Still, for the people still at home, unequal opportunity would still be raging
OK, wow! I found that I am not the only one who has been thinking about equal opportunity the way I have been in this post. It turns out there is a conception of equal opportunity know as "Level Playing Field. Below are some examples of what this means:
Equal opportunity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe idea is that initial "unchosen inequalities"––prior circumstances over which an individual had no control but which impact his or her success in a given competition for a particular post––these unchosen inequalities should be eliminated as much as possible, according to this conception. According to Roemer, society should "do what it can to level the playing field so that all those with relevant potential will eventually be admissible to pools of candidates competing for positions. Afterwards, when an individual competes for a specific post, he or she might make specific choices which cause future inequalities––and these inequalities are deemed acceptable because of the previous presumption of fairness.
Equality of Opportunity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)The equality-of-opportunity distributive justice theorist answers that the distribution is just only if it satisfies the norm of equality of opportunity, which requires that unchosen inequalities should be eliminated and that inequalities that arise from the choices of individuals given equal initial conditions and a fair framework for interaction should not be eliminated or reduced ...........
People’s initial circumstances should be made equal. But once individuals make choices to lead their lives in one or another way starting from initial equality, justice does not demand further compensation if risks taken happen to turn out badly and in fact justice demands that further compensation should not occur.
So the basic idea is that ideally, aside from unalterable inequalities, such as genetic ones, everyone starts from the same starting line creating a level playing field for competition. Addressing complicated issues such as quality of parenting may not be appropriate in applying these principles. However, monetary and or tangible assets can be leveled when an individual is starting out, as can access to education (based on academic performance of course) would all be possible and would certainly begin to bring us closer the the ideal of a "level playing field".
What would be the best way for this ideal to be realized?
I.E. Should all individuals receive equal amounts of assets at adulthood (disallowing significant parental financial backing and inheritance)
How much should be allocated to individuals who are just starting out in life?
Would this make it so that within each generation, there would not be enough worker bees to do the typically lower paying jobs?
Would the less desirable jobs all of a sudden become better paying jobs?
Would there still be economic stability with so many people having a larger stake in companies?
So what do you all think?
you can offer up a level playing field, but not all players will be equal....in my family, only 2 of us had the internal drive to pursue more education and a better life, 2 more were disadvantaged in the smarts department, and the other 2 were just plain lazy.
If you GIVE money, or assets, to people who are lazy, they will piss it away. If you GIVE to the slow of mind, someone will find a way to legally take those assets from them.
Oracle of Utah
Truth rings hollow in empty heads.
Starting life with equal opportunities is out of the question. Instead there should be a level playing field and no student should be deprived of education and health care just cuz he or she is poor.
Came across this article which substantiates my point.
Breaking the Cycle of Childhood Poverty
Rep. Chris Van Hollen: Breaking the Cycle of Childhood PovertyAmerica stands as a beacon of hope and the possibility of a better life -- but it is also a nation where nearly 1 in 4 children live in poverty. Some of these children don't have permanent places to call home, others go to bed hungry and don't have access to proper medical care, and often their schools are underfunded and understaffed. Every day, families in the United States face the stark choice between a roof over their heads and food on the table. Buying health insurance, owning a home, and saving up for college are just too far out of their reach.
I'd have to say all things being equal there likely would be a disproportion of workers mainly because no one would be incentivized to do anything productive. However, you haven't added any variables in which to go by, i.e., do the people have the freedom to spend their money on anything they want? Are they free to learn anything of interest to them? Can they do anything with their land except merely live on it? With those variables in mind, I'd say many people would take risks with their money and over time many would lose a significant amount of their wealth for various reasons.
Some might make poor decisions. Some may just blow it on worthless things. Some might simple have bad luck with their investment. Some just might not be good stewards with their money or pursue the right education or put their money to good use for their benefit. All sorts of things might happen. Thing is you just don't know, but I suspect that over time a good number of people would fall out of the "wealth-class". You'd probably still have a large amount of wealthy people, but you'd never have a "balance" of rich -v- poor and it wouldn't be due to natural selection; it would be man being free to choose for himself.
Last edited by Objective Voice; 07-19-13 at 09:12 PM.
"A fair exchange ain't no robbery." Tupac Shakur w/Digital Underground