Equality of outcomes?

After the Russian Revolution of 1917, the political structure of the Soviet Union (1917–1989) tried to emphasize equality of outcome as a primary goal. Photo: Vladimir Lenin addresses a crowd in Moscow in 1920.

After the Russian Revolution of 1917, the political structure of the Soviet Union (1917–1989) tried to emphasise equality of outcome as a primary goal. Photo: Vladimir Lenin addresses a crowd in Moscow in 1920.

David Farrar has returned from his arts, exercise and walking tour of the US and got straight into the looney aspects of Labour new policy platform. Like “Equality of Outcomes“.

Quote –  “Labour believes that social justice means that all people should have equal access to social, economic, cultural, political, and legal spheres regardless of wealth, gender, ethnicity, or social position. Labour says that no matter the circumstances of our birth, we are each accorded equal opportunity to achieve our full potential in life. We believe in more than just equal opportunities—we believe in equality of outcomes.”   

Interesting. Farrar suggests that this is basically communism and it is hard not to agree.

But think about the logical extension of this belief by Labour in “equality of outcomes”

So, if I’m as ugly as hell, I guess Labour (oops…”other taxpayers”)  –  will pay for me to have plastic surgery so that I look like an Adonis. 

Or how about with regards to elections…will we ever need them considering that there will now be “equality of outcomes”. There won’t be winners and losers. There will be as many Green MPs as National and Labour because of “equality of outcomes”.

It will also stand to reason that there will be as many ACT MPs as well. I bet Labour wouldn’t be so keen on that “equality of outcome”.

The final draft of their policy platform is here.

While I was looking up this move of Labour to the hard left communist ideal I found this wonderful video of Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell discussing this exact topic.

  • LabTested

    I’ve seen equality of outcomes inaction. Early 90’s Poland. I was attached to a State Owned Enterprise. Communism had recently ended, but the mentality was still there. Young people would join the organisation full of energy & ideas & in 6 months all that enthusiasm would have been driven out of them. Equality of outcomes is only possible when you benchmark to the bottom.

    • IWantToBeLikeMallardOneDay

      I worked for WINZ in the early 2000s. Same deal except the young, enthusiastic people were in the minority and there were more cretins who the government was trying to move from one bludger pool (the unemployed), to the public teat (supposedly employed).

  • Sir Cullen’s Sidekick

    When I kept writing ‘restoring social justice’ you guys kept laughing….now what say you?

  • Sir Cullen’s Sidekick

    Under this policy (which was designed by the great communist dictator) your money is my money and my money is also my money. Prepare yourself to be taxed to death bros.

  • Sir Cullen’s Sidekick

    Happy 52nd birthday John Key! Here is Sheep wishing a happy third and a possible fourth term National government :-)

  • johnbronkhorst

    Lenin also said ..”A lie told often enough, becomes the truth”

    Labours version…”perception is reality”

    In this case, you will notice….no mention of work in this quote.

    To be true it needs to say…”we believe in equality of outcomes, for equality of input (work).”

  • Agent BallSack

    How about equal outcomes for equal input…I.E if you dont work you starve, like the fable.

    • johnbronkhorst

      I always did believe, that, the story “The little red hen” should be basic reading for all economists, labour MP’s and BERL.

  • jagilby

    If Len Brown is AFC
    Then it stands to reason that:
    Milton Friedman is the Fucken Man. (MFITFM)

  • Yaboydave

    Equality of outcomes – it’s French for “lowest common denominator”.

  • Muffin

    It would be all I could have done to stop my self from getting up and smashing that fucking commies head in. How can people be so fucking stupid.

  • mark

    I don’t think what they are actually saying is communism. It’s actually fascism which supposedly is the “smart mans communism”. If there is such a thing. I don’t think that the majority of the loons (there may be some real nutters who probably whisper behind closed doors that they do) want to do away with private ownership all together. The problem with that is all incentive to work hard is destroyed apart from the obvious bullet to the head. No what they want is still private ownership but a command and control economy where they guide the direction into all sorts of politically motivated areas which ultimately fail, and just to tax the fuck out of anyone productive while still leaving the impression that they can get ahead by working hard.

    • philbest

      Someone, I can’t remember who, said that the main difference between Communism and Fascism was that the fascists pretend to let you own property. You still have no inviolable property rights per se. “Capitalists” are still often told what to produce, who to hire, how much to pay them, who to sell to at what prices, etc etc etc.

      Sound familiar?

      • mark

        “Capitalists” are still often told what to produce, who to hire, how
        much to pay them, who to sell to at what prices, etc etc etc.

        I would disagree that any of that happen in a capitalist society. In a capitalist society an entrepreneur gets price signals from the market on what to produce and how much to sell it for. They decide who to hire and for how much. I cannot see why they would not want to sell their product to a willing buyer but I guess that is possible.

        Keep in mind whatever you want to call what type of economy we have, it isn’t capitalism.

        • workingman

          mark, I was reading philbest as saying that under Fascism the “Capitalists” were told what to produce etc.

          • mark

            Yeah you are probably right after reading some of his other comments I probably misunderstood what he was getting at.

            It’s been one of those days unfortunately =)

        • philbest

          Sorry it wasn’t 100% clear what I said: I was referring to “capitalists” in a fascist system, not capitalists in a capitalist system.

          Even when the system is not fascism, it is necessary to distinguish between a true “free market” capitalism and “crony” capitalism. Milton Friedman touched on this in the above video. The Left always mentally transfers what happens under crony capitalism, to apply to all capitalism, and cannot see that it is the Statist element in mixed systems that is a responsible party to the crony capitalism.

          “Capitalists” generally dislike the idea of economic libertarian free market purists getting into government, so with both capitalists and the Left smearing and marginalising the economic libertarians, it is no wonder they are next to non existent as a political force.

          It is worth noting that while violent and murderous revolution has frequently been instigated and condoned by people of the Left, as being to a noble “end”, there has never been an economic libertarian equivalent. Says a lot. An economic libertarian revolution would be rationally the thing worth supporting on the basis of the ends justifying the means – but the kind of mind that is attracted to economic libertarianism seems to be repelled by violence and terror – in interesting contrast to those on the Left.

          “Crony capitalists”, by their willingness to co-operate with Statism, risk losing everything because it is so easy for Statism to morph into full-blown fascism – where the capitalists property rights are “make believe”. It might be nice for a while, but when, not if, the strongman takes a disliking to you…. hmmmmm.

          Putin is a fascist, not a Communist. China’s “capitalism with Chinese characteristics” is fascism, not Communism, even if the single ruling party is still called Communist. It is very easy for one to morph into the other. As I said in the first place, the only major difference is “make believe” property rights.

          Ironically, both communism when it collapses, and soft-left Statist mixed economies, move automatically into fascism. It might try and become become communism for a while, with everything nationalised, but even make-believe property rights are better at generating economic growth than none at all.

          • mark

            Well said. I should have made the connection with your other comments, sorry about that.

            Long long day =(

          • philbest

            Partly my fault, my clumsy writing, old chap.

          • IWantToBeLikeMallardOneDay

            Crony capitalism=Fonterra and telecom.

  • Time For Accountability

    Silent t won’t like that.
    He believes some pigs are equal than others when it comes to outcomes.
    Look at the housing stock he has accumulated and removed from the stock of his voters.

  • Goldie

    “Equality of outcomes”
    So Labour state that there is a housing shortage. And their MPs have built up substantial housing portfolios. So we can expect Labour MPs to lead the way in achieving equality of outcomes, and to voluntarily divest themselves of their housing investments to poeple who are looking for a house?
    Though not. Labour MPs have obviously read ‘Animal Farm’. They believe in equality of outcomes – except that Labour MPs are more equal than others.
    Labour MPs really are despicable hypocrites.

    • philbest

      Hear, hear, and the MSM are scum for never calling them on this. Remember John Key’s Tranzrail shares? Nothing ever said about Aunty Hulun’s property portfolio right at the time she and her colleagues were refusing to listen to people like Owen McShane and Hugh Pavletich about the growing house price bubble.

  • cows4me

    Fucking fruitcakes, the only way this shit can work is to lower the abilities, opportunities, health and wealth to match the dregs of society. What is it with the left and their belief they can rewrite the laws of the jungle. Life isn’t equal nor should it be. The human race would have died out years ago if these retards were left in charge, survival of the fittest is why we progress. I suspect in their heart of hearts they realise this but most of these hard left fruitcakes are useless fuckers and realise their only chance in life is to take from others under the pretext of equality.

  • rouppe

    So, if I’m as ugly as hell, I guess Labour (oops…”other taxpayers”) – will pay for me to have plastic surgery so that I look like an Adonis.

    No, no, no… That would be improving the lot of the unfortunate. Labour’s strategy is normally to punish the better off so that they more closely resemble the unfortunate. So they’re much more likely to simply disfigure the good looking…

  • mark

    Why equality of opportunity is wrong also

    Specific to the US but you get the idea

    • Mother of ten

      Great video Mark, should be required viewing for the man ban faction within labour.

      • mark

        I think it would be lost on them =)

  • philbest

    Prof Frances Fox Piven was one of the two formulators of the “Cloward Piven strategy”, another one along with Fabianism and the “Long March Through the Institutions”, by which the Left advances towards its goals.

    It is great to watch Friedman and Sowell in action like this. There was a time when a lot more Americans followed these sorts of arguments and were helped to think more clearly.

    Terrific point by Friedman; relief of distress, good: reducing inequality, bad. Very very moral person; same with Sowell. It is disgraceful that the Left categorises wise men like these as stooges of “greed and selfishness”.

    • cows4me

      They have to, these guys scare the shit out of hem.

97%