Equity, Equality? C’Mon Man! What’s the Diff?

Equity and Equality

As I have alluded to before, the Left couches their assertions in euphemisms for “sound-effect.” Such use suggests their intent is a reliance on an unrefined hoi poloi who are too ignorant to pick up on near homonyms. The difference, however, between “equality” and “equity” is substantial.

Another verbal shenanigan the left uses is to couch their labels in undeniable terms. The typical ploy is to prefix nouns with “anti.” By doing so, they imply anyone challenging their position applauds the antithesis. Thus, they claim to be “anti-racist,” anti-hunger,” and the like. Challenge them, and you are automatically pro-racism, or pro-hunger.

Lady Justice is Blind-folded

If one looks carefully at a statute of Lady Justice, one will notice she is blind-folded. The blind-fold signifies the premise that all who stand before the law are judged solely on his or her breach of law, and not on community standing, influence, wealth, office, or identity. Granted, flawed human beings often failed to live up to the premise, and sometimes dispensed justice unevenly, but that is our failure, not Lady Justice’s. The system and the premise still hold promise.

Equality

“Equality” implies a beginning. It is a calculus of unbiased opportunity. Equality bequeaths upon its adherents a meritocracy, where achievement is the central criterion for reward. Equality also implies a calculus of helping others attaining the best they can be.

Equity

“Equity” is a calculus of evenly distributed goods, services, and privilege. It begins with the thesis of distribution, and under a premise that goods, services, and access are unevenly distributed among the population. Using a calculus of distribution is, itself, inherently Marxist. It sets up a “king of the mountain” mentality, where in order to get to the top, you have to remove those already there.

In its most basic forms deploying “equity” sets up three dichotomous groups. The first group consists of those accused of inequitably distributing some commodity, be it tangible goods or services, or intangible privilege. The second group consists of the “victims” who were denied one or more of the commodities “granted” to the other group.

The third group is more insidious, and arguably the most dangerous. The third group are the overseers, the elitists, who “virtuously” identify and categorize the other two groups. What makes this third group most threatening is their subliminal message, which goes something like, “You have been subjected to inequities by that other group. They have treated you badly. You deserve better. Side with us and we will take their goods, services, and privilege, and give them to you.

The emphasis on “equity” at the federal level connotes favor to targeted groups endowed with immutable characteristics who are deemed deserving of the special treatment bestowed by their magnanimous, aristocratic overseers.

Overseers Exempt

The irony of the “equity” argument is that the elitists, the distributors, the dispensers of equity, do not divest themselves of their personal goods, services, and access. Rather, they establish mandates that task the hoi poloi with divesting themselves of theirs.

One of the sickening aspects of the inequity argument is that the overseers set themselves up as the neo-plantation owners. They dole out the goods, services, and privilege to those whom they identify as deserving. Under this system, the “deserving” become dependent on the overseers for their existence. At its root it is the most inequitable exchange. Under this system, there is no mutually agreed exchange of value. You get what is given, and be happy–or get nothing.

A danger here is that on day one you may be one of those who are among the deserving. On day two you may be deemed undeserving, thus getting nothing.