• 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
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
...............
 
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.
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.
 
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.

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

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.

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?
 
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?
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
I think we are fundamentally divided by a classic conservative/liberal schism.

OK, I wasn't sure because you said "agreed"

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.

Perhaps you understand my position and perhaps not. While I have an ethical value that says we should help others through charity, I believe that after an equal starting point, a simple societal safety net (similar to the one already in place, although I prefer one that would provide more motivation to pull out of said safety net) is all that we are responsible for in regards to responsibility to others; I don't know about you, but I would prefer not to out-compete my fellow humans to the point of allowing them to starve and or freeze to death. In my opinion, such an event would be akin to murder.

We both agree that equality should be sought but, predictably perhaps, have different ideas on who to effectively achieve that goal.

Perhaps... however, you have not completely explained why you feel that it is OK for people to start the race at different starting lines (in terms of tangible assets).
 
In theory, EO by that definition would be good because everyone would have the same starting chance to succeed.

Exactly

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

Tension may be the cost of equal opportunity :shrugs:
Overall, I think that the total good it would do, may outweigh any bad feelings people may have about it ... then again, perhaps not. Perhaps society is not ready for this kind of equality of opportunity. Perhaps the majority of people are still archaic in their thinking, in which case something like this wouldn't work as a majority would be needed - a mass movement. On the other hand, the simple fact that some richy-rich people would be offended by it should not stop the majority from doing the right thing.

and like you said it would eliminate competition.

I never said that this would eliminate competition - I said that "equal outcome" would eliminate competition, not "equal opportunity". Equal opportunity may just enhance competition - this is actually an unknown factor.

Both of those things are pretty bad.

Like I said, ticking people of is never fun, but if its the right thing to do and only a few wealthy people would be upset, that would not be a bad thing if we were doing the right thing overall.

And as for the second "bad thing" - that is an unknown; we can only argue about whether or not equal opportunity would decrease or increase competition; thus far I have heard no compelling argument either way

So actually, there does not appear to be anything bad overall with this proposal as of yet
 
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.

Lol ... are you proposing that no one be born into poverty? That is, are you proposing a communist state?

Or... are you proposing that that is what I am proposing? Because I am definitely not proposing communism.
 
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.

Yes it is sad really. Here in the USA, we actually punish people for getting out of the welfare system. Almost as if we want to keep people on welfare... the only reason I could think of that the corporations would want to do this would be to keep worker bees around, but who knows... it could be complete ignorance and incompetency on our government's part.
 
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?
 
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?

Wow Fiddytree, its hard to understand what you're even talking about.

Who was talking about equality of outcome? That seems to be what your are talking about.

Also since when did this thread have anything to do with talents and natural gifts?

Just asking .. trying to make a connection to what the posts have been, what the OP was and what your response is ... could you help me out a little?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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...
 
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...

I know. My point was that due to individual circumstance never being the same among individuals, the concept of equal opportunity is invalid, because in order to make it happen, life would have to be extremely regimented until the point of a child becoming an adult, so that they can go out and make their own way and see what they can make of themselves and differentiate themselves through their personal qualities.

However, we also know the legacy and caste systems are also bad for society, we need to structure public policy to enforce some churn in individual wealth so that the best talent has at least some opportunity to rise to the top by their own effort. Otherwise legacy systems of generational wealth will be the norm, along with ever increasing social stratification and ultimately a need to have a militarized society keep social unrest down. (starving people or people who have no hope to make a better life for themselves tend to be rather unhappy)

So in the end, I think we need a middle road with progressive taxation, help for the less fortunate (but not our current welfare system, we should be somewhat tough on the poor to help give them the personal skills they need in an open society), etc. Ultimately, I think it is the best possible system, given human nature.
 
Last edited:
Equal opportunity in this country is impossible to achieve.

Not as defined in the OP it wouldn't

It would require that all children have the exact same education

Actually, education should be rewarded based only on academic performance (rather than based on how much money a student can pay).

the exact same level of support from their parents and community,

Financial support yes ... other kinds of support, such as moral support and so on, no

and the exact same job opportunities available when they finish school

Duh! But only the same job opportunities for those who actually meet the job requirements of course.

allow their natural qualities to shine forth

Yes, this is what is desired .. do you disagree ... you do not want our natural qualities to shine forth?

and even then it would be partial because there are no controls for stuff like luck.

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.

This would infuriate pretty much every citizen in the US, as it would likely require all children be taken from their parents.

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?

Given that, I don't think its valid to ask the question because no society in the world is a true meritocracy.

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
 
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?
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.

The states idea of providing would be subject to politics and budget cuts. Plus the logistics would be expensive on its own. The result would be comparable to the Japanese coffin sized compartments for housing. Or everyone would live in the projects just like the Soviets built. The only end result that could become of it is state control of every human being in the country.
 
Last edited:
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.

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).
 
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

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.
 
Last edited:
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).
equal asset allocation? people like me would be buying those assets from people like my brother....
and in one generation, the smart among us would be wealthy, and the notsosmart would be poor again...
 
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?

again, there is no need to be born into millions of dollars, why not just get by like the rest of us and be thankful for the little things not your bank account.
 
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.

OK, so it looks like we are on the same page (sort of?). Right .. no ideal will ever be fully met, however, we can do a whole lot more than we are doing now and I propose we start with starting everyone off on the same financial starting line.
 
Back
Top Bottom