From the Vault: My Response to Victor Fuchs

Even changing "justice" to "equality" doesn't get us to a full disclosure of personal values. Equality can mean equal treatment under the law, equality of opportunity, equality of access to public education, etc. In most football games the referees treat the two teams equally, yet one often routes the other. Fuchs seems to mean a specific type of equality, i.e., equality of income. Equating this type of equality with equality as a general concept concedes too much ground to Fuchs, as this type -- as opposed to equality of treatment before the law, etc. -- is the most controversial.

@Richard,
Obviously, I was talking about equality of wealth. That’s the term I used early in the paragraph. I didn’t see the need to repeat it.

David, I should have been clear that my comment wasn't meant to be a critique of your article, with which I agree. I was just trying to emphasize the notion that, among "Progressives," the term equality is used to refer to a very specific type of leveling of outcomes that is not embraced by most people who warm to the sound of "equality" as an abstract civic principle. So, to me, even that term is -- like "justice," or "progress" for that matter -- being hijacked from its generally understood meaning when used in phrases like "the efficiency versus equality tradeoff."

Aristotle's Politics notes that justice is all about equality, and the problem is always: equality of what? Unfortunately, some think people who are equal in any respect are equal all respects; because men are equally free, they claim to be absolutely equal, and thus equally deserving of health care, income, and wealth.

The bottom line for me is that many people are Rawlsians, or radical egalitarians. I don't think it's compatible with economic growth, liberty, and freedom, but they find that self-serving.