If to treat someone justly is to treat them according to their individual needs, then justice cannot be equated with egalitarianism. "One law for the lion and the lamb is tyranny" William Blake wisely observed. Further, how do we make the one-legged man, the an with bad knees, and the world-class sprinter fully equal? One person will say it's not fair to the first one that the second two have two legs, and that it's not fair to the first two that the last one can run so fast. A second person will say it's not fair to the runner that he should have to bear a burden to slow him down so the first two can outrun him, and that it would be horrible to even suggest the last two have a leg cut off to make things truly equal. I would venture to say that most people who identify themselves as egalitarians would agree with the second one, especially on the second point -- but these same people will proceed to do essentially the same thing to people when it comes to other skills, especially mental skills.
Egalitarians do not like to hear someone say that the first two have no business trying to run a race in the first place. These people think that just because someone wants to do something, they should. More, they think the person should necessarily have an equal chance to win -- as though that were ever actually a real choice. Someone always has some edge, and that edge allows them to come out ahead. Sometimes it is luck; sometimes a well-throw ball will be dropped by the best receiver in football history. Which is why we play the games.
Egalitarians are against all games as such. They want no one to win, because someone will lose. They want no one to profit more than another. They condemn excellence. They would cut the legs off every man to make the legless man with envy happy. They do not see his evil, refusing to believe in evil. This is the source of their injustice: giving in to everyone's envy. The just person fights envy wherever it may lurk, understanding its deeply corruptive, corrosive nature. But some will encourage corrosion just to gain power for themselves.
__________________
After posting this, I read the following in Seneca's "The Trojan Women", from Act IV, the chorus:
If none were happy, none would believe himself
Unfortunate, however great his troubles.
Take away wealth, and gold, and thriving lands
WIth droves of oxen at the plough -- how then
The spirits of the down-pressed poor would rise!
What is misfortune but comparison?
In order that none may feel unfortunate, there are those who would drag us all down. Wouldn't it be better to teach people not to find misfortune in comparing themselves to others? Or to teach people that the proper response to seeing that someone has something is to work hard to get the same kinds of things rather than filling themselves with anger and hatred at others for having what they do not? To those who would argue that the rich go out of their way to keep the poor impoverished, I would note two things: 1) wealth is not a zero-sum game -- in other words, if I have more, that does not mean you have less in a free market economy, meaning 2) if the rich tried to keep the poor impoverished, all that would do would be to impoverish the rich, since it is only people who have money who are able to buy the things the rich have to offer. In a free market, the only difference between the rich and the poor is that the rich engage in more economic transactions -- that is, value-creating transactions -- than do the poor.
No comments:
Post a Comment