Equality of opportunity..?

[Deleted member 159002]

So I've been reading Rawls...

Most people, even those who support minimalist government, seem to support equality of opportunity. Why? Because it strikes us as unfair for people's circumstances -- things they have no control over -- to determine their economic fate... Instead, we have a notion that people's economic fate should be the product of their choices, their effort. But what about differences in talent? Does one person deserve to have an IQ of 140, and someone else an IQ of 80 any more than one person deserves to be born black and one white, or one person male and one female?

Someone of average or below average intelligence doesn't have the same opportunity to acquire wealth as a brilliant person, and it has nothing to do with their effort or choices. Given that it strikes us as immoral for people's ability to acquire resources to be determined by arbitrary factors, to what extent do you think economic inequality is justified?

 

[panamaican]

When people discuss equality of opportunity they're mostly focused on the absence of government constructed obstacles.

Obstacles that arise naturally and opportunities that arise from luck are perfectly acceptable and any economic injustice that comes from those are perfectly justified...at least, to me.

 

[Jack V Savage]

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.

 

[ultramanhyata]

When people discuss equality of opportunity they're mostly focused on the absence of government constructed obstacles.

Obstacles that arise naturally and opportunities that arise from luck are perfectly acceptable and any economic injustice that comes from those are perfectly justified...at least, to me.

Classic "God's Will" mentality. Pediatric surgeons fixing birth defects and engineers building tunnels through mountains must really get your naturalistic goat.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

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 don't think limiting economic inequality and allowing brilliant people to make the most of their gifts are mutually exclusive.

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.

Agreed.

 

[AgeofEmpires2**]

What about social inequality? "I'm not very popular, I don't get invited anywhere."
What about height inequality? "I'm a 5'5 male and girls don't look at me."
What about personality inequality? "Im a nice guy, everyone takes advantage of me"
Sexual inequality? "Girls aren't lining up to fuck me."
Attractiveness inequality? "I wish I could look as good as Brad Pitt"
Family inequality? "My friends have big families for support, mine is too small."
Wealth inequality? "I see some people with nice cars, I have to ride a bike."
Location inequality? "I don't life in a modern country, I live in Detroit."
Favoritism inequality? "Women are given breaks, but as a man I have to work for it."
Job inequality? "His dad got him the job, and he's just as stupid as my boss!"
Hobby inequality? "The media loves football, but I'm just sitting here alone with my Magic cards."
Social life inequality "All the hot girls go to clubs, I'm an introvert and don't have fun there."

These are realistic situations that many people overlook, yet nobody is making threads to provide 'equality' for all these other important factors that determine a person's life in which you could group together the 'fortunate' and the 'victims'. Life isn't fair. Do what you must to achieve what you must. As long as there isn't government intervention or policies in place to hold you back, then it shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Bay Area]

When people discuss equality of opportunity they're mostly focused on the absence of government constructed obstacles.

Really? I thought those who are for equality of opportunity are focused on the removal of obstacles that have arisen from the free market?

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

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.

This is the key part of what you are saying here. And I know alot of conservatives that feel the same way. But it doesn't seem to mean the same thing to liberals as it does to conservatives.

Something gets lost in the translation.

 

[Bay Area]

What about social inequality? "I'm not very popular, I don't get invited anywhere."
What about height inequality? "I'm a 5'5 male and girls don't look at me."
What about personality inequality? "Im a nice guy, everyone takes advantage of me"
Sexual inequality? "Girls aren't lining up to fuck me."
Attractiveness inequality? "I wish I could look as good as Brad Pitt"
Family inequality? "My friends have big families for support, mine is too small."
Wealth inequality? "I see some people with nice cars, I have to ride a bike."
Location inequality? "I don't life in a modern country, I live in Detroit."
Favoritism inequality? "Women are given breaks, but as a man I have to work for it."
Job inequality? "His dad got him the job, and he's just as stupid as my boss!"
Hobby inequality? "The media loves football, but I'm just sitting here alone with my Magic cards."
Social life inequality "All the hot girls go to clubs, I'm an introvert and don't have fun there."

These are realistic situations that many people overlook, yet nobody is making threads to provide 'equality' for all these other important factors that determine a person's life in which you could group together the 'fortunate' and the 'victims'. Life isn't fair. Do what you must to achieve what you must. As long as there isn't government intervention or policies in place to hold you back, then it shouldn't be an issue.

Pointless rant. Oportunity inequality is something that can be looked at and actually changed with intervention...unlike things like ugliness. Try to stay on topic.

 

[ultramanhyata]

What about social inequality? "I'm not very popular, I don't get invited anywhere."
What about height inequality? "I'm a 5'5 male and girls don't look at me."
What about personality inequality? "Im a nice guy, everyone takes advantage of me"
Sexual inequality? "Girls aren't lining up to fuck me."
Attractiveness inequality? "I wish I could look as good as Brad Pitt"
Family inequality? "My friends have big families for support, mine is too small."
Wealth inequality? "I see some people with nice cars, I have to ride a bike."
Location inequality? "I don't life in a modern country, I live in Detroit."
Favoritism inequality? "Women are given breaks, but as a man I have to work for it."
Job inequality? "His dad got him the job, and he's just as stupid as my boss!"
Hobby inequality? "The media loves football, but I'm just sitting here alone with my Magic cards."
Social life inequality "All the hot girls go to clubs, I'm an introvert and don't have fun there."

I guess if I was one of those folks with an 80 IQ I could call the above scenarios analogous to a desire for a more equal allocation of material resources. Because it's always a slippery slope from the demonstrably achievable to the impossibly magical.

 

[TheMMAn]

Really? I thought those who are for equality of opportunity are focused on the absence of obstacles that have arisen from the free market?

Interesting. Which obstacles arising from a system of people freely particpating in voluntary transactions are the most troubling?

 

[ultramanhyata]

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.

Country club liberalism. "Society should help the less fortunate get into good colleges. Because only those who possess the grey matter necessary to acquire graduate degrees from quality universities deserve to be financially secure. For the rabble, sadly, it must be a hard-scrabble, paycheck to paycheck existence."

 

[Bay Area]

Interesting. Which obstacles arising from a system of people freely particpating in voluntary transactions are the most troubling?

The wealth being hoarded. Lack of oportunities in shitty neighborhoods. Corporations lobbying and getting policies passed in their favor due to the massive amounts of cash they can raise, at the expense of the people. Poor people unable to afford college, while subpar rich kids get a free ticket etc. etc. Free capitalism isn't a level playing field you know.

 

[OldGoat]

So I've been reading Rawls...

Most people, even those who support minimalist government, seem to support equality of opportunity. Why? Because it strikes us as unfair for people's circumstances -- things they have no control over -- to determine their economic fate... Instead, we have a notion that people's economic fate should be the product of their choices, their effort. But what about differences in talent? Does one person deserve to have an IQ of 140, and someone else an IQ of 80 any more than one person deserves to be born black and one white, or one person male and one female?

Someone of average or below average intelligence doesn't have the same opportunity to acquire wealth as a brilliant person, and it has nothing to do with their effort or choices. Given that it strikes us as immoral for people's ability to acquire resources to be determined by arbitrary factors, to what extent do you think economic inequality is justified?

Too bad. A level playing field does not refer to your genetics. That is as dumb a concept as I have read on Sherdog.

 

[OldGoat]

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.

I don't think the right is opposed to people getting an elite education if willing to work for it. A friend of mine in high scool was pretty poor and went to MIT.

 

[James Keith]

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

 

[AgeofEmpires2**]

Pointless rant. Oportunity inequality is something that can be looked at and actually changed with intervention...unlike things like ugliness. Try to stay on topic.

It's pointless when you can't see the entire picture. Inequality exists in all aspects of society. That's why women have so readily accepted plastic surgery in our society. When looking at the economic situation we should play by the same rules as everything else- fuck government intervention and allow capitalism to dictate the winners and losers rather than the current system we have in place which government chooses the winners and losers while maintaining a rigged casino on Wall Street.

 

[panamaican]

Really? I thought those who are for equality of opportunity are focused on the removal of obstacles that have arisen from the free market?

Not really.

Now, if you're looking at say a regulation that impacts the free market (like requiring a license before you charge for legal services) then that might affect equality of opportunity.

Or the case where the government has distorted the free market so equality of opportunity might mean trying to weed out the effects of that distortion.

You can't fight inequality in the free market because you can't fight that there are core differences between people.

 

[panamaican]

Classic "God's Will" mentality. Pediatric surgeons fixing birth defects and engineers building tunnels through mountains must really get your naturalistic goat.

That's silly.

How do pediatricians performing life altering surgery or engineers doing their jobs equate with government creating artificial barriers to success?

 

[Jack V Savage]

This is the key part of what you are saying here. And I know alot of conservatives that feel the same way. But it doesn't seem to mean the same thing to liberals as it does to conservatives.

Something gets lost in the translation.

I don't know. I see conservatives express a desire for equal opportunity, and I ask, "OK, what should we do to get it? More aid to pay for higher education? Public preschools? A focus on improving public schools? Nutritional aid for poor children? Higher inheritance taxes?" And generally, they oppose all of those things. It seems that "equality of opportunity" is just used by conservatives as an excuse to oppose anything that might help the poor or middle class.

Country club liberalism. "Society should help the less fortunate get into good colleges. Because only those who possess the grey matter necessary to acquire graduate degrees from quality universities deserve to be financially secure. For the rabble, sadly, it must be a hard-scrabble, paycheck to paycheck existence."

That's not the entirety of what I would support. I'd also support universal healthcare (the ACA is a great start, but I would be OK with single-payer, as well), a higher EITC (or, failing that more-ideal solution, a higher MW), more unionization (which is not a gov't thing, but the gov't can stop knee-capping unions), and policy focused on full employment (such as monetary and fiscal stimulus as needed), which would improve the bargaining power of all laborers.

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

The poor currently are being shackled the way he was. Liberalism is about removing those shackles.