Thomas Sowell’s “The Quest for Cosmic Justice” is an uncomfortable, worthwhile read

Sowell, T. (1999).  The Quest for Cosmic Justice.  Touchstone.  214 pages.

Overview

Equal outcome is an impossibility.  Yet scholars, policymakers and politicians pursue it relentlessly to no avail.  Thomas Sowell, a Ph.D. in economics and fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, scrutinizes the ideas surrounding “justice” and “equality” in The Quest for Cosmic Justice.  Sowell’s book is a collection of four essays: the first on justice, second on equality, third on the tyranny of visionaries and intellectuals, and the fourth on the values of the American Revolution and why they are not compatible with ‘cosmic justice’ principles.  In an age where public commentators and policy wonks incorrectly and incessantly compare the averages or medians of income and wealth between different genders and ethnicities, the information presented in this book deserves serious contemplation.

What does Sowell mean by ‘justice’?

Sowell mentions two types of justice: social and traditional.  He says that social justice is the attempt to “rectify the tragic misfortunes of individuals and groups through collective action” (p. 5), which involves eliminating their disadvantages through no fault of their own (p. 9) while ignoring or dismissing the potential costs to society (p. 10).  An extreme measure of social justice could include a public institution’s hiring quotas to reflect the exact demographic distribution of a city or country to ensure everyone’s voice is ‘equally’ represented.  Such a measure could be considered an ‘injustice’ (p. 28), according to Sowell, because attempting to achieve justice at all costs would arbitrarily impose a cost on another person or group, that is, those who cannot identify as victims.

“Traditional justice,” writes Sowell, “is about impartial processes rather than either results or prospects” (p. 9).  It is about establishing standards that apply to everyone equally.  For example, a convict can receive fair justice if the trial’s rules are adhered to properly and judged impartially.

What is equality?

According to Swell, equality is a contentious and unhelpful term since it cannot be defined.  It requires comparing who is inferior and superior according to arbitrarily chosen specifications (p. 59).  For example, ‘Group A’ may have a higher mean and median income than ‘Group B’ annually, leading many policy wonks and intellectuals to believe that Group B is mistreated.  But does this mean that the political-economic system is unjust to Group B?  No, not necessarily.  Multiple variables influence one’s socio-economic outcome, including occupation, work experience, age, level of educational attainment, and even the presence of underlying health issues, to name just a few.  Secondly, measuring ‘income’ may be arbitrary to some people who would rather focus on wealth or another metric they deem essential; what if a person from Group B doesn’t want to accept a higher paying job because they’d rather spend more time with family and friends?  Because they earn less, are they treated unjustly?  As one can see, it may be impossible to be unbiased completely.

Is Sowell persuasive?

One of Sowell’s most compelling critiques against creating equal outcomes is demographic comparisons (p. 66).  Though the book was published in the late 1990s, radical identity politics is in vogue today, where comparing the demographic characteristics between groups justifies the quest for cosmic justice.  These debates are most noticeable in the discourse when comparing incomes between racial, gender or age groups.  Suppose one group has more or less than another in x, y or z.  Critics would lambast the socio-political-economic system as ‘oppressive,’ ‘unfair,’ ‘rigged,’ or ‘discriminatory’ towards the group with less.  Sowell, however, masterfully articulates why this approach is statistically fallible since many researchers and wonks fail to control for variables so that comparisons are made between people who are similar across groups and because it’s almost impossible to determine an individual’s or group’s priorities.  For instance, two people of the same age, profession, income, years of work experience and education may have completely different outcomes in net wealth if one prudently saves a higher portion of their income than the other.  One having less does not mean they were oppressed.

Consequently, the wealth disparity may depend on their personal choices, a controversial but essential insight.  One individual may prefer to save up for a property or further schooling, and another person on travel or luxury due to different preferences.  As one can probably imagine, controlling and comparing the strengths and weaknesses of two individuals’ priorities can be incredibly difficult for any analyst.  For such reason, it would be wrong to claim injustice.

Sowell expands on the comparative demographic approach regarding the different outcomes of children born and raised in the same household.  How is it possible that one child can achieve a more favourable life outcome than another when they both experience the same environmental stimuli?  According to the studies he cites, Sowell says that IQ differences translated into income differences later in life even though they had similar starting points (p. 67).  How realistic, then, would it be to assume policymakers can achieve parity across individuals and demographic groups within a country, let alone families?  The answer is that they cannot achieve equality and likely never will.  Maybe, one day, medical technology will advance to the point when we can play God, endowing future generations with superior intellect, athletic ability, social acumen, and whatever else necessary for one to attain high socio-economic status.

Despite Sowell’s common-sense critiques, those focused on equal outcomes believe they have a superior understanding of the people they study rather than the individuals themselves (p. 129).  Sowell’s primary response is that “subjecting whole populations to the fancies of intellectuals and politicians has repeatedly proved deadly” (p. 133), whereby “grandiose economic and social experiments” (p. 134) often cause more harm despite their good intentions.  Grand, sweeping visions are often a reflection of the individuals who hold them and those seeking emotionally satisfying explanations rather than reasoned ones (p. 100).  Consider the twentieth century’s totalitarian regimes like the Soviet Union and Mao Zedong’s China.  Both societies were governed by technocrats and an intelligentsia concerned with creating egalitarian utopias, but the consolidated political and economic power among a select few know-it-alls often proved disastrous, resulting in starvation, mass murder and imprisonment of innocent people.  One of the biggest problems is that the “prevailing vision not only does not require evidence, but it also becomes a substitute for evidence in condemning alternative views” (p. 136) that do not dovetail with the intelligentsia’s prevailing self-righteous visions.

To counteract the issue of intellectuals and visionaries, or anyone claiming to have the moral high ground and undeniable truth on complex matters, Sowell encourages readers to examine some of the American Revolution’s principles.  Why?  Because the American Revolution created a system deeply skeptical of anyone with a monopoly on knowledge, truth or morality.  It ensured that those placed into power only obtained their position through predetermined processes, such as elections or merit-based appointments, and that citizens would be able to restrain, condemn and replace these powerful people when necessary (p. 146).  But what exactly are the most fundamental principles of the American Revolution?  When discussing the United State’s constitution, he writes that “The federal government may do only what it is specifically authorized to do, while the people of the individual states may do whatever they are not specifically forbidden to do” (p. 179).  That is a fundamental difference worth pondering over.  Sowell explains that the United States’ global political and economic power is the result of “the triumph of the common man and a slap across the face to the presumptions of the arrogant, whether an elite of blood or books.” (p. 187).  A powerful lesson in political thought indeed.

Left-of-centre readers may be furious with Sowell for his arguments and insights.  Still, it is essential to understand that he is neither cruel nor unsympathetic to the poor and downtrodden, making his case against cosmic justice more convincing.  He acknowledges that undeserved misfortunes need addressing.  But Sowell stresses that the question should be about the means of addressing these issues, not whether they should be addressed.  He emphasizes the importance of considering possible counterproductive results or costs, among others, when seeking redress (p. 43).  Policy instruments like taxation, quotas or even expropriation against a ‘privileged’ group meant to aid less fortunate groups are complicated business since they may cause unnecessary harm to another individual or group.  Therefore, Sowell suggests that society and policymakers focus on creating conditions that encourage job growth for those willing to work and ensuring that they have the freedom to develop their lives without falling into poverty.  At its core, it is about preventing people from further slipping back and encouraging people to move forward (p. 46-47).

That all said, he does not ignore discrimination and prejudice are causal factors of inequalities in performance but stresses that they are generally not the leading cause (p. 62).

Why the book is not persuasive

One of the most significant issues with The Quest for Cosmic Justice is the notion that third parties cannot determine the value of a service or commodity between a provider and their client.  Sowell claims that third parties determining the value of something is akin to “arrogance” and “intellectual confusion” (p. 72) because the person paying for a good or service knows best.  The consumer pays because they feel the good or service is worth more than their money.  Both parties are technically better off since they both received what they wanted; the seller the money, the buyer the product or service.  

Today, this may no longer be entirely true.  Third parties, such as review websites and commentators, could investigate, compare and advise consumers on various goods and services, which may positively or negatively affect prices because educating the consumer will impact the demand for a good or service.  For example, websites comparing cellphones can articulate the pros and cons and determine if the price is justified.  A negative review may encourage a seller to reduce costs because of the third-party influence to the buyer’s advantage.  Conversely, positive reviews may justify a price increase due to increased demand.  The reviewers may also be experts in their respective domains, lending further credence to their suggestions and intervention.

Despite this minor criticism, it is worth acknowledging that this book is from the 1990s, before the proliferation of review websites.  Additionally, Sowell is likely referring to price-setting by governments, such as price ceilings on commodities to ensure they are widely available to a broad swath of consumers.  However, industries may require market distortions like strict regulation or bargaining from third parties to ensure fairness.  Consider the cost of insulin in the United States compared to other OECD countries.  Drug prices are lower in other OECD countries because their governments negotiate lower prices with pharmaceutical companies, in addition to providing boatloads of cash and capital for R&D purposes, making pharmaceuticals more suitable for consumers’ needs.  Or even how rent controls in hot housing markets assist vulnerable renters in meeting their monthly expenses in the short run.  By prohibiting landlords from increasing the price of monthly rent too significantly, cities can dramatically reduce the likelihood of homelessness in the short run, which would otherwise have caused numerous other societal ills.  Nevertheless, his argument may have been valid but does not hold significant weight nowadays.

Another contentious point is Sowell’s concern with the term ‘re-distribution.’  He is correct to note that income cannot be re-distributed because it was not distributed in the first place.  A person’s generated income came from the work, goods or services they provided to their client or boss, only to have the government skim off part of the revenues as taxes for public expenditures afterwards (p. 70).  It is an insightful perspective because it forces us to rethink the semantics surrounding economic policies like taxation.  However, this thinking misses a key point: an electorate may demand a more expansionist, intervening government.  Constituents within a particular state or sub-national government may vote for parties and candidates campaigning on taxing the rich and increasing government investment for things like public infrastructure, education and health, for instance.  Whatever the constituents’ motivating factors, these market distortions and the ‘injustice’ inflicted upon the rich may, therefore, be warranted and carried out since politicians, in democracies at least, were voted into their positions of power specifically to represent the needs and desires of the people.

A final issue is Sowell’s argument that “society as a whole is better off” when entrusting the most skilled and knowledgeable individuals with producing goods and services.  Who would want a janitor to perform open-heart surgery rather than a cardiologist, regardless of income differences?  Surely society can lose significantly upon eliminating these advantages (p. 163), no matter how unjust they may seem – one person being far more skilled and intelligent naturally than another.  It sounds obvious and challenging to think of a counter-argument to this conviction.  After all, society and consumers should demand the most highly skilled possible for the job at hand.  But it seems to be a slight contradiction with his argument against the visionaries and intellectuals, especially if those in question are academics or senior bureaucrats.  

Academics and senior bureaucrats studying and working to resolve public issues be better at addressing than others due to their more in-depth knowledge on programs, projects, law, the inner workings of government, and public finance, even though they are, in many respects, third party actors.  In liberal democracies, senior bureaucrats and academics often design and implement projects, programs and policies according to the party’s or society’s wants and needs, which voters (theoretically) support.  Additionally, aside from their knowledge and experience, they may have the right connections with others in their industry to help get things done, even if it seems like little work is being accomplished to the average voter.  Therefore, would society not be better off if politicians and constituents sought their consul?  It’s clear to readers that Sowell’s criticism of twentieth-century totalitarian rulers is low-hanging fruit; these hackneyed examples simply remain fixed in the minds of many right-leaning academics.  But could the same not be said about libertarians naively demanding an almost entirely unregulated market, which involves privatizing essential services like primary education, health care, roads, chemical and water standards?  If anything, their approach to resolving public matters appears nothing short of quixotic.

How is this book relevant?

The discourse and debate surrounding the subject of equal outcome will continue because there will always be winners and losers, powerful and weak, rich and poor, gifted and inept.  It is understandably becoming important in the Western world due to the yawning gap between the haves and have-nots.  Studying economic inequality, for instance, is increasingly becoming fashionable over the traditional focus on mere, overall growth within economics and public policy.

Secondly, in the third essay on visionaries, one of Sowell’s subtler arguments about the Cold War and achieving peace between nations requires further contemplation today due to emerging, hostile powers to the West.  He maintains that the Cold War did not produce conflict between the United States and its allies and the Soviet Union not because of the peaceful visionaries advocating disarmament but because of military buildup.  The stockpiling of advanced weapons and military assets discouraged the Soviet Union from directly attacking the United States and its allies, coupled with the Soviet Union’s inability to fund their military programs compared to the United State’s market economy.  It’s something that all Westerners should reconsider.  Most Westerners hold values like freedom, peace and independence dearly, and they may only be upheld through military preparedness (p. 110).

Lastly, those pursuing and advocating equal outcomes must understand that their stance can backfire.  For example, it is laudable to seek equal outcomes between genders within a country according to income for the same profession and experience, but what about other facets in life?  Technically, women outnumber men in university across most non-STEM programs in some developed nations.  Does this mean that men are ‘oppressed’ or that post-secondary education is ‘rigged’ against men, a group traditionally considered privileged?  Moreover, as Sowell notes, these disparities are not static (p. 53-54) since different time periods may show different results in time-series analysis.  One year, ‘Group A’ may do poorly on a standardized test, but a decade later may be the highest performing group for reasons beyond any researcher’s understanding.  Progressives, post-modernists and cultural relativists active in public policy should think twice before justifying their arguments to pursue equal outcomes or at least be forced to explain why some ‘privileged’ groups may not have equal representation.

Overall impression

I would like to share three key takeaways from this powerful book which I believe apply to everyone.

For one, we have yet to determine the political-economic system to create a classless, equal society.  Communism was the proposed solution to achieve this utopia, yet, ironically, it was anything but equal since the ruling political class consolidated power and suppressed all opposition and competition.  Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, many of the elites simply maintained their power and wealth.  With appropriate equal opportunity institutions like education and health care, capitalism is, so far, a better solution to a supposed ‘just’ society under communism.  

Another point worth highlighting relates to the individual.  Someone might perceive unfairness by envying what another person has.  Yet, the envied person may also envy what the other person has, which they may take for granted (p. 90).  Sowell’s point is that we cannot be “equal performers” if we have different priorities and preferences.  ‘Person A’ might be jealous of ‘Person B’s’ house, while ‘Person B’ may be jealous of ‘Person A’s’ graduate degree in mathematics.  They both likely had different starting points, circumstances and goals, resulting in different outcomes.  Everyone should contemplate these insights, especially since we humans habitually compare ourselves to others, even to the point when we know it’s not entirely healthy for our disposition.

On that note, perspective is everything.  Some of us may think the situation is unfair for an individual or group, but our thoughts do not necessarily reflect how that particular group or individual sees themselves.  New Yorkers in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries may have perceived the conditions of recent Jewish migrants as unfair because of the crowded, unsanitary conditions of their homes and neighbourhoods.  Those same New Yorkers may not have realized that the Jewish migrants may have preferred their arrangements in the New World as they were objectively better off than in Europe, where they were direct victims of persecution (p. 128).  It can be challenging to judge how someone truly feels.

Who should read this book?

Anyone interested in learning about the philosophy of conservative economic policy should read this book.  Sowell is an economist, but he does not bombard the reader with excessive data or complicated econometric theorems to support his arguments.  He adopts simple, mathematical approaches for laypeople to understand the issues with accompanying retributive policies.

Secondly, this book is helpful for anyone interested in exploring the subject of equal economic outcomes since both the theoretical and practical implications of these types of policies are analyzed thoroughly in a concise format.

Finally, previous knowledge of conservative theorists like Edmund Burke or Friedrich Hayek is not required.  Sowell describes the basis of his theories clearly and succinctly, making this text relatively straightforward for any audience.