I know people here are generally against government action to ensure equality of opportunity but is there some sort of logical basis as to why? Why not give everyone the opportunity to be able to lead a successful life?
If you want to "give" them the opportunity, go ahead. Why should I or anyone else be forced to, though?
To darkness I condemn you...
How about this:
I oppose anyone taking away the opportunity to lead a successful life from anyone.
Non interference in the lives of others is equal opportunity for all.
http://www.comebackalive.com/phpBB2 Travel, Adventure Travel, Arguments, Recipes.
jerryluo: I know people here are generally against government action to ensure equality of opportunity but is there some sort of logical basis as to why? Why not give everyone the opportunity to be able to lead a successful life?
Government action is inherently coercive. When the government "ensures equality of opportunity" what it is really doing is telling private citizens what they can and can't buy, who they can hire, who they can't fire, and generally setting arbitrary quotas. Instead of allowing free citizens to make decisions in their best interest, the government intervenes to disrupt freedom of choice. This act of intervention is inherently destructive because it renders the value scales of individuals irrelevent.
It is the absence of government coercion, not its presence, that "gives everyone the opportunity to be able to lead a successful life."
What specifically are you talking about? your post is so vague its hilarious.
The first thing that came to mind were Equal Opportunity work laws, but my reply to that is the government has no right to force you to make business relationships with all ethnic groups, just like the government has no right to force you to have a black friend or hispanic wife
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
I mean like how those who are born into poverty tend to stay in poverty. Is that really freedom when they don't even have the opportunity to get out of poverty?
Also, what about the inherent racism and sexism of people? What about the treatment of the mentally and physically handicapped? Why can't they be ensured equal opportunity by the law?
Whoever said freedom is having "opportunities"? What did they do to deserve one?
jerryluo:I mean like how those who are born into poverty tend to stay in poverty.
This is a myth. In a market economy, people move out of poverty all of the time. The notion of a permanent underclass is used to explain why state anti-poverty measures don't work. It's fallacious.
jerryluo:Is that really freedom when they don't even have the opportunity to get out of poverty?
What opportunity do they need? Stop drinking, start showering, save money and get a job and work hard. Generally, that works out well. The problem with a welfare system, is that it disincentivizes people from working, so low wage jobs go begging to illegal immigrants, while citizens elect to drink and sit around all day at the welfare office.
jerryluo:Also, what about the inherent racism and sexism of people?
Another myth.
jerryluo:What about the treatment of the mentally and physically handicapped?
You're talking about a fraction of a fraction of the society. And they would be helped through charity. They would probably be helped in a manner that gave them a sense of dignity, instead of being treated like a burden on society.
jerryluo:Why can't they be ensured equal opportunity by the law?
They can. They should have the right to be free from coercion, and they should have the right to own property (accumulate wealth). What they do with those rights is up to them. You can't equalize one group by law without punishing another group. That's called collectivism. It is why we are in the social mess we are in today. People aren't equal, and superior minds and workers and artists will have more opportunities than lousy workers, artists and dummies. That's reality. If we treated dummies like geniuses, we wouldn't have any geniuses, only dummies, because time has proven that socialism always resolves to the lowest (not highest) common denominator.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
The last bit reminds me of this.
fezwhatley: What specifically are you talking about? your post is so vague its hilarious.
Hey man, this guy makes his 1st post with a legitimate complaint that a lot of people on the left have. Why not carefully show him the right direction and convince him of our views. 1 more person believing in liberty is.well 1 more person (you get my point)
True, but equality of opportunity is a very vague notion, so it's not wrong to demand greater precision when discussing it. If anyone wants to read up on it I recommend David Schmidtz's Elements of Justice.
Jon Irenicus: The last bit reminds me of this.
I was just re-reading Atlas Shrugged, the bit where they send the train into the tunnel, and everyone knows it will be a catastrophe, but no one has the guts to stop it, do it, object to it etc. Society has become a bunch of people who are scared to be great because great people get punished for exceeding the socially acceptable level of excellence.
Then why does our government, that presumably serves the will of the people, outlaw racism?
I am paraphrasing Libertarianism a primer:
Equality of oppertunity: An attempt to create true equality of oppertunity could be as dictatorial as equality of results. This would mean scarring the beautiful, and smashing the brains of the smart people. That would be total equality of oppertunity...
jerryluo, if you are new here, please always remember that this site is for learning and is usually theoretical. Members are speaking of how they envision a society could or should be in a free market. However if that is not what your question intended, but rather addresses a specific historic time, then you must specify that time. I read your question as meaning the time now.
If you mean now then history must be taken into account. Yes we have had much racist and sexist prejudice. Yes, we were blind-sided when the Equal Opportunities laws were passed. You see, this issue had been platforms in both parties so in a very real sense, we all voted on it. "Everyone should have an equal opportunity for anything". Then they created an Equal Opportunities Commission to implement that platform and write the laws. The laws they wrote were opposite what the majority had voted for. We ment opportunity, the laws ment results. "Everyone will be forced to create equal results". The majority of people were very angry and dumbfounded by the laws.
However, go back in time a little further. I won't bore you with the slow tracks through our history, but they show clearly that government created the racist and sexist prejudice in the first place over an even longer period ot time. We all seem to wish that if we just changed the laws we could immediately change society. But it doesn't work that way. In our current society it really needed government to undo the damage gov't had done.
But now that task is completed in my opinion. We should scrap those Equal Opportunities laws.
In a free-market employers want to lower costs. Therefore given the opportunity to hire someone who is prejudiced against but will perform the work cheaper, they will be hired. Now they have the opportunity to prove themselves. If they do they will be paid the same as the others because otherwise they will leave and go where they will with a good recommendation from the employer.
jerryluo: I mean like how those who are born into poverty tend to stay in poverty. Is that really freedom when they don't even have the opportunity to get out of poverty?
Im my opinion this is a cultural problem, not a problem of prejudice. A person usually conducts his life as his parents and friends did and do. This means he makes the same choices fot the same types of reasons. And stays poor.
jerryluo: Also, what about the inherent racism and sexism of people? What about the treatment of the mentally and physically handicapped? Why can't they be ensured equal opportunity by the law?
Again I disagree with your premise. Yes, 'birds of a feather flock together'. So do parrots and other many-colored birds. Again I say this is culturally based. Today mexicans choose to live in the same area, as do chinese, koreans, indians, etc. In so doing they remain culturally unassimilated. I even have an example. Just before New Years I hurt my back badly. My chiropracter was on vacation so I went to the new one in town. He had a great opportunity to get all my business in the future. He had grown un in America, but in an entirely Korean community. Even though he'd gone to college and chiropractic shool that did not change his childhood culture. At the end of his treatment he told me that if he could not fix my back that unfortunately the surgeons would not operate on me becasue of my age and sex. Guess who I saw for my next treatment.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap