by Glenn Rogers
One of the concerns of the larger social justice issue is equality. Everyone should be treated as equals. Of course they should. The constitution says all people are created as equals. If we believe this, then all people should be treated as equals. But what, exactly, does that mean? What does equality mean? What kind of a society must we be to be a society of equals?
Many sociologists (most of whom are Marxist in their approach) have focused in on financial or income equality. There is a great deal of discussion regarding wealth inequality, the idea being that unless everyone in society enjoys a very similar financial situation, it is somehow unjust or unfair. Unequal. But is it? Is it necessary for everyone to live in similar housing, drive similar cars, wear similar clothes, eat similar food, take similar vacations, and so forth for them to be equals, for things to be fair and just? Or, to word the question differently, why would one assume that if someone has more money than someone else there is something wrong, that something unfair or unjust has occurred? The answer that is usually given is that if all people are equal then they should live equally, that is, they should have roughly the same kind and same amount of stuff. But is that what being equal means? I think not. Allow me to explain.
There are two different kinds of equality: intrinsic equality and situational equality. Intrinsic equality has to do with the kind of beings we are. We are human beings. And as such each of us has the same intrinsic worth and value as everyone else, a worth and value that exists not because of anything we do or contribute, but simply because of the kind of beings we are—human beings that think, reason, makes choices, and so forth. Every human being, simply because he or she is a human, has the same worth and value as every other human being, and is, therefore, entitled to the same level of respect and consideration.
Situational equality, however, is something quite different. Situational equality has to do with people enjoying the same kind of situation in life. This kind of equality is virtually non-existent. Few, if any of us, enjoy the same situation as any other person. Life just doesn’t work that way. Some people are taller; some are shorter. Some are fast; some are slow. Some are blessed with athletic ability; some are not. Some people are quite good looking; some are average looking. Some are brilliant, others not so much. Some are strong; some are weak. Some are outgoing and charismatic, others are shy and introverted. No two people are just alike. Few people have had exactly the same experiences in life, and those who have, have been impacted differently by those experiences. No two people have made exactly the same choices for the same reasons and been impacted in exactly the same way by the choices they made. Life and nature generate differences between people.
I can remember being a boy in grade school: first and second grade. We lived in Ohio then, and in the winter sometimes it was too cold to go outside for recess. So the teacher would take us to the gymnasium where we would run races. She would line us up and blow her whistle, and twenty-five or thirty little kids would take off toward the other side of the big room. The same couple of kids, David and Kenny we’ll call them, always got there first, and the same couple of kids, Billy and James, always came in last. One of the boys, Billy, who always came in last, would whine and say, “It’s not fair. He can run faster than I can.” From one point of view Billy was right. The other boy, David, could run faster than he could. But was it unfair? Had some kind of injustice occurred? If the boy who won, David, did not cheat, how was it unfair or unjust? David can run faster. An inequality exists. But has something unfair or unjust occurred? No. It’s just the way things are. Nothing unfair or unjust about it. Nature often generates inequality.
What if it turns out that while David always wins the foot races, he nearly always gets the lowest score on the arithmetic quizzes? And what if Billy nearly always gets the highest score? Now there is an inequality in a different area. Has something unjust occurred because Billy is better at arithmetic than David? No. Why not? They are not equal. Because situational inequality in not unjust. It’s just the way things are.
One’s situation in life is never exactly like someone else’s. That’s why situational equality almost never exists. And yet many people are advocating that unless there is situational equality in society (especially where everyone has the same or nearly the same amount of wealth and status), we have an unjust society. But is that really the case? No, it is not. Trying to make everyone situationally equal or very nearly equal is unnatural and does not work. The socialist experiments of the 20th century taught us that. Socialists tried to create a classless society where everyone had very nearly the same kind and quality of stuff and lived in very nearly the same conditions. It didn’t work. It can’t work. Why not? Because situational equality is not natural to human existence. It is simply not the way life works. Situational inequality between people exists. To try to create an artificial situational equality where everybody has roughly the same kind and amount of stuff is part of the unrealistic, unattainable utopian fantasy Marx postulated. It has been tried. It failed. Miserably. It simply doesn’t work.
Some might argue that while physical inequalities are to be expected, there ought not to be social (wealth or status) inequalities. Why not? The answer that is given is, because all members of a society ought to have equal wealth and status. Why? That answer that is given is, because wealth and status inequalities are unjust. Why? The answer that is given is, because they are. That’s how the argument goes. There’s not really much of an argument there, is there? Real arguments with adequate explanations are never given. Why not? Because there aren’t any logically sound arguments that can justify trying to create an artificial situational equality.
Inequalities exist. That is simply the way life works. And to try to create a socioeconomic system that artificially eliminates them is foolish. It has been tried. It did not work. It is time for socialists to acknowledge the failure and accept the reality and rightness of situational inequality, especially income inequality that is rooted in education, skills, and hard work.
Self-determination and Personal Responsibility
Another factor in the larger social justice concern has to do with self-determination and personal responsibility. Human beings are self-determined. We have free will. We are aware of having real alternatives, of being able to consider those alternatives, and to make meaningful choices. Some of our choices are not terribly important. Should I wear a green shirt today or a blue one? Should I have ranch dressing on my salad or blue cheese? Some of the choices we make, however, are important because they involve moral concerns—should I cheat on my taxes? Should I have an affair? Should I lie on my expense report? Should I give a student I don’t like a lower grade? Should I leave crucial information that would not support my position out of my presentation? Should I misrepresent the truth so that more people will agree with my position?
We have all sorts of decisions to make. Some have to do with important concerns such as education and career. For instance, if someone decides not to go to college or not even to finish high school, that is very likely going to impact the kind of job they can get, which impacts the kind of income they can earn, which impacts where and how they can live. What if a person decides he does not want to be part of mainstream society, does not want to dress, talk, look, or act like people who are part of mainstream society? Each person certainly has the right to make such decisions. But what will the impact of those decisions be? Let’s say, for instance, that Bill decides to drop out of high school. Bill is probably not going to be able to get a good job and make a good living working as a member of mainstream society. If that is the case, whose fault is it if Bill lives in substandard housing and can’t make ends meet, financially speaking? It would be Bill’s fault. He decided not to get an education, and because of that can’t get a job earning enough to get by on. He handicapped himself. Consequences go along with choices. We are self-determined people, responsible and accountable for the decisions we make.
What has any of this got to do with capitalism
or socialism? Simply this: much of the inequality in our society (especially income inequality) is because of the choices people have made. Some inequality is naturally occurring—being athletic or being good at math. Some of it is directly related to decisions people have made. For instance, I decided to become an educator. Educators don’t usually make a lot of money. If I had become a lawyer, I probably would have made a lot more money than I did as an educator. But I didn’t. I chose to be an educator. So not having as much money as some others was because of the career choice I made. No one to blame but myself.
Some will argue that certain disadvantaged groups live in such terrible circumstances that they have no choice to be anything but what they are—usually uneducated, unmotivated, disenfranchised, poor. That is social determinism, and it is simply not true. Everyone has a choice. They may be difficult choices, but everyone has a choice. In another of my books, Because We Are Humans: The Kinds of Social and Governmental Structures We Need To Thrive, Excel, and Achieve, I have dealt with the argument of social determinism more extensively, providing examples that demonstrate that anyone can choose to thrive, to excel, and to achieve.
So again, what has this got to do with socioeconomics? A system, like socialism, attempts to create a classless society by rewarding people who contribute little the same as it rewards people who contribute much. How is that fair and just to those who contribute much? A system like capitalism, however, rewards people on the bases of their contribution. Those who make good choices and work hard are rewarded. Those who make bad choices or who do not contribute suffer the consequences of their bad choices and/or their lack of effort.
Some might object, saying, That’s cold. That’s heartless. No, that’s holding people accountable for the choices they make. If more parents would teach their children about personal responsibility and accountability regarding the choices they make, we would have fewer people making so many bad choices.
Sometimes people need help. This is true. And we should help those who need help. But how should we help them? There is a section on that later on in this chapter. For now, the point is that a socioeconomic system that does not hold people accountable for their choices is not a good one.
Modern Social Democracies Or Welfare States
I have already demonstrated that true socialism—communism—doesn’t work. The 20th century taught us that. But what about those countries that practice what they call social democracy? Don’t they demonstrate that a modified form of socialism can work and eliminate the problems associated with capitalism? No, they do not. And they do not because there aren’t any countries that are, in fact, socialistic and democratic and not capitalistic.
In Chapter 1, I addressed the issue of definitions, pointing out that Marxist sociologists and economists like to play fast and loose with the definition of capitalism, defining it incorrectly, making it into something it isn’t. When it comes to the term social democracy, they are doing the same thing—playing fast and loose with definitions so they can create something they can present as a viable socialistic alternative to capitalism. The problem is there isn’t a viable socialistic alternative to capitalism.
Jeffrey Dorfman, Professor of Economics at the University of Georgia, has written an informative article in Forbes about what is often referred to as social democracy. The title is: Sorry Bernie Bros But Nordic Countries Are Not Socialistic. Professor Dorfman says, “It is certainly true that Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark are notable economic successes. What is false is that these countries are particularly socialist.” The professor goes on to remind readers that socialism is an economic system where the government owns the means of production and controls production, distribution, pricing, and so forth. In none of those Nordic countries, does the government own and control the means of production or control production, distribution, pricing and so forth. Those countries, therefore, are not socialistic. They are, in fact, free market capitalistic economies, and they are successful enough to be able to offer a number of social services: government-paid healthcare, generous social safety-nets, and in some cases a tuition-free university education, (Dorfman). However, they are able to offer those things because their capitalistic economy is healthy and generates enough income so they can tax businesses and individuals at a high rate in order to pay for those services. Dorfman suggests that instead of making them socialistic in any way, it makes them a welfare state. He does acknowledge that they do run their educational system and “meddle” (his term) a bit in healthcare. But that level of government involvement certainly does not qualify them as a socialist state or a social democracy.
So if the left wants to hold up some country as an example of contemporary socialism they will have to look elsewhere. The countries listed as social democracies are capitalistic countries that take money earned fairly and legally by capitalists and redistribute it to people who did not earn it. They do so in the name of creating a more fair and just society. But is it fair and just to take money from people who earned it legally and give it to people who did not? I will address that concern in the next section.
Another important concern is whether or not the government taxing the wealthy to provide free services to everyone else in society is the best way to help people excel and achieve, reaching their full potential as human beings. Many people would say no. Most parents recognize that if they want their children to be responsible, capable of self-sufficiency and independence, they need to learn that nothing in life is free. They need to learn the value of working, earning, saving, and paying so they can enjoy being independent, self-sufficient adults who pay their own way. People who live in a society that gives them so much of the most important things in life have no chance of learning self-sufficiency and independence. They are dependent children rather than independent adults.
This is such an obvious truth that one must wonder whether or not it is the government’s intention for the majority of the people to be so completely dependent on them. After all, dependent people have a very hard time standing up to their benefactor. The one paying the bills makes the rules. Dependent people are powerless people. Seems to me that it would be to the government’s advantage to maintain that sort of a situation. It may be good for the government, but is it good for the people? Can dependent people achieve their full potential as human beings? I think not. Children certainly cannot. The only way for children to become fully functional adults is for Mom and Dad to stop supporting them, requiring them to live on their own and support themselves. It works the same way in society. The only way for people to become fully functioning self-sufficient individuals is for society to require it of them, for society to say, no one is paying your way for you.
Robin Hood Taxation
Most of us are familiar with the story of the English “hero” Robin Hood. He robbed from the rich to give to the poor. He is considered a hero by the poor rather than a thief because the rich from whom he stole were mean, greedy people who oppressed and exploited the poor. Robin Hood’s exploits were likely carried out while England was still in the throws of feudalism, and whether or not one considers him a hero or a villain probably has a lot to do with whether one is rich or poor.
But whether or not he was justified in what he did, we can use his name and story to ask an important question: is it moral for the government to take more money from the wealthy (who earned it legally) than they take from the not wealthy so they can give it to people (through social programs) who did not earn it? While some people would say, of course it is, if we think more carefully about it, we may see that the practice is not on solid moral ground. After all, Robin Hood stole from the rich.
Robert Nozick, a Harvard professor, developed a theory called entitlement theory. He wrote about it in his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia. In short, his theory says that if someone earns or acquires something legally, he is entitled to it, and no one can take it away from him against his will. To do so would be tantamount to stealing, which is immoral.
Ho
ld that thought for a moment and consider how a progressive tax system, such as the one we have in the U.S., works. The more income a person has, the higher the percentage rate he pays in taxes. Some people may pay 8%, some 10 or 12%, and some nearly 40%. Let’s assume you are in the 40% bracket. The idea is that since you earn more than most others, you ought to pay more in taxes than people who make less than you. Here’s the problem. Very few people in the 40% bracket want to give the government 40% of their income. If they do not want to give it, why should they be forced to? Well, someone might argue, because it costs money to run a country, and citizens must foot the bill. Everybody has to pay something toward the bill. And the rich ought to pay their fair share. That is certainly true. Very few people who have thought about how a society works would deny the need for taxes. The challenge related to taxation is fairness. What is a fair and just way to collect taxes? One of our former presidents was fond of saying the rich ought to pay their fair share. Of course they should. Everyone should. But he never explained what a fair share is or how one would arrive at a number (a percentage perhaps) that would be fair.
Big government liberals, some of whom are socialists, advocate heavy taxes on the income of the wealthy, taking money from those who earned it (legally) so they can redistribute it by means of social programs to those who did not earn it. It occurs to me that this is not equal treatment under the law. The current tax code (the tax law) intentionally treats people differently on the basis of their income. What if people were taxed differently on the basis of their sex, or ethnicity, or religion, or sexual orientation? Would we tolerate women being taxed at a higher rate than men? Would we tolerate people of color being taxed at a higher rate than white people? Of course not. So why do we think it is right—why is it equal treatment under the law—when wealthy people are taxed at a higher percentage rate than others? By the way, most people are unaware that Marx and Engels advocated a progressive tax in 1848 in the Communist Manifesto as a way, “to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeois, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state.” Our first experiment (in America) with a progressive tax rate was in 1862. Interesting.
