Equality of opportunity

[myata]

And I can very well see why. If there was a recipe for guaranteed individual success, we'd be living in a totally different world.

[Figleaf]

I'd like to address certain of the ideas being given here rather than particular posters.

First, why should there be equality of opportunity?

Broadly, because it is integral to the principle of merit. Within that concept are a couple of reasons commonly noted: individual justice and the greater good. The individual justice line says that it isn't fair for a person of greater or equal merit to be deprived in favor of someone else due to extraneous factors. The greater good line says that it is wasteful to allow unequal opportunity to result in deploying a person of lesser ability.

Second, the idea that being able to achieve a good life or some level of success is enough.

A moment's reflection on the above point should serve to dispel this notion. 'Almost justice' is not justice, and any waste is still waste. If Mozart hadn't had the opportunity to learn music, even if he had made a decent living as a cobbler, the world would be deprived of his compositions.

Third, some suggest that opportunity is less important than personal characteristics.

A. This idea is really just an idelogical article of faith, without any particular claim on credibility.

B. Unless you can argue that opportunity plays absolutely no part in success, then no matter what amount the person herself accounts for, the points above still hold.

[Renegade]

First, why should there be equality of opportunity?

Broadly, because it is integral to the principle of merit. Within that concept are a couple of reasons commonly noted: individual justice and the greater good. The individual justice line says that it isn't fair for a person of greater or equal merit to be deprived in favor of someone else due to extraneous factors. The greater good line says that it is wasteful to allow unequal opportunity to result in deploying a person of lesser ability.

You assume that society has obligated to fulfill a role as arbiter of individual justice. Of course it isn't "fair" for one individual to have greater opportuity than another, but I don't see it as society's role to be the equalizer.

Interestingly for many proponents of "equal opportuntiy", the "equality of opportunity" ends at Canada's borders. They support investment in programs such as subsidized education specificly in order to differentiate Canadian workers from those in the rest of the world. Their principle of "equal opportunity" stops when it providing foreign workers the same "equal opportunity" to succeed as would a Canadian. How many of you support the funding of foreign workers so they come up to the education standards of the average Canadian.

As far as the "greater good" is concerned. I would say that the system of providing "equal opportuity" is more wasteful. If we take education as an example, we invest a lot in providing eveyone a relative uniform standard of education. Assuming finite resources, greater overall efficiency can be achievied, by concentrating the resource investment on the few who are most capable, but that would run counter to "equal opportunity"

Second, the idea that being able to achieve a good life or some level of success is enough.

A moment's reflection on the above point should serve to dispel this notion. 'Almost justice' is not justice, and any waste is still waste. If Mozart hadn't had the opportunity to learn music, even if he had made a decent living as a cobbler, the world would be deprived of his compositions.

Success is not binary. By whatever criteria, success is measured on a graduated scale. To look further to your example, Mozart is exactly NOT an example of equal opportuity. He was born to a musical family that heavily invested in his musical abilities as soon as he showed promise. Had Mozart been born today and was forced into the same generalized training as everyone else, he may not have ended with the same achievements.

Third, some suggest that opportunity is less important than personal characteristics.

A. This idea is really just an idelogical article of faith, without any particular claim on credibility.

I've stated it as my opinion. It is just as much an article of faith, without any particular claim on credibility to state the opposite.

B. Unless you can argue that opportunity plays absolutely no part in success, then no matter what amount the person herself accounts for, the points above still hold.

I have not stated that opportunity plays no part. What I have stated is that society are not obligated to provide equal opportunity to everyone.

[Figleaf]

First, why should there be equality of opportunity?

Broadly, because it is integral to the principle of merit. Within that concept are a couple of reasons commonly noted: individual justice and the greater good. The individual justice line says that it isn't fair for a person of greater or equal merit to be deprived in favor of someone else due to extraneous factors. The greater good line says that it is wasteful to allow unequal opportunity to result in deploying a person of lesser ability.

You assume that society has obligated to fulfill a role as arbiter of individual justice. Of course it isn't "fair" for one individual to have greater opportuity than another, but I don't see it as society's role to be the equalizer.

Providing an acceptable level ofnjustice is one of the primary roles of society. If it doesn't, it invites conflict that disrupts safety and prosperity. Greater sensitivity to justice generally characterizes morr successful societies, while injustice pervades failed states. Consider the ineluctible fact of the WIIFM principle.

As far as the "greater good" is concerned. I would say that the system of providing "equal opportuity" is more wasteful. If we take education as an example, we invest a lot in providing eveyone a relative uniform standard of education. Assuming finite resources, greater overall efficiency can be achievied, by concentrating the resource investment on the few who are most capable, but that would run counter to "equal opportunity"

1. We have a question of fact betwwen us then about the cost/reward profile of equal opp. that I doubt we have the resources to resolve off-hand.

2. Your second point about concentrating resources, however is not necessarily a point of disagrrement inasmuch as you seem to be suggesting a merit test (which presumably would exclude the idiot-sons of millionaires or Parliamentarians etc.)

Second, the idea that being able to achieve a good life or some level of success is enough.

A moment's reflection on the above point should serve to dispel this notion. ...

Success is not binary. By whatever criteria, success is measured on a graduated scale. To look further to your example, Mozart is exactly NOT an example of equal opportuity. He was born to a musical family that heavily invested in his musical abilities as soon as he showed promise. Had Mozart been born today and was forced into the same generalized training as everyone else, he may not have ended with the same achievements.

You misunderstand my example. I wasn't using the real Mozart, but rather a hypothetcal Mozart

who might have been denied the opportunity. Your complaint with the example does not unseat the principle.

Third, some suggest that opportunity is less important than personal characteristics.

A. This idea is really just an idelogical article of faith, without any particular claim on credibility.

I've stated it as my opinion. It is just as much an article of faith, without any particular claim on credibility to state the opposite.

Without a more exhaustive analysis than were likely to undertake here, you are correct. We each have our intuitions on this, and they are contrary to eachother.

[Renegade]

Providing an acceptable level ofnjustice is one of the primary roles of society. If it doesn't, it invites conflict that disrupts safety and prosperity. Greater sensitivity to justice generally characterizes morr successful societies, while injustice pervades failed states. Consider the ineluctible fact of the WIIFM principle.

Is your supposition on the role of society opinion or did you derive that from somewhere? Define "acceptable". If the purpose of mitigating injustice is to minimize conflict, then it is simply sufficient to provide enough access to justice so that people don't revolt. Many societies which you would percieve as unjust have lasted far longer than our modern society without revolt. One reason is that people didn't expect equality, so that when they didn't get it, they were less inclined to revolt.

You misunderstand my example. I wasn't using the real Mozart, but rather a hypothetcal Mozart

who might have been denied the opportunity. Your complaint with the example does not unseat the principle.

I have a hard time giving credbility to a hypothetical example to support a hypothetisis. The real example contridicts your argument. In the real world there are numerious examples of successful individuals who succeeded despite the numerious obstacles you feel should be equalized. (Some theorize that experience in overcoming obstacles actually better prepared them for success than if those obstacles were not present).

[myata]

Here I have to disagree. Equal opportunity is more efficient in the long run than concentrating the resources on selected few. Why? Because, again, we never know beforehand who has the promise to fulfill. So limiting the pool of recipients of public good will inevitably result in less developed talent -> lower productivity -> less resources coming back into the public system. How did the idea of equal opportunity came to be in the first place? The countries which invested in universal education obtained huge technological advantage over others due to increased productivity.

[Figleaf]

Providing an acceptable level ofnjustice is one of the primary roles of society. If it doesn't, it invites conflict that disrupts safety and prosperity. Greater sensitivity to justice generally characterizes morr successful societies, while injustice pervades failed states. Consider the ineluctible fact of the WIIFM principle.

Is your supposition on the role of society opinion or did you derive that from somewhere?

It's a conclusion drawn from the available evidence.

Define "acceptable".

I don't mean a preset bright line. I mean it contextually.

If the purpose of mitigating injustice is to minimize conflict, then it is simply sufficient to provide enough access to justice so that people don't revolt.

Not merely minimize conflict. Rather minimize inefficiency resulting from conflicting methods and incentives.

Many societies which you would percieve as unjust have lasted far longer than our modern society without revolt.

I don't thing longevity is the measure I'd propose.

You misunderstand my example. I wasn't using the real Mozart, but rather a hypothetcal Mozart

who might have been denied the opportunity. Your complaint with the example does not unseat the principle.

... The real example contridicts your argument.

I don't see how.

In the real world there are numerious examples of successful individuals who succeeded despite the numerious obstacles you feel should be equalized.

And the optimal productivity of all those who didn't manage to surmount those arbitrary obstacles was lost.

[Renegade]

Here I have to disagree. Equal opportunity is more efficient in the long run than concentrating the resources on selected few. Why? Because, again, we never know beforehand who has the promise to fulfill. So limiting the pool of recipients of public good will inevitably result in less developed talent -> lower productivity -> less resources coming back into the public system. How did the idea of equal opportunity came to be in the first place? The countries which invested in universal education obtained huge technological advantage over others due to increased productivity.

In a sense we do concentrate resources on a select few. We use the public elementary and high school system to filter out who those few are, and then invest higher education in the select few.

As I pointed out before, what you call "equal opportunity" has the distinct goal of giving the Canadian population an advantage. It is an oxymoron to call a system who's goal is to create a privileged population, "equal opportunity". It would seem that as a population we are only for "equal opportunity" when it gives us an advantage.

[Figleaf]

In a sense we do concentrate resources on a select few. We use the public elementary and high school system to filter out who those few are, and then invest higher education in the select few.

That's okay. It accords with the merit principle. The higher education is the opportunity earned through the (presumed) equitably competitive elementary school.

[Renegade]

It's a conclusion drawn from the available evidence.

Go ahead, present the evidence you draw your conclusion from.

I don't mean a preset bright line. I mean it contextually.

Then it is arbitrary and subjective and what I may construe as acceptable may not be to another.

Not merely minimize conflict. Rather minimize inefficiency resulting from conflicting methods and incentives.

But it is only your theory not fact. In theory a socialist system, making eveyone equal works well. In practice, it falls apart. So if it is you contention that it minimizes inefficiency by providing equal opportunity to all, prove it.

I don't thing longevity is the measure I'd propose.

Me either, not as an absolute measure of a successful society anyway. I merely point it out to show that even in "unjust" societies internal conflict isn't inevitable.

And the optimal productivity of all those who didn't manage to surmount those arbitrary obstacles was lost.

Show me how you know what the optimal productivity of all the others is, and how you know they would have succeeded.

[Figleaf]

It's a conclusion drawn from the available evidence.

Go ahead, present the evidence you draw your conclusion from.

Before I do something so tedious, perhaps you could outline what the basis of your objection is.

I don't mean a preset bright line. I mean it contextually.

Then it is arbitrary and subjective and what I may construe as acceptable may not be to another.

It is neither arbitrary nor subjective. The rest of your sentence is correct, but not important to the issue.

So if it is you contention that it minimizes inefficiency by providing equal opportunity to all, prove it.

Clarify please -- What do you mean by 'it'?

I don't thing longevity is the measure I'd propose.

Me either, not as an absolute measure of a successful society anyway. I merely point it out to show that even in "unjust" societies internal conflict isn't inevitable.

Longevity doesn't disprove conflict or inefficiency. I'd challenge you to show me any unjust society without inefficiencies from conflicts of some kind.

And the optimal productivity of all those who didn't manage to surmount those arbitrary obstacles was lost.

Show me how you know what the optimal productivity of all the others is, and how you know they would have succeeded.

I don't need to quantify the loss to know it must be there. It stands to reason that if you are denied an opportunity that would have made you more productive that potential productivity is lost.

[Renegade]

Before I do something so tedious, perhaps you could outline what the basis of your objection is.

I've already told you. My objection is that I see no basis for your contention that "acceptable level ofnjustice is one of the primary roles of society". You've said it is based upon evidence. Show me that evidence.

It is neither arbitrary nor subjective.

If there is no objective definition for it, it is then subjective. I call it arbitrary, because subjective criteria are by definition arbitrary.

So if it is you contention that it minimizes inefficiency by providing equal opportunity to all, prove it.

Clarify please -- What do you mean by 'it'?

You have made the statement that reason for mitigating injustice is to "minimize inefficiency resulting from conflicting methods and incentives". From where do you draw this conclusion? How do you measure efficiency and productivity of a society to determine if it is productive. If an individual has a great talent for carpentry but chooses not to do it because it doesnt' give him job satisifaction, would you consider that wasteful?

Longevity doesn't disprove conflict or inefficiency. I'd challenge you to show me any unjust society without inefficiencies from conflicts of some kind.

No, you're correct, longevity doesn't disprove conflict, however it was not intended to present as proof. It is simply one characteristic of a stable society.

I know of no society which has no conflict. I also know of no just society. Lack of conflict doesn't prove efficiency. That is only your theory.

I don't need to quantify the loss to know it must be there. It stands to reason that if you are denied an opportunity that would have made you more productive that potential productivity is lost.

How do you know what those people would do? How do you know if it is any different that the course they actually followed? Bottom line is you don't. It is again nothing but an opinion on your part without supporting evidence. Even if you could quantify the loss, you would also have to show that the loss is greater than the investment required to give everyone the same opportunity.

[Renegade]

That's okay. It accords with the merit principle. The higher education is the opportunity earned through the (presumed) equitably competitive elementary school.

What if we took this further. For example, what if we tested kids at an early age for intrinsic abilities. Then only invested in those who demonstrated those abilities.

If we adopted this approach we may be overall more productive as a society, but at a cost of creating a huge split in the population between those we choose to invest in and those we don't.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Equality is a relative term. In an enlightened society it would be understood that in order to create an environment of equality the entire "social order" would have to be removed and decisions based upon blind factual information. Don't hold your breath waiting for this..........

[myata]

In a sense we do concentrate resources on a select few. We use the public elementary and high school system to filter out who those few are, and then invest higher education in the select few.

One can argue about equal opportunity w.r.t higher education. In my interpretation, the barrier is set to prevent waste of resources due to abuse, while still allowing pretty much everyone who really wants in.

Even if it were to be true, it doesn't mean that the principle is wrong, only that the society is lacking the resources to implement it to the full extent.

As I pointed out before, what you call "equal opportunity" has the distinct goal of giving the Canadian population an advantage. It is an oxymoron to call a system who's goal is to create a privileged population, "equal opportunity". It would seem that as a population we are only for "equal opportunity" when it gives us an advantage.

That's one way of looking at things. Another one is to discover better practices and technologies and share them with the world. Of which everyone will benefit. Just like engineers in India and China are enjoying the benefits of technologies developed elsewhere.

[Renegade]

One can argue about equal opportunity w.r.t higher education. In my interpretation, the barrier is set to prevent waste of resources due to abuse, while still allowing pretty much everyone who really wants in.

Even if it were to be true, it doesn't mean that the principle is wrong, only that the society is lacking the resources to implement it to the full extent.

What I'm pointing out is that there is no "obligation" for society to provide equal opportunity. It creates a minimium level based upon on practical considerations about the tolerable level of taxation which can be used to fund the system. When it reaches funding limits, it easily set aside "principles" to accomodate the tolerance of the taxpaying population.

That's one way of looking at things. Another one is to discover better practices and technologies and share them with the world. Of which everyone will benefit. Just like engineers in India and China are enjoying the benefits of technologies developed elsewhere.

How is it we don't want to apply that reasoning to within society? (ie let the wealthy and those with opportunities discover better practices and then share them with the rest of the community). I'll tell you why, it's because no matter what lip service we pay, we still want to maintain that competitive advantage.

[myata]

No, there's no obligation. But there's reason. By distributing public good to everyone, we can tap on greater pool of "possibility" - a chance for a new development that will bring new benefits to the society. More restrictive ones, simply by the rule of statistics will have smaller chance. Of course, all depends on how much "public good" a society can afford.

Regarding distribution of new knowledge, it does happen and every day. Just look around: the country isn't the same now as a few generations ago.

[Renegade]

No, there's no obligation. But there's reason. By distributing public good to everyone, we can tap on greater pool of "possibility" - a chance for a new development that will bring new benefits to the society. More restrictive ones, simply by the rule of statistics will have smaller chance. Of course, all depends on how much "public good" a society can afford.

As I said to Figleaf you need to show that what is generated by the pool of "possibility" is greater than the cost. It cost a huge amount to give everyone equal opportunity. Moreover the cost is not borne equally. So those who bear the cost have the right to ask, why am I paying, and how does the benefit flow to those who pay?

Regarding distribution of new knowledge, it does happen and every day. Just look around: the country isn't the same now as a few generations ago.

You haven't answered the question. Sure knowledge flows between generations, but you are advocating equal opportuities today. It is not like someone with advantages will create some great advancement, and you are willing to wait until the next generation of the disadvantaged makes use of it.

So I ask again. Why not apply that logic to Canadian Society? Let those with advantage create advancements and once they do, share those advancements with the disadvantaged?

[Figleaf]

Before I do something so tedious, perhaps you could outline what the basis of your objection is.

I've already told you. My objection is that I see no basis for your contention that "acceptable level ofnjustice is one of the primary roles of society". You've said it is based upon evidence. Show me that evidence.

That tells me what you object to, not the basis of it. Since the available evidence comprises the entirety of political history and about 1/8th of economic theory, some further specificity from you is required to make my response viable here. Or do you just want me to recommend some textbooks?

It is neither arbitrary nor subjective.

If there is no objective definition for it, it is then subjective. I call it arbitrary, because subjective criteria are by definition arbitrary.

It's not subjective. I think my usage of 'acceptable' has confused you. I don't mean 'acceptable according to a set standard'. I mean 'observed to have been acceptable'. Go back to my statement and swap in that formulation ... It should solve this difficulty.

(BTW, a subjective standard isn't necessarily arbitrary.)

You have made the statement that reason for mitigating injustice is to "minimize inefficiency resulting from conflicting methods and incentives". From where do you draw this conclusion?

The accumulated data of political and economic history assessed through the methods of logic and theory.

How do you measure efficiency and productivity of a society to determine if it is productive.

A. absolute wealth generated; B. wealth generated relative to resource utilization; C. wealth actually generated compared to the potential for wealth generation. Perhaps other methods could be useful.

If an individual has a great talent for carpentry but chooses not to do it because it doesnt' give him job satisifaction, would you consider that wasteful?

That depends on what (and how well) he ends up doing instead of carpentry. (Of course what to do about his preferences is a different question than whether it's wasteful.)

... you're correct, longevity doesn't disprove conflict, however it was not intended to present as proof. It is simply one characteristic of a stable society.

Okay ... But let's be careful about injecting 'stability' as a criterion now too.

... Lack of conflict doesn't prove efficiency. That is only your theory.

Not really. You put it in the positive there, whereas my observation is in the negative ... conflict is wasteful.

I don't need to quantify the loss to know it must be there. It stands to reason that if you are denied an opportunity that would have made you more productive that potential productivity is lost.

How do you know what those people would do?

I don't need to know. It is sufficient to assume that given greater productive potential some of that greater potential would be applied. This can be assumed based on the inherent incentives of production and consumption.

..., you ...have to show that the loss is greater than the investment required to give everyone the same opportunity.

True. In addition to the observable but diffuse evidence of political history it can be revealed through economic modeling.

..what if we tested kids at an early age for intrinsic abilities. Then only invested in those who demonstrated those abilities.

We'd probably have some real challenges formulating comprehensive and accurately predictive tests, but supposing it were possible, I'd expect that method would increase efficiency and therefore overall welfare (in the economic sense).

What I'm pointing out is that there is no "obligation" for society to provide equal opportunity.

That depends on the interpretation of obligation (as your use of quotes suggests).

Some people consider justice a desirable end in itself. In that view eq.opp. is desirable if it reduces injustice (or at least perceived injustice). Some people consider increased overall wealth a desirable end. In that view eq.opp. is desirable as it improves efficiency.

Of course people who hold a nihilistic or solipsistic view of society won't see these as desireable.

So those who bear the cost have the right to ask, why am I paying, and how does the benefit flow to those who pay?

Why do they have any such 'right'? It's equally (if not more) reasonable to ask what basis they can offer to deny paying up for equal opportunity. What benefit can they show society for their privileges?

e

[myata]

The simple answer is, the superiority of system with equally accessible social goods (education, medical assistance, etc) is proven by evolution. We started couple of centuries ago where there barely were any public goods. Now, among the countries of the "first world" i.e. those with highest standard of living, there's barely any that do not have extensive and equitable public system. What better proof do one need?

[Renegade]

That tells me what you object to, not the basis of it. Since the available evidence comprises the entirety of political history and about 1/8th of economic theory, some further specificity from you is required to make my response viable here. Or do you just want me to recommend some textbooks?

I don't see any factual basis for your claim that available evidence comes from political history. History of society has been a history of communities which have provided unequal access and that was accepted as the norm. Check the social structure of monarchies, of feudalism, of societies which condoned slavery, of imperialism. In fact virually all societies and their political structure have been based upon class hiercharcies which have provided unequal access.

Economic Theory is just that, theory, and not evidence. You claimed you had looked at the evidence and that was the basis of your statement. You have yet to provide any of that evidence.

Let me save you some struggle. You cannot come up with evidence to support your statement becaue it is an impossible question. The answer to the purposes of society are philosophical and subjective and cannot be supported by evidence, similar to asking the question, "what is the reason for my existance?".

It's not subjective. ... (BTW, a subjective standard isn't necessarily arbitrary.)

Here's what I mean by arbitary and why I use it in that context.

ar·bi·trar·y (är'bĭ-trĕr'ē)

adj.

Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference....

link

I think my usage of 'acceptable' has confused you. I don't mean 'acceptable according to a set standard'. I mean 'observed to have been acceptable'. Go back to my statement and swap in that formulation ... It should solve this difficulty.

It doesn't completely clear things up. "observed to have been acceptable" to whom? eveyone in society or just some?

The accumulated data of political and economic history assessed through the methods of logic and theory.

See my response to the first quote, it applies here as well.

A. absolute wealth generated; B. wealth generated relative to resource utilization; C. wealth actually generated compared to the potential for wealth generation. Perhaps other methods could be useful.

People in society may have goals other than wealth accumulation. (For example they may value happiness, they may value freedom). If you justify the structure of society simply along optimization of wealth, you will ignore those other goals.

All this to say, that there are many factors which are at play in justifying the existance and structure of a society. Some will conflict with others. There needs to be a balanced approach in order to address the multiple goals.

That depends on what (and how well) he ends up doing instead of carpentry. (Of course what to do about his preferences is a different question than whether it's wasteful.)

Anything he chooses to do will be wasteful because it may ignore some skills to the benefit of others. He may be simply maximizing his happiness. It is simplistic to say that "wasteful" is bad and any other course of action is "good".

I don't need to know. It is sufficient to assume that given greater productive potential some of that greater potential would be applied. This can be assumed based on the inherent incentives of production and consumption.

If denied their opportunity of choice, people don't just sit around and do nothing. They maximize the opportunities available to them. You need to show that their production in what they end up doing, is significantly less than the opportunity they are denied. Your statement above is based upon an assumption that they otherwise would sit idle.

True. In addition to the observable but diffuse evidence of political history it can be revealed through economic modeling.

You are back to the same obscure argument you made at the beginning about "political history" and economics being the basis of your statements.

Be specific on what evidence backs up your claims, othewise you are just evading the point.

That depends on the interpretation of obligation (as your use of quotes suggests).

Some people consider justice a desirable end in itself. In that view eq.opp. is desirable if it reduces injustice (or at least perceived injustice). Some people consider increased overall wealth a desirable end. In that view eq.opp. is desirable as it improves efficiency.

Of course people who hold a nihilistic or solipsistic view of society won't see these as desireable.

OK, I can accept that, but your answer shows that the ends are subjective. I consider it an injustice to extort money to fund programs. My desireable end would be to minimize the coercion involved in society.

Why do they have any such 'right'? It's equally (if not more) reasonable to ask what basis they can offer to deny paying up for equal opportunity. What benefit can they show society for their privileges?

I didn't phrase that well. I mean they "should have the right". Of course since the money is forcibly taken from them, it is unlikely that those doing the taking, pay any heed to what the suppliers of the funding ask.

Your question on how they can justify deny paying, leads back to my early comment on the purpose of society. They should be allowed to deny paying if it is not a goal of society to provide equal opportunity.

Of course a society which forcibly extorts funding is not easily going to deny the victims of its extortion a means to escape.

[JerrySeinfeld]

For all the naive on this site: Life ain't fair. Who ever said it would be? Live with it.

[Renegade]

The simple answer is, the superiority of system with equally accessible social goods (education, medical assistance, etc) is proven by evolution. We started couple of centuries ago where there barely were any public goods. Now, among the countries of the "first world" i.e. those with highest standard of living, there's barely any that do not have extensive and equitable public system. What better proof do one need?

I'm not convinced with this reasoning. Citizens of Dubai and Kuwait have a far better standard of living than here or any first world country I know. Their standard of living is based upon resource wealth not public social equity. I submit this to you because you cannot use high standard of living to show cause and effect.

The advancement in standards of living over the last several centuries have been thorough the accumulation of technology and knowledge. It is only your assumption that it is because of an "extensive and equitable public system". You do not factor other reasons.

The other thing I want to point out is that not everyone's standard of living got better. If we look at many thrid world countries, many of their professionals live a much more comfortable lives than a similarly employed professional in the "first world". For them, forcing investment in an "extensive and equitable public system" results in a lowered standard of living.

[Figleaf]

That tells me what you object to, not the basis of it. Since the available evidence comprises the entirety of political history and about 1/8th of economic theory, some further specificity from you is required to make my response viable here. Or do you just want me to recommend some textbooks?

I don't see any factual basis for your claim that available evidence comes from political history. History of society has been a history of communities which have provided unequal access and that was accepted as the norm. Check the social structure of monarchies, of feudalism, of societies which condoned slavery, of imperialism. In fact virually all societies and their political structure have been based upon class hiercharcies which have provided unequal access.

My original comment was: "Providing an acceptable level of justice is one of the primary roles of society. If it doesn't, it invites conflict that disrupts safety and prosperity. Greater sensitivity to justice generally characterizes morr successful societies, while injustice pervades failed states. Consider the ineluctible fact of the WIIFM principle."

The evidence in support of that comment is: A- every society known to history has had a method for determining disputes, ergo it is one of the primary roles. In fact, agglomerations of people without such methods scarcely qualify as societies at all. Dispute resolution/accommodation of interests is practically a sine qua non of a society. B- the clear trend of economic development co-incides with improvements in both the consistency of the rule of law, and the accessibility of justice for every member of society. Past societies (with substantially lower wealth levels than we experience today) we less accomplished in the measures of consistency and accessibility of justice. Societies today with lower levels of wealth (e.g. Somalia) are also characterized by less reliable and accessible justice compared to wealthier societies (e.g. Luxembourg).

Economic Theory is just that, theory, and not evidence.

Economic theory explains why improved justice (and improved equality of opportunity) yields more efficient and wealthier societies. The main economic issues are:

-more reliable justice allows traders to trust the outcomes of their transactions, thereby inducing more transactions at lower transaction cost.

-equal opportunity increases the potential number and quality of participants in wealth enhancing activities.

I think my usage of 'acceptable' has confused you. I don't mean 'acceptable according to a set standard'. I mean 'observed to have been acceptable'. Go back to my statement and swap in that formulation ... It should solve this difficulty.

It doesn't completely clear things up. "observed to have been acceptable" to whom? eveyone in society or just some?

Observed to have been acceptable enough to that the society could function persistently for some meaningful period of time.

How do you measure efficiency and productivity of a society to determine if it is productive.

A. absolute wealth generated; B. wealth generated relative to resource utilization; C. wealth actually generated compared to the potential for wealth generation. Perhaps other methods could be useful.

People in society may have goals other than wealth accumulation. (For example they may value happiness, they may value freedom). If you justify the structure of society simply along optimization of wealth, you will ignore those other goals.

You asked a specific question and I gave you the specific answer. Your reply is a change of direction. I don't justify the structure of society entirely on economic grounds.

How do you know what [people denied the opportunity to reach their potential] would do?

I don't need to know. It is sufficient to assume that given greater productive potential some of that greater potential would be applied. This can be assumed based on the inherent incentives of production and consumption.

If denied their opportunity of choice, people don't just sit around and do nothing. They maximize the opportunities available to them. You need to show that their production in what they end up doing, is significantly less than the opportunity they are denied. Your statement above is based upon an assumption that they otherwise would sit idle.

It is not based on them sitting idle, it is based on them being denied the best possible use of their potential. If they are denied the best use, any other use is second best (or worse) and represents a loss.

That depends on the interpretation of obligation (as your use of quotes suggests).

Some people consider justice a desirable end in itself. In that view eq.opp. is desirable if it reduces injustice (or at least perceived injustice). Some people consider increased overall wealth a desirable end. In that view eq.opp. is desirable as it improves efficiency.

Of course people who hold a nihilistic or solipsistic view of society won't see these as desireable.

OK, I can accept that, but your answer shows that the ends are subjective. I consider it an injustice to extort money to fund programs. My desireable end would be to minimize the coercion involved in society.

Well, I wonder what you mean by coercion. If one kid steals another kid's backpack, is it coercive if the school principle forces its return?

So those who bear the cost have the right to ask, why am I paying, and how does the benefit flow to those who pay?

Why do they have any such 'right'? It's equally (if not more) reasonable to ask what basis they can offer to deny paying up for equal opportunity. What benefit can they show society for their privileges?

I didn't phrase that well. I mean they "should have the right". Of course since the money is forcibly taken from them, ...

I don't think your change clears up the problem. For it to be wrong to take the money, there must be some right for them to retain it. What or who says the money is theirs at all?

[Renegade]

The evidence in support of that comment is: A- every society known to history has had a method for determining disputes, ergo it is one of the primary roles. In fact, agglomerations of people without such methods scarcely qualify as societies at all. Dispute resolution/accommodation of interests is practically a sine qua non of a society. B- the clear trend of economic development co-incides with improvements in both the consistency of the rule of law, and the accessibility of justice for every member of society. Past societies (with substantially lower wealth levels than we experience today) we less accomplished in the measures of consistency and accessibility of justice. Societies today with lower levels of wealth (e.g. Somalia) are also characterized by less reliable and accessible justice compared to wealthier societies (e.g. Luxembourg).

If by "justice" you mean dispute resolution mechnisms, then I agree. If by "justice" you mean a system of broader redressing of inequities then I disagree. Maybe you can specify which you mean.

-more reliable justice allows traders to trust the outcomes of their transactions, thereby inducing more transactions at lower transaction cost.

Again, only if you mean by "justice", dispute resolution.

-equal opportunity increases the potential number and quality of participants in wealth enhancing activities.

Even if we accept this statement at face value, the issue remains that those who are force to fund the equality of opportunity are not necessarily the ones who are the beneficiaries of the wealth enhancing activities. So why should they agree to do so?

It is not based on them sitting idle, it is based on them being denied the best possible use of their potential. If they are denied the best use, any other use is second best (or worse) and represents a loss.

First, you assume that everyone if provided the opportunity will choose a course of action which makes the best possible use of their potential. This is simply not so. I know several people who simply work so that they can earn enough to bum around and travel until the money runs out. There are many other factors other than simply presenting people with opportunity. Second, you have not shown that the loss is outweighed by the cost of providing equal opportunity.

Well, I wonder what you mean by coercion. If one kid steals another kid's backpack, is it coercive if the school principle forces its return?

Yes, the principal would have used coercion in your example. In your example is easy to justify coercion as it is applied to redress a greviance initiated by criminal activity. What would be the analogous criminal activity in society?

For it to be wrong to take the money, there must be some right for them to retain it. What or who says the money is theirs at all?

This is the nut of the matter isn't it? My view is that earned wealth is the personal property of the earner. Your view is that it somehow belongs to society. All conclusions stem from that presumption. How do you prove which one of us is right?