Equality of Opportunity (Liberalism)

It is an article of faith amongst liberals that society should be based upon equality of opportunity.

Liberals throughout the ages have endorsed measures designed to break down those barriers that hold people back (such as racism, homophobia, sexism and transphobia).

Support for equality amongst liberals is very different to that of socialists. Whereas liberals argue in favour of state intervention to enhance equal opportunities, socialists favour a more equitable distribution of wealth and resources. The distinction between a liberal and a socialist in terms of equality is analogous to a race. Liberals will always support legislative measures designed to ensure a more even start in life. However, liberals tend to oppose those measures that confiscate wealth from those who work hard. Liberals take the view that people’s abilities and aptitude for work differs greatly. Provided the start is relatively equal, the outcome should be viewed as a fair one. An uneven distribution of wealth is therefore entirely compatible with liberalism. Liberals claim that an unequal outcome is socially just. In contrast, equality of outcome, as in socialism, treats unlike individuals alike – which is anathema to any genuine liberal.

The liberal perspective is based upon the premise that a dichotomy exists between equality and liberty. Inevitably, society must make a choice between equality of outcome or the preservation of individual liberty. This argument is particularly vociferous amongst classical liberals. For instance, Milton Friedman observed that “a society that puts equality ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom.” From a similar position, Friedrich Hayek (1988) argued that “a society that does not recognise that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom.”