"
The notion that everybody ought to be happy, and equally happy with all the rest, is the fine flower of philosophy which has been winning popularity for two hundred years. All the pretty demands of natural rights, liberty, equality, etc., are only stepping-stones toward this philosophy, which is really what is wanted. All through history some have had good fortune and some ill-fortune. For some, the ills of life have taken all the joy and strength out of existence, while the fortunate have always been there to show how glorious life might be and to furnish dreams of bliss to tantalize those who have failed and suffered. So, men have constructed in philosophy theories of universal felicity. They tell us that everyone has a natural right to be happy, to be comfortable, to have health, to succeed, to have knowledge, family, political power, and all the best of the things which anybody can have ... The, they say that we all ought to be equal. That proposition abolishes luck ... The unlucky will pull down the lucky. That is all that equality can ever mean." ("Reply to a Socialist," Collier's Magazine, 1904)
If there chicanery here? Is this high sophistry? I am lately convinced this passage, though ancient, rings, at some decible level, as truth. We all suffer but to varying degrees. And, whether one calls it "luck" or "talent" or "Divine Intervention",
equality of situation is a myth. Further, it is a myth that is the root of much mischief. I, for one, am content where I repose. Human compassion brings me to pity those less fortunate but does not compel me to devise grand schemes (which never fulfill their promise) to eliminate what has always been part of human existence. To whit: the Holy Grail of equality can only be composed of equality of
opportunity, never a guarantee that it shall be achieved for everyone.
But, then, that is just an opinion of one man. Well, make that two men. The other, Herbert Spencer, has long ceased to walk among the living.