Ben Shapiro Skewers the “Income Inequality” Canard

In the below-linked video, the great Ben Shapiro delivers a brief, commonsensical dissertation on “income inequality.”

His argument is straightforward, well thought-out and bullet-proof. And, of course, we’ve said the very same things in these pages. (Here — all the way back in February of 2014!) I appreciated especially the part where Shapiro torpedoed the nonsensical idea that the wealthy attain their prosperity by stealing from, or taking advantage of, the poor.


Many times in these pages, we’ve demonstrated that the income inequality “issue” is a fraud. It’s a non-issue. Income inequality is not only a good thing, it’s a necessary thing for a free, healthy society. The reasons are many, but the simplest one is this: If someone makes way, way more money than you, then that means that the possibility exists for you to make way, way more money.

Income, and other inequalities, are nothing more nor less than the visible evidence that you have the opportunity to improve your lot in life.

Otherwise stated: In any society where income equality is achieved, then guess what: What you have right now is all you get. You can’t get any better, go any higher, do any better. ‘Cause it’s all supposed to be equal, you see.

Furthermore, societies have achieved income equality throughout history. A lot of them. In fact most of them. How’d that work out? We called those societies “feudal societies,” and the people were known as serfs. “Serf” is a synonym for “slave.”

In such societies, everyone except the rulers had equal incomes, equal possessions, equal land holdings. Which is to say: None of these things, or very, very little. Equal, though! Except the ruling classes, of course.

I’m referring back to primitive feudal societies that were structured much like prehistoric communities. However, we’ve seen such primitive, brutish “equality” much more recently as well. We still have it too! We called those societies: “Communist countries.”

If your income is equal to everyone else’s then you can’t have more possessions than anyone else either.

Income is used to acquire possessions, so even the very term “income inequality” is a fraud. The ones trying to achieve “income equality” are really trying to get to “possessions equality.” Well, there’s only one way to do that: take away everyone’s possessions. And one sure way to do that is to make everyone’s income equal, and the only way to do that is to take away everyone’s income. That is, of course, the openly stated goal of Socialism.

Guess what happened to the American Democrat Party when they allowed the senile, old crackpot Bernie Sanders to be an acceptable candidate in their midst: They became the American Socialist party in all but name.

When the Democrats talk now, ever so earnestly, about how awful income inequality is in America, they’re really telling you that you have too much stuff, and that they’re coming to take it away from you in the name of what they call a greater good.  Really, though, it’s nothing more than hearkening back to primitive prehistoric and feudal societies. And then they have the nerve to look you right in the eyes and say that they’re… “Progressives.” If they weren’t actually serious about that hogwash, it would be laugh-out-loud hilarious.

Finally: Here are two countries that have largely conquered income inequality: North Korea and Sudan. As it happens, there aren’t a lot of people scurrying to move there.

— xPraetorius


4 thoughts on “Ben Shapiro Skewers the “Income Inequality” Canard

  1. xPraetorius, you are a fallacy monger. All your examples of societies that have realized income equality are actually examples of societies that have had major income inequality. North Korea, Sudan, and feudal societies all had or have ruling classes. The basis of your argument then, is fallacious.

    [Editor’s Note: I amended the above text as follows: the first occurrence of the word “equality” initially read: “inequality.” In light of the point that I believe the writer is trying to make, the word “inequality” makes no sense, so I changed it to “equality.” If I’m mistaken, I hope the writer will contact me to correct my error.]

    1. Not really. At the bottom of those ugly societies, there’s a great deal of “income equality” across all strata of society.

      Of course, the ones at the top enjoy a lifestyle in which it’s as if they have unlimited economic resources. That’s the way it works in all these societies that profess to bring about “equality.”

      It was thus, and always has been thus, in places like Soviet Russia, in all the “People’s Republics” of Eastern Europe, in the Socialist countries of Africa, Asia, and South America.

      My point was not that these countries didn’t possess a ruling élite, of course they did and do. This “élite” always turned out to be a spoiled, pampered, leisured class that lived (and lives) high, while their peoples were and are in squalor.

      It’s what would happen here as well, if we were to try to do what it would take to bring about greater income “equality.”

      The reason is simple: To bring about “income equality,” you must provide disincentives to wealth (taxation and others) and confiscate existing wealth. (Because wealth begets wealth, or more income.)

      You can’t achieve income equality by just gifting the less wealthy with free money, or giving everyone a raise, or ceasing to compensate the wealthy for their labors or their investments. That would do it temporarily, but then you need to do something about an economy that you just wrecked. Or, more to the point, you just turned America into Venezuela.

      Nope, the way to think about income inequality is to embrace it for what it is: a good thing. If Joe earns $1 billion in income in a year, we should all applaud that. Because it means that we too have the possibility to earn that much. If Joe does what would in a free market economy earn him $1 billion and he doesn’t get it, that means that you too can earn a great income,… but you won’t get it.

      It takes no imagination whatsoever to understand that those who see that will simply say, “Well, I guess there’s no point in trying hard, I won’t be rewarded for it.”

      We’ve seen what the Socialist model has produced: In the best case, economic stagnation, the destruction of economic mobility, the steady erosion of basic freedoms… eventually failed societies. In the worst case: death on an inconceivable scale, and barbarism we thought had died millennia ago.

      The Socialist catchphrase is: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” the correct phrase is: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to the merit of his work in a free market.

      There, I fixed it.

      Nota bene: I’m curious. You call yourself “Che,” the nickname of one of ugliest goons of the 20th Century. Are you an admirer of Guevara?


      — x

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s