As defined by Ayn Rand in her significant work Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, equality “means equality before the law, the equality of fundamental, inalienable rights which every man possesses by virtue of his birth as a human being, and which may not be infringed or abrogated by man-made institutions, such as titles of nobility or the division of men into castes established by law, with special privileges granted to some and denied to others” (144). Equality de jure is a pivotal motion that proceeds to grant each individual rights of opportunity.
Capitalism is implemented to allow all castes including “institutions of aristocracy and of slavery or serfdom” to excel or advance (Rand, 171). Without this capitalistic approach to government, and instead administration directed by the crusade of egalitarian proposal, are human beings granted the means to achieve happiness? Is inequality abolished when the form of our government is converted into an altruistic regime of absolute equality? The answer is no. Capitalism entails that each individual is entitled to personal business and investments. When an all inclusive blanket of egalitarian rule is placed upon a nation, distinguished faculties of opinion and ideas are extinguished.
Rand wrote, “..The egalitarians' view of man is literally the view of a children's fairy tale- the notion that man, before birth, is some sort of indeterminate thing, an entity without identity, something like a shapeless chunk of human clay, and that fairy godmothers proceed to grant or deny him various attributes: intelligence, talent, beauty, rich parent, etc.
These attributes are handed out "arbitrarily", it is a "lottery" among pre-embryonic non-entities, and- the supposedly adult mentalities conclude- since a winner could not possibly have "deserved" his "good fortune", a man does not deserve or earn anything after birth, as a human being, because he acts by means of "uncleserved, "unearned' attributes” (Philosophy, Who Needs It, 110). To stifle ones attributes in the advance toward complete equality is weakening the species' growth as a whole, which in turn, depreciates the power of human volition. If it is thought by egalitarian creed that all humans are born with base worth, yet it is also intended that humans are born with differentiating capacities and strengths, why are these differences intrinsic and gradually apparent through age? When these attributes are given opportunity to apply varying potentials in areas of society, the crusade of that nation is nourished. It is preposterous to deem humans beings equal without equality of opportunity.
Philosophers such as Aristotle have suggested inequality be measured by intelligence. Depicting a social hierarchy with philosophers reigning in the superior position, Aristotle believed the most intelligent were the ruling bureaucracies of the ideal dominion. With this being said, how can intelligence be measured? Tinder wrote, “In gauging intelligence are we gauging the entire capacity of consciousness or only the ability to carry on intellectual operations that happen to be emphasized in our culture?” (Political Thinking, The Perennial Questions, 63). This, indeed, is a pressing question. The answer is yes. In example, a politician would not do much good at sea, unless he knew a great deal about sailing. One who is greatly regarded for their knowledge of historical art bistros, yet does not know the difference between a yacht or a skiff, would not be the optimal sailor upon the vessel.
The passion for equality de facto seems to abolish initial prejudice, yet according to Rand, there are only two methods in which it may be achieved, “either by raising all men to the mountaintop- or by raising all the mountains” (Return of The Primitive, The Anti-Industrial Revolution, 144). By "raising all men to the mountaintop" could be the approach of capitalisms design. It protects the rewards through efforts made by individuals, and secures freedom in the regard that each persons ambitions and abilities are realized, “thus raising the intellectual, moral and economic state of the whole society.”The second method is the approach taken by egalitarians. A society in which all individuals are equal concludes in a state of violent release of confined individualism. “While the quest for equality (with the soviet Union and the French Revolution) led in both cases to the suppression of liberty, the quest did not in either case succeed; equality was not achieved. To be sure, old inequalities were destroyed, but new ones were rapidly established” (Tinder, 79).
The quest for equality through the egalitarian methods seem almost utopian in their manner of dehumanizing differentiating capacities in consciousness. To reduce ones abilities which surpass majority, is to forbid differences which are crucial in understanding humans in essence. Rand, in her pressing novel Anthem writes “Our name is Equality 7-2521...We are twenty-one years old. We are six feet tall, and this is a burden, for there are not many men who are six feet tall. Ever have the Teachers and the Leaders pointed to us and frowned and said, “There is evil in your bones, Equality 7-2521, for your body has grown beyond the bodies of your brothers” but we cannot change our bones, nor our body” (Rand, 3). In the opening paragraph, Rand arrests the attention of the reader with, “It is a sin to write this. It is a sin to think words no others think and to put them down upon a paper no others are to see” (Rand, 1). The pervasive smother of absolute equality ostracizes individual thought. The authors of such individualism are the instigators of violent revolutions, inevitable in this form of government.
It is outlandish to demobilize the potential of others due to majority consensus of abilities. When ones accomplishments are accredited with the same regard as one who accomplishes lesser, where is the incentive to improve? In an egalitarian society, is improvement encouraged or suppressed? Is a government where improvement is not encouraged a "good" or an ideal society? In regards to mans mind, is egalitarianism a supreme path toward enlightenment or unity? Rand writes, “To understand egalitarianism, project it into the field of medicine. Suppose a doctor is called to help a man with a broken leg and, instead of setting it, proceeds to break the legs of ten other men, explaining that this would make the patient feel better; when all these men become crippled for life, the doctor advocates the passage of a law compelling everyone to walk on crutches-in order to make the cripples feel better and equalize the "unfairness" of nature” (Philosophy, Who Needs It, 111) This is a wonderful portrayal of egalitarian proposal. If all human beings are to be regarded in an equal manner and relinquished of any recognition toward our strengths or weaknesses, our dominion in its entirety suffers with the weakest. Perhaps in the quest for equality, we detriment our strengths by emphasizing congruancies with our weakest individuals.
In order to achieve a nation that is respectably revered as a metropolitan nation, we must recognize and embrace our differences. Incentives to advance are to be administered through capitalistic opportunities in business, and individuals must realize their potential and hold differentiating opinions regarding to the achievement of the extent of their capacities. Without opportunities, human beings as a species digress in the evolutionary path toward growth and are immobilized in the mental stint of a homogeneous people.
