Chapter Ǵǹ: Can a Liberal Be an Egalitarian? ȃȅȂAs for egalitarianism, instead of defining it explicitly, I want to dis-
tinguish between leveling up and leveling down. Consider a minority of
people whose wealth or income or opportunities are distressingly inferior
to those of most people. Redistribution to help them, perhaps through
the government budget, is leveling up. With that I have no quarrel in
principle. Such relief of actual poverty—of definitely sub-modal circum-
stances—is not meddlesomeness. Rather, it is an effort to remedy a situ-
ation almost universally recognized as bad. (Ļis is not to say that monks
and nuns and other ascetics should be barred from choosing a life of
poverty.) Involuntary but eradicable poverty is a blemish, making a society
less attractive for practically everyone who comes in contact with or even
is keenly aware of it. Its elimination would be in the recognized interest
of almost everyone.
Redistribution tolevel downunusually great wealth or incomes or un-
usually favorable opportunities is quite a different thing. Great wealth is
the opposite of something that almost everyone would consider bad for
himself. It, or the opportunity to achieve it, broadens the range of alterna-
tives open to people, as we can recognize without supposing that material
abundance must form the very core of the good life. Ideally, a liberal would
like each person to have the opportunity for it if that is what he wants. A
policy aimed at leveling down the exceptionally wealthy few would deprive
some people of their good fortune—a good fortune that a liberal would
welcome for everyone—because other people are less fortunate. If every-
one cannot be very lucky, no one shall be. Ļis attitude may be a human
one; but it is an unlovely one, unworthy of being sanctified in public
policy.
But do any people who consider themselves traditional liberals really
advocate leveling down as distinguished from leveling up? Does any lib-
eral really favor tax progression of such a degree that direct benefits to
poor people are doubtful or trivial? It is true that this idea seldom appears
unequivocally in print. But it crops up often in discussions. And it seems
to underlie the ubiquitous slogan that “Equality is an end in its own right.”
Henry Simons, who ranks as one of the saints of the Chicago School, has
expressed his preference
for rather steep progression. Ļe tax system should be used systemati-
cally to correct excessive economic inequality and to preclude inordinate,
enduring differences among families or economic strata in wealth, power,
and opportunities. (ȀȈȄǿ, p.Ȁȃȃ)