‘Income equality’ leads to poverty


Fighting income inequality might seem like a worthy goal, however, the ability of people to profit from their labor or investment has always been a hallmark of a free society. Whenever politicians have conquered income inequality, the results have uniformly been the “income equality” of universal poverty . . .

When the Soviets collectivized the productive farms of Ukraine to institute income equality, the farmers felt like they had been returned to serfdom after they were forced to work land they did not own, receiving no rewards for their backbreaking work. Grain production fell precipitously leading to famine, with an estimated six million deaths from starvation. The same happened in China following Mao’s Great Leap Forward, with starvation death estimates between 18-42 million.

To those unfamiliar with history, redistributing money taken from the wealthy might seem like an easy path to prosperity… [I]n China, Russia, and North Korea they believed in income equality so fiercely they fought and died to implement it, and their descendants starved and died because of it.

We must be careful what we ask for.

–Alex Omura
To read the rest of this article go to:


The Egalitarian Is The Disease

3007The concept of equality is the kind of beast that is almost impossible to eliminate: like syphilis, acne and politicians. It cannot seem to be eradicated. You can read a 1000 articles in the most basic language of the fool’s errand that it is, from some of the most brilliant men, but any given day you will hear someone (usually in the government or its cousin, the media) bray about some equal right or rights or opportunities or whatever they can get attention for.

The idea that the creation has equal items at any level is preposterous. But “preposterous” is too close a synonym to “outrageous,” a word beaten to death, usually through misuse . . . Today’s commentators affix themselves like ticks to a feral hog to the concept of equality. Something, however, that does not exist — anywhere, ever . . .

Where in nature is there any specie, whether, tree, or fowl or fish that have pairs with sameness. Even identical twins have marginal differences . . .

The French Revolution with its tripartite motto of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity was a blood-soaked revolution with the murder of thousands because Liberty and Fraternity were rotted into death by association with equality.

–Paul H. Yarbrough

To read the rest of the article, go to:

The Rage for Equality

27068-81209In The Federalist, James Madison called the rage for equality ‘a wicked project.’ People differ and rewards differ—that’s the essence of both liberty and justice. No nation that rewards effort, talent, inventiveness and luck can even pretend to cherish equal outcomes. In an inventive and dynamic society, equal (even relatively equal) incomes can be achieved only by abandoning liberty for tyranny.   –Michael Novak

It’s not equality but power they’re after


When you remove the idea of God . . . if you take the idea of God off the table philosophically, you remove that as a possibility—it always goes back to the jungle. It always comes down to power. Look at our universities, these supposedly civilized, sophisticated places—they’re not. They are places where power trumps everything. It’s what “Black Lives Matter” are looking for, what the feminists are looking for on campus, what the neo-marxists are looking for. They’re not looking for equality. They’re not looking for dialogue. They want power. They don’t want to level the playing field, they want to flip it.

–Duke Pesta,


The Myth of Equality

Equality 2

Aristotle stated that “the worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.” I believe the great philosopher was on to something.

Equality is not a “one size fits all” proposition. “Nuts” and “bolts” are equally metallic—but they are not equal. “Straight” and “curved” are both shapes—but they are not equal. “Three” and “seven” are both numerals—but they are not equal. To speak of these things being “equal” is not particularly helpful. To enforce equality where it doesn’t exist is not only wrong but pernicious.

The voices that cry for equality are numerous. I think it’s time to rediscover the virtues of inequality—and to celebrate it.

376433-19827-15We need to applaud the fact that humans come in a variety of shapes and sizes: tall, short, plump, and thin. We do not have the same interests, aspirations, and dreams. We are of differing intelligence, appearance, creativity, and abilities.

Science clearly affirms that our genders are different. We are equal in dignity and worth, but this does not mean equivalency or alikeness. We are not interchangeable. Men and women are profoundly and marvelously different in a multitude of ways. We are not equally beautiful, tender, sensitive, intuitive, or strong. We are gloriously diverse.

We have different inclinations and strengths. Men are better suited to making houses, women do better at making homes. Engineering appeals more to men, and nursing is more attractive to women. That’s fine. Why try to force equality where there’s diversity? We need to accept the fact that we are not all equally good at the same things. There is contrast and complementarity. And it is beautiful.

A world of total equality would be insipid and dreary. To reduce everything to sameness, to eliminate contrast, to do away with difference is to get rid of that which makes life fascinating, exciting, and challenging. It turns everything gray. It all becomes bland.

True equality is about the dignity and worth of each person. It is not about sameness, identicalness, or interchangeability. When equality denies diversity it becomes absurdity.

It foolishly attempts to make unequal things equal.

–J. O. Schulz