Test for egalitarians

John Grigg Of all the silly Statements that have imposed themselves upon the human imagination none are, sillier than Milton's and Rousseau's that men are 'born free', or Jefferson's -(in the Declaration of American Independence) that 'all men are created equal'. Far from being self-evident, or even half-truths, both are clearly and demonstrably the opposite of the truth.

Men are, in fact, born in a state of utter helplessness and dependence, from which they are peculiarly slow to emerge even to -a limited degree. And they are born with an infinite variety of characteristics, physical and, above all, mental.

Dame Nature is not a socialist. She is far to the right of the most bloody-minded human reactionary.

Moreover, there is a necessary contradiction between liberty and equality, even as ideals. If it were possible to make Men equal, their natures would have to be controlled from womb to tomb.

No doubt this 111// be possible before very long. As science marches forward with everlengthening strides, we may be sure that it is only a matter of time before Man acquires the power to determine human characteristics pre-natally. And 'determine' here means not just ascertain. but change', correct and control.

In other words, equality will cease to be a more or less theoretical question within the province of social engineering, and will become a hideously real question within the province of biochemical engineering. Instead of arguing about whether or not to equalise incomes and property we shall be arguing about whether or not tostan, dardise human appearance, muscle and intellect.

Faced with the means to raise up an Undifferentiated species, would the egalitarians of today rejoice or would they recoil'? Do they want their children to be exactly like each other and everybody else's children? Are they attracted by the thought of' a human race without comparative or competitive potential!

This is not merely the ultimate test of their creed, which they or others like them will have to face one day. It is also the only valid test, because unless they are prepared to work for a state of affairs in which there are no invidious distinctions of any kind their egalitarianism cannot be taken seriously.• For what could be more absurd than to tinker v. ith inequality by curbing the freedom to earn. own or bequeath, while leaving people unequal in all the ways that really hurt -looks. skill, talent, stature and mental capacity?

Surely all but the most obsessed and fanatical egalitarians would shrink from carrying their doctrine to its logical conclusion, and would argue that Man's power to determine his own nature should be used to eliminate crippling handicaps and abnormalities, not to restrict the diversity or stunt the development of his gifts.

But if this would be their reaction to the ghastly threat of perfect equality, they should understand that a similar compromise is desirable and rational in the context of economic equality. The power of the state should be used to abolish poverty but not to hinder the creation of wealth.

There is no case for absolute economic equality if the case for absoldte equality in other and more fundamental respects is abandoned. Even relative equality, achieved through confiscation above a certain level, has nothing to commend it. It is inconsistent to decree an arbitrary ceiling for personal wealth unless a ceiling for personal excellence is also contemplated.

Provided nobody is tone-deaf there should be no objection to the existence of Mozarts or Beethovens. And, by the same token, if nobody is destitute there should be no objection to the existence of multimillionaires.

The argument for large accumulations of wealth tends to go by default at the moment,' because the more obvious and widely supported cause is that of the middle classes. This, admittedly, is a term of art, often used to denote everybody in the community who is not 'working-class' ( though one must then ask what has happened to the top part of the sandwich).

In general, however, the middle classes are taken to include the shopkeeper, the tenant farmer, the civil servant, the salaried professional person and business executive, the medium-sized entrepreneur and the retired person trying to live in modest comfort on a fixed income—not the aristocracy or the self-made plutocracy. Yet the antiegalitarian cause should be open-ended.

Of course those who are most privileged must expect to make the largest sacrifices, both voluntarily in the form of service or munificence, and involuntarily in the form of tax. It also goes without saying that in a democracy socio-economic privilege must never be the key to political power.

But, subject to those important conditions, there should be no national maximum at the top end of the scale to correspond with the national minimum which should certainly be established at the lower end. The spectacle of people living in stately homes or flying around in their own jet aircraft may be irksome to the envious and offensive to some tender social consciences. But freedom is indivisible and if the very rich are suppressed there will be that much less security for middling and lesser fry.

Nor should security be thought of only iii material terms. Sir Keith Joseph made this point very well in the Observer on 22 August: 'Egalitarianism destroys not only prosperity, but freedom and culture. The fewer the individuals with independent resources. the greater the dominance of government. Moreover, real freedom—in religion, in politics, in art, in enterprise—depends upon there being many possible sources of financial support. If government becomes the onlyie ldyp.atron, then freedom— and quality We hear much about the virtues of polYcentricity in the communist world, when all that is meant is a number of totalitarian dictatorships instead of only one or two But polycentricity in the sense of a wide distribution of economic resources within the community is an ideal truly worth pursuing. Offbeat talents and disturbing opinions will seldom; if ever, receive encouragement from the state or its satellite bodies. Even 'when censorship is not directly intended. committees of all kinds are naturallY opposed to whatever is not either conformist or, at any rate, fashionably nonconformist.

It is common knowledge that Marx was kept going by the capitalist Engels. but British socialists should particularly ponder the less well-known case of Keir ;Hardie. To judge from the excellent life of him EV Dr Kenneth Morgan, published last year. Hardie would never have been able to found the Labour Party if he had not been supported by rich sympathisers. In his early career he was immeasurablY helped by the Christian socialist, Frank Smith, who not only gave him financial backing but 'powerfully influenced [hisj political philosophy and notably reinforce° his instinct for political isolation'. In 1900 he accepted a large contribution towards his election expenses from George CadburY. the cocoa magnate, and later he owed much to the American-Jewish millionaire Josenn Fels, who among other things helped to finance his world tour in 1907-8. Hardie was an eccentric with a touch 0t. genius--the sort of man who would have achieved nothing if it had been left to cony mittees and caucuses to decide his fate. Unless there is a genuine change of heart on the left Britain will not recover, economically or in any other way. And the change of heart needs to manifest itself, atabrovne dogma. all, explicit rejection of egali ia .' Capitalism was redeemed when one of it,s, representatives was able to say, 'We are a" socialists now'. If Mr Callaghan and other Labour leaders could bring themselves IF say, in effect, 'We are all capitalists now,' British socialism would be redeemed—an Britain saved.