The concept in political argument (WARNING: POSSIBLY BORING)
Debate about economic issues surrounding equality is as old as civilization—painting: Ancient Greek philosophers Plato (left) and Aristotle by Raffaello Sanzio (1509)
The concept of equality of outcome is an important one in battling between differing political positions since the concept of equality was overall seen as positive and an important foundation which is "deeply embedded in the fabric of modern politics".[10]
There is much political jousting over what exactly equality means.[10] It is not a new phenomenon; battling between so-called haves and have-nots has happened throughout human civilization and was a focus of philosophers such as Aristotle in his treatise Politics.
In The Guardian, analyst Julian Gloverrote wrote that equality challenged both left-leaning and right-leaning positions and suggested that the task of left-leaning advocates is to "understand the impossibility and undesirability of equality" while the task for right-leaning advocates was to "realise that a divided and hierarchical society cannot – in the best sense of that word – be fair".[35]
Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity, but not outcome.[36] In their view, life is not fair, but that is how it is and they criticize attempts to try to fight poverty by redistributive methods as ineffective since more serious cultural and behavioral problems lock poor people into poverty.[22] Sometimes right-leaning positions have been criticized by liberals for over-simplifying what is meant by the term equality of outcome[19] and for construing outcomes strictly to mean precisely equal amounts for everybody. In The Guardian, commentator Ed Rooksby criticized the right's tendency to oversimplify and suggested that serious left-leaning advocates would not construe equality to mean "absolute equality of everything".[10]
Rooksby wrote that Marx favored the position described in the phrase "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" and argued that this did not imply strict equality of things, but that it meant that people required "different things in different proportions in order to flourish".[10]
Libertarians and advocates of economic liberalism such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman tend to see equality of outcome negatively and argue that any effort to cause equal outcomes would necessarily and unfortunately involve coercion by government. Friedman wrote that striving for equality of outcome leaves most people "without equality and without opportunity".[18]
Analyst Glenn Oliver suggested that liberals believed in "equality of opportunity and of outcome".[36] One liberal position is that it is simplistic to define equality in strict outcomes since questions such as what is being equalized as well as huge differences in preferences and tastes and needs is considerable, therefore they ask: exactly what is being equalized?[16] In the 1960s in the United States, in examining the plight of African Americans locked in poverty mainstream liberal president Lyndon B. Johnson argued for ending policies which promoted segregation and discrimination as well as steps to end "economic injustice" by turning "equality of opportunity into equality of outcome",[37] that is with programs to transfer wealth in varying amounts. Fairness is emphasized—one writer expounding a centrist position wrote "people would neither be left to fend for themselves nor guaranteed equality of outcome – they would be given the tools they needed to achieve the American dream if they worked hard".[38]
There has been cynicism expressed in the media that neither side—including mainstream political positions—wants to do anything substantive, but that the nebulous term fairness is used to cloak the inactivity because it is difficult to measure what in fact "fairness" means. Julian Glover wrote that fairness "compels no action" and compared it to an "atmospheric ideal, an invisible gas, a miasma" and to use an expression by Winston Churchill, a "happy thought".[35]
Social democrats champion greater equality of outcome and opportunities within capitalism, usually promoted through redistributive social policies like progressive taxation and the provision of universal public services.
Socialists often believe in both "inequality of opportunity and equality of outcome", according to Glenn Oliver. They often see greater equality of outcome as a positive long-term goal to be achieved, so that individuals have equal access to the means of production and consumption. Bernard Shaw was one of the few socialist theorists to advocate complete economic equality of outcome right at the beginning of World War One.[30] The vast majority of socialists view an ideal economy as one where remuneration is at least somewhat proportional to the degree of effort and personal sacrifice expended by individuals in the productive process. This latter concept was expressed by Karl Marx's famous maxim: "To each according to his contribution".