The problem with “egalitarian ideals” is that the phrase becomes virtually meaningless when is examined the thought-content on the matter–of even a few of its adherents.

A certain portion of what most egalitarians believe would find no fault whatever among those anti-egalitarians favoring “equality of opportunity” or “equality before the law.” These are, indeed, matters on which very many would find at least minimal agreement. I’d even be so bold as to guess that, at least here in the US, such agreement might exceed 85%; the important point to take away is that such principle is so deeply entrenched at all levels of society that it furnishes almost no toehold for the rending of the “fabric” of civilization.

It is entirely different with respect to egalitarianism. Here, quite apart from those differences all self-described egalitarians have with the “equal-opportunity” crowd, the fact is that there’s nothing approaching unanimity of opinion among egalitarians–on almost any subject. In fact, when laid out for inspection, the programs of various egalitarians seem to agree on nearly nothing except their original slogan.

Its not merely a matter of justice. There are important practical matters. If all are to be the recipients of equal rewards, how are the performances of certain services vital to all to be encouraged? The market society (even pre-industrial age) answered that need by incentivizing various performances according to the intensity felt by potential consumers: it is the consumer who makes some rich and some poor. And to redress that inequity would certainly NOT be a way to maximize the quantity of such performances so their delivery could be available to the poorer but, rather, a certain way to discourage both the quantity and the quality of such services available to all.

The thing to be kept in mind (although there are very many to whom the notion is as foreign as possible) is that it is precisely human inequality in its many major and minor variations that make HUMAN civilization even possible. If you would prefer that human society should more closely resemble an anthill or beehive, you might frankly state that preference–or in some way indicate just what degree of uniformity you’d find optimal; it would not be an unusual exercise to imagine just what benefits would need go by the wayside in order to satisfy one or another adjustment to equality.

There’s a plain fact about the program of equality I would urge you consider. And that is, that instead of offering any rejoinder whatever to what I’ve said, try to think through the uniform application of even one or two of the policies you’d consider important aspects of such a society and the wider implications of those policies. The plain fact I referred to is any important departures in such direction will lead to consequences that even you would find more undesirable than those whose melioration you’d originally sought.

The higher efficiency of specialized function is an ontological fact of the sphere of all life; you can see it throughout. Equality–sameness–is what makes individuals implacable foes in the struggle for existence dependent on getting a bit of what is scarce for all. In lower forms, it’s uniformly “devil take the hindmost.” Humans, on the other hand, though subject to the very same biological pressures, have, through the interposition of their unique endowment–reason–managed, to a great extent, to escape the fate of all lesser creatures. But that has been accomplished not only by exploiting the naturally-occurring differences among individuals but by actually intensifying those differences that contribute to the performance of societally-desirable functions.

Think it through for a few weeks or even a month or more. I can’t imagine you not changing your mind on some of these topics.

Socialists won’t become engineers of any sort by practicing “social engineering”; they’ll simply be authoritarian politicians or bureaucrats.

But, on the other hand, engineers put to “social
engineering” won’t be engineers anymore, either; they’ll also become authoritarian (and socialist!).

Healthcare, no idea, but I’m guessing something like France with private-ish provision and government reimbursement… [checks] – ah, no, it’s 97% state funded with patient fees covering 3% of costs, although it is decentralised to local council level.

Like I say, it depends on meaning. If by “socialism” you mean “something based on egalitarian ideals that has failed”, then obviously you’ll find socialism has failed. But if Sweden isn’t a society based on egalitarian ideals, then I’m a pot of jam.

[and no, the US isn't based on egalitarian ideals, before anyone gets smart. Equality of opportunity is a valid value system to hold, but it definitionally isn't egalitarian...]

Depending on your definition of socialism, either you’re wrong that it’s failed (compare: Sweden vs US. Which is better? The correct answer is a very complex dissertation, not “Sweden” or “the US”…) or you’re wrong that I don’t think it’s been proved to fail (see: the USSR, 1917-1935 and 1946-1989).

Socialism is a failure, everywhere it’s tried it failed. So it’s not complex to conclude that doing something that always fails will yet again result in failure.

Yeah, you’d've thought. Counterexample: most of the US libertarian blogosphere.

This is why it is unfortunate that social engineering is practiced by socialists rather than engineers…

JP – I won some kind of award for single maths A-level, but I think that was cos the people who were properly good all did double maths (if I try talk to my friends who’ve become proper mathematicians about what they do these days my head starts spinning within a few minutes). Numeracy is definitely up there with “being a belligerent asshole” on the list of Things I Can Do, though.

And the D and E social groups contain most of the folk who think they have no stake in the health of the economy.

… many a true word is spoke in jest!

“engineers…don’t understand statistics” – I’m lost for words!

Pogo – Cos the Daily Mail tells them to

So why do they insist on implementing them as public policy?

TBH I find both sides pretty tiresome – but the engineers are definitely the worst of the lot, because they believe in simple solutions, don’t understand statistics, *and* still believe that they’re scientists.

The liberal arts types can be annoying, but at least they generally get the fact that anything based on common-sense (i.e. on generalisations that have evolved to make individuals’ interactions within small communities more effective) is almost certainly going to be wrong when extended to the realms of public policy…

As a knuckle dragging engineer, I always found the superior sneer of those liberal arts types infuriating. I accept the idea of a well rounded education, but being considered ignorant by someone whose knowledge of maths & science is close to zero, is something else.

The world is full of professionals who deem themselves clever, based on an education that does little to help them understand the world around them.