A Common Thread: Anti-Egalitarianism in Objectivism, Conservatism, and Libertarianism
by Neil Parille
Introduction
Matthew Humphreys, in an interesting
article,
draws attention to the fact that many Objectivists and libertarians
feel a greater affinity to the contemporary Right than the Left. Mr.
Humphreys notes that there are various “currents of thought” found in
the Right with which Objectivists and libertarians can make common
cause.
One current of thought (which Mr. Humphreys doesn’t
discuss) between these three traditions is their opposition to
egalitarianism. Although not an easy concept to define, I take
egalitarianism to mean the belief that all people are (or can be) equal
in intelligence and worth and that society should attempt to promote
equality (particularly of income) among people. On a cultural level,
egalitarians often assert that all societies and cultures are of equal
value.
I will discuss the opposition to egalitarianism focusing on
the works of three American authors who each represent one tradition:
Russell Kirk, Ayn Rand, and Murray Rothbard. In spite of their
differences on many issues of fundamental importance, there is a common
thread of anti-egalitarianism running throughout their writings.
Conservatism: Russell Kirk
The twentieth century’s leading American
conservative author was Russell Kirk (1918-1994). Although Kirk was a
frequent critic of Rand and Rothbard, his critique of egalitarianism was
similar. In one of his later essays, Kirk rejects the concept of
“equality of condition” by which he means the “equality of incomes and
other awards.” (Kirk does not reject the idea that people should be
equal before the law.) [Kirk,
Redeeming the Time, p. 217.] He states:
In short, I have been arguing that it is profoundly unjust to endeavor
to transform society into a table land of equality. It would be unjust
to the energetic, reduced to equality with the clack and indolent; it
would be unjust to the thrift, compelled to make up losses of the
profligate; it would be unjust to those take the long view, forced to
submit to the domination of a majority interested chiefly in short-run
results. [Id., p. 225.]
According to Kirk, the drive for equality has resulted in high taxation,
a decline in educational standards, and multiculturalism.
Objectivism: Ayn Rand
Needles to say, Ayn Rand (1905-1982) was not an
egalitarian. Her novels depict a world divided between the good and the
evil, the intelligent and the stupid, and the strong and the cowardly.
Although she was skeptical of genetic and racial differences in
character and intelligence, she was clear that human beings and cultures
differ in many respects and equality was neither possible nor
desirable.
Perhaps Rand’s fullest exposition of her
anti-egalitarianism is found in her 1971 essay “The Age of Envy.” Her
criticism of egalitarianism is somewhat similar to Kirk’s and she sees
similar consequences, including multiculturalism (although she didn’t
use the term) and a decline in educational standards. [Rand,
Return of the Primitive, pp. 140-49.]
In “Galt Speaks,” Rand advances what Objectivists call the
“pyramid of ability principle,” namely that those less capable benefit
when the more capable are allowed to advance to the limit of their
abilities. [Rand,
For the New Intellectual, pp. 185-86.] This
concept is not unique to Rand, and Kirk quotes the British conservative
W. H. Mallock to the same effect in his 1894 book
Labour and the Popular Welfare:
“Equality benefits no one. It frustrates men of talent; and it reduces
the poor to a poverty still more abject. . . . For inequality produces
the wealth of civilized communities: it provides the motive which
induces men of superior benefit to exert themselves for the general
benefit.”
Libertarianism: Murray Rothbard
Murray Rothbard (1926-1995), the last century’s most
important libertarian thinker, was likewise a staunch opponent of
egalitarianism, who attributed to egalitarianism many of the same ills
as Kirk and Rand. Indeed, two of Rothbard’s most important essays were
“Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature” and “Freedom, Inequality,
Primitivism, and the Division of Labor.” Rothbard sees similar results
flowing from the egalitarian agenda:
Equality of condition would reduce humanity to an anthill
existence. Fortunately, the individuated nature of man . . . makes the
ideal of total equality unattainable. But an enormous amount of damage –
the crippling of individuality, as well as economic and social
destruction – could be generated in the attempt.
[Rothbard,
Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, and Other Essays, p. 279.]
Throughout Rothbard’s vast cultural criticism, he exposed the
egalitarian fallacies behind “Women’s Liberation,” multiculturalism, and
“progressive education.” In particular, his attack on progressive
education mirrors Rand’s critique, focusing on the political, cultural,
and “epistemological” aspects of this movement. [Rothbard,
Education: Free and Compulsory, pp. 53-55.]
Conclusion
How this common opposition to egalitarianism “plays out” in
contemporary politics is beyond the scope of this brief article.
[1] Yet, anti-egalitarianism constitutes a common thread among the Objectivist, libertarian, and conservative traditions.
[1]
Likewise, there is not space to discuss the common influences on these
thinkers. Kirk, Rothbard, and Rand each read (and approved) of Ortega y
Gasset's
The Revolt of the Masses. They also read Schoeck's
Envy (although Rand didn't appear to approve of it, judging from the
Marginalia).
