Chapter 6 Visions of Equality
Equality is understood in fundamentally different ways depending on whether one holds a constrained or unconstrained vision. These differences center on whether equality is about ensuring equal treatment within a system or about achieving more equal outcomes.
Those with a constrained vision see equality as a process. They believe in providing everyone with equal opportunities and treating them fairly under the same rules, regardless of their background. Think of it like a race where everyone starts at the same line, even if some runners are naturally faster than others. They acknowledge that differences in individual talents and efforts will lead to unequal outcomes, but that’s seen as a natural consequence of individual freedom.
In contrast, those with an unconstrained vision define equality in terms of results. They strive for a society where people have more equal access to resources, opportunities, and outcomes, regardless of their starting point. Imagine providing different levels of support to runners based on their abilities, so that everyone has a fairer chance of finishing the race at the same time. This might involve policies like affirmative action or wealth redistribution to address historical disadvantages and level the playing field.
These contrasting views on equality stem from different beliefs about human nature and what's achievable. Constrained visions worry about the unintended consequences of excessive intervention, fearing that attempts to equalize outcomes will create new inequalities or undermine individual freedom. Unconstrained visions, however, see such efforts as necessary to create a truly just and equitable society, believing that social policies can effectively address disparities and create a level playing field.
Causation
People who believe in a constrained vision of society and those who believe in an unconstrained vision view the causes of economic inequality in very different ways. People with an unconstrained vision believe that inequality is a central problem, both intellectually and morally. They believe that the rich have taken from the poor, both domestically and internationally. They argue that much of the wealth enjoyed by the wealthy comes from the efforts of past generations, and that the poor are being robbed of their rightful inheritance. They also point out that many wealthy people have not earned their wealth through hard work or talent, but have simply been lucky or born into privilege.
On the other hand, people with a constrained vision acknowledge that inequality exists, but they do not see it as inherently unjust. They argue that inequality is an inevitable outcome of a free market, and that attempts to eliminate it will only lead to worse problems. They worry about the concentration of power in the hands of the government, and believe that attempts to equalize outcomes will undermine individual freedom.
People with a constrained vision argue that a free market economy is the best way to improve the lives of ordinary people. They argue that the competition in a free market encourages innovation and efficiency, which leads to lower prices and a wider variety of goods and services. They also believe that a free market is the best way to allocate resources efficiently, since businesses are motivated to produce the goods and services that people want.
Those with a constrained vision of equality argue that the market is a self-regulating mechanism that cannot be controlled without causing harm. They are more concerned with the process of the market than the results. They believe that attempts to control the market will only lead to inefficiency and corruption. They believe that the best way to help the poor is to create a system that allows everyone to succeed, regardless of their background.
In the view of people with a constrained vision, the main problem is not inequality itself, but the existence of poverty. They believe that the best way to reduce poverty is to create a system that allows everyone to succeed, regardless of their background. They argue that this can be achieved through policies that promote economic growth, such as deregulation, tax cuts, and free trade.
The two visions also disagree about the relationship between equality and freedom. People with an unconstrained vision see equality and freedom as complementary values, while people with a constrained vision see them as being in conflict. People with an unconstrained vision believe that everyone should have an equal opportunity to succeed, regardless of their background. They believe that the government has a role to play in ensuring equality of opportunity, through policies such as affirmative action and public education.
The two visions represent fundamentally different ways of thinking about society. People with an unconstrained vision believe that society can be improved through deliberate action, while people with a constrained vision believe that attempts to improve society are likely to do more harm than good.
Kinds of Equalities and Inequalities
While people who believe in constrained and unconstrained visions of society might agree that all people are inherently equal, they have different views on how this translates to real-life outcomes.
Those with a constrained vision, like Adam Smith, recognize that inequalities in wealth and social standing exist. However, they believe that individual freedom in personal and economic choices is more important than achieving equal outcomes. They argue that focusing on individual freedom will ultimately benefit everyone, even if it leads to some inequality. They also tend to believe that differences in abilities between people are not as significant as some might think.
On the other hand, those with an unconstrained vision see these inequalities as evidence that society is deeply unfair. They believe in actively working towards a more equal distribution of resources and opportunities, even if it means limiting individual freedom to some extent. They might support policies like social mobility programs or wealth redistribution. They often point to the arrogance and lack of merit among the privileged as proof that the system needs change.
Interestingly, while advocating for equal outcomes, people with an unconstrained vision often believe in a greater difference in capabilities between people. They might see the less educated or less successful as needing guidance from an intellectual and moral elite. This difference in perceived capabilities is a key reason why they support a more active role for government or other powerful institutions in achieving their goals.
Therefore, both visions value equality but in different ways. The constrained vision sees equality in the inherent value and potential of each individual, while the unconstrained vision focuses on achieving equal access to resources and opportunities.
Summary and Implications
The unconstrained vison believes in the vast potential of humans but acknowledges the limitations of the average person as they exist today. This view supports the equalization of material conditions, even if it requires those with greater intellect and morality to guide others.
Conversely, the constrained vision sees a smaller gap between human potential and current reality. This view emphasizes the importance of individual discretion and equal opportunity for all. While acknowledging expertise in specific fields, this perspective highlights the strengths and capabilities of ordinary individuals.
Essentially, the core difference between these two views lies in how they perceive human rationality and its distribution. The unconstrained vison argues for guidance from a select group due to perceived differences in rationality. The constrained vision champions individual decision-making and equal access to opportunities, emphasizing the value of shared experiences and traditions. Ultimately, the conflict arises not from the desire for equality itself, but from what aspect should be equalized: individual freedom or material conditions.
Equality is understood in fundamentally different ways depending on whether one holds a constrained or unconstrained vision. These differences center on whether equality is about ensuring equal treatment within a system or about achieving more equal outcomes.
Those with a constrained vision see equality as a process. They believe in providing everyone with equal opportunities and treating them fairly under the same rules, regardless of their background. Think of it like a race where everyone starts at the same line, even if some runners are naturally faster than others. They acknowledge that differences in individual talents and efforts will lead to unequal outcomes, but that’s seen as a natural consequence of individual freedom.
In contrast, those with an unconstrained vision define equality in terms of results. They strive for a society where people have more equal access to resources, opportunities, and outcomes, regardless of their starting point. Imagine providing different levels of support to runners based on their abilities, so that everyone has a fairer chance of finishing the race at the same time. This might involve policies like affirmative action or wealth redistribution to address historical disadvantages and level the playing field.
These contrasting views on equality stem from different beliefs about human nature and what's achievable. Constrained visions worry about the unintended consequences of excessive intervention, fearing that attempts to equalize outcomes will create new inequalities or undermine individual freedom. Unconstrained visions, however, see such efforts as necessary to create a truly just and equitable society, believing that social policies can effectively address disparities and create a level playing field.
Causation
People who believe in a constrained vision of society and those who believe in an unconstrained vision view the causes of economic inequality in very different ways. People with an unconstrained vision believe that inequality is a central problem, both intellectually and morally. They believe that the rich have taken from the poor, both domestically and internationally. They argue that much of the wealth enjoyed by the wealthy comes from the efforts of past generations, and that the poor are being robbed of their rightful inheritance. They also point out that many wealthy people have not earned their wealth through hard work or talent, but have simply been lucky or born into privilege.
On the other hand, people with a constrained vision acknowledge that inequality exists, but they do not see it as inherently unjust. They argue that inequality is an inevitable outcome of a free market, and that attempts to eliminate it will only lead to worse problems. They worry about the concentration of power in the hands of the government, and believe that attempts to equalize outcomes will undermine individual freedom.
People with a constrained vision argue that a free market economy is the best way to improve the lives of ordinary people. They argue that the competition in a free market encourages innovation and efficiency, which leads to lower prices and a wider variety of goods and services. They also believe that a free market is the best way to allocate resources efficiently, since businesses are motivated to produce the goods and services that people want.
Those with a constrained vision of equality argue that the market is a self-regulating mechanism that cannot be controlled without causing harm. They are more concerned with the process of the market than the results. They believe that attempts to control the market will only lead to inefficiency and corruption. They believe that the best way to help the poor is to create a system that allows everyone to succeed, regardless of their background.
In the view of people with a constrained vision, the main problem is not inequality itself, but the existence of poverty. They believe that the best way to reduce poverty is to create a system that allows everyone to succeed, regardless of their background. They argue that this can be achieved through policies that promote economic growth, such as deregulation, tax cuts, and free trade.
The two visions also disagree about the relationship between equality and freedom. People with an unconstrained vision see equality and freedom as complementary values, while people with a constrained vision see them as being in conflict. People with an unconstrained vision believe that everyone should have an equal opportunity to succeed, regardless of their background. They believe that the government has a role to play in ensuring equality of opportunity, through policies such as affirmative action and public education.
The two visions represent fundamentally different ways of thinking about society. People with an unconstrained vision believe that society can be improved through deliberate action, while people with a constrained vision believe that attempts to improve society are likely to do more harm than good.
Kinds of Equalities and Inequalities
While people who believe in constrained and unconstrained visions of society might agree that all people are inherently equal, they have different views on how this translates to real-life outcomes.
Those with a constrained vision, like Adam Smith, recognize that inequalities in wealth and social standing exist. However, they believe that individual freedom in personal and economic choices is more important than achieving equal outcomes. They argue that focusing on individual freedom will ultimately benefit everyone, even if it leads to some inequality. They also tend to believe that differences in abilities between people are not as significant as some might think.
On the other hand, those with an unconstrained vision see these inequalities as evidence that society is deeply unfair. They believe in actively working towards a more equal distribution of resources and opportunities, even if it means limiting individual freedom to some extent. They might support policies like social mobility programs or wealth redistribution. They often point to the arrogance and lack of merit among the privileged as proof that the system needs change.
Interestingly, while advocating for equal outcomes, people with an unconstrained vision often believe in a greater difference in capabilities between people. They might see the less educated or less successful as needing guidance from an intellectual and moral elite. This difference in perceived capabilities is a key reason why they support a more active role for government or other powerful institutions in achieving their goals.
Therefore, both visions value equality but in different ways. The constrained vision sees equality in the inherent value and potential of each individual, while the unconstrained vision focuses on achieving equal access to resources and opportunities.
Summary and Implications
The unconstrained vison believes in the vast potential of humans but acknowledges the limitations of the average person as they exist today. This view supports the equalization of material conditions, even if it requires those with greater intellect and morality to guide others.
Conversely, the constrained vision sees a smaller gap between human potential and current reality. This view emphasizes the importance of individual discretion and equal opportunity for all. While acknowledging expertise in specific fields, this perspective highlights the strengths and capabilities of ordinary individuals.
Essentially, the core difference between these two views lies in how they perceive human rationality and its distribution. The unconstrained vison argues for guidance from a select group due to perceived differences in rationality. The constrained vision champions individual decision-making and equal access to opportunities, emphasizing the value of shared experiences and traditions. Ultimately, the conflict arises not from the desire for equality itself, but from what aspect should be equalized: individual freedom or material conditions.