The nonsensical equity paradox

The culture wars have devolved to critical race 'theory', wokeness and demands for 'equity,' not just equality.

Supposedly, equity demands equal outcomes, i.e., everyone finishing at the same place, whereas Marting Luther King's idea of equality meant helping everyone get to the starting line, i.e., equal opportunity and equality in the economic, political and social processes. Simply put, equal opportunity and equal treatment have been replaced in the progressive mantra by equal outcomes.

Let's skip over the mathematical tautology that creating 'perfect' equality in opportunity and process makes it impossible to achieve identical outcomes for all. And let's look at what would happen if you were to achieve equity, i.e., everyone with equal outcomes. What happens next? Do you insist upon stagnation? Do you punish any person who achieves a better subsequent outcome than every other person?

Much like the Marxist canard, "From everyone according to their ability, to each according to their need," there is no way to effectively force or even incentivize a person to work to his or her full ability were that person to have the same outcome as those with less ability or, for that matter, as those with equal ability and little or no effort. And who gets to measure ability? Who gets to define ability? Well, Russia tried that for about seventy years and gave it up. China tried it for more than forty years and gave it up as well. India has done much the same. In these three cases, representing about 40% of the world's entire population (and much less than forty percent of the world's economy), tens of millions of people died from the oppressive hand of regulation, failed agricultural policies and government tyranny required to maintain this system to pursue 'equity.'

The latest, recent irony came from the Marxist head of Black Lives Matter, the 'leader'/champion of the 'equity' movement, a woman who has enriched herself immensely with funds donated to the BLM 'causes,' and purchased four homes worth $3.2 million from her takings, when she acknowledged NPR (see text of her tweet, below) for pointing out the important role of back home ownership in combating 'white supremacy,' without realizing that she is championing private property and purchases with wealth that characterize capitalism, not Marxism.

Who does this 'leader' believe herself to be? Bernie Sanders? Now, even some corporations are questioning why their capitalist profits donated to BLM can be justified, or even explained.