Anthony Daniels, who writes as “Theodore Dalrymple”, gave a talk a few weeks ago at the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society, in Bodrum, Turkey. (The P.F.S. looks like an interesting outfit, by the way, if you have libertarian sympathies, and for this meeting they fielded an impressive lineup of speakers.)
In Dr. Daniels’s address he proposed a little “thought experiment”:
Let us suppose that one wanted, for whatever reason, to erect or create a society in which a bureaucratic government arrogated to itself ever-more power to regulate and control a population, but to do so without the more obvious accoutrements of a tyranny, indeed to do it with the consent and even at the request of the population itself. The espousal of what kind of ideal would be propitious to the erection or creation of such a society?
What impossible dream, what chimerical aim, desired by all but impossible to achieve, would do the job? What hoped-for change could keep us happily chasing rainbows from generation to generation, all the while surrendering more and more of our liberty and property to a monstrous and ever-expanding State?
It’s not hard to think of possibilities here, and plenty are already in play. Controlling the climate is one. The elimination of various “achievement gaps” is another. Improving strength and harmony through Diversity is yet another.
Dr. Daniels’s choice? One that you might not have thought of as eternally beyond our reach: equality of opportunity.
I trust it will be obvious by now that equality of opportunity is precisely such an ideal. The very impossibility of it, the very fact that it is a mirage that recedes as one tries to approach it as it shimmers in the distance, is an advantage, not a disadvantage: for the failure to attain the goal justifies ever-greater and more vigorous attempts to do so. Moreover, it is clear that the nature of the goal itself justifies interference in the lives of citizens down to the very last detail; for there is literally nothing that anyone can do in the bosom of his family that does not affect the life-chances of his children, or those of other children by comparison with his. And the greater the failure of each successive politico-bureaucratic interference, the greater the locus standi for yet further interference. This is a world in which nothing succeeds like failure.
Of course we all will agree that there is much, in coarse terms, that a society can and should do to make opportunity more equal — and of course much has already been done, from the abolition of slavery, through the Civil Rights movement, to various feminist reforms of more recent decades, and so on. But the point is that if the goal is absolute — not just improved equality of opportunity, but complete equality of opportunity — it is also impossible, and so becomes a perfect foundation for totalitarianism. Big Brother had East Asia to war against in perpetuity; we can have inequality. Either will do.
See if you think he makes his case. Transcript and video here.
6 Comments
Sure, equality of opportunity is an “ideal” in the dual sense of being an idealization (which is why it cannot be perfectly realized), and something we aspire to. But as a subterfuge to promote the amassing of political power, it can’t hold a candle to the modern version of “participatory democracy.” Periodic elections reinforce the illusion among the masses that they control the levers of power. Of course, they don’t.
Oh, I don’t know… what do you suggest as an alternative?
Yes, there is without question a deeply entrenched political class — but the mechanism does exist to toss them out if the electorate wakes up enough to pay attention and vote. (They’ve been less and less inclined to do so as time goes by, however, as illustrated here.)
The point here, though, is that even a system like ours needs some unbounded mission, or permanent crisis, around which to coalesce in order to move toward totalitarianism with the people’s consent.
Perhaps an “unbounded mission” is needed (or at least quite useful) to move toward totalitarianism with or without the people’s consent. I don’t think that should be taken as a mark against unbounded missions per se (pursuit of truth, anyone?). My point, rather, is that “the people’s consent” is itslef an idealization, given a great deal of lip service as a political ideal, but mocked by the reality of “participatory democracy.”
Well, again: what would you prefer?
As I said, political representatives really are answerable to the electorate, if the electorate chooses not to wallow in apathy or let themselves be bribed into submission.
Prefer? I’d prefer that people get over their psychological cravings for parent figures to tell them what they can and can’t do. I’d prefer that people didn’t just assume the correctness of the standard stories about why we have the kinds of political systems we do. I’d prefer that people actually think critically about such things.
Franly, it puzzles me that you seem more willing to defend “representative democracy” than “equality of opportunity.”
Oh, I have nothing against equality of opportunity; suitably defined, and within bounds of reason, it’s an important goal.
As for defending representative democracy, I’m only saying that we could actually get a lot more representation out of this system than we do at present, if we were inclined to bother. But to do so requires, as you say, some critical thinking, and a willingness to lift a finger besides.