Murray N. Rothbard, Egalitarianism and the Elites (1995)

Rothbard’s article joins a philosophical critique of enforced equality to an account of the elites empowered by its pursuit. Its central contention is that egalitarianism contradicts human diversity while legitimating coercive authority for its administrators. The argument moves from the definition and measurement of equality to organizational leadership, envy, group redistribution, and the political interests of intellectuals.

Rothbard begins with individual heterogeneity, challenging the assumption that equality is intrinsically desirable. The myth of Procrustes supplies his governing image:

In the context of the Greek myth, Procrustes is simply pursuing a lunatic “aesthetic” goal, presumably following his personal star of every person being precisely equal in height to the length of his bed.

The analogy presents imposed uniformity as an arbitrary standard whose realization damages those subjected to it. Rothbard argues that egalitarian ideals require justification rather than automatic moral assent. His critique here targets enforced sameness of outcomes; the analogy does not itself establish that every conception of equality requires such uniformity.

The next step concerns the object of equalization:

Let us now examine the egalitarian program more carefully: what, exactly, is supposed to be rendered equal?

Equal monetary incomes would leave differences in accumulated wealth, household circumstances, and purchasing power intact. Taxing accumulated wealth, however, would penalize saving relative to consumption. Moving from nominal to real income promises a more comprehensive comparison but introduces further difficulties:

But once the egalitarian agrees to focus on real incomes, he is caught in a thicket of inescapable and insoluble problems.

Rothbard points to geographical amenities and residential preferences as advantages that cannot simply be reproduced or assessed on a universally accepted scale. Subjective valuation complicates comparison, while compensation based on reported disadvantages encourages strategic misrepresentation. Family upbringing, ability, occupational prestige, and authority similarly resist comprehensive equalization. The argument is cumulative: correcting one difference reveals others, expanding the scope of intervention. An attack on specialization itself would, he argues, undermine productive cooperation.

This problem of scope leads to the article’s institutional paradox. Those charged with imposing equality must possess unequal powers of judgment and enforcement. Invoking Robert Michels’s “Iron Law of Oligarchy,” Rothbard treats leadership as unavoidable in effective organizations. His distinction is between voluntary, competence-based hierarchy and coercive political hierarchy. A musical society illustrates beneficial specialization and leadership; his account of the Free University of New York portrays participatory unanimity as producing protracted meetings, social pressure, and displacement of educational purposes.

The discussion of envy adds a psychological mechanism. Drawing on Helmut Schoeck, Rothbard argues that egalitarianism encourages resentment of superiority instead of containing it. Removing economic disparities would leave other differences available as objects of resentment. Even privacy can become suspect when withdrawal from collective scrutiny is interpreted as an advantage. On this account, equalization has no stable stopping point.

Rothbard then distinguishes older redistribution between individuals from newer claims organized around disadvantaged groups. He challenges the inference that below-average group outcomes necessarily demonstrate discrimination. More centrally, he argues that identifying additional oppressed groups creates political constituencies and expands demand for administration, research, and professional intervention. Intellectuals and welfare professionals consequently appear as beneficiaries as well as advocates of egalitarian programs. This explanation foregrounds institutional incentives, although its general attribution of motives remains polemical rather than independently established.

The conclusion places these claims within a theory of elite ascendancy. Schumpeter supplies an account of capitalism sustaining intellectual critics while weakening inherited sources of authority; public subsidies and communications magnify their influence. Lasch provides grounds for anticipating resistance to elite values, while Francis and Pareto inform the turn toward political strategy. Rothbard seeks not only to refute egalitarian doctrines but to weaken the legitimacy of those who wield them.

The article’s distinctive movement is from equality as an allegedly incoherent distributive ideal to equality as an effective instrument of hierarchy. Its organizing question is who gains authority through equalization, and its practical aim is to expose that authority’s claims to moral exemption.