Equality

Often an issue of contention with libertarianism is the issue of equality. A false dichotomy that is often represented is either one chooses liberty ( libertarianism) or equality ( egalitarianism) as if the two are incompatible. It is often propagated that equality is a limitation on liberty. I seek to challenge this view. I seek to show that equality is at the very heart of libertarian philosophy and I owe much thanks to the tedious work Dr. Roderick Long has dedicated to this subject.

Egalitarianism vs Libertarianism?

In the modern day political spectrum, libertarianism is often associate with the 'Right' while egalitarianism remains on the 'Left.' Egalitarian ideals such as equality are often championed by the modern Left while it seems that Libertarianism on the 'Right' rejects egalitarian ideas , especially equality. Even anarchist and libertarian Murray Rothbard considered egalitarianism a 'revolt against nature.'

Interestingly and ironically, Rothbard in his attack of egalitarianism was also promoting the defense of an egalitarian ideal : equality. What Rothbard was comparing 'equality' to , as promoted by statist and socialist advocates of it , was his own brand of equality as defined by Locke and the classical liberals such as Thomas Jefferson.

Before I jump into this I think it is important to define what is meant by equality here.

What kind of equality am I talking about?

Equality is really meaningless unless it specifically is related to something. Equality in what sense then? I am talking about equality of authority which is the line that Rothbard took to defend and other classical liberals ( libertarians) also promoted. There many kinds of 'equality' that are promoted such as socioeconomic equality and equality of liberty.

Equality of Authority and Libertarianism

In libertarian philosophy, though it is not always explicity or expressly mentioned , equality of authority is often implied. This also overlaps into specifically anarchist philosophy from which all unjust authority should be abolished. Some libertarians like to stress the 'equality of liberty' as a primary without specific acknowledgement to equality of authority. This is sort of putting the horse before the cart in libertarian terms. Libertarianism seeks to maximize (negative) liberty but it is impossible to do this without equality of authority.

Even when some of the classical promoters of liberty spoke of it, they often implied that equality of authority is paramount and primary in order to have a maximization of (negative) liberty. It is true that , in practice , Locke bargained for a sacrifice of equality in order to hand more authority over to the people in charge of the legal system to safeguard remaining liberty. Libertarians of the anarchist persuasion would obviously disagree with this conclusion of Locke's.

Equality vs Equality

There are different kinds of equality that are promoted today. One of the main issues of equality, particularly from the modern Left , is the subject of 'socioeconomic equality.' It is the proposition that all people should have an equal opportunity to acquire wealth or have an equal distribution of wealth or sometimes both. I see nothing inherently wrong with this idea , but rather with the method proposed on how to achieve this ideal. It is often proposed that in order to compensate for economic disparity , more/less authority for certain individuals is required. For example, if a person or group of people have less wealth than another person or group of people , then the less wealthy should be able to demand , with force if necessary, that the more wealthy be made to give up some of their wealth. In this instance it is giving more authority to the less wealthy and less authority to the more wealthy. However this violates equality of authority. In other words , it is necessary to create inequality to achieve equality. Such a notion seems absurd.
If the principle is that wealth should not hinder equality between people or create disparities of authority, then neither the rich man or the poorer man can use their socioeconomic position to demand more authority over the other creating inequality.

Justified authority.

If a person believes in the virtue in the equality of authority , it doesn't mean that all authoritarian relationships are inherently unjust. It really matters on how the authoritarian relationship was brought about. Certain relationships entail justified authority such as a baseball team with a coach, an engineer dictating to builders how specifically a building should be constructed. Parents may have just authority over children if the parents authority or 'force' is used in the interests of the child and not necessarily their own interests. Except for the parent-child relationship and very few exceptions , just authoritarian relationships should come about through voluntary consent by all people within the relationship itself. If you join a baseball team, you acknowledge that the coach is incharge of making plays and placing you in a particular role on the team. If you are a construction worker , you understand and agree to listen to the foreman's instructions and follow the engineer's diagrams.
Technically a parent-child authoritarian relationship is not mutually consented upon but it doesn't necessarily make it unjust. Because young children lack the ability to reason and access all the potential danger around them, a parent can justly 'coerce' a child to refrain from dangerous activity. The point being that the parent is acting in the best interest of the child and not just herself. An example would be pulling back a child from crossing a busy intersection in which the child stands a high probability of being hit and probably killed by a speeding bus or car.
Adults can , in certain situations , also use 'force' against eachother if , and only if , it is in the interest of the adult that is being 'coerced.' I would feel it is justifed if I pulled someone back with force if they were about to fall in a ditch. I am not using force against them for my own selfish ends but rather in the interest of their own ends i.e. their likely preference not to fall into the ditch and hurt themselves.

Taking back egalitarianism for libertarianism FTW.

Since the long relationship with conservativism for American libertarianism and the gradual disassociation from the Left and the remaining Left ideal of egalitarianism, it is time libertarianism once again 'takes back' egalitarianism as primary goal. Particularly equality. It is hard to imagine that any maximization of liberty can exist without equality in authority. When there is an inequality of unjust authority , that inevidably means that someone is being subjegated to someone else and thus a certain 'equality of liberty' can never be achieved. If libertarians truly endorse ideas of liberty I think they should recognize that equality is a necessary prerequisite. Equality is the logical premise of libertarianism.