“You play to win the game”, a
famous quote by Herm Edwards the retired NFL coach. Is life not also a game?
Are individuals not meant to compete to strive to be better than, and beat our
counterparts? The reading about egalitarianism seems to indicate that liberals
and particularly those following some kind of ethical agenda would rather
participate on a level playing field. This prompts the question as to what
equality in this sense actually entails. Individuals are inherently born onto
different playing fields and thus do not experience the same life chances and
cannot possibly compete in life equally. Individuals are born with and or into
different body types, cognitive and physical capabilities, geographical
regions, religions, wealthy or poor families, or areas with political strife.
It is therefore impossible, inconceivable, and uncompassionate to level the
playing field of life for all.
“Mankind, is uniquely characterized by a high degree
of variety, diversity, differentiation; in short, inequality. An egalitarian
society can only hope to achieve its goals by totalitarian methods of coercion;
and, even here, we all believe and hope the human spirit of individual man will
rise up and thwart any such attempts to achieve an ant-heap world” (Rothbard)
One
sport, golf, attempts to level the playing field for players of all abilities
to participate. In no other sport is there a system that allows beginners and
experts to compete against each other on the same day under the same playing
conditions. The handicap system allows a beginner player to compare himself to
an experienced player by effectively decreasing the beginners’ score and
effectively increasing the score of the experienced player. In theory if both
golfers perform to their ability on a given day then they should shoot the same
effective score. The problem is that this system hardly ever performs the way
it is intended. One player might perform extraordinarily well on the day the
two players compete. Life’s bounces might favor one player over another on that
day. Perhaps individuals will find a way to take advantage of the system to
increase their chances of winning. Ultimately one player will discover a way to
gain advantage through the system so that he can win without actually improving
his ability to play the game. Ultimately neither competitor will be better off
in the long run. This is the result of interference with competition.
When in sport or life has there ever existed a
competition in which one party was handicapped simply to allow the other could
compete? What is the purpose of competition if not to discover the better
participant? The redistribution of wealth through government policies seems to
mimic a handicapping system in which the force attempts to level the playing
field. Strokes are collected from the wealthy via taxation and government force
and redistributed arbitrarily. Is this a form of compassion, to disadvantage
one in order to give advantage to another? Neither party will benefit in the
long run. Handicapping, and the redistribution of wealth is a form of pity. Only
through uninhibited competition and the free market process is there
compassion. You play to win the game, and the real winner is only discovered
through competition free of oppressive interference.
No comments:
Post a Comment