Republicans seem to have developed a new-found fetish: Equality of opportunity. Gov. Bob McDonnell repeatedly mentioned it in his rebuttal to Obama's State of the Union address. Several CPAC speakers, including the GOP's latest neo-con savior from my very own state of Florida, emphasized their dedication to it. Conservative groups such as "Americans for Prosperity" and "Grassfire Nation" have been berating me with emails singing the laurels of equal opportunity. I'd like to hear some libertarian perspectives on this "type" of equality.
My two cents:
True equality of opportunity means we must go around bashing noses in on beautiful people to even the playing field (physical appearance is, after all, influential over how much opportunity one will have in pretty much any area of life). Then we must provide free plastic surgery to ugly people. We must also heavily subsidize the tutoring of the dimwitted and expropriate the books of bookworms because they are too many standard deviations above the mean.
Equality implies sameness, and quite simply we aren't all the same. Our species is comprised of unique individuals who possess a wide array of virtues and vices. To the egalitarian, this is a "problem" that the state must correct. We should all be homogeneous clones so that nobody has unfair advantages.
I see diversity as a beautiful thing that makes life interesting.
Am I the only one who is sick and tired of this "equal opportunity" rhetoric?
When I actually think of "equal opportunity" I feel like combusting.
What you define as true equality of opportunity really means equality of outcome IMO. Equality of opportunity to me is just another way to say freedom. I am not sure if the Repubs mean it that way though. It's just another talking point for them.
Personally I think you're getting equality of outcome and equality of opportunity confused. One is a results based concept, the other is a process based concept.
Thomas Sowell talks a lot about this in A Conflict of Visions.
I think that when Republicans talk about equal opportunity, they're talking about making the rules of the game as level as possible without altering the actual participants. Liberals like to talk a lot about social justice and to do so, they tend to want to actually alter the players of the game so they're all playing at the same level. They want to guarantee outcomes instead of guaranteeing simply that the rules will treat everyone similarly. No preferential treatment. Ofcourse this never happens 100 percent but it's nice rhetoric.
EDIT: Looks like I was a little slow.
Equality of opportunity means equal opportunity. It's pretty self-explanatory.
Would you concede that if two individuals apply for a job and one of them is prettier than the other, then ceteris paribus the prettier one will be more likely to get the job? If you grant this then do you not also have to grant that the higher level of attractiveness gave this individual a greater opportunity to acquire a job?
I fail to see what this has to do with equality of outcome.
"I think that when Republicans talk about equal opportunity, they're talking about making the rules of the game as level as possible without altering the actual participants."
I think that when Republicans talk about Anything, they're talking about increasing the size, scope, and power of the state.
I dunno, if the level of talent and ability are equal then it may very well be that the prettier person gets the job.
But both of them could have gotten hired. Neither one of them is eliminated from consideration nor guaranteed the position before the fact. That's equality of opportunity. No one is guaranteed an outcome, pass or fail.
"Equality of opportunity means equal opportunity. It's pretty self-explanatory.
I fail to see what this has to do with equality of outcome."
So....you think that Republicans are suggesting we should make everyone equally as pretty? I dont understand why you are taking this to such extremes.
MatthewF: I think that when Republicans talk about Anything, they're talking about increasing the size, scope, and power of the state.
Well, that is your preconceived bias against the state and anyone who represents it. The concept of equality of opportunity, however, is independent of the person or persons talking about it. It's an idea, not a politician.
I am doing a reductio on equality of opportunity to demonstrate that it is inherently a statist concept. It is enforced with state coercion--with rules, regs, and lawsuits backed up with the threat of violence for those who do not comply:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Employment_Opportunity_Commission
The irony is that these laws and bureaucracies harm the very groups that are intended to benefit by turning them into major lawsuit liabilities.
I think the concept is market based. Wouldn't everyone have the same opportunities in the ideal free market society?
No, because some employers would *gasp* discriminate! Some employers would prefer shapely blonde female secretaries to balding middle-age men with foot odor. Thus, the former would have greater opportunity and the latter would have less.
Humans' innate abilities and characteristics are always and everywhere varied, hence the disparity in opportunity.
I am doing a reductio on equality of opportunity to demonstrate that it is inherently a statist concept. It is enforced with state coercion--with rules, regs, and lawsuits backed up with the threat of violence for those who do not comply: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Employment_Opportunity_Commission The irony is that these laws and bureaucracies harm the very groups that are intended to benefit by turning them into major lawsuit liabilities.
Ah. I agree.
Maybe the language is just off. Opportunity could be the wrong word. Misleading.
OK, it seems we all agree in concept but just have semantic disagreements.
When I hear a politician say, "We will work to provide equal opportunity," I think affirmative action, public schooling, subsidies, et. al. I think positive rights. And libertarianism abhors positive rights.
All ideas of general equality are nonsense for the simple reason that everyone is not equal.