Meathead
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2011
- Messages
- 1,880
- Reaction score
- 474
- Location
- Prague, Czech Rep.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
...............I understand that your opinion is that parenting is the only factor, however I can tell that you are a reasonable person and know that inherited wealth is also very important... as a wise person once said "it takes money to make money"
Please, it is not my opinion that "parenting is the only factor", I clearly stated that it was the single-most important factor. That was and remains my opinion.
I do not wish to see the playing field leveled. I only wish to see everyone start from the same starting line, in so far as inherited tangible assets are concerned. This is a very doable proposition. It only takes a majority to agree upon such a proposition to see it realized.
There will only never be equal opportunity in so far as equality of starting points of inheritance is concerned, if everyone agrees that it would be a good thing for society. We must not settle ourselves into feeling hopeless on the matter; if we do, we have already lost the battle.
I agree that it is a battle, but I disagree with your tactics. After all, children will still be raised by their parents. While you believe in a financial remedy, I believe the problem lies elsewhere. The proper socialization and instillation of work and study ethics is the only way the poor will be given a real chance to succeed.
I completely agree with you as far as parenting is concerned - good parenting, while not the only factor, is a huge factor and I will do my utmost to ensure my children's sucess as well. I think all loving parents wish this for their children.
Still, we must not surrender ourselves hopeless on the equal opportunity front. Society can do what it wants if everyone bands together
Agreed
In theory, EO by that definition would be good because everyone would have the same starting chance to succeed. However, in order to get everyone the same tangible assets and such, someone would have to pay for it and it would just cause a lot of tension and like you said it would eliminate competition. Both of those things are pretty bad.I agree that equality of education, esp. according to students needs, is important.
However, for the purposes of this thread, equal opportunity was essentially defined as:
"the freedom to start the race of life on the same foot, i.e. on the same starting line (with equal levels of tangible assets when starting out in life)" please remember that this does not mean equality of outcome - I am very against equality of outcome as this would eliminate competition and competition is needed for a healthy society (at least that is my opinion).
Therefore, equal opportunity (as defined in the OP) goes beyond education and I am asking whether or not equal opportunity (as defined above and in the OP) is best for society.
Please, it is not my opinion that "parenting is the only factor", I clearly stated that it was the single-most important factor. That was and remains my opinion.
I agree that it is a battle, but I disagree with your tactics. After all, children will still be raised by their parents. While you believe in a financial remedy, I believe the problem lies elsewhere. The proper socialization and instillation of work and study ethics is the only way the poor will be given a real chance to succeed.
Agreed
I think we are fundamentally divided by a classic conservative/liberal schism. You choose to believe that we are responsible for others to an extent where we disagree. I believe that we should be solely responsible for ourselves and our prodigy. We both agree that equality should be sought but, predictably perhaps, have different ideas on who to effectively achieve that goal.OK, my mistake ... let me just say that it just sounded like it was the only factor you were willing to entertain - however, you've clarified that you believe it is the "single-most important factor"
My response is, as mentioned before, that it is the most important factor in so far as guiding a child given the cards they have been handed; however, in so far as financial and other tangible assets are concerned, an effort for societal change is needed in order to ensure equal opportunity in the tangible asset area, i.e. ensuring that all start out on equal footing; what happens after that initial starting point should be up to each individual
Now here is where you are not understanding me. You really don't understand my "tactics" (as you would say). As I have said or alluded to before, I believe that without proper parenting, an individual is truly at a disadvantage and thus as far as I am concerned, from this viewpoint, it is the parents responsibility to ensure proper parenting.
Thus I do not believe that a "financial remedy" is the cure for ensuring equal opportunity. Instead, I believe that in addition to proper parenting, citizens should put forth an effort to ensure that all citizens start out on equal footing in so far as tangible assets (e.g. finances, land ownership, education etc.) are concerned. This would ensure that each citizen would start from the same tangible asset starting line. And let me ask you this ... would you expect racers to start from different starting lines in a race? My guess is your answer would be no. Thus, why would we expect citizens to start from different starting lines?
Of course, this would not ensure equality of outcome and I do not believe that it should (i.e. I do not believe in forced equality of outcome).
Well, it appears we have found some amount of common ground then ... aye?
Equity cannot be achieved unless equity of parents or caregivers can be provided. In other words in cannot work. I live in the Czech Republic where the largest non-white minorities are Roma (gypsies) and Vietnamese. The contrast could not be greater. The Vietnamese come to CZ unable to speak Czech but work hard and send their children to local schools where they invariably excel. At a very early age they are taught to study hard and that ethic is enforced throughout their childhood. The Roma by contrast, start the first grade without command of the ABCs, numbers and other basic taught by most parents to their pre-school children. As a result they are sent to special schools because they cannot manage elementary school cirricula. Most stay at best semi-literate throughout their lives.
I don't doubt that much of the income inequality in the US is for this very reason. In fact, I'm quite sure of it.
I think we are fundamentally divided by a classic conservative/liberal schism.
You choose to believe that we are responsible for others to an extent where we disagree. I believe that we should be solely responsible for ourselves and our prodigy.
We both agree that equality should be sought but, predictably perhaps, have different ideas on who to effectively achieve that goal.
In theory, EO by that definition would be good because everyone would have the same starting chance to succeed.
However, in order to get everyone the same tangible assets and such, someone would have to pay for it and it would just cause a lot of tension
and like you said it would eliminate competition.
Both of those things are pretty bad.
I don't really know. Let's actually achieve equal opportunity and see if it's enough. We're still a long way from being born into a specific race or gender not being a roadblock for many people, and until no one is born into poverty, we'll never be close.
Your points are well-taken, but in the US, much of it is because we have encouraged and bred a huge welfare system, and many of the kids coming out of that environment don't have much of a chance, primarily because they never knew anything else. It's a way of life here. The Vietnamese immigrants who come here generally do very well, just as has been your observation.
It's the unfortunate reality. I am reluctant to take the notion that some of us are gifted and others aren't, because that argument was used against me and the people I knew frequently, but I can't altogether dismiss it. Until that problem is solved, I couldn't begin to deal with the other issues. Further, some of us are more motivated than others, and I wouldn't want to neutralize that potential ambition and reward cycle because of the reality that because where some of us came from others have a better shot at "making it." Could you imagine a world in which the norm was an unexcited bore, floating through life with the expectation that regardless of what one does with their time we would be given the same?
Education is not given, it is taken. A vast array of information is presented, what an individual does with it is where freedom of choice factors in. The opportunity to choose from all the knowledge available should be there for the taking. The talent to make use of it is one of those variables that we just have to deal with. Some of us gots talent, some of us doesn't...Equal opportunity in this country is impossible to achieve. It would require that all children have the exact same education, the exact same level of support from their parents and community, and the exact same job opportunities available when they finish school to allow their natural qualities to shine forth, and even then it would be partial because there are no controls for stuff like luck. This would infuriate pretty much every citizen in the US, as it would likely require all children be taken from their parents.
Given that, I don't think its valid to ask the question because no society in the world is a true meritocracy.
Education is not given, it is taken. A vast array of information is presented, what an individual does with it is where freedom of choice factors in. The opportunity to choose from all the knowledge available should be there for the taking. The talent to make use of it is one of those variables that we just have to deal with. Some of us gots talent, some of us doesn't...
Equal opportunity in this country is impossible to achieve.
It would require that all children have the exact same education
the exact same level of support from their parents and community,
and the exact same job opportunities available when they finish school
allow their natural qualities to shine forth
and even then it would be partial because there are no controls for stuff like luck.
This would infuriate pretty much every citizen in the US, as it would likely require all children be taken from their parents.
Given that, I don't think its valid to ask the question because no society in the world is a true meritocracy.
What you are proposing would be unsustainable. There is not a limitless amount of land to dole out. Nor is there limitless resources. Eventually there would be no where else for the state to obtain the necessary means to provide for everyone born. People would have to move to different areas of the country to where the resources are. It would be easy for any government is such a situation to segregate for whatever reasons. In fact there are more issues that would make the utopia infeasible, and most likely make it harder for more citizens then it is now.It is very clear what equal opportunity means, or at least it should be…. Well, just to be clear for this post… by equal opportunity, I mean the following… do you believe that everyone should start life with the same opportunities (this = equal opportunity for the purposes of this post)? Or would this lead to a lack of adequate separation between the rich and the poor, leading to a lack of functionality. For example, if everyone were allowed the same amount of money at birth, the same amount of land, the same amount of education and so on … would this lead to an inadequate number of “worker bees” (the poor) and an overpopulation of possible business owners etc. … ? What do you think?
Am I missing something here or is the OP suggesting that every child born in the USA gets a check for a certain amount to start out life, no more, no less.
Not as defined in the OP it wouldn't
Actually, education should be rewarded based only on academic performance (rather than based on how much money a student can pay).
Financial support yes ... other kinds of support, such as moral support and so on, no
Duh! But only the same job opportunities for those who actually meet the job requirements of course.
Yes, this is what is desired .. do you disagree ... you do not want our natural qualities to shine forth?
Actually, equal opportunity would just mean that everyone starts from the same starting line. If they win the lottery after that starting point, good for them. As long as there is no systematic subjugation of certain groups of people, getting lucky is great.
It may infuriate some of the very wealthy or the less oppressed folk, but my guess is that the majority of people living near the poverty line and struggling to pay simple bills would not be very upset. Also ... who said anything about taking children away from parents?
You are right that no country is a true "meritocracy" and I am not proposing that that should occur ... that would be a topic for another post ... instead this post is about equal opportunity as defined in the OP.
My question was whether or not true equal opportunity (as defined in the OP) is good for society and I think it is a completely relevant and valid question to ask. jmo
equal asset allocation? people like me would be buying those assets from people like my brother....You are somewhat correct. There of course would be appropriate social safety nets to prevent starvation and death due to exposure to elements etc. In addition to getting a check or credit (whatever would work best within that system), that person would own equal share of other tangible assets that would serve to make tangible assets completely equal when starting out in life (e.g. at like 18 years of age or 21 years ... whatever is decided upon). This is just an experimental idea; one in which the specifics have not yet been worked out. I believe that is why the post was created, so that people could start thinking about the possibilities of such a notion of true equal opportunity (as defined in the OP).
It is very clear what equal opportunity means, or at least it should be…. Well, just to be clear for this post… by equal opportunity, I mean the following… do you believe that everyone should start life with the same opportunities (this = equal opportunity for the purposes of this post)? Or would this lead to a lack of adequate separation between the rich and the poor, leading to a lack of functionality. For example, if everyone were allowed the same amount of money at birth, the same amount of land, the same amount of education and so on … would this lead to an inadequate number of “worker bees” (the poor) and an overpopulation of possible business owners etc. … ? What do you think?
no sane person expects equal results, but a level playing field is feasible. The rich shouldn't be allowed to clutter the field with their few "slow" kids if there are poor but smart kids being excluded.Fundamentally, and I've said it before, your parents are about 90% of your chances of success in life.
First, there is the matter of genetics. I doubt that anyone can deny that parents with favorable genes (intellect, physical attraction and ability and so on) bequeath these to their offspring with complete disregard for equality.
Second, more responsible parents tend to limit the number of offspring to that which they can give financial and the social upbringing needed for success.
Third, the personal conduct of the parents sets a tremendous example and has a profound effect in the formation of offspring.
Fourth, the parents' expectation of their children usually propels them to achieve accordingly.
Trying to superficially even the playing field is a non-starter because from the very get-go children are not born equal. As long as parents are the primary care givers, the family units' influence will always be unequal. Most of those who sink to the bottom rungs of society are more than likely raised in unstable and often inappropriate environments. Parents who cannot or don't want to instill work ethics or otherwise lay foundations for their children's success will, in most cases, raise children who are very unlikely to become prosperous.
The determent to equality lies in in the four points above. They are usually inseparable. The station of one's birth usually dictates the station of one's life which is invariably good for some and bad for others. Thus, poverty and wealth perpetuate themselves through generations and in truth, there is jack-**** anyone can do about it. It is truly a fool's errand.
Well, I provide an actual definition of equal opportunity as opposed to the one in the OP (of course there are other ways to do it, depending on the scope one wishes to apply). Sorry that you don't like it.
However, the ultimate point being that equal opportunity is never possible in reality, it is an ideal like most concepts. Certainly something to strive for, as long as we don't go too far with it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?