Some Problems of Equality

A completely egalitarian society strikes me as so utopian as to be beyond policy-oriented discussion. If all incomes were equal, it is doubtful that the most unpleasant and taxing jobs would be filled, and if all power were equalized, it is doubtful that any decisions could be made and any public activities could proceed. Moreover, such a society would need to be heavily regimented to prevent new inequalities from arising, and it would have to be static, straining toward a totally egalitarian end-state above all else. The major defect of complete equality is the defect of all single-value conceptions: if equality is the all-encompassing goal, then all other goals, regardless of their desirability or necessity, become lower in priority, and no society can function by pursuing one goal above all others. Some of the critics of equality have made this point, hoping thereby to end any discussion of equality, but complete equality is a spurious issue. The real issue, at least from the point of view of pragmatic social policy, is more equality, that is, how much present levels of inequality of income and power should be reduced. Putting it this way does not detract from the importance of equality as a goal, but it makes it possible to ask how much equality is feasible, and at what costs for the achievement of other goals. What degree of income equality is compatible with the division of labor, with filling unpleasant jobs, and with economic efficiency generally? What degree of po...