TopFeatured.com

Authored by Daniel Lacalle,

On numerous occasions, Kamala Harris has spoken in public about the difference between equality and equity. Equality of opportunity is not enough. Even socialist equality, where everyone begins at the same level, falls short. She has repeatedly defined equity as her policy of redistribution, which allows everyone to end up at the same place. When criticizing the often-debated idea of equality, she stated that “the problem with that is that not everybody’s starting in the same place.” Equity, for her, is the solution. She said, “Equitable treatment means we all end up in the same place.”

Anyone who understands the complexity of the economy knows that this is a ludicrous concept. However, it may sound appealing to the uninformed. Those that feel they suffer a disadvantage due to their humble origins may find that equality of opportunity is not enough, considering the social and economic hardships they have endured. Nevertheless, those who find this message appealing should think twice, because those policies hurt them the most.

Starting and ending in the same place makes everyone poorer, except for those in government who decide how everyone should start and end. Those politicians become obscenely rich.

Starting out from the same place is unfair. Ending in the same place is catastrophic. Political imposition causes parents and families who have saved for their children to lose all their hard-earned savings when they start over. You may think that the government will give each child what they need. However, when you grant a government sufficient power to provide for your needs, it also determines what your actual needs are. By destroying the incentives to save and prosper, you also destroy the wealth created to conduct social policies. However, when the government can impose equal starting points and outcome measures, it has all the incentives to keep as much wealth as possible among the political elite. As wealth and prosperity decline, all the government will redistribute is misery.

When Kamala Harris utters these words, she demonstrates her endorsement of the neo-Marxist ideology and disavows her status as a “capitalist,” a stance she has declared in recent weeks to counteract criticism of her socialist messages.

Capitalism and free markets cannot exist when the government decides the start and end points.

Through a classic oversimplification, Neo-Marxism promotes the concept of equity, which entails equal start and end points. If both start from the same point, both will be incentivised to arrive at the same place, which is more prosperous for both and therefore fair. If both people start at the same level and realize their actions will equalize them, how will they react? Give up. No athlete would ever attempt to win if they knew they would all end up in the same position. Eliminating the possibility of losing also destroys the chance of winning and cancels progress in the meantime. The neo-Marxist theory uses this example to argue that, at the very least, they begin at the same time and place. However, that is also a fallacy. The athletes who started the race arrived there through a process of elimination, which required enormous talent and effort and certainly no equality from the start.

The poor and the middle class get poorer. The government officials become rich. Kamala Harris’ dream of equity embodies exactly what has always happened in every socialist economy. A tyrannical government imposes its policies through repression, causing misery and impoverishment.

Equality is unfair. Equity is impossible. When you demand either, the outcome is always worse for you.

Imposing equity destroys all motivation to improve and progress, eliminates meritocracy, and imposes the worst inequality, which is the result of political privilege.

Allowing governments to decide the start and ending points for all citizens is tyranny. It is simply suicidal to think that politicians know exactly what you need, when you need to start, and where to finish. Politicians do not have more or better information about the needs of the entire economy and even less about everyone’s requirements. Therefore, when faced with the inevitable discontent, the government will always resort to violence and oppression… for your own good.

This social engineering fable of complete equality of outcome is, of course, impossible in a free society and therefore requires a tyrannical and repressive state that controls every aspect of citizens’ lives. Harris has often repeated in public these neo-Marxist ideas of social engineering, which invariably result in poverty for all. Even if she says she is a capitalist, the truth is that her entire economic program is based on price controls, government intervention, and imposition. In a recent interview at CNBC, she declined to elaborate if she would implement price controls, which have destroyed economies all over the world, only to resort to the fallacy of “a few companies profiting from the desperation of the American people.” More free markets, increased competition, and increased merit and reward for success are what America needs to foster prosperity. The American people’s true desperation will surface when they decide to experiment with neo-Marxist social engineering and socialism to see how it works. This foolish thought can only come from privilege, thinking that the wealth and opportunities that have been created in America will remain the same, eliminating all incentives to thrive.

Kamala Harris maintains her message of equality of outcome. Tim Waltz, Kamala Harris’ vice-presidential candidate, has also reiterated these principles in public. It would be erroneous to assume that she won’t implement these policies, given her recent ambiguous moderation of her remarks.