other.” Equality of rights is a system that prioritizes individual liberty, while equality of results necessitates rigid control and, ultimately, the erosion of that liberty.

People, when given equal freedoms, inevitably use them differently, leading to unequal results. Consider this scenario: imagine if 20 people were each given $50,000 on a Monday. By Tuesday, their wealth would likely be unequal. One individual may have spent the sum gambling at a casino, another might have invested in food for their family, and someone else could have invested in shares or started a small business. Some recipients would see their assets quickly dwindle, while others would see theirs grow. The differing choices they make naturally result in different outcomes.

For equality of results to be achieved, individual actions would need to be restricted. The stark truth is that to ensure equal outcomes, human freedom must be limited. No matter how “altruistic” the intentions of social engineers, their goals can only be accomplished through authoritarian means. What’s tragic is that even the goals themselves are often not realized. The result of this process is a crude form of equality at the lowest common denominator, and for this, human freedom is sacrificed.

Take, for example, how property owners improve their financial situation. Homeowners can lease their property to generate income—perhaps by downsizing and renting out their original home for a profit. They still have a place to live, but now, they have a small additional income to raise their standard of living. However, this option is often unavailable to recipients of government housing, whose choices are restricted by policy.

A government release from the Western Cape in South Africa illustrates this: “The law is clear that every South African citizen who receives a government housing subsidy when buying or receiving a property will be subject to a pre-emptive condition in their Title Deed, meaning the individual cannot sell the property within the prescribed 8-years of receiving the subsidized house, unless it has received permission from the Provincial Department of Human Settlements to do so.” In contrast, other homeowners can sell their property without needing special permission.

Imagine two homeowners, each presented with a job opportunity that could vastly improve their lives but require them to move. The first homeowner can lease their property and relocate easily. The second, however, must jump through bureaucratic hoops, proving to officials that they have a legitimate reason to sell or lease their property. The regulations tied to subsidized housing often reduce the economic mobility of those they aim to help, trapping recipients in a cycle of reduced income and fewer opportunities.

While restrictions on freedom might be politically necessary, they too often serve as roadblocks rather than pathways to economic mobility. The advocates of equality of results face a significant dilemma: free people, including those they seek to assist, often make decisions that do not reflect the values or preferences of the bureaucrats engineering the programs. The only viable solution, then, is to strip those beneficiaries of their ability to make choices. In fostering the goal of economic equality, they must limit the freedom of the very people they claim to help.

Programs intended to help often become excessively complex, and politicians frequently take the easy route. Instead of focusing on “lifting up” disadvantaged individuals, they settle for “tearing down” those at the top. One method of achieving equality of results is through the confiscation of wealth. Yet, in doing so, these systems create a new class of elites: state agents, politicians, and the special interests they favor, who accumulate both wealth and power.

History provides a grim precedent for this. Authoritarian regimes have sought equality by destroying wealth rather than creating it. While raising the bottom is difficult, tearing down the top is much easier. Mao Zedong did this in China, Pol Pot in Cambodia, and Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. Hitler used this tactic against the Jews. Mugabe targeted commercial farmers and black professionals. In these cases, economic destruction was justified in the name of equality.

The reality is that human freedom must be restricted for equality of results to thrive. No matter how “altruistic” the social engineers’ motives, their goals require authoritarian tactics to succeed.