Kamala Harris is in sync with socialists and communists when she speaks fondly of a hypothetical society where "we all end up in the same place." This equality of outcome scheme (as opposed to equality of opportunity) flies in the face of human nature, given that individuals have different abilities, levels of intelligence, work ethics, familial environments, etc. - all of which guarantee unequal outcomes. 

Any combination of hard work, intelligence, aptitude for employment related tasks, and/or choosing a trade or profession that accommodates market demands will often make someone more economically successful than others, assuming an absence of institutional regulation.

By contrast, a society where we all end up in the same place contravenes this natural order. Here is a thought experiment for you. Let's take a math class. Ellen earned a 93, Jack an 87, Floyd a 71, Mary a 67, Freda a 38, and Rick a 22. They all had equal opportunity by virtue of enrolling in that class, but had different results, perhaps owing to any combination of intelligence, work ethic, aptitude for mathematics, and/or degree of emphasis placed on education in their respective homes. In any event, each student earned his or her grade, and results varied.

Ending up in the same place requires institutional interference. Applying this ideology to the six math students would mean giving each a 63 -- the average of (93 + 87 + 71 + 67 + 38 + 22) ÷ 6. Is it fair or just to subtract Ellen's mark by 30, Jack's by 24, Floyd's by 8, and Mary's by 4, so as to increase Freda's grade by 25, and Rick's by 41? Congratulations: we have set up a scenario where competence is punished and failure rewarded.

It gets worse. The competent to high achievers lose their incentive to produce at above average levels. Many will grow discouraged, put forth less effort, and slide into mediocrity -- or worse. And the "loafers" learn that they will be rewarded over and above what they earn. They will see no need to improve. The joke is on everyone in the class when the stronger students regress to mediocrity and the overall average drops to something substantially less than 63. 

This analogy applies to economic systems where we all end up in the same place (equality of outcome). Lacking an incentive to produce at a high level means almost everybody loses. Productivity and quality workmanship drops, the economy tanks, and the living standards for most of us "go down with the ship." Alas, there are reasons why state-controlled socialist or communist economies with equality of outcome as a goal are inferior to those in the relatively free market West, which while imperfect, still has substantially more respect for (and realization of) equality of opportunity.

Image: Navaro