Politicians and intellectuals, in increasing numbers, have spent the last few years warning America and the world about the dangers of rampant economic inequality. They tell us that inequalities of income and wealth are rapidly increasing, and that this increase threatens the very existence of the American Dream—the dream of opportunity to build a better life through hard work. Most of these inequality critics argue that this disaster will occur as a result of the free market. In "Capital in the Twenty First Century," economist Thomas Piketty says that natural market forces will cause the wealthy to acquire increasing wealth through returns on investment at a rate exceeding economic growth, causing a vast concentration of wealth among a few people that will result in mass economic instability. Joseph Stiglitz, another economist, argues in several works that this concentration of wealth causes stagnation for the rest of the population and limits their ability to find opportunities to succeed. "Americans are coming to realize," Stiglitz writes, "that their cherished narrative of social and economic mobility is a myth."

Most inequality critics say that to solve the problem and save the American dream, the government must raise taxes and expand social programs designed to benefit the poor. Piketty endorses a 2 percent global wealth tax and a top marginal income tax rate of 80 percent. Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman advocates for expansive social programs designed to make the poor richer by taking money from the rich in the form of high taxes.

Advocates of limited government and low taxes have had difficulty opposing the anti-inequality campaign, not only because it seems to have economic evidence behind it, but also because it feels intuitively true to many Americans. Making matters worse, limited-government advocates spend relatively little time on the topic of inequality. A conservative or libertarian publication will occasionally put out an article arguing that inequality is not so awful, and some figures in these movements say that the free market is the solution to inequality anyway ("Income inequality is indirectly if not directly related to big government," says Senator Rand Paul). But compared to the constant stream of inequality talk coming from intellectuals like Krugman and politicians like President Obama and Elizabeth Warren, free-market advocates have barely touched the subject, and sometimes grant the fundamental premise of their opponents. This allows the inequality critics to dominate public conversation on this topic.

Don Watkins and Yaron Brook set out to fix this by writing a book, which is perhaps the first of its kind, examining and rebutting the inequality narrative. "Equal Is Unfair: America’s Misguided Fight Against Income Inequality," released in March of this year, is an accessible, interesting and sometimes humorous read that builds arguments against the critics of income inequality on several fronts. Watkins and Brook address and critique many of the claims of anti-inequality economists, like Piketty, Stiglitz, Krugman and many others. But, more importantly, they examine the fundamental meaning of inequality and the implications of the economic equality for which their opponents advocate.

Inequality really comes in two varieties, they write. There’s economic equality, which occurs when a society’s rich make a lot more than its poor, and there’s political inequality. Political equality is equality under the law. It is equality of rights. Political equality exists only when the government treats everyone equally and doesn’t allow special benefits (subsidies, bailouts, advantageous regulations) to anyone. The difference is important, and too often neglected. Political equality is a key element to any just society—for the government to apply the protection of law differently to rich people than it does to poor people would be an outrageous miscarriage of justice. In the sense of political equality, it is true that equal is not just fair—it’s essential. And it is growing political inequality that Watkins and Brook argue is deeply unfair, and the reason that the American Dream seems to be fading away.

Unfortunately, critics of inequality don’t tend to distinguish political inequality from economic inequality, especially when they blame inequality for killing the American Dream. Bernie Sanders rails against political inequality (like bailouts) one minute, then turns around and rails against economic inequality (like high CEO pay) the next. Economic inequality is an essential element of capitalism since unequal pay and unequal wealth reflect people’s naturally unequal achievement and productivity. It would be unjust for an inventor like Bill Gates, whose creations improved the lives of thousands, to make an equal paycheck to a Walmart cashier, who produces much less economic value. And, as Watkins and Brook argue, economic inequality does not necessarily hurt people at the bottom. One person’s ability to achieve tremendous productive success does not have to harm less successful people—often, it greatly improves their lives. In fact, there is no necessary link between inequality and standard of living. If the income of the top 1% tripled while that of the bottom 99 percent doubled, inequality would increase, but everyone would be better off.

This is not an unrealistic scenario at all—the reason for the high standard of living in the Western world today, as Equal Is Unfair documents, is the achievements of extraordinary individuals whose innovations increased everyone’s productivity. Henry Ford’s assembly line made each factory worker far more productive and made everyone’s life better as a result, as the production costs of manufactured goods plummeted. The tremendous improvement in the standard of living of the whole West only occurred when political inequality was reduced and economic inequality permitted. Causes of this (discussed in the second of the book's three parts) are varied and include the unprecedented intellectual freedom and opportunity to engage in investment available starting around the turn of the 19th century. It was political equality that allowed the economic growth that made all our lives better—economic inequality was alive and well even (or, perhaps, especially) at that time.

In the last third of "Equal Is Unfair," the authors (echoing such works Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson and the many books of economist Thomas Sowell) examine the way political measures intended to help poor people get opportunities, like the minimum wage and the welfare state, actually take away opportunity and hurt the very people they try to help, often by trapping them in poverty. This section is rife with statistics and case studies, and as perhaps the most convincing argument in print against extensive social programs, should be thought-provoking to any liberal reader.

A major advantage held by the inequality critics is that the war on equality seems to be morally justified. This makes it hard to say that inequality is acceptable, even if the economic evidence is strong. Watkins and Brook change the game by making the moral argument against equality in their penultimate chapter. Here, they follow the moral arguments of the inequality critics to their logical conclusions. Though they acknowledge that many of these critics do not favor total equality, the authors note that the arguments in favor of economic equality have disturbing implications. Their reveal of what happens when a government follows arguments for equality to their logical conclusions culminates in a heart-wrenching description of the communist Khmer Rouge’s violent attempts to enforce complete equality in Cambodia. By showing in such stark terms the implications of economic equality, Watkins and Brook make a convincing moral case against the doctrine of equality. Because of this, I believe, they make a more persuasive case against the inequality critics than anyone who just talked about economics ever could.

"Equal Is Unfair: America’s Misguided Fight Against Income Inequality" is a must-read for limited government advocates of all stripes. Nowhere else will you find such a comprehensive economic, political and moral rebuttal to the inequality critics, and nowhere else will you find such a rousing call in praise of inequality (a call that, as noted, even some advocates for capitalism won't make). For those who oppose inequality or favor policies like the minimum wage, but who are interested in reading intelligent critiques of their beliefs, there is also no better book out there. Watkins and Brook are smart, talented thinkers and writers who present a compelling critique of the inequality narrative that is sure to provide an intellectual challenge to even the most committed progressive.

If you enjoyed this article, check out these from other Davidson writers (who do not necessarily condone all views expressed in this article, and vice versa):

Why Was Captain America Revealed To Be A Hydra Sleeper Agent by Olivia Liccione

$15 Minimum Wage Movement Is Not The Answer by Andrew Becker

YouTube Creators Face Fair Use Lawsuit, Community Fights Back by Emily Claire Biggerstaff

Men: We Need To Learn How To Talk About Rejection by Kenny Xu