“Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
a human brotherhood
Imagine all the people
Sharing the whole world
John Lennon, Imagine
The Oxford language dictionary gives two meanings to the word utopia, a term coined by Thomas More in 1516 in his work with that title: 1. Plan or system of government in which a perfect and just society is conceived, where everything runs without conflict and in harmony. 2. Ideal, attractive, and beneficial project, desire or plan, generally for the community, that is very unlikely to happen or that at the time of its formulation is unfeasible.
In this ideal universe, all the individuals that make up society would be equal, reaching the world described by John Lennon in his famous song. Obviously, as the dictionary defines it, this is unrealizable, a dream, a utopia. But what happens if the person who heads the government, as is the case of López Obrador, in his philosophical conception of what the State should be, designs public policy to try to achieve that world where there is equality of results, one where merit is irrelevant (in regard to Maoist educational reform)?
More specifically, why does a public policy designed to try to achieve equality of results lead to a society without freedoms, one where everyone is equal, but living in conditions of poverty, where equality, but in misery?
Let’s start by recognizing that each individual is different. From the outset, each person (except for the case where they have identical twins) was born with a unique genetic endowment, which determines what their abilities are as well as the potential they have for the absorption and application of knowledge, determining factors of what their performance will be in the work activity you choose, which will pay off in the generation of an income stream. Given the genetic differences and the environment in which he develops, each individual has his own preferences and subjective needs that he wishes to satisfy and towards which he will allocate the income generated. The latter implies that the consumption basket of each individual and the intensity with which he satisfies each of his needs varies between individuals.
In this world, where each individual is different in terms of their abilities and needs, it is crucial how the rules of the game are designed so that they allow efficient and effective cooperation between all individuals. These rules must establish equal access conditions to all markets for goods, services (including education and health) and factors of production. The goal is for there to be equity in prosperity and where, having all played by the same rules and with independent and impartial arbiters, each person’s share of national income depends on the contribution they make to their generation, depends on his merit.
When, on the other hand, the objective is to achieve equality of results, the abilities and capacities of each one cease to be relevant; the link between productivity associated with genetic ability and acquired knowledge and the value of what is contributed to national income is broken; merit is not only not recognized but, even worse, it is punished; kills the incentive for individual improvement. Under this system, everyone’s needs are supposed to be the same and it is the government that decides which ones are satisfied and with what intensity, so the government interferes in the private sphere, violating, to the point of extinction, individual freedom of choice. . This system, instead of generating wealth, inhibits it and ends up being one where there is equality, but in misery. All the same, all screwed up and very unhappy (except the ruler). Equity in prosperity or equality in misery. What do you prefer?
Twitter: @econoclasta
Economist and professor
Point of view
Knight of the National Order of Merit of the French Republic. Medal of Professional Merit, Ex-ITAM.