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

Present Reforms to Keep the Ghost of State Questions Past from Creating Future Headaches

Oklahoma, like many western states, allows its citizens to directly participate in the democratic process through citizen initiatives and referendums. In a referendum, the legislature directs a question to the people — usually to modify the state constitution, since the legislature can change statutes itself. An initiative requires no legislative involvement, but is initiated by the people via signature gathering, and can be used to modify statute or amend the constitution. Collectively, the initiatives and referendums that make it onto the ballot are known as State Questions.   Recently, there have been calls to make it more difficult to amend the constitution. At least two proposals are being discussed. One would diversify the signature requirement by demanding that a proportional amount of signatures come from each region of the state. The other would require a sixty percent majority to adopt a constitutional amendment rather than the fifty percent plus one currently in place. ...
Read more

Muddy, Shallow Thinking Versus Clarity in Education Reform

Monopolies are the best! If we are to gain maximum efficiency and create the greatest value for people, monopoly is the way to go. Competition creates administrative inefficiency since instead of one set of managers, there are as many as there are companies, and all of them cost money. Competitive companies make products that do the same basic things, but waste resources by making products with different features. Standardized products would save money. Were research and development under one roof, instead of many competitive ones, researchers could coordinate more closely, saving money and ultimately being even more innovative. Monopolies would therefore benefit everyone. Everything in the first paragraph is, of course, balderdash . Monopolies, especially those created by government, stifle innovation, develop bloated management, produce too little at low quality, and charge too much. Why? Because they can. They’re monopolists. Without competition and with nearly guaranteed ...
Read more

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

The Unfairness of Concentrated Wealth is NOTHING Compared to the Unfairness of Redistributing It

Socialist types like to accuse rich corporate types of having “too much” wealth. Simple fairness, they claim, dictates that one person should not have so much when so many have so little. But if we’re going to talk about fairness, let’s really give it fair consideration. That means looking beyond the petty jealousy and thinking about the fairness of seizing wealth from those who earned it and giving it to those who did not.   How did the wealthy get that way? The socialist types claim that the greedy capitalists exploit their workers and their consumers. Is that true? Let’s start with the workers. Jeff Bezos may be greedy. I wouldn’t know, I’ve never met him. But I did work for him - in fact I hired other people to work for him. So I can say with reasonable certainty that he hasn’t created his enormous wealth by exploiting his workers. They were all there voluntarily.   Before attending law school, I spent several months working for the temp agency that hires seasonal workers ...
Read more