I think “Equal societies are better, but the equality of my society doesn’t personally affect me” is the normal egalitarian view. If you object to inequality on a moral basis, it shouldn’t matter whether you personally live next to poor people.
People who want to personally live in a very egalitarian environment—most commonly an HOA with virtually identical housing where all homes sell in a narrow price band so there are no poor or ultrarich—are usually considered inegalitarians who want to stay away from people who are poorer. People who profess egalitarianism but then make this choice are the ones who are normally justifiably accused of hypocrisy.
If your moral views are such that you think equality is important for other consequences like social stability and crime, then one might expect equality to be used by said people as a proxy and that on the margins you'd expect more people to move to more equal states.
If someone's views are not consequentialist, such that they believe it is incumbent on everyone else to affirm the morality of equality, but that this is not linked in any way to actionable consequences of things people subjectively care about, it would still be the case that Caplan is right here. Sure, it could be "good" in the philosophers sense but not in the sense that anyone literally cares about.
You could just directly move to places with more social stability or less crime, there is data on these things and no need to use a proxy.
There are a lot of actionable things people do to reduce inequality besides personally moving, such as working on causes that reduce inequality, donating money, or voting for certain policies. These things are all more likely to reduce inequality than personally moving to a more equal area. Personally moving to a more equal area, which in practice means some kind of gated community, makes overall inequality worse so most egalitarians reject that.
This seems to me to just affirm the argument Caplan and others make, though, that it's precisely the case that the extent to which people act on equality is either as a low-cost signal like voting or small dollar donations (which Caplan has other arguments about), or in a circumstance where it directly contributes to some other substantive goal like poverty reduction.
The example of moving on the basis of equality (and gentrification concerns as the other side of the same coin) is used precisely because when equality *isn't* a proxy, it stops being used as a measure. This is an example where the use as a proxy and use as a measure breaks more explicitly than it does with respect to poverty, since it has a narrower index. That would seem to affirm the notion that people are mistaken (if not insincere) about their concern for equality as such, and rather more interested in particular, more directly observable outcomes vaguely associated with equality.
Most people deeply crave inequality. They want a better partner than the median partner. They want to make more money than the average by getting a promotion their competition did not, playing office politics to climb the greasy pole faster than other contestants. They want their kids to go to the most exclusive universities. They want a home in an upscale neighborhood. They crave to vacation where others don't get to, exclusive restaurants in exotic lands that they can signal about on their social media feeds. They fly first class or private if they can afford it. They join exclusive social clubs that help them connect with a higher value network. They don't want what everybody else is getting, unless we're talking about fully democratized products like Diet Coke or the latest iPhone.
However, as Bryan will often point out, Social Desirability Bias is one hell of a force of the human universe and requires that all of us pay lip service to equality in a public context.
This is a terrible argument, people who claim to care about equality are often disgusted by international inequality, I don't know anyone who says: "I only care about equality in my country."
Yeah, this is the kind of argument I would make a strawman libertarian argue. If anything, the leftist focus on the "Global South" shows that international equality is a big part of their thinking.
The Marxists I know well don't seem to focus on inequality per se as an ill; they mainly talk about colonialist alliances between corporations and states being culpable for the dire poverty's existence.
And yet how many of the top 10% wealthiest in the world (i.e.. almost everyone in the US and Europe) would voluntarily give up even 20% of their wealth to the poor in another country? None. Everyone wants someone else to pay.
You can show your dislike of extreme inequality by giving money to causes that mitigate it. Or to individual people less fortunate than yourself. So I don't think it's necessary to move to show that you care about inequality.
That's a convenient belief for me since supporting poverty fighting organizations does not impose much inconvenience on me.
But his argument isn't that there's no other ways to signal an ideological commitment. In fact, he's argued quite the opposite with respect to voting. His point is that the substantive outcomes that are described as linked to equality and egalitarianism, as opposed to "poverty" or "extreme inequality" (note the distinction between what he's referencing and what your turns of phrase may mean) are not ones for which we have clear behavioral evidence that people care.
It's not as if people are not earnest when they say they care about egalitarianism. The argument he's making, though, is that their self-assessment should probably not be taken particularly seriously, as there's at least some evidence that they don't operationalize the underlying premises of egalitarianism in any non-ideological context.
That said, Equality with a capital “E” is impossible. So to me it’s testing for something that’s theoretical. It’s hard to care about something like that.
Lol I was thinking along similar lines. You keep the fence there and then make the dad sit down and the older kid kneel while the youngest stays standing.
Alas, Bryan is underestimating the capacity of egalitarians to rationalize behavior that is at odds with their stated principles. Indeed, every profession of ethical principles that are at odds with man's innate psychological nature cannot be followed with rigorous consistency due to the effects of cognitive dissonance when principles come into conflict with natural impulses.
Egalitarianism is special only because it generates a paramorality that rationalizes feelings of envy. The real motivation of egalitarians is not that they want to be equal with relatively impoverished masses; what they resent about a free society is the existence of people who are obviously more successful than they are, even if that personal success is based on a superior ability to produce goods and services and thus improve the standard of living of the relatively poor people the egalitarians profess to care about. The competitive side of a free market system exposes their own personal failures in that respect, and the envious person just can't handle their own personal failures in a mature way. Instead, they have to lash out at the successful.
There are other types of generalized resentments, like contempt, bigotry, and intemperance, that generate similar sorts of paramoral opposition to a society based on individual liberty and responsibility and norms of reciprocity, even if these non-egalitarian forms of paramorality are also ultimately incompatible with the optimization of one's pursuit of happiness. What we see in many collectivist ideologies are appeals to all of these anti-social emotions, even if the various paramoral tendencies that are cobbled together happen to be mutually incompatible with each other as well as with human nature.
Greatness and prosperity magnifies inequality. It makes people feel worse but it's also he sign of freedom and human flourishing. So long as we still live in the place where it's pretty possible to make $200 or $250k per year for someone that plans, works hard, and executes...why do I care if there are more billionaires? It just seems so much of the wealth inequality discussion is more resentment and demonization of success than compassion.
1) I care much more about absolute poverty than I do inequality.
2) I still care about inequality.
I think a lot of it is a culture of egalitarianism, more than specific measure of income inequality, but my sense is they are linked to some extent. I like that the U.S. has traditionally been more classless compared to somewhere like India or even the UK. There's a general feeling that everyone should be treated with dignity, no matter their station in life. Contrast that with India or the UAE, where it can be appalling how poorly people of lower incomes and status are treated.
As an example, I hate first class when flying, not because of the fact that people can pay more for a more comfortable experience, but because the entire product seems designed to make the first class customer feel like they are better than the rest of the passengers. Even just small things like closing the curtain between the classes to make sure you don't have to interact with those poor people. Objectively I think it is great that people can pay for this level of service and subsidize cheaper tickets for those who don't want to, but I do worry about it weakening the classless society that I think is the American ideal.
This is a weak argument. There's no inconsistency between caring about macro-level inequality and not moving to a state with low inequality.
Actually, “Equal societies are better (because they're more ethical and/or politically stable), but the equality of my society (especially my state) doesn’t personally affect me" is a very common view!
So, given that overwhelming political majority, what is your theory for why it is not government policy? (or are you saying that middle-class liberals/progressives are a tiny minority, in which case I don't see how you can call it a common view)
I don't think anyone cares about how much inequality exists in *their community* specifically as opposed to society as a whole (or at least, their country as a whole, but that's only because people tend to ignore other countries when talking about their own country's politics). Leftists tend to criticize inequality between communities, for example. And it is usually a moral critique, rather than a self-interested one - I'm not really sure how you got the opposite impression. To whatever extent it is self-interested, it's, "I think I would be wealthier if we did more income redistribution." But then you're generally going to prefer to move somewhere that makes you wealthier in more direct ways, like a 15% raise.
The trouble here is that the argument applies to other political values. How many libertarians choose to live in the most libertarian jurisdiction available to them?
In the minds of many: egalitarianism = more/better social services. They will vote for this and move to places with this and work for companies that provide this.
You have hit on the key point: claims of being for equity / equality of outcome are all about seeking votes to attain political power for leftists; they are not about actual equality of outcome at all.
Is it really very rare for people to move to Canada, California or Europe on egalitarian grounds? In some instances, relocation might not be so easy (you yourself say borders are 98% closed), while in others, the downsides of moving may offset the benefits of living in a more equal society. Downsides of moving may include having to leave your current social circle, finding yourself in a very foreign culture, etc.
I think “Equal societies are better, but the equality of my society doesn’t personally affect me” is the normal egalitarian view. If you object to inequality on a moral basis, it shouldn’t matter whether you personally live next to poor people.
People who want to personally live in a very egalitarian environment—most commonly an HOA with virtually identical housing where all homes sell in a narrow price band so there are no poor or ultrarich—are usually considered inegalitarians who want to stay away from people who are poorer. People who profess egalitarianism but then make this choice are the ones who are normally justifiably accused of hypocrisy.
If your moral views are such that you think equality is important for other consequences like social stability and crime, then one might expect equality to be used by said people as a proxy and that on the margins you'd expect more people to move to more equal states.
If someone's views are not consequentialist, such that they believe it is incumbent on everyone else to affirm the morality of equality, but that this is not linked in any way to actionable consequences of things people subjectively care about, it would still be the case that Caplan is right here. Sure, it could be "good" in the philosophers sense but not in the sense that anyone literally cares about.
You could just directly move to places with more social stability or less crime, there is data on these things and no need to use a proxy.
There are a lot of actionable things people do to reduce inequality besides personally moving, such as working on causes that reduce inequality, donating money, or voting for certain policies. These things are all more likely to reduce inequality than personally moving to a more equal area. Personally moving to a more equal area, which in practice means some kind of gated community, makes overall inequality worse so most egalitarians reject that.
I've known people that live in ghetto type neighborhoods to increase equality. I think its dumb and it rarely works out, but they genuinely believe.
This seems to me to just affirm the argument Caplan and others make, though, that it's precisely the case that the extent to which people act on equality is either as a low-cost signal like voting or small dollar donations (which Caplan has other arguments about), or in a circumstance where it directly contributes to some other substantive goal like poverty reduction.
The example of moving on the basis of equality (and gentrification concerns as the other side of the same coin) is used precisely because when equality *isn't* a proxy, it stops being used as a measure. This is an example where the use as a proxy and use as a measure breaks more explicitly than it does with respect to poverty, since it has a narrower index. That would seem to affirm the notion that people are mistaken (if not insincere) about their concern for equality as such, and rather more interested in particular, more directly observable outcomes vaguely associated with equality.
Most people deeply crave inequality. They want a better partner than the median partner. They want to make more money than the average by getting a promotion their competition did not, playing office politics to climb the greasy pole faster than other contestants. They want their kids to go to the most exclusive universities. They want a home in an upscale neighborhood. They crave to vacation where others don't get to, exclusive restaurants in exotic lands that they can signal about on their social media feeds. They fly first class or private if they can afford it. They join exclusive social clubs that help them connect with a higher value network. They don't want what everybody else is getting, unless we're talking about fully democratized products like Diet Coke or the latest iPhone.
However, as Bryan will often point out, Social Desirability Bias is one hell of a force of the human universe and requires that all of us pay lip service to equality in a public context.
This is a terrible argument, people who claim to care about equality are often disgusted by international inequality, I don't know anyone who says: "I only care about equality in my country."
God, how can you talk about terrible arguments.
Do you mean they would prefer poor people in the US to be as poor as the global South ?
Yeah, this is the kind of argument I would make a strawman libertarian argue. If anything, the leftist focus on the "Global South" shows that international equality is a big part of their thinking.
The Marxists I know well don't seem to focus on inequality per se as an ill; they mainly talk about colonialist alliances between corporations and states being culpable for the dire poverty's existence.
Which is just a victim mentality. Marx thought that capitalism would inevitably collapse; Marx was a fool.
And yet how many of the top 10% wealthiest in the world (i.e.. almost everyone in the US and Europe) would voluntarily give up even 20% of their wealth to the poor in another country? None. Everyone wants someone else to pay.
You can show your dislike of extreme inequality by giving money to causes that mitigate it. Or to individual people less fortunate than yourself. So I don't think it's necessary to move to show that you care about inequality.
That's a convenient belief for me since supporting poverty fighting organizations does not impose much inconvenience on me.
But his argument isn't that there's no other ways to signal an ideological commitment. In fact, he's argued quite the opposite with respect to voting. His point is that the substantive outcomes that are described as linked to equality and egalitarianism, as opposed to "poverty" or "extreme inequality" (note the distinction between what he's referencing and what your turns of phrase may mean) are not ones for which we have clear behavioral evidence that people care.
It's not as if people are not earnest when they say they care about egalitarianism. The argument he's making, though, is that their self-assessment should probably not be taken particularly seriously, as there's at least some evidence that they don't operationalize the underlying premises of egalitarianism in any non-ideological context.
I take your point.
That said, Equality with a capital “E” is impossible. So to me it’s testing for something that’s theoretical. It’s hard to care about something like that.
The cartoon fails to show true equality: a society where everyone is the same: in height, beauty, productivity, thought, gender. In other words, HELL.
They demand equality, i.e., sameness, but they also put a high value on diversity. Those leftists are hard to please!
They demand “equity/equality” in service of leftists attaining political power, period.
Not what most leftists want
They want accommodation and acceptance of people
That can be more difficult or expensive then people think. Especially when government is involved
But its not a desire for sameness.
Acceptance of everybody who thinks like them. Diversity, for them, does not include diversity of political opinion.
Equality is sameness of *something*.
Lol I was thinking along similar lines. You keep the fence there and then make the dad sit down and the older kid kneel while the youngest stays standing.
Yup - or the real-world equivalent: make school super-expensive-and-pointless for smart and dumb kids alike!
Many of the people who want to live in a more “equal” society also want to live in a more “diverse” society. There’s a tension there.
They have a fantasy that you can be different but equal.
Yes. Put differently, they seem to want the aesthetic of diversity without the substance.
Alas, Bryan is underestimating the capacity of egalitarians to rationalize behavior that is at odds with their stated principles. Indeed, every profession of ethical principles that are at odds with man's innate psychological nature cannot be followed with rigorous consistency due to the effects of cognitive dissonance when principles come into conflict with natural impulses.
Egalitarianism is special only because it generates a paramorality that rationalizes feelings of envy. The real motivation of egalitarians is not that they want to be equal with relatively impoverished masses; what they resent about a free society is the existence of people who are obviously more successful than they are, even if that personal success is based on a superior ability to produce goods and services and thus improve the standard of living of the relatively poor people the egalitarians profess to care about. The competitive side of a free market system exposes their own personal failures in that respect, and the envious person just can't handle their own personal failures in a mature way. Instead, they have to lash out at the successful.
There are other types of generalized resentments, like contempt, bigotry, and intemperance, that generate similar sorts of paramoral opposition to a society based on individual liberty and responsibility and norms of reciprocity, even if these non-egalitarian forms of paramorality are also ultimately incompatible with the optimization of one's pursuit of happiness. What we see in many collectivist ideologies are appeals to all of these anti-social emotions, even if the various paramoral tendencies that are cobbled together happen to be mutually incompatible with each other as well as with human nature.
how come the adult in the above cartoon gets all his hair back in 4th pane and also suddenly is in shorts. like is the weather better in liberation?
This made me laugh for 10 straight seconds after I scrolled up to check
Greatness and prosperity magnifies inequality. It makes people feel worse but it's also he sign of freedom and human flourishing. So long as we still live in the place where it's pretty possible to make $200 or $250k per year for someone that plans, works hard, and executes...why do I care if there are more billionaires? It just seems so much of the wealth inequality discussion is more resentment and demonization of success than compassion.
Couple of thoughts:
1) I care much more about absolute poverty than I do inequality.
2) I still care about inequality.
I think a lot of it is a culture of egalitarianism, more than specific measure of income inequality, but my sense is they are linked to some extent. I like that the U.S. has traditionally been more classless compared to somewhere like India or even the UK. There's a general feeling that everyone should be treated with dignity, no matter their station in life. Contrast that with India or the UAE, where it can be appalling how poorly people of lower incomes and status are treated.
As an example, I hate first class when flying, not because of the fact that people can pay more for a more comfortable experience, but because the entire product seems designed to make the first class customer feel like they are better than the rest of the passengers. Even just small things like closing the curtain between the classes to make sure you don't have to interact with those poor people. Objectively I think it is great that people can pay for this level of service and subsidize cheaper tickets for those who don't want to, but I do worry about it weakening the classless society that I think is the American ideal.
How much inequality is the right amount? Give an actual figure that a government could realistcally use as a target.
This is a weak argument. There's no inconsistency between caring about macro-level inequality and not moving to a state with low inequality.
Actually, “Equal societies are better (because they're more ethical and/or politically stable), but the equality of my society (especially my state) doesn’t personally affect me" is a very common view!
Is the view so common that it is the majority view, do you think? Held by 60% of people? 80%? 90%? That seems important.
I'd say it's held by 90% of middle-class liberals/progressives.
Ok that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.
So, given that overwhelming political majority, what is your theory for why it is not government policy? (or are you saying that middle-class liberals/progressives are a tiny minority, in which case I don't see how you can call it a common view)
I don't think anyone cares about how much inequality exists in *their community* specifically as opposed to society as a whole (or at least, their country as a whole, but that's only because people tend to ignore other countries when talking about their own country's politics). Leftists tend to criticize inequality between communities, for example. And it is usually a moral critique, rather than a self-interested one - I'm not really sure how you got the opposite impression. To whatever extent it is self-interested, it's, "I think I would be wealthier if we did more income redistribution." But then you're generally going to prefer to move somewhere that makes you wealthier in more direct ways, like a 15% raise.
Beautifully argued!
The trouble here is that the argument applies to other political values. How many libertarians choose to live in the most libertarian jurisdiction available to them?
There has been considerable migration from blue states to red states in the past few decades, accelerating in the past 5 years.
In the minds of many: egalitarianism = more/better social services. They will vote for this and move to places with this and work for companies that provide this.
You have hit on the key point: claims of being for equity / equality of outcome are all about seeking votes to attain political power for leftists; they are not about actual equality of outcome at all.
Is it really very rare for people to move to Canada, California or Europe on egalitarian grounds? In some instances, relocation might not be so easy (you yourself say borders are 98% closed), while in others, the downsides of moving may offset the benefits of living in a more equal society. Downsides of moving may include having to leave your current social circle, finding yourself in a very foreign culture, etc.
The overall argument seems a bit smug.