Equality is a buzzword that is all the rage at the moment. Equality is good, disparate outcomes are bad we are told. The traditionally mentioned and championed remedies for inequality? Government intervention and funding for social justice busybodies of course. Unfortunately, the left seems to have a monopoly on the term equality, with the moral currency that entails. I reject that conclusion.
Speaking about equality, we have to mention the two different forms. Equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Opportunity here means that everyone has the same starting point. In practice, this means equal rules applied to all, free education to eliminate disadvantages from being poor and affirmative action to help “disadvantaged” groups. Outcome means that the final result is equal, regardless of where the different people started from. True outcome based equality is theoretical communism. I’m not going to devote many lines to debunk the desirability of this, the pile of corpses, 100 million high does that for me. Additionally, we have the lack of motivation inherent in communism. Stefan Molyneux has made an excellent case here called “Marksism”. Imagine if you’re in school and all the grades are added together and divided by number of students, everyone gets the same grade regardless of work. We can all understand (except for Marxist professors) that this would kill all motivation to perform above the absolute minimum.
The only realistic expression of outcome based equality is a race to the bottom. There are problems with opportunity based equality as well. Humans are different by nature, and their goals and desires are different as well. Personally, I’m perfectly happy that a surgeon makes much more money than me. I would never do that job as long as alternatives exist. I simply don’t have the stomach for cutting people open, performance anxiety over making mistakes would fray my nerves. I also advocate that artists and other creative people shouldn’t be entitled to an income on the backs of hard working tax payers. Not everything is socially useful or productive, the market should decide their compensation. True opportunity based equality can never be realistically accomplished. Natural differences cannot be compensated for. I don’t remember the title of the book, but a famous book by a famous author has smart people wearing headphones playing garbled noise to make them “equal” to dumb people. Such is the true nature of opportunity based equality. Neither desirable nor practicable.
This brings us to guns and make-up. What items in the modern world are better suited to realize the utopian dream of true equality? The case has famously been made that guns equalize a 25-year-old man lifting weights at the gym every single day and a frail 70 year old woman. The gun makes them equal in their ability to exert deadly force in protection of themselves. I question the opposition to these tools of equality and female empowerment by people on the left, otherwise shrouded in rhetoric about equality. The same goes for make-up. Some natural traits are more desirable than others. What traits are desirable differs from decade to decade and culture to culture. Nevertheless, some people are born more “lucky” than others.
Make-up allows these differences to be washed away. Make-up doesn’t improve one’s appearance by a specific amount, it doesn’t enhance beauty by say 30%. It brings people up to a point regardless of their starting point. We have all seen pictures of celebrities and models without make-up on, they look “plain” and ordinary, just like you and me. Make-up then allows everyone to compete on an equal footing in the marketplace of beauty. While I acknowledge and concede the point that some people have access to more money and time to hone their beautifying skills, and young people have faster reaction times than elders when it comes to firearms, the argument still stands. The equalizing effects are greater than the limitations. If we accept the premise that true equality is impossible, guns and make-up brings us darn close.
Sadly, those talking the most about equality are also the most ardent enemies of the tools that would bring them victory. Opposition to gun rights and “the tyranny of beauty” sounds good on paper, but in practice we must ask ourselves, who benefits? Those who are naturally strong and naturally beautiful, in fact it serves to protect their “privilege”. What do you have to say in your defense leftists? I call for an end to your propagation of privilege for the strong and beautiful!