Egalitarianism is the doctrine that states that people should be equal in a certain respect. However, this is not the implied definition of 'egalitarianism'.

Recently, the Objectivist Center reviewed the animated film 'The Incredibles' and proclaimed it as a statement demolishing egalitarianism, proclaiming the incompatibility of egalitarianism and Objectivism. However, Objectivism does promote a form of egalitarianism, this being 'moral egalitarianism', where each person is of equal moral worth. It is only on this basis can Objectivism reject, simultaneously, a hierarchal society and the idea of individuals as sacrificial animals. The corollary to this is 'legal egalitarianism', where people are equal under the legal system.

As a Neo-Objectivist/Individualist-Egoist, I am an 'egalitarian' under the legal/moral paradigm.

Obviously, the way that the term 'egalitarian' is used today is different from the term's definitional meaning, and as a result, we see many kinds of egalitarianism in today's world. However, they tend to split off into two lines of direction, and I shall label these 'good' egalitarianism and 'evil' egalitarianism respectively owing to my ethical position.

Good:

1. Moral- All people of equal ethical worth
2. Legal- Equality under the legal system
3. Political- A non-hierarchal society based upon trade and NIOF
4. Opportunity- No arbitrary barriers to success

As can be seen from the above, it all fits together nicely. Since all people are of equal ethical worth, they must be ensured equality in a court of law and cannot be dominated in society or slaughtered for the sake of others. Further, governments should allow free economic activity for this allows everyone the same opportunity to reach their goals and achieve their happiness. Libertarianism and Individualism, as a result, are based in this kind of egalitarianism.

As a result, it is hard to understand why people see freedom as non-egalitarian. As a result, it is clear that they are talking about a different species of egalitarianism. This is, of course, the 'economic egalitarianism' side of the debate. And yes, this is the 'evil' side!

Evil: 3. Economic- All people should get the same economic outcome

However, this is the only type of egalitarianism that the evil leftist pricks harp on about. They have absolutely no explicit theory to back it up- merely just an abstraction they call 'Social Justice' that they cannot specifically define, and is usually based upon emotional tripe like 'brotherly love'. Of course, there is a large amount of implicit theory that backs up economic egalitarianism, and I shall display it here.

Evil: 2. Contributive- All people can contribute identically and hence deserve equal pay

As is manifest, this is complete and utter crap. People have different skills, different proficiencies and different tastes. People are not interchangeable. This in turn is based upon another type of evil egalitarianism.

Evil: 1. Personal- People are basically identical, and hence equal

As evidence, psychology has for years attempted to suppress the idea of free will as a fantasy and prove that we are all products of society where culture binds us inevitably to one another. Italian dictator Benito Mussolini also shared this idea. This is one thing that Ayn Rand missed: that differences in contributive propensity are reflective of the fact that each individual is unique and that the hatred of different levels of skills is based upon a hatred of difference in the first place. Ability is a relative thing, in that for it to be considered a difference it must surpass other people?s ability. As a result, ability is a difference of personality. Fear not Randroids: I am not suggesting ability is not important, but I am suggesting that the core of the hatred of ability is a hatred of difference. If we all had IQ?s of 200, that would become the 'average'. Ability is based predominantly upon positional factors ('comparative advantages' in econospeak).

As a result, we have two strains of equality: one based upon 'all people are identical' and the other based upon 'all people have equal moral worth'. These two are, essentially, opposing each other in implication.

If all people are identical, and hence equal, the logical conclusion SHOULD be that all people have equal moral worth. However, all people are not identical and we are not all socially programmed robots. The result of this is that people must be forced to be equal in personality, hence ability, and hence they are not of equal moral worth because those that deviate from the norm in any way must be sacrificed on the altar and returned to the flock. Essentially, this means that ones moral worth is inversely proportional to one?s level of sociological deviance.

The redemption of one's differences comes from Altruism, or sacrificing these differences to collective goals. This is the specific error in Rand's work: If ability was hated for the sake of it being ability, it would be irredeemable. The fact that being Altruistic redeems ability in the mind of the collectivists/egalitarians means that it is not the ability that they have a problem with, but what it is being used for. Either way, Rand reaches the correct conclusion and the above is not a fatal error but just a 'niggle'.

As has been shown, Individualist Egalitarianism ('good') is based upon the idea that every human has equal moral worth and therefore is not a sacrificial animal to his brothers. Collectivist Egalitarianism ('evil') is based upon the idea that we are all the same, mere cogs in the social machine, and that any deviance from this reduces one?s moral worth, hence justifying the sacrifice of individuals to the group. Virtue to Collectivist Egalitarians consists of sacrificing one's individual differences to the norm; and this almost always spirals into the death-lust Altruism of Ayn's worst nightmares; if sacrificing-to-the-average is good, than isn?t sacrificing-to-the-zero even better?

The situation only worsens, for not only does ?Evil 1,? conflict with 'Good 1' and 'Good 2', but it also demolishes 'Good 3' as it institutes a social ladder with the normals at the top (a good example is any High School). Finally, Evils 2 and 3 conflict with Goods 3 and 4 for the obvious economic reasons.

As a result, the overall conclusion is that Libertarians are the real egalitarians: It is the collectivists that are not! In reality, it is difference that gives rise to tolerance and equality under the law, for it would not be a concern if we were the same. As Hayek said in 'Individualism, True and False', 'It is only because men are in fact unequal can we treat them equally'.