• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is equal opportunity (not equal outcome) best for society?

Is equal opportunity (not equal outcome) best for society?

  • Yes

    Votes: 28 75.7%

  • No

    Votes: 9 24.3%
  • Total voters
    37
Well, I'm sure you know what they say about the road to hell and good intentions. ;)

Personally, I think that evolution is a good thing, and I don't think it's linked in the least little bit to equality, either of outcome or opportunity. It's those who strive and achieve that provide the basis for others to become competitive. If you want to see a stop put to human evolution, just put out feed troughs and flop-houses, and force everyone to live there. Communism is the biggest disincentive for human growth and potential that I know of.
 
My two cents, FWIW. I believe that, as a society one of our primary economic/social goals should be EQUITY not EQUALITY. In other words, people should be given a generally level playing field and then, simply, get what they deserve. True equality, as many have stated here, is quite an unattainable goal......at least at the societal level. :shrug:
 
You left out 'Adequate Opportunity' as a choice; and, it would be my choice. When you are considering people achieving equal is impossible; and, in this case 'opportunity' not desirable. A guess of mine is that when most people say 'Equal Opportunity' they actually mean 'Adequate Opportunity'.
 
equal opportunity is not possible. some will always be born into more readily available opportunity.

we need an economic ladder with the lower middle rungs restored, and we need safety nets.
 
It seems most are looking at equal opportunity from the wrong angle. Equal opportunity should not be judged by individual circumstances but by government policy. We have equal opportunity when no race, sex, age, economic class or other tangible attribute is restricted or given preferential treatment by any level of government.
 
FluffyNinja said:
My two cents, FWIW. I believe that, as a society one of our primary economic/social goals should be EQUITY not EQUALITY. In other words, people should be given a generally level playing field and then, simply, get what they deserve. True equality, as many have stated here, is quite an unattainable goal......at least at the societal level. :shrug:
Click to expand...
Equal opportunity has been redefined to mean something it doesn't.....
We should all have the opportunity to gain knowledge relevant to employability based mostly on talent and individual effort.
I would have kicked McCain, Gore, and Bush out of college for not making a suitable effort. If they don't have the desire and/or brains to compete, let them seek employment at a lower level. Legacy and entitlement are 2 faces of a counterfiet coin...
Equal outcome is impossible and not worthy of discussion.
 
Last edited:
grip said:
Trust me forced social equality was the basis for communism.
Click to expand...

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?

grip said:
And you say you're talking about private ownership but how is that possible if there is a committee that enforces financial equality?
Click to expand...

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.

grip said:
I'm not against equal opportunity rather your definition of it.
Click to expand...

Right .... and your definition of it would be .. ?

grip said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

grip said:
Also the public system and social safety nets already attempt to create an equal start to education and basic care as much as possible.
Click to expand...

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.

grip said:
I'm not sure in such a wealthy nation we do a great job of it but there has to be a cutoff point.
Click to expand...

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.

grip said:
Your advocating a utopian society which though noble is not completely fair in a competitive system.
Click to expand...

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".
 
lizzie said:
To the bolded: Hell, it's not even a possibility. Human creativity, motivation, and self-will would overcome any attemtps to create an "equal" society.
Click to expand...

Have you even been reading the posts? Who said anything about an "equal society"?
 
grip said:
The good intention is there and might be some truth to it but you have to learn history before you attempt to remake similar mistakes. As lizzie pointed out evolution will overcome any attempts to change the natural order but we can do a better job with the current system.
Click to expand...

This is so true. History is important. Is is also important to recognize what has been done before and what hasn't. Simply because something sounds similar to ideas that have happened in the past does not mean that it has actually happened in the past. This has been one of the American public's biggest mistakes.

Also, the "natural order" (as most people define it) is something that we change on a daily basis. Everyone on debatepolitics would likely be dead if we hadn't intervened with "the natural order". The problem is that people do not realize that there really is no "natural order" as defined by most people. What is natural, is what happens. Nature has no rules stating that this should happen and this should happen and so on. Environments are the result of an interaction between organisms and matter nothing more and nothing less.

Still, I am interested ... how do you define natural? ... Perhaps a new post could be started for this "natural order" topic?
 
lizzie said:
Well, I'm sure you know what they say about the road to hell and good intentions. ;)
Click to expand...

Nice colloquialism ... are you saying that you have bad intentions?

lizzie said:
Personally, I think that evolution is a good thing, and I don't think it's linked in the least little bit to equality, either of outcome or opportunity. It's those who strive and achieve that provide the basis for others to become competitive. If you want to see a stop put to human evolution, just put out feed troughs and flop-houses, and force everyone to live there. Communism is the biggest disincentive for human growth and potential that I know of.
Click to expand...

I've already addressed another poster's misguided ideas about what evolution means, and if people do not understand it perhaps we should start a new post for it?

Also, who said anything about communism? If you want to talk about communism, start another post, as this post is about equal opportunity.
 
FluffyNinja said:
My two cents, FWIW. I believe that, as a society one of our primary economic/social goals should be EQUITY not EQUALITY.
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly. I am not for equality of outcome ... however, I am very much for equality of opportunity.

FluffyNinja said:
In other words, people should be given a generally level playing field and then, simply, get what they deserve.
Click to expand...

You see, that's were we start to disagree - there is not even a "generally level playing field" right now, and I am for a completely level playing field as far as at birth inherited assets are concerned.

FluffyNinja said:
True equality, as many have stated here, is quite an unattainable goal......at least at the societal level. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I agree, true equality is not attainable, and even if it was I would be against it. If everything were forced to be equal, there would be no incentive to compete. However, I am totally for allowing everyone to start the race from the same starting point. And as far as assets are concerned, this is completely attainable. :shrug:
 
Helix said:
equal opportunity is not possible. some will always be born into more readily available opportunity.
Click to expand...

I disagree; we are the only one's disallowing equal opportunity from being realized. It is only impossible if we do not desire it to happen.

Helix said:
we need an economic ladder with the lower middle rungs restored, and we need safety nets.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with this statement :)
 
UtahBill said:
We should all have the opportunity to gain knowledge relevant to employability based mostly on talent and individual effort.
Click to expand...

Well said and I agree

UtahBill said:
I would have kicked McCain, Gore, and Bush out of college for not making a suitable effort. If they don't have the desire and/or brains to compete, let them seek employment at a lower level.
Click to expand...

Again, we are totally on the same page .. finally someone who is level headed

UtahBill said:
Legacy and entitlement are 2 faces of a counterfiet coin...
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean here ... ?

UtahBill said:
Equal outcome is impossible and not worthy of discussion.
Click to expand...

I totally agree :)
 
Yes, equal opportunity, meaning equality to the law, not equal talents and social status. :)
 
MusicAdventurer said:
Well said and I agree



Again, we are totally on the same page .. finally someone who is level headed



Not sure what you mean here ... ?



I totally agree :)
Click to expand...
Legacy is what gets people like McCain, Gore, Bush, into Harvard, Yale, etc.
Entitlement, the negative aspect of it, is when some of us demand results without effort, a degree without education, a high paying job without matching performance. I have worked for some good people over the years, and some idiots who got promoted far beyond their level of competence. That's the way it is, I guess....
 
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.
 
There is no such thing as equal opportunity. Some are born into wealth and some into poverty just as some are born intelligent and others not so much. Some are beautiful, others are deformed, some are healthy others are sickly, on and on and on. In a free society like the USA you can rise to your own level or sink to your own level, that's freedom and that's why many old people in Russia can't adjust, along with freedom comes personal responsibility and the state is not there to babysit you.
 
UtahBill said:
Legacy is what gets people like McCain, Gore, Bush, into Harvard, Yale, etc.
Click to expand...

Right I understand what legacy means .. we are on the same page here

UtahBill said:
Entitlement, the negative aspect of it, is when some of us demand results without effort, a degree without education, a high paying job without matching performance.
Click to expand...

Yes, I totally agree with this

UtahBill said:
I have worked for some good people over the years, and some idiots who got promoted far beyond their level of competence.
Click to expand...

Yeah, unfortunately, I think some people don't higher more intelligent people due to a lack of their own insecurities; they may feel intimidated by a smart, competent person, jmo

UtahBill said:
That's the way it is, I guess....
Click to expand...

Yeah and I don't think there's much that can be done about that .. what do you think?
 
MusicAdventurer said:
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?
Click to expand...
Equal opportunity to me means that every American child has access to a public education system that adequately addresses their needs. Note that this does not mean that everyone has the same public school system since every area has different needs. For example, poor kids would likely need more after school programs and counseling programs in their schools.

If that is equal opportunity, then yes, it is best for society.
 
Meathead said:
Equity cannot be achieved unless...
Click to expand...

I have seen a lot of use of the term equity, when the OP referred to equal opportunity. Are we using the two terms synonymously? Below are the actual definitions of each:

"Equity" defined:

The quality of being fair and impartial

source:

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=equ....,cf.osb&fp=9312a04a49d78786&biw=1252&bih=546

"Equal Opportunity" defined:

The policy of treating employees and others without discrimination, esp. on the basis of their sex, race, or age

source:

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=equ....,cf.osb&fp=9312a04a49d78786&biw=1252&bih=546

It should be noted that for the purposes of this thread, I originally modified the definition of equal opportunity to the following definition (see below); also, in terms of looking at the phrase "equal opportunity", someone who does not know the actual definition may believe that the following definition would be the literal translation of the phrase; thus I will continue to refer to equal opportunity as is roughly defined below:

Modified definition of "Equal Opportunity":

Equality of assets (e.g. property and goods) at birth, i.e. for each new generation; the idea is that everyone starts the race (life) on the same starting line; we of course cannot account for intangible advantages such as quality of parenting, genetic differences etc.

Meathead said:
Equity cannot be achieved unless equity of parents or caregivers can be provided. In other words in cannot work.
Click to expand...

If your definition of equal opportunity (I assume by equity you mean the definition of "equal opportunity" that was referred to in the OP and was restated above) includes trying to account for equality of parenting, then, you are right; it is hard to imagine how equality of parenting could be achieved and seems quite impossible (parenting of course not referring to financial support, but only to the actual act of parenting, e.g. setting boundaries, gentle guidance etc.).

Meathead said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, we cannot account for poor values, as those values are the right of the parents to pass on (or at least that is my opinion). However, as you mentioned, it is good to have school programs that attempt to hedge for poor parenting, just as you mentioned.

Meathead said:
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.
Click to expand...

I do not doubt that many of the problems in the US are related to poor parenting practices. However, there are many poor families in the US who are suburb parents and do well at parenting. However, parenting will only take an individual so far. If other individuals (other competition) start their lives off with more tangible assets, they have a clear financial advantage. This inequality of tangible assets when starting out in life, is the main problem I am talking about and possibly the only problem that can actually be addressed. Many of the wealthy have inherited their wealth and this money often stays in the family for years and years. This is clearly an unfair advantage for those born into wealth. As I've mentioned before, I am not proposing equal outcome, only equal opportunity or equality of starting points for all. Does that make sense, i.e. am I clearly articulating my point?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
There is no such thing as equal opportunity. Some are born into wealth and some into poverty...
Click to expand...

This is true, some are born into wealth and some into poverty. That is the way it is right now and thus you are right, there is no equal opportunity. This does not mean there should not be when we are referring to equality of tangible assets when individuals start out in life. There is nothing wrong with allowing all individuals to start the race of life on the same starting line.

sawyerloggingon said:
Some are born into wealth and some into poverty just as some are born intelligent and others not so much. Some are beautiful, others are deformed, some are healthy others are sickly, on and on and on.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, being born into wealth or poverty is not analogous to being born beautiful, deformed, healthy or sick. Something can be done to even the playing field (see previous posts) when it comes to wealth, while it appears that nothing can be done about genetic and or parental advantages. Thus, this point is not applicable.

sawyerloggingon said:
In a free society like the USA you can rise to your own level or sink to your own level, that's freedom and that's why many old people in Russia can't adjust, along with freedom comes personal responsibility and the state is not there to babysit you.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, if you enjoy the freedom of oppression, i.e. the ability of the vast majority of the wealthy to stay wealthy and insure that their children stay wealthy, then that is your choice. However, I believe most people would enjoy 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). This would be true equal opportunity. I am asking debaters on debate politics whether or not they believe this kind of equal opportunity would be best for society.
 
MusicAdventurer said:
However, parenting will only take an individual so far. If other individuals (other competition) start their lives off with more tangible assets, they have a clear financial advantage. This inequality of tangible assets when starting out in life, is the main problem I am talking about and possibly the only problem that can actually be addressed. Many of the wealthy have inherited their wealth and this money often stays in the family for years and years. This is clearly an unfair advantage for those born into wealth. As I've mentioned before, I am not proposing equal outcome, only equal opportunity or equality of starting points for all. Does that make sense, i.e. am I clearly articulating my point?
Click to expand...
I see your points but in part I don't agree. As I mentioned earlier, the Vietnamese here come piss poor. They come with a work ethic and stress education for their children. The role parents play is the single-most important factor in the success of their children. This invariably has a knock-on effect on subsequent generations. Until this can be addressed, you cannot even begin to level the playing field. The sad fact of the matter is that all children will never have equal opportunity because their parents are not equal, whether rich or poor. Regardless of this fact, I will do my utmost to ensure my son's success, equality be damned.
 
Last edited:
ThePlayDrive said:
Equal opportunity to me means that every American child has access to a public education system that adequately addresses their needs. Note that this does not mean that everyone has the same public school system since every area has different needs. For example, poor kids would likely need more after school programs and counseling programs in their schools.
Click to expand...

I agree that equality of education, esp. according to students needs, is important.

ThePlayDrive said:
If that is equal opportunity, then yes, it is best for society.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Meathead said:
I see your points but in part I don't agree. As I mentioned earlier, the Vietnamese here come piss poor. They come with a work ethic and stress education for their children. Life is never fair and we are only born equal in the eyes of our creator. The role parents play is the single-most important factor in the success of their children.
Click to expand...

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"

Meathead said:
This invariably has a knock-on effect on subsequent generations. Until this can be addressed, you cannot even begin to level the playing field.
Click to expand...

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.

Meathead said:
The sad fact of the matter is that all children will never have equal opportunity because their parents are not equal, whether rich or poor. Regardless of this fact, I will do my utmost to ensure my son's success, equality be damned.
Click to expand...

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 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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom