Trust me forced social equality was the basis for communism.
Are you talking about historical attempts at communism or communism as a theory?
Also, when you say "forced equality" are you talking about forced equal opportunity or forced equal outcome?
And you say you're talking about private ownership but how is that possible if there is a committee that enforces financial equality?
Again, when you say "enforced equality" are you talking about enforced equal opportunity or enforced equal outcome?
I am, of course, referring to enforced equal opportunity (as define in the OP); I am against equal outcome
As with any form of government, some of the ownership would, at some point, become public, but quickly become private again. I am also talking theoretically and experimentally; trust me, I do not pretend to know all the answers; as with anything, a group effort to create a system is key to success. I am proposing that when someone dies, their assets be given to the public to be distributed evenly to the next generation, so that in this light, everyone starts out on in life equally. How they manage their money and how much they acquire would be up to each individual. Of course within the system, regulations would have to be in place to prevent monopolies, which is crucial in maintaining competition. I am also proposing that gifts from family and nepotism be highly restricted.
I'm not against equal opportunity rather your definition of it.
Right .... and your definition of it would be .. ?
A one time distribution to create an equal opportunity start would not be financially fair to those who can provide more because you would have to limit their parental control.
While it may seem "unfair", especially because we are all used to inheritance, I believe it would be quite the opposite; indeed, it would be extremely fair
Also the public system and social safety nets already attempt to create an equal start to education and basic care as much as possible.
The key phrase there is "as much as possible", when the phrase should be: "to the degree that we still keep the overwhelming majority of the rich rich and poor poor". In other words, the wealthy want to make sure that their children do well regardless of their capabilities.
I'm not sure in such a wealthy nation we do a great job of it but there has to be a cutoff point.
A cutoff point to creating equality of opportunity? That idea is scary and what is holding our country back. If we continue with the same old, same old, change will never be realized. Instead, we will still see a government run by wealthy corporate individuals, the majority of which would still have questionable competence due to the lack of equal opportunity.
Your advocating a utopian society which though noble is not completely fair in a competitive system.
utopian defined:
Modeled on or aiming for a state in which everything is perfect; idealistic.
https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy....,cf.osb&fp=9312a04a49d78786&biw=1252&bih=546
The key word in that definition as I see it is the word "aiming"; yes that's right, I believe that when building a society, we should strive perfection, even if it is not attainable; this would keep us on our toes and always making progress.
Indeed, equal opportunity, this would be, by definition, fair.
While competition is important, the simple fact that our society should be competitive does not make equal opportunity "unfair".