The Fallacy of Equality

The modern world has a habit of romanticizing sympathy to the point of enabling. Cultures built on competing incentives and unequal power tend to produce comforting fictions, such as everyone being enough as they are, that worth is fixed at birth rather than built through action, or that love for humanity can be extended unconditionally without any actual knowledge of the people it’s directed at. These ideas feel virtuous, circulate widely, and unfortunately cause a lot of harm.

The Lies of Unconditional Value, Sympathy, and Meritocracy

You were born with inherent worth, but the worth you begin with isn’t the same as the worth you build throughout your life. Society, by necessity for functionality, needs to make practical distinctions between those who have developed certain capabilities and those who haven’t yet, between those who have earned trust in specific domains and those who are still building it, and between those who can bear weight under certain kinds of pressure and those who are still finding their footing. This is not a moral hierarchy, it is exclusively about practicality, because a world without any form of distinction is a world without accountability, without merit, and without the feedback necessary for growth, both at the individual and societal scale.

This matters at the personal scale too. Real love, strong loyalty, and deserved respect require actual knowledge of someone’s strengths, weaknesses, history, and potential. Affection extended to a projection rather than a person collapses the moment the real person steps outside of it. Anyone who claims to love you without knowing what you’re made of is either lying to you or lying to themselves. And at the cultural scale, the same logic applies: a society that claims to care for its people while remaining ignorant of the actual problems the people face is not providing for its citizens. A society that cannot provide for the people who make society function directly leads to the society ceasing to function. The culture that tells you you’re already enough without knowing where you are, what you’re capable of, or what you’re up against is not invested in your actual wellbeing, it’s invested in preserving predictability because growth disrupts hierarchies and demands adaptation. A culture that profits from predictability, uneducated people, and blind faith has every incentive to keep things that way.

Sympathy doesn’t solve hardship. It doesn’t fix structural problems by making people feel better about being stuck inside them. What actually helps is understanding the difference between compassion and enabling. Compassion says: I see where you are, I can help, let’s move forward together. It acknowledges struggle without glorifying it, offers support without removing responsibility, and recognizes that dignity is preserved not by escaping difficulty, but by growing through it. Enabling says: Stay where you are, it’s fine, you never have to be more. It sounds like kindness but protects people from the discomfort required to grow while dismantling their capacity to do so.

This matters most at the systemic scale because that’s where enabling causes the most damage. A politician who offers symbolic gestures instead of policy reform is enabling. An institution that celebrates representational milestones while the conditions for people from that background continue to deteriorate is enabling. These aren’t edge cases, they are the dominant form of response to structural problems in modern political culture, and they are far more consequential than any individual act of misplaced kindness, because they provide the appearance of progress while guaranteeing that the underlying conditions never change. And at the personal level, the principle is simpler: genuine support requires at least some form of honesty, even if it’s mixed in with compassion. You cannot help someone while misrepresenting the situation they’re in. Anything else, however well intentioned, is just a more comfortable form of enabling.

However, pure meritocracy doesn’t exist either. It suggests that outcomes reflect only individual effort, that the playing field is level, and that where you end up is purely a product of what you chose to do, but the reality is far more complicated. A person who has had access to preparation deserves more opportunity than one who hasn’t had that access yet, but it is worth considering who controlled access to that preparation in the first place. Growth and demonstrated competence do determine what you’re entitled to, but for growth to happen in the first place, certain conditions must be met, and if those conditions are not distributed fairly, it means the outcomes they produce aren’t a pure reflection of individual merit, they’re also a reflection of who was given the tools to compete and who wasn’t. Pretending otherwise doesn’t create fairness, it just excuses the systems responsible for that gap while instructing the people harmed by it to try harder, which solves nothing. This myth is convenient for systems that have failed people, because it redirects blame downward. When institutions fail, the myth instead blames the individuals harmed by that failure.

Systemic Equality

In the first world, the fallacy of equality goes further. In the name of inclusion, institutions have often overcorrected to the point where identity supersedes competence, not because the people making those decisions are malicious, but because the system’s deeper inequities have never been addressed at the root. Representation becomes a substitute for actually removing the barriers that kept people from competing in the first place. This is not progress, it’s just a different form of the same problem we claimed to solve, and it doesn’t actually help the people it promises and intends to. But there is no virtue in preferential treatment based on identity, not because identity doesn’t matter, but because treating people as representatives of a category rather than as individuals replicates the same logic it claims to oppose. If discrimination or preferential treatment based on identity is wrong in one direction, it is wrong in all of them. Changing who bears the advantage or disadvantage does not resolve the root of the injustice.

The standard must be competence and qualification, not as an excuse to ignore systemic barriers, but as the actual criteria for who gets responsibility, which itself requires addressing the barriers that prevent people from demonstrating competence, not lowering the standard and calling it fair. Equality and equity are not the same thing. Because, as discussed earlier, success doesn’t come purely from merit. Systemic advantages, inherited resources, timing, and access shape outcomes profoundly, and those are not within the control of the individual. The playing field is not level, and it likely never will be. Anyone struggling under systemic disadvantage who is told to simply “work harder” is being lied to, often by the same forces that created said disadvantage. Thus, systemic disadvantage must be addressed directly by leveling access to education, resources, and opportunity so that merit and capability can actually be demonstrated and obtained, but assistance needs to address the barriers to qualification, not replace qualification itself. Help people meet the standard that must be met, improve the accuracy and fairness of how that standard is measured, but don’t lower the standards or fabricate the measurements and pretend the problem is solved.

The systemic angle is complicated and I won’t pretend to be an objective viewpoint here. But the goal, which is to ensure that qualified people from all backgrounds can compete and participate fairly, is both, practically speaking, achievable and necessary. Not necessarily perfect, but a lot better than swapping one form of preferential treatment for another and calling it justice. Bias and unfairness will always persist, but through competence, demonstrated ability, and earned reputation evaluated through genuinely fair processes, we can build systems that are legible, defensible, and functional. Not ideal, but as fair as we can realistically get. Everyone should have access to the same opportunities, but not necessarily be owed the same opportunities. Everyone should have equal rights, but not necessarily equal opportunities. There needs to be a balance between personal choice and capability alongside considering the systemic factors that contributed, either positively or negatively, to those choices and capabilities. As much as I would love to preach for a utopia, society still needs to make distinctions between who can do what, meaning giving everyone the same opportunities is a fantasy, but giving everyone equal access to compete for those opportunities is necessary and achievable, though it still requires a lot of work. Thus, both individuals and systems need to grow.

Growth

At the individual level, growth is a continuous process of confronting what you once did or still do believe, outgrowing perspectives that once felt permanent or absolute, and recognizing that some of what you were taught to want or accept was handed to you by systems with interests that weren’t and still aren’t yours. A significant portion of your personal beliefs is actually internalized structural constraint. The person who believes they aren’t capable of more has often been told and enforced by that, directly or indirectly, by institutions and conditions that benefited from them believing it. Separating what is genuinely yours to work on from what was placed on you by circumstance is a necessary part of growth, even if it isn’t quite clear.

Individual growth also means accepting that your current understanding is and will always be incomplete because 1) you are a fallible and emotional human who changes over time and 2) you live in a world that keeps producing new information and new challenges. The perspectives that served you at one stage of life will not serve you indefinitely. You must be capable of updating your beliefs when confronted with evidence, of separating familiarity from correctness, and of questioning your identity and worldview. Not necessarily perfectly, but in general.

At the systemic level, the same logic applies, but the stakes are higher and the resistance is, unfortunately, far more organized because systems (and the powerful people within them), by their nature, trend toward self preservation. The institutions, policies, and power structures that exist today were built to solve the problems of a previous era, effectively or not, and many of them have solidifies well past their usefulness while continuing to consume enormous resources and public trust. A healthcare system designed around employer-based insurance made some sense in the postwar economy, but no longer. An education system designed to produce unquestioning factory workers was somewhat useful during the Industrial Revolution, but now produces uneducated people in a world where intelligence is more important than ever. An electoral system designed around the limitations of 18th-century perspectives and modes of communication is actively distorting democracy in the 21st century. A financial system built to serve industrial-era capital is poorly equipped for an economy increasingly defined by housing scarcity, compensation undercutting productivity, and concentrated corporate power. These existing systems (present in the US) have failed to grow and are now extracting costs from the people least equipped to absorb them, despite the fact that they are the same people generating economic and societal growth to begin with.

Functional systemic growth looks like honest acknowledgment that a structure is no longer serving its stated purpose, followed by the political will to change it. It looks like ranked choice voting instead of first-past-the-post, independent redistricting instead of partisan gerrymandering, and campaign finance structures that don’t filter out candidates whose positions threaten donor interests before they ever reach a ballot. It looks like healthcare policy designed around health outcomes rather than insurance industry margins and education funding that doesn’t depend on local property taxes, which guarantees that the quality of a child’s education is determined by the wealth of their zip code. These are not radical propositions, we have the resources to implement them, thus they are the practical application of growth to systems that have been allowed to stagnate for decades while the people operating within them are told to simply do better, which is fundamentally unfair. And this of course goes beyond political systems; every single system in existence needs to be able to adapt, not just change, but actually adapt to new circumstances.

As disappointing as it is to address, the resistance to systemic growth is unfortunately intentional. The same forces that benefit from individual complacency, like the cultural pressure to accept your circumstances, to not ask too much, to love the country you live in, and to be grateful for what you have, also benefit from systemic stagnation. A population that has internalized its own limitations is far less likely to demand that the structures around them adapt, which is why individual and systemic growth are interconnected. The more clearly a person sees the gap between what is and what could be, the harder it becomes to accept the argument that nothing can be done about it, both internally and externally. Growth, at every level, begins with refusing the argument that nothing can be done. The problems are not easy to solve, but treating them as if they are impossible to solve guarantees that nothing improves. If you want to improve the world, start first with yourself, and then keep making the things around you better and better.

Still, progress always costs something. Growth requires stepping into discomfort, confronting the distance between where you are and where you want to be, and doing that over and over and over. There is no version of meaningful development that skips this process and no version where this process ever truly ends. As a result, this entry may have been a difficult read, and some of it will inevitably land wrong, especially since it openly discusses politics, which is getting more and more difficult to openly discuss (I wonder why that is?). I’m not a perfect thinker, I don’t have the complete picture, and I’m not right about everything. I have also heavily benefitted from the existing systems, even if I would benefit more from them growing. In any case, the core point holds: a culture that soothes rather than supports, that mistakes comfort for care, and that enables stagnation in individuals and in systems is not sustainable nor kind. You don’t solve human problems with empty affection and manufactured reassurance. You solve them by seeing clearly, demanding better from systems, especially from the people who hold power over the conditions others live in, and from yourself as well. The work is not optional. At the individual level, and far more consequentially, at the systemic one. The alternative, in both cases, is always decay.

Related Entries

The Myth but Necessity of Objectivity

Perfect objectivity is an unattainable ideal, pure subjectivity is an unsustainable reality. The best possible system balances between both, guided by principle.

Modern Strength

Strength is not in rigidity, but in flexibility. To adapt to the unpredictability of life with bravery, wisdom, and humility, without losing the will to fight when necessary.

In The Process

Success is a journey, not a destination. The doing is often more important than the outcome. - Arthur Ashe