Kamala Harris “Sounds Just Like Karl Marx” In Viral Twitter Video

I just watched the little cartoon that Kamala Harris posted on Twitter about equity. And wow, it sure made equity look good, didn’t it? Who wouldn’t want that? It’s like an even better version of equality. Everyone can have the same outcome and the same success. But here’s the problem: That’s not how equity plays out in the real world. In the real world, the attainment of equity requires government-mandated redistribution, which ultimately quashes the desire to be successful. In the real world, this is Marxism, as Liz Cheney told Fox News on Sunday.

There’s a big difference between equality and equity. pic.twitter.com/n3XfQyjLNe

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) November 1, 2020

So, what is equality versus equity?

Equality is the idea that everyone has equal opportunities, but there remains the possibility of unequal results. It is true of humans that, given all the same opportunities, not everyone will attain equal results. Some will work harder than others. Everyone will have different talents and abilities. Outcomes will differ. But everyone has endless opportunities for greatness.

Equity is focused on ensuring an equal result or outcome for everyone. Again, that sounds great. We would love for everyone to prosper and attain the same great things, and in a perfect and selfless world, it might work. But the practical problem with equity in our society is that someone has to pay for it, and if you’re always the one paying for it, would you continue to work hard and be required to be the one paying for it? Would you work just a little less hard and let someone else pick up the slack? If you don’t, can you trust others won’t?

Another illustration of what animation is trying to convey https://t.co/wMCJqF3H7U

— blaborde (@blaborde) November 1, 2020

Here’s an example. Have you seen this nice infographic of three people of different heights standing at a fence? The tall one can see over the fence easily, the middle one can barely peek over the fence, and the shortest one can’t see over the fence at all. The first picture depicts ‘equality’ as giving each person a box (their explanation of equal opportunity). Now the tallest person can see over the fence even more, the middle person can now see over the fence, and the shortest person still can’t quite see over the fence. In the next picture, they depict ‘equity’ (equal results or outcomes) as giving the shortest person two boxes on which to stand, the middle person one box, and the tallest person no box. Now all three people can equally see over the fence. They have attained an equal result. Here’s the problem: This is not an appropriate exemplification of equity. Consider this—if the boxes are success and wealth, who’s providing the boxes? The government? What happens when the government runs out of taxpayer money to distribute boxes?

A better example of equality of opportunity would have been a giant pile of supplies and tools, and each person is allowed to build anything they want to ensure they could see over the fence. Whether you’re short or tall, you can construct something that will make that possible. Build a stool. Build a ladder. Build a skyscraper. Build a ramp. Everyone has access to the materials, but you build it. And if you successfully construct a tall and sturdy ladder, you can then show others or help them to build their ladders. Maybe you’d get a group to work together to make a massive ladder to share. The possibilities for success are endless and depend only on you.

Now, imagine that you worked hard to build that tall and sturdy ladder that permits you to see above the fence, but the person next to you, who had access to all the same supplies, only completed a small stool and they still can’t see above the fence (unequal outcome despite equal opportunity). So, in the name of equity, the government comes in and mandates that you must cut off the bottom of your ladder and give it to them so they can give it to the person next to you so that you can both equally see above the fence. An equal result. Equity.

Well, if you knew the government would see your very tall and sturdy ladder and mandate that you cut off the bottom of your ladder to give to them so they can provide an equal result for someone else, would you maybe make a shorter ladder to begin with? Maybe make it less sturdy and tall so that you didn’t have cut a chunk of it off to give to someone else? Would you put all your effort into making something incredible if you knew that would mean you would have to give a portion away? Probably not. You’d probably make the bare minimum to see over the fence. And if everyone did that, what would happen to the overall standard and quality of products, success, and achievements in society? There would be no incentive for remarkable success, only incentive for the bare minimum because no one wants to work hard for nothing.

The end result of equity would be everyone stretching on their tip toes to just peek over the fence with a stool barely sufficient to make that possible, while the government nods in satisfaction at the “equal result” they so masterfully mandated.

As a real-life example, consider my friend who is on Medicaid. She specifically told me that if she got a job or her husband picked up a few more hours, she would no longer qualify for Medicaid because they would exceed the income limit. So instead, she chooses to forego that extra income so they can have thousands of dollars in government medical assistance. And the government is supporting her using wealth accrued by other citizens (it always comes from somewhere, and it isn’t from the government), so what happens if those other citizens decide it isn’t worth it to accrue that wealth? What happens if they decide to just let someone else accrue the wealth that will then be redistributed, just like my friend has decided to do? Eventually, it isn’t worth it for anyone, then the standard for success lowers for the entire society. (I would like to add that there are very real situations for which Medicaid and similar programs are a substantial benefit in the short-term, and those are not the cases about which I am speaking. But human nature is to take the path of least resistance, and the subsequent abuse of such programs exemplifies the shortcomings of the theory of equity, or equality of results and outcomes.0

So, what about Harris’s cartoon? It depicts a man in a pit, a man on level ground, and a rope being extended down a mountain to both men so they can climb the mountain (the rope is their version of equality of opportunity). But the rope doesn’t reach down to the man in the pit, so he isn’t able to climb the mountain. Then the cartoon depicts the pit rising to be level with the other man, and both are now able to reach the rope and climb the mountain. But here’s the problem: How did the soil level in the pit rise? In real life, it doesn’t just magically appear. It has to come from somewhere. Someone has to pay for it, and you can bet it won’t be the government. Just like the boxes in the example above. They don’t just appear. The wealth and the success have to come from somewhere in order to be redistributed for everyone to have an equal outcome. If equity dictates an equal outcome of everyone being successful CEOs, someone must first build the companies requiring CEOs. And do you think people would build those companies if they knew they would be turned over to someone else by mandate? Or would they maybe just figure someone else will build the companies? And eventually, when everyone figures someone else will do it, no one does it, and there are no companies needing successful CEOs, so the entire standard of success is lowered across the board.

In practice, the theory of equity is the redistribution of wealth or success in order to allow for equal outcomes. And it is an incredible deterrent to hard work and success. You might as well just wait around for someone to give you some of their success so you can have an equal outcome to their success instead of working hard and being the one who has to give away some of your success. In fact, in Australia, a philosopher was examining the fact that parents reading to their kids gives those kids an unfair advantage in school and life.

“One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.”

This doesn’t raise everyone to an equally high level of success, but rather it lowers the standard of success across the board for the entire society. But it would lead to an equal outcome, or equity.

This is why the entire standard of living, wealth, prosperity, and success plummets in countries that implement this theory of wealth and outcome distribution and equality. Do you know who has complete wealth and outcome equality, or equity? Countries in abject poverty. Everyone is equally poor and destitute. Everyone equally has nothing. And it doesn’t happen overnight. It happens as people realize that their government will redistribute some of their wealth and success, and they become less motivated to be wealthy and successful, because what would be the point? Look at the Soviets, East Germans, and Venezuelans.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is Marxism. It is the antithesis of free and competitive market economics. While it promises equal outcomes, it ultimately lowers the standard of success for the entire society, which in turn lowers the quality of the equal outcomes, until everyone is equally destitute and dependent on the government for an equally pathetic handout. As Margaret Thatcher said, “eventually you run out of other people’s money.”