Inequality Does Have Forgotten Benefits

Inequality isn’t something we should be mad about.

Inequality is not a necessary evil. In the right context, it is a good thing and the source of a lot of value we find in life.

When people complain about income and wealth inequality, it’s common for the Right to object that inequality of outcome is unavoidable in a meritocracy because natural merit is unequal—that disparities could only be flattened through totalitarianism, such as that depicted in Kurt Vonnegut’s dystopian short story Harrison Bergeron. Another typical response is that the absolute level of prosperity is more important than inequality; in the words of president Calvin Coolidge, “Don’t expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong.”

Though accurate, these talking points treat inequality as a fact of life that must be tolerated. But inequality actually has some positive benefits. 

Of course, even defenders of capitalism admit that extreme inequality can lead to social decay, violence, and class conflict. This is particularly true when the gap is due to, or perceived to be due to, an unjust system. But in a situation in which the poor have reasonable access to opportunity, is it an unfortunate reality that some individuals will end up exponentially better off than others—or is it actually good?

Consider the principle articulated by utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer in his essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.” He argued that you are obligated to donate all your surplus wealth to people in poverty because it’s more important for other people to have necessities than for you to have luxuries. But if society followed this principle, the result would be everyone living at the bare minimum required for existence, after everyone with surplus wealth donated it to those without it. 

It’s hard to see how we would advance from this scenario to a higher living standard. It would be nice for people to, out of the goodness of their hearts, be as productive as possible and create innovations that allow others to create better, less expensive goods. Some will, but it’s likely that more people will be motivated by the ability to become wealthy, and without this incentive, we would become stagnant, similar to what the world experienced before productive entrepreneurship through industry and commerce became socially approved.

Beyond that, imagine everything you would have to give up for this spartan life of absolute equality: not just meaningless widgets, but entertainment, books, art, advanced healthcare, tasty food, leisure, everything that elevates life above the austerity of mere survival. 

Extend the analogy to the “one percent.” If income were re-distributed, they would have to give up many things that have value both to themselves and to society at large. From Andrew Carnegie’s philanthropy and the construction of Rockfeller Center to Jeff Bezos’s space pioneering and Bill Gates’s third-world charity efforts, great things throughout history have only been possible because individuals or organizations accumulated large amounts of capital. The fact that capitalism encourages this inequality is a major benefit. Most great achievements and innovations have been possible because of the accumulation of surplus wealth and the existence of individuals who rose above the average mass. 

One specific reason this is valuable is regarding freedom of speech and diversity of opinion. To be able to voice controversial opinions without fear of retribution from the majority or a vocal minority, someone has to have a certain level of economic independence. 

Back in the 1850s, British philosopher John Stuart Mill lamented that this freedom was already disappearing as society became more egalitarian: “As the various social eminences which enabled persons entrenched on them to disregard the opinion of the multitude, gradually become levelled; […] there ceases to be any social support for nonconformity—any substantive power in society, which, itself opposed to the ascendancy of numbers, is interested in taking under its protection opinions and tendencies at variance with those of the public.”

Conservatives and libertarians need to start an active defense of the forgotten benefits of inequality, taking the advice of Friedrich Nietzsche in Ecce Homo “not only to endure what is necessary, […] but to love it.” By simply saying, “That’s how things have to be in a free society,” they do nothing to quell the jealousy that says those at the top ultimately do not deserve what they own by circumstance of their position. And it leaves the door open for socialist policies to reduce inequality, such as wealth taxes, that do not seem authoritarian on their face.