Equality of opportunity is just a Trojan horse for equality of outcome. Most opportunities are outcomes.
Take, for example, two kids gunning for college. The first kid's parents aggressively budgeted and saved to afford tuition at a good school. The second kid's parents lived at or above their means, racking up debt.
Why should these kids have the exact same opportunities? The disparity between them is just. It was paid for with sacrifice and effort. If you pave over that disparity with government handouts, then you are incentivizing shiity behavior. Why should good parents save money for their childrens' educations if bad parents are just handed the same opportunities?
A society should strive to provide reasonable access to a good middle class lifestyle for as many people as possible. Equality of outcome is impossible nonsense, and equality of opportunity is almost equally evil.
The problem with your argument is that you're at the wrong point in the process. Both of those children had equal opportunity when they were born. Along the way, their parents squandered those opportunities or took advantage of them.
The point of equality of opportunity isn't that everything is equal at all points in time, it's that, all other factors being equal, people have the same opportunities.
Most importantly, it's about the government not playing favorites in any way.
You are treating children as trophies of their parent's value. Nothing more than an endless cycle of parental failures being taken out on their kids.
I agree, society should strive for that reasonable access to middle class life. But burdening people with the sin's of the father is the exact opposite of that. It perpetuates endless cycles of poverty with often few chances to escape.
I'm not pro-college and especially not free college, but offering kids a chance to become better than their failure parents is that reasonable access to middle class.
Someone has to carry the burden. It's either the children of bad parents, or the children of good parents.
Being a bad parent is hereditary to a huge degree, which means that punishing children of good parents to make up for bad parents' faults is clearly a terrible idea. The people you're trying to help will more than likely just squander it anyway, so all you're doing is take away resources and opportunities from people likely to multiply those for the next generation and giving them to people who will flush them down the shitter and complain they weren't given even more.
If its hereditary to the extent you are saying we have almost no amount of free will to become better.
The idea of equality of opportunity is impartiality. Not making moral decisions nor judgements. Utilitarian logic. Once we start saying "bad parents make bad seeds, no point helping them" we have created a cycle where they have no reason to not be the worst people possible. They will live up to those expectations because it doesn't matter, the stigma will hang over their heads forever.
The thing is, I agree with what you are saying in theory. The problem is building a society like that just creates a caste system, and becomes a rat race to the bottom.
Even worse, your enemies will be in power one day. Letting this loophole be open just opens it up to be used on you. Wokesters would consider "having guns" or "voting Trump" to make you a "bad parent" with all the consequences therein.
What I'm suggesting is impartiality. Nobody should be forced to uplift (or finance the uplifting of) anyone else. If someone wants to flush their own money down the drain by spending it on ghetto rats, well, go knock yourselves out, but I refuse to participate in fruitless waste. I'm convinced that we could have been terraforming Mars right now if it wasn't for the welfare state. Instead... https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/732/227/6c4.png
A "caste system" is perfectly normal and healthy as long as it's not enforced by the state. Hierarchies form naturally. People aren't clones, some people are, by nature, worse than others, and it's good that these people are scrounging for food in dumpsters and sleeping under bridges. It's more just than fruitlessly trying to help them by taking from better people and wasting it on them.
Don't worry, I'm perfectly familiar with the "imagine if your enemies were in power" line of thought, and I understand how important it is. My line of thought works perfectly fine if my enemies are in power, because I'm not asking for any preferential treatment, I'm asking for the exact opposite. It's fine as long as they abide by the same rules; the eternal problem is that they will never do that, because my rules are based on inescapable, objective reality, and their philosophy goes directly against that - which is why, in a sane country, of which there are currently none as far as I'm aware, someone like Augusto Pinochet would be considered a centrist. Because that's what he was, really; throwing belligerent pinkos out of helicopters is simply the sane thing to do.
It's true, equal opportunity was the camel getting it's nose in the tent, towards it's full body and full bore equal outcomes. No one starts off the same, we all have different genetics, different families who did or did not prepare the way for us. All you can do is give people the same rights. In fact, forcing others to give opportunities, grossly violates rights, like with affirmative action. Yes, equal opportunity was the gateway that sounded so good to equal outcomes.
Free education would make more money than it would cost in the long term , and this is all that is really needed for equal opportunity. have the start line at the same place , and the talented will rise to the top , rather than having mediocre aristocrats who's only real talent is that they were born rich. A meritocratic system would depend on this. And this is the true path ideal philosopher king system envisioned by Plato, with the enlightened natural elite rising to the top and making a better society for all.
You believe education directly translates to or promotes talent? Our present system is good for very little other than teaching compliance and memorization.
enlightened natural elite rising to the top
I do support the idea of a meritocracy, but it should be acknowledged that it is in the best interest of corrupt elites to suppress the rise of talented elites (or anyone else that doesn't "play ball"). So most pre-existing elite class will actively hinder approaches towards meritocracy. This does include the elites of foreign nations unless you can pull off a miracle isolation for your new society.
I don't recall if Plato bothered with the real methods by which his republic could be developed - rather, I don't remember him considering how to solve the problem of bad actors.
Equality of opportunity is just a Trojan horse for equality of outcome. Most opportunities are outcomes.
Take, for example, two kids gunning for college. The first kid's parents aggressively budgeted and saved to afford tuition at a good school. The second kid's parents lived at or above their means, racking up debt.
Why should these kids have the exact same opportunities? The disparity between them is just. It was paid for with sacrifice and effort. If you pave over that disparity with government handouts, then you are incentivizing shiity behavior. Why should good parents save money for their childrens' educations if bad parents are just handed the same opportunities?
A society should strive to provide reasonable access to a good middle class lifestyle for as many people as possible. Equality of outcome is impossible nonsense, and equality of opportunity is almost equally evil.
The problem with your argument is that you're at the wrong point in the process. Both of those children had equal opportunity when they were born. Along the way, their parents squandered those opportunities or took advantage of them.
The point of equality of opportunity isn't that everything is equal at all points in time, it's that, all other factors being equal, people have the same opportunities.
Most importantly, it's about the government not playing favorites in any way.
You are treating children as trophies of their parent's value. Nothing more than an endless cycle of parental failures being taken out on their kids.
I agree, society should strive for that reasonable access to middle class life. But burdening people with the sin's of the father is the exact opposite of that. It perpetuates endless cycles of poverty with often few chances to escape.
I'm not pro-college and especially not free college, but offering kids a chance to become better than their failure parents is that reasonable access to middle class.
Someone has to carry the burden. It's either the children of bad parents, or the children of good parents.
Being a bad parent is hereditary to a huge degree, which means that punishing children of good parents to make up for bad parents' faults is clearly a terrible idea. The people you're trying to help will more than likely just squander it anyway, so all you're doing is take away resources and opportunities from people likely to multiply those for the next generation and giving them to people who will flush them down the shitter and complain they weren't given even more.
If its hereditary to the extent you are saying we have almost no amount of free will to become better.
The idea of equality of opportunity is impartiality. Not making moral decisions nor judgements. Utilitarian logic. Once we start saying "bad parents make bad seeds, no point helping them" we have created a cycle where they have no reason to not be the worst people possible. They will live up to those expectations because it doesn't matter, the stigma will hang over their heads forever.
The thing is, I agree with what you are saying in theory. The problem is building a society like that just creates a caste system, and becomes a rat race to the bottom.
Even worse, your enemies will be in power one day. Letting this loophole be open just opens it up to be used on you. Wokesters would consider "having guns" or "voting Trump" to make you a "bad parent" with all the consequences therein.
What I'm suggesting is impartiality. Nobody should be forced to uplift (or finance the uplifting of) anyone else. If someone wants to flush their own money down the drain by spending it on ghetto rats, well, go knock yourselves out, but I refuse to participate in fruitless waste. I'm convinced that we could have been terraforming Mars right now if it wasn't for the welfare state. Instead... https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/732/227/6c4.png
A "caste system" is perfectly normal and healthy as long as it's not enforced by the state. Hierarchies form naturally. People aren't clones, some people are, by nature, worse than others, and it's good that these people are scrounging for food in dumpsters and sleeping under bridges. It's more just than fruitlessly trying to help them by taking from better people and wasting it on them.
Don't worry, I'm perfectly familiar with the "imagine if your enemies were in power" line of thought, and I understand how important it is. My line of thought works perfectly fine if my enemies are in power, because I'm not asking for any preferential treatment, I'm asking for the exact opposite. It's fine as long as they abide by the same rules; the eternal problem is that they will never do that, because my rules are based on inescapable, objective reality, and their philosophy goes directly against that - which is why, in a sane country, of which there are currently none as far as I'm aware, someone like Augusto Pinochet would be considered a centrist. Because that's what he was, really; throwing belligerent pinkos out of helicopters is simply the sane thing to do.
It's true, equal opportunity was the camel getting it's nose in the tent, towards it's full body and full bore equal outcomes. No one starts off the same, we all have different genetics, different families who did or did not prepare the way for us. All you can do is give people the same rights. In fact, forcing others to give opportunities, grossly violates rights, like with affirmative action. Yes, equal opportunity was the gateway that sounded so good to equal outcomes.
Free education would make more money than it would cost in the long term , and this is all that is really needed for equal opportunity. have the start line at the same place , and the talented will rise to the top , rather than having mediocre aristocrats who's only real talent is that they were born rich. A meritocratic system would depend on this. And this is the true path ideal philosopher king system envisioned by Plato, with the enlightened natural elite rising to the top and making a better society for all.
You believe education directly translates to or promotes talent? Our present system is good for very little other than teaching compliance and memorization.
I do support the idea of a meritocracy, but it should be acknowledged that it is in the best interest of corrupt elites to suppress the rise of talented elites (or anyone else that doesn't "play ball"). So most pre-existing elite class will actively hinder approaches towards meritocracy. This does include the elites of foreign nations unless you can pull off a miracle isolation for your new society.
I don't recall if Plato bothered with the real methods by which his republic could be developed - rather, I don't remember him considering how to solve the problem of bad actors.