Equality

I believe in Equality but I do not believe in too much equality. Obviously, “too much” of anything is never ever good. By definition. Nowadays, the equality concept is however pushed and pushed to such a degree that it denies that people are different (‘diversity‘). The equality concept also implicitly denies that everyone has unique talents. Some of these talents may get international attention while other talents never become public. Talents – like people – are never equal.

The basic assumption in communism is that all men are equal and thus everyone should have a similar share of the entire pie. It’s a mystery to me that this assumption has ever been taken seriously. If history taught us anything then it should be that reality is the exact opposite of that assumption. No man or woman is equal. Each one of us has his/her own talents. Consequently, any social experiment with communism has failed miserably thus far and will always be doomed to fail as it is incompatible with essential human psychology. (excerpt from my 7 July 2015 blog)

Raising the question what Equality stands for, makes sense at this point. In my view, Equality means that the rights and obligations of all human beings are the same. In my view, Equality should not be stretched beyond that. In practice, Equality nowadays implies non-discrimination based upon gender, religion, sexuality, or skin colour (eg, voting rights).

However, equality in income is already a sensitive issue. Income is based upon far more criteria than gender, religion, sexuality, or skin colour. It’s nearly impossible to find two equally fit persons for any job. Even when the input is the same (ie, gender, religion, sexuality, or skin colour) than the output (eg, productivity) will hardly ever be the same. Essentially, (differences in) income represent(s) a reward on (differences in) output – not on input.

Nowadays, equality in jobs seems to be a one-way street. The discussion is how to get more women in the Boardroom and how to “harmonise” male/female remuneration. The discussion is not how to get more male teachers, male nurses, male (divorce) lawyers or male judges. The concept of equality is being stretched too far. The ultimate consequence is that equality will lose support and backfire. 

To some extent, the US discussion on (the reversal of) positive discrimination is an example of this loss of support for equality. Even in Europe the proposed mandatory application of positive discrimination for women in certain roles (eg, Boardroom) is criticised (link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4). In essence, the criticism is simple: why should a company be forced to hire a woman when there are more suitable other (male) candidates? 

Essentially, positive discrimination is an example of discrimination based upon gender. However, the law exempts this discrimination, allows it, and even rewards it by calling it positive discrimination. This collision between non-discrimination rules is bound to get worse in the future.

Parts of the discussion on positive discrimination are merely based upon political correctness and no longer on merits, qualifications and suitability. And as Groucho Marx once said: “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”