Skip to main content

Why We Need to Reject Equality of Outcome


The United States of America was founded on the principle of equality. This principle has guided the country throughout its history. There have been times that we have fallen short of this goal, the most obvious example being slavery. However, lately there appears to be disagreement on what really constitutes equality. For some, equality means guaranteeing a certain outcome for all, regardless of any difference in ability or effort expended. However, this is not what the founders intended when they wrote, "all men are created equal." We should be grateful for their interpretation of what equality means.

The Founders were deliberate about including the concept of equality in the Declaration of Independence, which proclaims: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” No matter the differences between people, they still all possess the same natural rights. No one, neither the elite nor the majority, is qualified to take away those natural rights. The Constitution and the government it set up are designed to accomplish this end. 

Equality of opportunity means freedom to pursue one’s private interest and vocation without arbitrary restrictions based on irrelevant personal characteristics. In business, this means freedom to conduct a trade, but it does not mean you can compel someone to participate in a trade with you. People are inherently unequal in their talents and preferences. This compels them to spend their time and money in different ways. Some may choose careers that give them plenty of time for leisure, while others go for very time-demanding careers. There is no reason they should be rewarded equally given the inequality of their choices. Having a system based on merit means there will be inequality in outcomes. Some will simply earn more than others. Nevertheless, while one might expect otherwise, income inequality in market-based economies is less than income inequality in non-market economies.  

Suppose equality of opportunity represents the ideal that everyone starts the race at the same time. Equality of outcome would dictate that everyone must also finish the race at the same time. The argument the equality-of-outcome advocates make, they will often point out, is not that everyone should necessarily have equal amounts of everything. Instead, they argue everybody should at least have their "fair share." As Karl Marx would put it, “To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability.” This requires somebody or some group to determine what that fair share is and then they must have the power to enforce that decision. That is not the role for government envisioned by our founders. They created a government designed to protect people's rights and property but would otherwise stay out of their way.

The irony of “equality” of outcome is that it requires we treat everyone unequally. Those who are in charge of making decisions inevitably reward themselves before helping anyone else, and they give themselves far more than they give anyone else. It requires that government take from those with more than their “fair share,” whatever that is, and give it to those who have less. Such a system destroys the incentive to produce. Unless forced, why would one want to work when all his needs would be provided for, and he could not rise above a certain threshold? Even if every person were given the same amount to start with, they would soon become unequal. Some would spend $50 out of their share to see Paul McCartney in concert, or other entertainments that might not be as healthy, and they would soon have much less than the average person.

People do have a duty to help their fellow man when he's in need, especially when in need through no fault of his own, but government is the least effective way to accomplish this. Prior to our current welfare system, Americans supported each other through mutual aid societies and charity, and this system was very effective. Throughout the twentieth century, this system was undermined by laws and regulations meant to restrict mutual aid societies' ability to function, such as laws that required mutual aid societies to show a gradual improvement in reserves. These artificial barriers drove many of these organizations to disband or discontinue services. The government services that replaced them have not been successful in their goal of eliminating poverty. In fact, even as the equivalent of charitable aid has grown as a percentage of government budgets, measured poverty has barely budged.

Americans need to remember the principles this country was founded on. All men are created equal. Anyone who puts in the effort has the opportunity to succeed. Limited government and free enterprise make it possible. The idea that everyone must end the day at the same time and place undermines this ideal. Forcing one person’s descent into poverty to lift another into equal poverty when both could realize greater individual wealth, though unequal, is cutting off the nose to spite the face. It is a petty attempt to make people feel better about their lot in life. As the movement to guarantee equal outcomes picks up steam, so must our resistance to this dangerous idea. A focus on our founding ideals has never been more important.


Spencer Cadavero is a Research Associate at 1889 institute and can be reached at scadavero@1889institute.org.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.

Popular posts from this blog

Lies We Tell in Government, and Our Debts to Truth

HBO’s mini-series,  Chernobyl ,  is a drama depicting  the disastrous  1986  explosion ,  and  hero ic efforts to control the  resulting  meltdown ,  of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine  (then part of the Soviet Union ).  A flawed man, but true hero,  Valery  Alexeyvich   Legasov , worked tirelessly to ameliorate the disaster’s consequences and  chiefly  investigated its cause. He was  Deputy Director of the  Kurchatov  Institute of Atomic Energ y , a Soviet elite, who  is portrayed at the end of  the  series making a dramatic speech at a trial about how the nuclear reactor exploded, when  such an explosion in that type of reactor  should not have been possible. In the course of the series, the audience  learns  that the reactor had a design flaw that had been covered up by the Soviet State (true).  The audience also learns  that...
Read more

When It Comes to the Cox Center, “What if I Get to Meet a Movie Star?” Isn’t Good Enough

In a recent   post , 1889 Institute expounded on the fiduciary duty of elected officials “to act in the best interest of the people of the state as a whole,” a “high duty, executed as a public trust … wherein one puts the people’s interest above one’s own.” This fiduciary duty must not stop with elected officials. Once an elected body or an elected official – the legislature, a city council, the governor, or a mayor – has taken final action, the faithful implementation of each enacted law, policy, or program falls to an army of bureaucrats. Thus, a fiduciary duty to execute laws and policies with diligence and integrity, tantamount to that of elected officials, must extend to government employees. Recently, I had a few moments to sit down and watch a show with my children. Unsurprisingly, my son picked a series entitled “The Stinky and Dirty Show.” I was naturally skeptical that the show would yield any real value. However, as I watched, I found myself pleasantly surprised. Each ep...
Read more

AG Hunter Lowers Boom on Barrier to Entry; Legislature Should Follow His Lead

Even as the Oklahoma Supreme Court  struck down  a recent alcohol distribution law, the Attorney General paved the way for the state’s Alcoholic Beverage Law Enforcement Commission (ABLE) to remove an obstacle from the expansion of liquor store competition - finding that Oklahoma’s five-year in-state residency requirement before one can own a liquor store likely runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution and recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent.  The AG’s  opinion , issued at the end of December, informs the state’s alcohol commission that portions of the state constitution (Article 28A, Section 4(A) & (B)) are unenforceable. These provisions require that ABLE issue a Retail Spirits License or Wine and Spirits Wholesaler License only to someone who has been a resident of Oklahoma for the previous five years. Presumably ABLE, who requested the opinion, will now begin issuing licenses to otherwise qualified applicants regardless of how long they have lived in Okl...
Read more

The Problem of Diffuse Costs and Concentrated Benefits

Do you ever find yourself observing a seemingly illogical government program , spending decision, or other strange practice and ask “how is it that no one has fixed that?” If you are like me, you encounter this phenomenon regularly. This often takes the form of a curious headline (Save Federal Funding for the Cowboy Poets!) that most people see and can’t believe is real. I would like to suggest that this phenomenon often results from the problem of diffuse costs and concentrated benefits. To understand this concept, consider a hypothetical law that assessed a $1 tax on everyone in the United States with the proceeds to be given to one individual for unrestricted use as he sees fit. The people harmed by such a law—the individual taxpayers—will not be very motivated to spend the time and effort to convince Congress to change the law. They might resent the dollar taken from them for a silly cause they don’t support, but the lost dollar isn’t worth the trouble of doing something about i...
Read more