EGALITARIANISM AND INFLATION

Sep 29, 2026

Uploaded by Mary Man

A polemical argument attacks egalitarianism as a doctrine of destructive hostility toward competence. It uses the historical allegory of Emperor Nero to portray modern intellectuals who, while claiming humanitarian help, allegedly pour “paper refuse” onto the flames of national disaster. The text criticizes equal-results demands, arguing the underlying reasoning denies ability and ignores causality, and it scrutinizes sociological reviewer Bennett M. Berger’s support for redistribution and decentralization.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryLiterature

FormatPDF

Pages5

Reading Time8 min

AccessFree to download

Egalitarianism and Inflation

Critique of egalitarianism as destructive

Reasoning behind equal-results demands

Quoted review and policy proposals

Citizenship strategy and political rights

Vol.III,No.18 June 3,1974 # EGALITARIANISM AND INFLATION The classic example of vicious irresponsibility is the story of Emperor Nerowho fiddled,or sang poetry,while Rome burned.An example of similar behavior maybe seen today in a less dramatic form.There is nothing imperial about the actors,they are not one single bloated monster,but a swarm of undernourished professors,there is nothing resembling poetry,even bad poetry,in the sounds they make,ex-cept for pretentiousness -but they are prancing around the fire and,while chant-ing that they want to help,are pouring paper refuse on the flames.They are thoseamorphous intellectuals who are preaching egalitarianism to a leaderless country onthe brink of an unprecedented disaster. Egalitarianism is so evil -and so silly -a doctrine that it deserves no se-rious study or discussion.But that doctrine has a certain diagnostic value:it isthe open confession of the hidden disease that has been eating away the insides ofcivilization for two centuries (or longer)under many disguises and cover-ups.Likethe half-witted member of a family struggling to preserve a reputable front,egali-tarianism has escaped from a dark closet and is screaming to the world that the mo-tive of its compassionate,"humanitarian,"altruistic,collectivist brothers is notthe desire to help the poor,but to destroy the competent. The motive is hatred ofthe good for being the good -a hatred focused specifically on the fountainhead ofall goods,spiritual or material:the men of ability. The mental process underlying the egalitarians'hope to achieve their goal,consists of three steps:1.they believe that that which they refuse to identify,does not exist;2.therefore,human ability does not exist;and 3.therefore,theyare free to devise social schemes which would obliterate this non-existent.ofspecial significance to the present discussion is the egalitarians'defiance ofthe law of causality:their demand for equal results from unequal causes -orequal rewards for unequal performance. As an example,I shall quote from a review by Bennett M.Berger,professorof sociology at the University of California,San Diego(The New York Times BookReview,January 6,1974). The review discusses a book entitled More Equality byHerbert Gans. I have not read and do not intend to read that book:it is the re-viewer's own notions that are particularly interesting and revealing."[HerbertGans]makes it clear from the start,"writes Mr.Berger,"that he's not talkingabout equality of opportunity,which almost nobody seems to be against any more,but about equality of 'results,'what used to be called 'equality of condition.'..What he cares most about is reducing inequalities of income,wealth and politicalpower..More equality could be achieved,according to Gans,by income redistribu-tion (mostly through a version of the Credit Income Tax)and by decentralizationsof power ranging from more equality in hierarchical organizations(e.g.,corpora-tions and universities)to a kind of 'community control'that would provide to those minorities most victimized by inequality some insulation against being con-sistently outvoted by the relatively affluent majorities of the larger politicalconstituencies." If being consistently outvoted is a social injustice,what about big business-men,who are the smallest minority and would always be consistently outvoted by othergroups?Mr.Berger does not say,but since he consistently equates economic powerwith political power,and seems to believe that money can buy anything,one can guesswhat his answer would be.And,in any case,he is not an admirer of "democracy." Mr.Berger reveals some of his motivation when he describes Herbert Gans as a"policy scientist"who suffers from a certain "malaise.""Part of this malaise isa nightmare in which 'the policy scientist'-not poorly prepared,but in full pos-session of the facts,reasons and plans he needs to promote persuasively the changeshe advocates… -is frustrated,defeated,humiliated by Congressi

FAQs

Why does the author call egalitarianism “evil” and “silly”?

The author argues egalitarianism is not a serious doctrine but a confession of a hidden disease harming civilization. It is portrayed as hostility toward competence under humanitarian slogans.

What does the author say is the underlying reasoning of egalitarians?

The text claims egalitarians assume what they refuse to identify does not exist, then conclude human ability does not exist, and therefore propose social schemes to erase that supposed non-existent reality.

How does the author challenge proposed egalitarian reforms like redistribution and decentralization?

By quoting a review that links equality goals to income redistribution and power decentralization, the author then questions the logic—especially how it treats political influence and whether “democracy” is actually admired.

Sep 29, 2026

Uploaded by Mary Man