The Politics Of Equality Essay Research Paper

The most prevalent sentiment of the times is summed up in one word and that is ‘equality’.

At every level and on all fronts including political, social and economic, the egalitarian gospel has been asserted as the way the light the truth.

The rights of the child are considered equal to those of the parent, the pupil’s to that of the teacher, Jack is as good as his master, a professor of economics’ political assessment judgement is neither superior nor inferior to that of an illiterate road labourer, each being provided with identical voting power. The obvious difference of nation, race and sex are nothing more than historic hangovers.

It is instilled in us from childhood the great evil of inequality while paying no regard to individual differences. The thrust of broader educational guidance is towards a collective responsibility where children are not encouraged to excel so much as they are to fit in.

When differences prevail they are condemned, so the All Black scoring a spectacular try hangs his head as he returns to the halfway mark in a facade of modesty and repentance for his individual assertiveness.

The egalitarian sentiment underlines the thrusts and trends of this centuries changes in human relationships. Witness the outrage from the professional do-gooder social worker set, on behalf of the ‘victim of society’s inequalities’ lout who knocks over an old lady and steals her purse. The old lady is dismissed as a symbol of society’s oppression whilst the thug, we are told, is uttering a cry for help.

The do-gooders offer a flood of words and sometimes convincing arguments but as William Blake said “He who would do good to another must do it in minute particulars. General good is the plea of the scoundrel, the hypocrite and the flatterer.”

The seed for equality was planted centuries ago but it was not until the middle of the 20th century that it took root and flowered. The result in my view has been a disastrous folly of legislative efforts to distort the true nature of human relationships.

Its flourishing is attributable to Marxism regardless of its form. Today equality is the goal of every sphere of activity and has reached ludicrous proportions. Surely the reality is irrefutably obvious that men are born and remain unequal, that races are unequal, as quite clearly are nations.

Not so, say the egalitarians. Insofar as inequalities exist they reflect distortions or abuses by the wrongfully superior or stronger faction and it is right and proper that the might of the state be imposed to effect a proper and fair levelling.

Yet I repeat, men are equal in no sense whatsoever, whether intellectually, artistically, physically or whatever and it would seem that any basis of perceived equality between them can only be achieved by either their mutual agreement or an arbitrarily imposed enforcement. It is therefore suspect in its stability and permanence. Therefore it follows that the degree of equality that prevails in any situation reflects the degree to which some men are inhibited and of necessity, and regrettably, they are always the brighter or stronger.

To illustrate my point, It is an obvious fact that some people can run faster than others. If it was desirable that in this activity all runners be equal, no amount of hard line legislation or even agreement between the runners themselves, will allow the slowest to keep pace with the fastest.

Yet as far as the egalitarians and legislators are concerned, it is essential if a fair and equal situation is to prevail, and so it is achieved in the only way possible. The fastest runner is forced to reduce to the pace of the slowest to ensure that they cross the line together.

Sadly what is happening in Australia is that the slowest runners have woken to the situation and asked themselves what sense there is in even trying to run fast or to excel beyond their own personal standards. The result is always the same anyway neither a first nor a second always a draw so why bust themselves?

So they slow down and over time reduce to a walk until eventually they are hardly moving at all. This makes the egalitarians ridiculously happy as it is not performance that they are concerned with but this mindless obsession with equality.

I do however concede that are a reasonable number egalitarians in one form or another, who do not seek a forced sameness in our society but rather an equality of oppurtinity. This sentiment I agree with, my argument is that we have long since achieved that position satisfactorily and gone well beyond. The problem with this is that it is easier to go the whole way and argue total equality (eg. China, albeit a forced equality) than to aim for equality of oppurtunity alone.

It is simply too easy to rationalise the absence of true equality of oppurtinty in the case of failures and use this as an excuse for further restrictions on everyone else.

Consider the ridiculous discussions that are constantly raging in Australia today. It is anathema to suggest to the egalitarians that the Aboriginals are different other than their skin colour. Not-withstanding the evidence, it is suggested that their domination of the lower socio-economic strata reflects their lack of oppurtunity in an unjust society.

For no known reason, to my self anyway, the egalitarians, the Marxists and the do-gooders who feel a desperate urging to intrude into others’ lives, become particularly enraged on the question of racial differences. As a multi-racial society, Australia suffers from an excess of these self appointed guardians of the minority race. The rantings of these bores have made any public comment incidentally involving Aboriginals, subject to accusations of bigoted racism.

To be truly equal we must all be identical, and that we are clearly not. Personally I prefer the French attitude, vive la difference, which celebrates our differences rather than condemns them.

In worshipping the concepts of equality we are only enslaving ourselves. A Democratic society will function only as well as its individual citizens. A democracy that allows each of its members maximum fulfilment will function best of all, but the consequences will invariably be inequalities as each individual fulfils himself to his own capability.

There is nothing wrong with a stratified society, all evidence suggests not only is that what the people desire, but it is the best way of advancing the social and economic welfare of its members.

If it is an open and free society it will provide an easy transition from one stratum to another as each finds his own level according to his capability and aspiration.

It is the easy cop out not to earn but to demand from the rest of society. The egalitarian human righters are winning at the moment but ultimately they have to lose, otherwise the eventual outcome will be a descent into total inactivity demanding our livelihood from our fellow men claiming it as our basic human right. The options confronting us then will be to either starve or to recognise reality.

All that I have said may be judged in some quarters as elitist. It is not, for I place no greater value on manager or the labourer. Each to his own with out interference from the other.

The egalitarian dream is in contrast to reality and therefore can never be obtained, let alone sustained. Even those monstrous monuments to Marxism, Russia and China, with all their coercion, brainwashing and dogma saturation that is instilled in their citizens from childhood, remain pyramidical in their socio-economic order. They differ from the west only in that their stratification is cruder, divided into ruling and serving classes. Their ultimate goal is to form something resembling a school of fish, leaderless and responding only to a collective instinct. I would say that so far they have achieved a descent to the ant level in their fantastic march backwards down the evolutionary road.

The world is changing, people now crave respect for their individual assertiveness no matter what its form.

The politics of Australia this past 50 years have been the politics of equality and we are all the poorer for it.