The left has introduced a new buzzword into the American vocabulary; Equity. They chose this word very carefully, as they aways do. It sounds so much like equality, and gives a vibe of fairness, so the average American has been taken unaware. Today we are going to dive into the meaning of equity, the differences between the terms, and the ramifications of our society embracing this new term. We believe that after reading this article, you will want nothing to do with this agenda.
Where did Equity come from?
When addressing a new concept and agenda like equity, one must at least ask themself 'why people would embrace it?' What in our nation's history has led us to this point? It is no secret that there are American's, members of our society, who have not been treated equal. A basic survey of American History screams of the injustices that were inflicted upon Native Americans and Black Americans; slavery, Jim Crow, and more. These are Americans who suffered and worked and did not get to experience Equality for decades. It is out of this frustration that many would embrace the concept of Equity; wanting their fair share that has been denied them and their ancestors for 200 years.
Selling a concept like equity to many of these people is like shooting fish in a barrel. But we must also realize that oversimplified ideas and solutions are often more dangerous than productive. Equity is no different. Equity involves every individual receiving the same result despite ability or effort. If you have not already realized it, this is nothing more than a new word for communism. It is marxism rebranded to target a modern audience.
Why is Equality Better?
Equality on the other hand is as American as Freedom, and Open Markets. It is the ability to live life with no artificially imposed limitations on your ability to achieve your potential. Think about that for a moment. Equality means that if you are a person with an idea or talent, that you are able to achieve whatever level of success, fame and wealth that you work to achieve based on the merits of the idea or talent. So if you are an amazing athlete, and you work hard, no one will limit how far you can go simply because of your sex, race, name, hair color, etc. The only limiting factors are your ability and effort.
This applies to Sports, Music, Writing, Science... every area of life. No one is guarranteed the same outcome, as each talent and idea is valued differently by society. But each person according to their ability and effort is able to maximize their potential and make the best life possible for themselves. Unfortunately there will be people who lack effort, or who do not ever find or develop their gifts, and therefor do not achieve their maximum potential. There will be others who have unfortunate circumstances beyond their control, such as illness or injury, for whom life will be more difficult. This is where charity comes in, but that is the subject of another article. This article will focus solely on equity vs equality of able bodied individuals.
Why if Equity Bad?
Anyone who is honest has to admit that if given a choice of anywhere to be born and any any time to be born in human history would choose today in the USA. We have the highest standard of living and the most freedom of any human that has ever lived. The poorest in America still live at a significantly higher standard than the majority of people on Earth. Every American has unlimitted potential to raise their own standard of living, and the freedom to choose what to do with it and where to live. We enjoy freedom of speech not known in the vast majority of countries. This is why so many people leave their homelands to come here, but so few leave here to go abroad.
What gives us this standard of living is open markets. The best ideas rise to the top and those who come up with them, and successfully impliment them, benefit financially from their work. It is these free market opportunities that lead to the innovations that constantly raise the quality of life of all people. People risk all that they have to pursue new ideas and methods because of the potential financial rewards that lie ahead. Every person's risk aversion is different, but people make concious decisions to take these risks based of the enormous rewards they could achieve. People without ideas of their own risk their financial resources to invest in other people's ideas with the expectation of financial rewards. That is how many ideas get off the ground despite those with the ideas having limited financial resources of their own.
Once you take way the possibility of becoming rich from these risks, people will make the simple decision not to take the risk, and ALL people will lose out on the benefits that these products and ideas would bring to society. Who wants to live in a world where there is no innovation or advancements? Not me.
Our liberal friends will now argue that that is where government is to step in. But as most of us recognized through Covid, the governement is not the source of the best ideas. We saw politicians making power grabs, locking down cities and states, destroying businesses and ultimately our entire economy; mistakes from which we are still suffering. The problem with us depending on the central governement for ideas is that ideas come top down from a limited number of people; people who all think they are the smartest people in the room. Therefor the ideas are limited to a small number of people and are limited by how intelligent and creative those people really are.
I hate to break it to you, but the overwhelming number of our elected officials are not very smart or creative. They are just clever and connected and have agreed to vote along party lines to retain their positions of power. If we need to depend on them for the best possible ideas and solutions to our problems, we will be going without. In contrast to top down solutions from elected officials, the much more efficient and productive solutions occur in the free markets. If information (not propoganda) is shared with the masses, ideas will arise. Many different individuals will come up with ideas for solving the current problems, people will see those solutions and decide which ones they agree with, and the best ideas and solutions will rise to the top, while the worst will go away. The businesses with the best and safest ways of serving customers during Covid will thrive, others will then copy them, making the best ideas the standard while the worst will close their doors. This is in direct contrast to the government deciding who should open or close and creating their own mandates. If the free markets were allowed to function, I believe we would have seen even more innovation during Covid that would have bettered all of our lives, and hurt fewer businesses and individuals.
Is Equity Even Possible?
If we look at our economy, there are people of all economic levels. There are the very poor, the lower income, middle income, upper middle income, the wealthy and the Elites. The wealthy are those who have accumulated significant wealth based on free markets. The upper middle income and middle income people are those who have made very good lives for themselves through performing dangerous, difficult or highly specialized jobs that required extensive education, experience or training. These people made the sacrifices necessary to achieve these levels because of the potential of a better than average life. Once you take away that potential, and guarrantee everyone the same outcome, people will not make the sacrifices necessary to be able to perform these occupations. And again, all of society will suffer because we have less skilled doctors, scientists, etc.
Beyond this basic concept is the simple fact that everyone can not be rich. We do not live in a utopian society. No utopia exists or has ever existed on planet Earth. Therefor it is impossible to guarrantee that every person will work their hardest without free market motivations so that supply is great enough for everyone to experience no lack of want. We will naturally have a limited amount of resources that must be divided by everyone in that society, and the only way to divide it is by money or wealth. People accumulate resources as a reward for producing more resources than others. Those who do not produce, do not share equally in the available resources.
With that understanding, if marxists are able to artificially divide every available resource equally, it is a basic law of nature that each person who does produce a high amount of resources will be given less resources than what they could otherwise earn in the free market. So it is impossible for equity to make everyone rich. It is only possible for equity to make everyone equally poor.
But there is one caveat: None of these rules apply to the Elites. The rules never apply to the Elites. In fact, the equity agenda benefits the Elites even more than open markets do because the equity agenda (marxism) prevents any of the ordinary people (the masses) from ever being able to rise up to the level of the Elite ruling class. Equity is a lie promulgated by the Elites to prevent us from competing with them in the free markets. Stop believing the lies. We'd love to see your comments.