quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley There you go again with 'identical'. You dont have to be identical to be equal! You still have to prove you are good enough to do what you want to do. Using your example of a disabled person wanting to be an athlete, leaving aside the small fact of the parolympics, if they are not good enough to compete then they simply wont! But they will still be able to get lessons or training if they want to. Still, it is a very specific and not too useful example. Look at other jobs...bar those where it would be physically impossible for a disabled person to do, most jobs are open to disabled people. So why dont you ask whether in true equality a disabled person can get the opertunity to be a doctor or an astronaught? Cos if we had true equality they would get that chance...

I do not understand your notion of equal opportunity. You seem to believe that in order for equal opportunity to exist, certain characteristics which provide opportunity must be regulated: wealth and political influence. But other characteristics which provide or restrict ones opportunities such as physical appearance and intellectual or physical capability can be unequal without destroying the equality of opportunity?

Perhaps if you explained why controlling these particular characteristics is necessary but not others I would better understand. At the moment they seem to have been selected arbitrarily.

quote:

Easy...from birth

Reasonable enough: although it seems altogether impossible to me. There are a virtually limitless number of factors which affect opportunity: to make them all equal would seem to involve making us all identical. Or do we only need to make a few of them equal?

quote:

What they do with their opertunity is up to them, if they waste it then tough shit! But there will be plenty of other opertunities in society. Again, not a very useful example as it is too specific. All we want from true equality/opertunity is a good and happy life. That means all the basics such as a house, food, fuels, education and heath care as well as the opertunity (through education for example) to pursue any life that is (realistically) available to you. From there you take your life wherever...its just that with out true equality, most people dont get that choice to start with...

Again, this seems reasonable enough. But say we give everone a house and food. But some people sell their house and food and use it to buy cocaine while others keep theirs. Then those people don't have a house or food anymore: should we give them a new house and more food?

quote:

And you believe that is a good thing? That people have scapegoats for their failings? Maybe if they realised they had the opertunity to make their lives better they'd get up off their arses, stop sulking about how terrible the world has been to them, and actually do summat about it?!

A good thing? No. A good thing would be people forgetting about this equality rubbish and working with whatever is available to them. Only in the most impoverished areas of the world would a determined and hard-working person not be able to make a decent life for themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Ideally, I would say that the equality should mean that people at birth need to have equal rights and possibilities. What they do with their lives afterwards, and whether they prove themselves capable of their desired privileges is a different matter. (Un)fortunately, our society is strongly based on raising individuals inside their respective families, and that's why it's necessary to keep tilting the balance towards a more equal situation so that newborn individuals be provided with more equal starting positions. Otherwise, the society would quickly split into a relatively small and educated high class that controls most resources and a large and uneducated mass of uneducated mob.

Public education is one thing, wealth redistribution is another.

I think public education is in everyone's interests: even the "educated high class." It provides for the quicker expansion and development of economic and technological assets, as well as expanding the group of those with whom one might want to interact socially and reducing crime.

Wealth redistribution is a false promise, I think: it is not having wealthy parents itself which provides one with opportunity or education, it is the parents will to use those resources to benefit their child. But, at any level of wealth, they may or may not do this. If we simply redistribute wealth, we do little to promote equal opportunity. Instead of creating a rift in opportunity between children in the upper class and those in the lower, it creates a rift in opportunity between children whose parents spend those resources wisely and those who squander them.

I've mentioned it many times before.

Aldous Huxley
Another link





Just a quick Googling. Don't really have time to dig much today.

quote:

Originally posted by smokeape Blow me, you moron... [[[smoke]]]

Simmer down Mr. Ape, I have no quarrel with you.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Public education is one thing, wealth redistribution is another. I think public education is in everyone's interests: even the "educated high class." It provides for the quicker expansion and development of economic and technological assets, as well as expanding the group of those with whom one might want to interact socially and reducing crime. Wealth redistribution is a false promise, I think: it is not having wealthy parents itself which provides one with opportunity or education, it is the parents will to use those resources to benefit their child. But, at any level of wealth, they may or may not do this. If we simply redistribute wealth, we do little to promote equal opportunity. Instead of creating a rift in opportunity between children in the upper class and those in the lower, it creates a rift in opportunity between children whose parents spend those resources wisely and those who squander them.

That is essentially correct, but most parents who are poor now would usually support their kids if given the opportunity to do so, and that's why I believe it is better to redistribute some wealth from the richest to the poorest. What's even more important, taking some money from the richest people hardly changes their lifestyle or their ability to raise children. I mean, take Bill Gates for example. He or his family wouldn't even notice if you'd take 40 billion $ from them. On the other hand, with that money you'd be able to provide thousands of people with decent living conditions.

Now, I know that people who don't want to spend resources on their children do exist, but that's what social workers are for. Adding an additional clause to the law which states the least percentage of money that is to be spent on raising children is a quick solution to the problem. Besides, having more money in the family usually helps people relax and provide a more stable environment for childraising than when people have constant worries over household finances.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish Basicly our own insecuritys mean we have to find a way in which we are better than other people (because in some way they are better than us). This creates nationalism. Which means we can never be the same or truely equal becuase we will always play a differnt game to differnt rules. Simply because we want to be differnt to/better than someone.... anyone.

An interesting side note. I've noticed that people only remember that equality when faced with someone better off than themselves. The human tendency to form unique social groups, combined with pride, is bound to create groups which would like to believe themselves to be not equal, but superior.

Sustained equality is undesirable because it implies that there is no growth. Momentary equality, as in a moment of equal opportunity from birth might be good, but seems impossible.

quote:

Originally posted by nrjizer An interesting topic. There will always be successful people and unsuccessful people. Some will be born rich, others in poverty. Some will be pretty, some ugly, some talented, some not. And so on. Yet when someone says "all men are created equal," I don't start thinking about things like this. Equality to me is a fundament, a principal that everyone has the same rights as every one else, regardless of who they are. If a poor, lower class person committs a crime, should he be punished more where an upper class person is not? Or what about a black person as opposed to a white person? Or what if some random guy murders an upper class, should he be punished more than if he had murdered a lower class? Of course there are times that we should take circumstance into account. Should a man who kills a man in cold blood, and a woman who kills her abusive husband be punished equally? Or what about an adult vs a child? I guess I'd agree on some points and disagree on others. I do think that everyone should be treated fairly and equally, no matter what their sex, race, religion, sexual preference, title, wealth, etc. But I do beleive that sometimes circumstance does superscede blind equality.

Well, what about repeat offenders? Should we punish someone more who belongs to the group of people who has committed the crime before?

It seems to come down to whether or not the characteristic bears any specific relevance to the right(s) in question. While race and class (particularly race) seem like they would be poor criteria for the distribution of different rights, we generally accept age or sanity as a reasonable criterion (even though sanity cannot typically be objectively measured). I don't think it is wise to give everyone the same rights because not everyone is qualified for the same rights. But there will never be a perfect system.

quote:

Originally posted by nrjizer But things like that are luxuries, things you don't really need to live. What does get to me, though, is how there are rich people who just sit on millions and billions of dollars when there are a lot of people out there who are starving to death. I know a lot of them do give a shitload to charaties, but in the end of the day that might mean that they can only have 3 bmw's instead of 4.

Well, the thing to remember is that typically they aren't really just "sitting" on all that money. As a general rule it is invested in a variety of companies. It might seem like a good idea to take that money out of their hands to buy food for the hungry, but when you do that you'd also be taking a lot of money away from each of these companies.

Take enough money away from the very rich and it takes a lot of capital away from businesses, which leads to higher prices and, if you do it enough, potentially massive layoffs (and this time there isn't anyone left with outrageous amounts of assets to pillage to fix the problem.) Meanwhile, much of the money that they spend to purchase those luxuries helps pay the salaries of everyone who played a part in the manufacture or distribution of those luxuries.

Even the best economists can't predict all the effects that such a policy would have. As a result, it is questionable whether or not it would actually result in any long-term benefits.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Arbiter, do you believe that equal oppertunity (as I have described throughout the thread, ie none of that identical physical appearence stuff) is bad, or good?

I think it would be good I just don't see it as being possible without the identical stuff as well.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 That is essentially correct, but most parents who are poor now would usually support their kids if given the opportunity to do so, and that's why I believe it is better to redistribute some wealth from the richest to the poorest. What's even more important, taking some money from the richest people hardly changes their lifestyle or their ability to raise children. I mean, take Bill Gates for example. He or his family wouldn't even notice if you'd take 40 billion $ from them. On the other hand, with that money you'd be able to provide thousands of people with decent living conditions.

I think that most parents would want to support their kids, but based on my observations I am not sure it would actually be accomplished. There is somewhat of a question of causality that is unresolved: I have noticed that most poor people are simply poor parents, but I do not know if they are poor parents because they are poor or if they are poor parents due to their personal characteristics which likely also lend themselves to being poor. My best guess is that the latter is true, but the condition of being poor serves to reinforce the problem.

I suspect that simply encouraging the child, conversing intelligently with him/her, and stressing the importance of responsibility and dedication is far more important to raising intelligent and successful children than anything money could buy. In fact, in the presence of decent public education (which in many places does not exist at the moment) I am suspect the effects of the parents simply having some amount of extra money would be relatively negligible.

And, again, while taking money away from someone like Bill Gates might seem like a quick fix and would not harm Gates excessively, it would have a broader impact on at least as many thousands of middle class or lower class people as it would benefit. As long as Gates and those like him control the proverbial means of production, they will simply make back whatever assets are taken away from them by altering their business practices. The only way to genuinely achieve wealth redistribution without massive side-effects seems to me to be a command economy... but we have seen how they have fared in the past.

quote:

Now, I know that people who don't want to spend resources on their children do exist, but that's what social workers are for. Adding an additional clause to the law which states the least percentage of money that is to be spent on raising children is a quick solution to the problem. Besides, having more money in the family usually helps people relax and provide a more stable environment for childraising than when people have constant worries over household finances.

These are not bad ideas, but a few things need to be noted:

• Opportunity would still not be equalized, it would simply be skewed in a different way. Instead of having a small group of children with a profound advantage, you will have a small group of children with a profound disadvantage, since there will always be children whose parents don't raise properly and who are not reached by adequate assistance.
  
• Once the money is spent they don't have it anymore (you can't have your cake and eat it too). If they do recieve extra money, they WILL spend it promptly with varying degrees of wisdom because poor people generally have little or no concept of saving money. For the most part, it will be spent on consumable goods and soon enough they will be in the same or a similar position to which they started.
  
• Implementing an adequate system would itself consume labor and resources which could have otherwise been invested in infrastructure development to create a better future for everyone, rather than favoring certain groups over others: which is inherently divisive and does not lend itself towards a unified, harmonious society.
  

I think I get what you mean. Basicly for our system to work you need to have inherent inequality.

That is you need both chiefs and indians. The chief's son will have a much better chance of becoming the chief than all the other indians.

But remember that the chiefs son will have the best possible teacher.. the chief. And all through life he will be trainned to be the next chief. While the other indians are just normal indians. Getting food and hunting and so on. (in retrospect perhaps a prince would be a better example)

In other words although it is unfair you get a better new chief in the end.

In the wider sence rich people don't need to worry about hunger or security. And so they are free to worry about education and later employment. Even richer people don't even need to worry about that and so they go into culture and things which intrest them.

I mean if everyone was having to get food and stuff (being all equal) how many inventions would there be?

___________________
If you can read this, I'm seriously fucking bored.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish I think I get what you mean. Basicly for our system to work you need to have inherent inequality. That is you need both chiefs and indians. The chief's son will have a much better chance of becoming the chief than all the other indians. But remember that the chiefs son will have the best possible teacher.. the chief. And all through life he will be trainned to be the next chief. While the other indians are just normal indians. Getting food and hunting and so on. (in retrospect perhaps a prince would be a better example) In other words although it is unfair you get a better new chief in the end. In the wider sence rich people don't need to worry about hunger or security. And so they are free to worry about education and later employment. Even richer people don't even need to worry about that and so they go into culture and things which intrest them. I mean if everyone was having to get food and stuff (being all equal) how many inventions would there be?

Well, I wouldn't advocate a strict caste system (or anything of the sort), but it seems to me that opportunity cannot be controlled, and that rather than vainly trying to make it as-equal-as-possible our time and efforts would better be spent trying to identify the most talented individuals and placing them in the position where they can benefit society the most.

The best chief may not be the chief's son, but unless we take him out of his family to raise him he will have a better opportunity to make himself the best chief than anyone else. However, if some outstanding individual happens to be born into a lower class family, it would also be in the interest of society to identify him or her and provide opportunities to prove him/herself to be the most qualified leader.

While opportunities are not equal to begin with, a genuinely outstanding person will create his or her own opportunities in a system which rewards above-par performance by providing successively more challenging problems. I think that resources should be made available to everyone which they can use to reach their potential: public education, public libraries, and public internet access. Given that, even a child born into poverty could choose to invest his time in educating himself. Then, all that is needed is some means by which he can demonstrate his talents (perhaps some sort of certification system similar to that used in computer networking), and he will have the opportunity to get whatever is available to him.

So you're precisely right that rich people are more likely to succeed as they have more time to spend bettering themselves. But an outstanding poor person would find ways to deal with his basic needs more efficiently than his mediocre counterparts - and that would leave him time to better himself as well.

As a side note: I think it is a mistake to suggest that "opportunity" should necessarily be tied to the opportunity to make money. Money doesn't buy happiness and has very little to do with living a fulfilling life. So even if someone is denied the opportunity to get a job with a high salary, they aren't really being denied anything important. In other words, it ought to be emphasized that material opportunity does not equate to opportunity to live a proverbial "life worth living."