Equality of opportunity..?

[Serotonin**]

Doesn't it seem more unfair and worse for society that those of us with 140-plus IQs wouldn't have the opportunity to make the most of our gifts?

I think the ideal type of equality of opportunity is that everyone should have an equal opportunity to go as far as their ability and efforts can take them. Everyone who is willing to work at it and capable of benefitting from it should have access to an elite education, for example.

As I've said before, I think the idea is uniquely liberal--opposed by the right and the far left on different grounds.

How is the right opposing equal opportunity?

The right is (rightly) opposing affirmative action, which promotes equal OUTCOMES, not equal opportunity.

 

[OldGoat]

What the heck is "intrinsic value"?

"Intrinsic" and "value" dont go together. Value, by definition, implies an external reference system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_theory_of_value

Good luck in coming up with a real answer when trying to apply this though. People who advocate intrinsic value don't understand it's impossible due to the fact that different people in different circumstances have different needs and desires.

 

[kpt018]

How is the right opposing equal opportunity?

The right is (rightly) opposing affirmative action, which promotes equal OUTCOMES, not equal opportunity.

OK, but what about other right wing positions?

They oppose a stronger safety net, fight for disproportionate tax cuts for the wealthy, they oppose the idea of more people having access to health care and generally oppose labor unions, to name a few.

Some conservatives even favor a regressive tax structure, like a flat tax system or two tier flat tax system.

 

[OldGoat]

OK, but what about other right wing positions?

They oppose a stronger safety net, fight for disproportionate tax cuts for the wealthy, they oppose the idea of more people having access to health care and generally oppose labor unions, to name a few.

Some conservatives even favor a regressive tax structure, like a flat tax system or two tier flat tax system.

If a rich person is paying x% of their income which represents y amt of hours of their life why not have poor people work an equivalent amount of time for the state for free so everyone is levied a time equivalent tax. Or is it not fair to ask anything from those who do so little?

 

[kpt018]

If a rich person is paying x% of their income which represents y amt of hours of their life why not have poor people work an equivalent amount of time for the state for free so everyone is levied a time equivalent tax. Or is it not fair to ask anything from those who do so little?

First, for most rich people, at least most of those who are in business, their income is not directly tied to hours of their lives. Most business owners work very hard, but their income is based on so many other factors. Like their employee's productivity, for example.

And what "poor people" are you talking about? You do realize that so many of those who need welfare are working poor, retired, children and the disabled? How many people do you think are able bodied working adults who simply choose to live in poverty over working (ignoring the fact that there just aren't enough jobs)? I also don't understand what you think that would accomplish.

 

[Jack V Savage]

If a rich person is paying x% of their income which represents y amt of hours of their life why not have poor people work an equivalent amount of time for the state for free so everyone is levied a time equivalent tax. Or is it not fair to ask anything from those who do so little?

I know you're trolling, but the main reason for progressive taxation is that the rich (admittedly measured better by wealth than income) benefit to a far greater extent (not proportional) by the existence of the state than the relatively poorer. Also, there's the fact that the same rates are more burdensome to relatively poorer Americans.

 

[Serotonin**]

the rich (admittedly measured better by wealth than income) benefit to a far greater extent (not proportional) by the existence of the state than the relatively poorer. Also, there's the fact that the same rates are more burdensome to relatively poorer Americans.

And the illegal immigrants and the welfare under-class benefit to a far greater extent from the state and federal government than the middle class. They pay no tax (or very little) can afford to have MANY more children than the middle class families, benefit from free health care, food stamps, free textbooks in schools, affirmative action in education, etc. That's why their numbers keep swelling, and the middle class keeps shrinking.

 

[Serotonin**]

And what "poor people" are you talking about? You do realize that so many of those who need welfare are working poor, retired, children and the disabled? How many people do you think are able bodied working adults who simply choose to live in poverty over working (ignoring the fact that ther just aren't enough jobs)? I also don't understand what you think that would accomplish.

Sure, helping out the children, disabled people, retired people is the right thing to do.

However, things get complicated in real life. Concrete example: there once was a very nice middle-class neighborhood and right across the freeway there were build multiple apartment complexes, housing mainly illegals (working poor, right?). The public schools servicing the area are horrible (violence, low graduation rates) and the hard-working people in the nice neighborhood have no choice but to send their kids to private school, or to relocate. It is very easy to destroy a school; if ~10% of the kids come from violent, education-despising kinds of backgrounds school is fucked, property values plummet, etc.

Do you really want to encourage the perpetuation of the welfare under-class when the social cost (impacting mainly the middle class) is so high?

 

[kpt018]

Sure, helping out the children, disabled people, retired people is the right thing to do.

However, things get complicated in real life. Concrete example: there once was a very nice middle-class neighborhood and right across the freeway there were build multiple apartment complexes, housing mainly illegals (working poor, right?). The public schools servicing the area are horrible (violence, low graduation rates) and the hard-working people in the nice neighborhood have no choice but to send their kids to private school, or to relocate. It is very easy to destroy a school; if ~10% of the kids come from violent, education-despising kinds of backgrounds school is fucked, property values plummet, etc.

Do you really want to encourage the perpetuation of the welfare under-class when the social cost (impacting mainly the middle class) is so high?

LOL, as if helping children, disabled and retirees isn't "real life". Ok.

The way to get people off welfare is to encourage and achieve a stronger economy with more middle class jobs. It has nothing to do with removing welfare "incentives". When the economy is struggling and there is high unemployment, we have more people on welfare. When the economy is strong, the number drops. Let's stop acting like life is so good on welfare and THAT's the reason it's high, the cause is simple. The "how to" is where our politicians have disagreement.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Or is it not fair to ask anything from those who do so little?

You mean people who sit on their arses because they inherited money or because they own capital and have passive income?

 

[panamaican]

And the illegal immigrants and the welfare under-class benefit to a far greater extent from the state and federal government than the middle class. They pay no tax (or very little) can afford to have MANY more children than the middle class families, benefit from free health care, food stamps, free textbooks in schools, affirmative action in education, etc. That's why their numbers keep swelling, and the middle class keeps shrinking.

Normally, I'm on this side of the argument but this doesn't really make sense. Technically, the middle class can afford more children than the poor. As the number of children rises, the income levels that qualify for welfare rise accordingly. So, a middle class family will eventually qualify for welfare after enough children. Coupled with their already higher earnings and middle class families should still be able to afford more kids than those solely on welfare.

 

[panamaican]

Sure, helping out the children, disabled people, retired people is the right thing to do.

However, things get complicated in real life. Concrete example: there once was a very nice middle-class neighborhood and right across the freeway there were build multiple apartment complexes, housing mainly illegals (working poor, right?). The public schools servicing the area are horrible (violence, low graduation rates) and the hard-working people in the nice neighborhood have no choice but to send their kids to private school, or to relocate. It is very easy to destroy a school; if ~10% of the kids come from violent, education-despising kinds of backgrounds school is fucked, property values plummet, etc.

Do you really want to encourage the perpetuation of the welfare under-class when the social cost (impacting mainly the middle class) is so high?

That's a concrete example of what?

How do I know that the kids from the nice area weren't the problem students? Your example doesn't tell me how many kids came from violent backgrounds. Nor how many came from education despising backgrounds. And if the school was providing a quality education before the assumed appearance of riff-raff then the school is providing the same quality of education as previously. The student body may have changed but I doubt the teachers did.

Anyway, your example isn't very concrete and I would prefer one that is more detailed.