As I noted in a previous post, equality does not exist in nature, or in a feudal state; the size of the state is thus tied to the level of equality to which it aspires. Here’s how it works:
- EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW: Typically associated with states emerging from feudalism in the 17th and 18th centuries. In some cases, the abolition of status-driven law was accomplished by “enlightened despots” (think Prussia and Austria); in others, it was the result of more democratic forces (France and the UK).
- EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY: This requires some additional application of state power to redistribute resources from the fortunate to the less affluent. It is the objective of modern liberal democracies.
- EQUALITY OF OUTCOME: In its perfect form, which has never remotely existed in history, this is communism; the state controls everything, and then theoretically disappears. There are obviously a variety of degrees, ranging from a stingy welfare state (the US) to genuinely socialist countries.
The key here is that the more equality you want, the larger the state must be to enforce it. As a result, as you increase the equality of outcome, you inevitably decrease the amount of negative freedom you offer your citizens. But what about the overall level of freedom–both positive and negative? I will address that issue in my last post on the subject.