Is equality a bad thing?

[Nua Corda]

Except that's not how it works, because the goal is to give both the opportunity to do well, not force one person down to build another up.

Everyone in America has opportunity, though. There are no laws saying that a certain group can't go to school and better themselves. Opportunity isn't the probem. The problem for those that preach equality is that opportunity is not working fast enough, so they need to resort to more sinister means to quell those that do succeed. Look at taxes on the rich and it will fit in with the school metaphor I just gave. You tax those that succeed and give it to those that fail. Where is the incentive to succeed if you are just going to face crippling taxes for it?

Not being a trust fund baby =! failing.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Except that's not how it works, because the goal is to give both the opportunity to do well, not force one person down to build another up.

Everyone in America has opportunity, though. There are no laws saying that a certain group can't go to school and better themselves. Opportunity isn't the probem. The problem for those that preach equality is that opportunity is not working fast enough, so they need to resort to more sinister means to quell those that do succeed. Look at taxes on the rich and it will fit in with the school metaphor I just gave. You tax those that succeed and give it to those that fail. Where is the incentive to succeed if you are just going to face crippling taxes for it?

Opportunity is the problem, sorry to say.

A school in New York City has a student to teacher ratio of 45:1.
A school in an affluent suburb of Norman has a student to teacher ratio of 23:1.

Those are not, in any way, equal opportunities for those children.

[America Resurgent]

It would also require inheritance to be banned, and a whole lot of other things that make libertarians cry.

Pure equality of opportunity, yeah.

Equality of opportunity in the sense that a lack of an inheritance isn't going to prevent you from succeeding? No.

[Morganutopia]

Except that's not how it works, because the goal is to give both the opportunity to do well, not force one person down to build another up.

Everyone in America has opportunity, though. There are no laws saying that a certain group can't go to school and better themselves. Opportunity isn't the probem. The problem for those that preach equality is that opportunity is not working fast enough, so they need to resort to more sinister means to quell those that do succeed. Look at taxes on the rich and it will fit in with the school metaphor I just gave. You tax those that succeed and give it to those that fail. Where is the incentive to succeed if you are just going to face crippling taxes for it?

yes it needs a flat tax of 19% income 3% to local gov.
and speend more on school from more than home onwers.

[America Resurgent]

Opportunity is the problem, sorry to say.

A school in New York City has a student to teacher ratio of 45:1.
A school in an affluent suburb of Norman has a student to teacher ratio of 23:1.

Those are not, in any way, equal opportunities for those children.

I actually don't buy the idea that teacher size is what counts, actually. More "social climate generally unhelpful to those wanting to succeed academically" vs. "social climate that somewhat supports performance".

But enh, quibbling.

[Nua Corda]

It would also require inheritance to be banned, and a whole lot of other things that make libertarians cry.

Pure equality of opportunity, yeah.

Equality of opportunity in the sense that a lack of an inheritance isn't going to prevent you from succeeding? No.

A true meritocracy would require that everyone start perfectly equal. Thus, no inheritance, no help from parents with school, jobs, etc.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Opportunity is the problem, sorry to say.

A school in New York City has a student to teacher ratio of 45:1.
A school in an affluent suburb of Norman has a student to teacher ratio of 23:1.

Those are not, in any way, equal opportunities for those children.

I actually don't buy the idea that teacher size is what counts, actually. More "social climate generally unhelpful to those wanting to succeed academically" vs. "social climate that somewhat supports performance".

But enh, quibbling.

If you have 480 minutes in a day with which to use on the kids, and you want to provide attention to each individual student's needs to help them academically:

You have less time with 45 than you do with 23.

It's math.

[Ruridova]

In moderation.

[America Resurgent]

A true meritocracy would require that everyone start perfectly equal. Thus, no inheritance, no help from parents with school, jobs, etc.

This is true, but you can have elements of meritocracy without having the whole thing.

[The New Sea Territory]

Do you think equality is a good or bad thing?

I think it is a very bad thing. It discourages people from working hard, and it unfairly benefits the poor at the expense of the rich.

Thoughts?

I'm reading Atlas Shrugged right now, and have seen the movie. That depiction of equality is bad, and feeds the parasite. But I believe everyone should have the same natural rights and are equal in the eyes of the Law. But nothing else.

[7 Deadly Sins]

It more of a double edged sword if you ask me. If you have have equality then the poor become richer at the expanse of the upper to middle class people, however if you don't have it then it allows people to become richer at the expanse of the middle to lower class people. But then again this is what minimal wage is for.

[The Emerald Dawn]

It more of a double edged sword if you ask me. If you have have equality then the poor become richer at the expanse of the upper to middle class people, however if you don't have it then it allows people to become richer at the expanse of the middle to lower class people. But then again this is what minimal wage is for.

Except that isn't how it works, and if you read the thread, you'll learn why.

[Gravlen]

"Equal treatment under the law"
is good pay has not a thing to do how the gov shod treat you

bob makes 1,000,000 a day he kills a man he go's to jail.
Jill makes 50 a day she kills a man he go's to jail.

that is equality that is good.

Except, things in the real world aren't that simple.
Consider this;

Bob owns a seed company. We'll call it Yawnsanto. Totally not a jab at Monsanto. No, not at all.

Jill is a farmer.

Jill saves her best seeds every year, and plants them in the spring. She doesn't need to buy seed.

Since Bob and Yawnsanto make hundreds of billions of dollars a year, they can afford to lobby congress to make a law that protects Yawnsanto's GMO seeds as intellectual property.

Some of Jill's neighbors are new to farming, and don't have heirloom seeds like Jill. So, they buy seeds from Yawnsanto. Some of those seeds blow into Jill's fields.

Bob sues Jill for violating his intellectual property.

Since, again, Bob and Yawnsanto make billions of dollars a year, they can afford to hire expensive lawyers, and either they win their case, or they make it drag on so long that Jill either has to settle with them or go bankrupt from legal fees.

Jill is now forced to buy new seed every year from Yawnsanto. Her neighbors either get the same treatment, or are so scared that they comply as well.

How is this fair?

*hint; it isn't*

I struck out everything based on a hypothetical assumption. Since no law or jurisdiction is specified, the outcome isn't a given, especially considering the potential counter-suit by Jill.

[The New Sea Territory]

It more of a double edged sword if you ask me. If you have have equality then the poor become richer at the expanse of the upper to middle class people, however if you don't have it then it allows people to become richer at the expanse of the middle to lower class people. But then again this is what minimal wage is for.

Yep. So moderate equality, as in very little, is good. But when a government pretends to be Robin Hood, or Robbing for Hoodlums, then we should question equality.

[Souseiseki]

Everyone in America has opportunity, though. There are no laws saying that a certain group can't go to school and better themselves.

but is an undeniable fact that some people are going to have access to shit schools and some aren't. i mean, assuming your parents aren't beating the shit out of you.

You tax those that succeed and give it to those that fail. Where is the incentive to succeed if you are just going to face crippling taxes for it?

if your income is subject to higher income taxes, then your income is higher. there is no point at which the tax brackets will result in you taking less money home. are you going to say there is no incentive to make more money?

[The New Sea Territory]

Everyone in America has opportunity, though. There are no laws saying that a certain group can't go to school and better themselves.

but is an undeniable fact that some people are going to have access to shit schools and some aren't. i mean, assuming your parents aren't beating the shit out of you.

Well, abusing children happens. We need to stop it, but's thats a different debate.

You tax those that succeed and give it to those that fail. Where is the incentive to succeed if you are just going to face crippling taxes for it?

if your income is subject to higher income taxes, then your income is higher. there is no point at which the tax brackets will result in you taking less money home. are you going to say there is no incentive to make more money?

But when someone who makes 50k pays 10% and someone who makes 100k pays almost 50%, that's a little different, as in you're taking half of someone's money.

[The New Sea Territory]

Everyone in America has opportunity, though. There are no laws saying that a certain group can't go to school and better themselves. Opportunity isn't the probem. The problem for those that preach equality is that opportunity is not working fast enough, so they need to resort to more sinister means to quell those that do succeed. Look at taxes on the rich and it will fit in with the school metaphor I just gave. You tax those that succeed and give it to those that fail. Where is the incentive to succeed if you are just going to face crippling taxes for it?

Opportunity is the problem, sorry to say.

A school in New York City has a student to teacher ratio of 45:1.
A school in an affluent suburb of Norman has a student to teacher ratio of 23:1.

Those are not, in any way, equal opportunities for those children.

Congrats. If you want "better" opportunities, then move to somewhere else. If that school is bad, then don't go there.

IT may involve moving, which *gasp* requires work.

[The Emerald Dawn]

but is an undeniable fact that some people are going to have access to shit schools and some aren't. i mean, assuming your parents aren't beating the shit out of you.

Well, abusing children happens. We need to stop it, but's thats a different debate.

if your income is subject to higher income taxes, then your income is higher. there is no point at which the tax brackets will result in you taking less money home. are you going to say there is no incentive to make more money?

But when someone who makes 50k pays 10% and someone who makes 100k pays almost 50%, that's a little different, as in you're taking half of someone's money.

Except that's not how taxes work in America.

They'd pay 10% up to 50k, 15% from 50.1k to 75k, and on up until they were taxed at appropriate levels.

You'd know this if you read the tax code.

[United Great Lake States and Provinces]

I recently read the book 1984 so equality can be an incredibly disastrous thing (yes I know it is a novel not an essay but still it matters). Obviously Utopia is a surreal pipe-dream with no hope of ever becoming reality. So what is the answer to our problem here? Well I don't think there is an answer truly, Ayn Rand is right and so is Karl Marx without one the other would be a nightmare I think that until humanity reaches it's zenith of thought and science then and only then can we live in one doctrine of social ideology, but till then we must pursue a balance of selflessness and selfishness. I support the latter.

[Souseiseki]

But when someone who makes 50k pays 10% and someone who makes 100k pays almost 50%, that's a little different, as in you're taking half of someone's money.

is there anywhere that actually happens

though for the record taking 50% of 10,000 and taking 50% of 1,000,000,000 would be very very different

e: also yes how taxes actually work is pretty important.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Opportunity is the problem, sorry to say.

A school in New York City has a student to teacher ratio of 45:1.
A school in an affluent suburb of Norman has a student to teacher ratio of 23:1.

Those are not, in any way, equal opportunities for those children.

Congrats. If you want "better" opportunities, then move to somewhere else. If that school is bad, then don't go there.

IT may involve moving, which *gasp* requires work.

...you're not very good at this sarcasm thing. Kinda failish.

See, the people who go to these schools are there because that's where the work is. If there were jobs for them that fit their skill sets elsewhere, they'd likely move there. But unless, to use Seattle as an example, Boeing decides to move to somewhere with better schools, Boeing is where they will have to live to work in their profession.

[Souseiseki]

Opportunity is the problem, sorry to say.

A school in New York City has a student to teacher ratio of 45:1.
A school in an affluent suburb of Norman has a student to teacher ratio of 23:1.

Those are not, in any way, equal opportunities for those children.

Congrats. If you want "better" opportunities, then move to somewhere else. If that school is bad, then don't go there.

IT may involve moving, which *gasp* requires work.

because moving is like, totes easy, right?

[Nua Corda]

Except, things in the real world aren't that simple.
Consider this;

Bob owns a seed company. We'll call it Yawnsanto. Totally not a jab at Monsanto. No, not at all.

Jill is a farmer.

Jill saves her best seeds every year, and plants them in the spring. She doesn't need to buy seed.

Since Bob and Yawnsanto make hundreds of billions of dollars a year, they can afford to lobby congress to make a law that protects Yawnsanto's GMO seeds as intellectual property.

Some of Jill's neighbors are new to farming, and don't have heirloom seeds like Jill. So, they buy seeds from Yawnsanto. Some of those seeds blow into Jill's fields.

Bob sues Jill for violating his intellectual property.

Since, again, Bob and Yawnsanto make billions of dollars a year, they can afford to hire expensive lawyers, and either they win their case, or they make it drag on so long that Jill either has to settle with them or go bankrupt from legal fees.

Jill is now forced to buy new seed every year from Yawnsanto. Her neighbors either get the same treatment, or are so scared that they comply as well.

How is this fair?

*hint; it isn't*

I struck out everything based on a hypothetical assumption. Since no law or jurisdiction is specified, the outcome isn't a given, especially considering the potential counter-suit by Jill.

Except that an extremely rich company can afford to outspend Jill in legal fees. So, they can postpone the trial, drag out the proceedings, etc. etc. untill Jill is bleed dry. This happens in real life, all the time. Very, very, very rarely does a farmer win. And even then, they're usually bankrupt.

Jurisdiction is irrelevant; GMO and seed-cleaning laws are commerce-clause enabled federal laws.

[Hurdegaryp]

Except that an extremely rich company can afford to outspend Jill in legal fees. So, they can postpone the trial, drag out the proceedings, etc. etc. untill Jill is bleed dry. This happens in real life, all the time. Very, very, very rarely does a farmer win. And even then, they're usually bankrupt.

Jurisdiction is irrelevant; GMO and seed-cleaning laws are commerce-clause enabled federal laws.

All those cyberpunk novels that spoke of a corrupt and depraved world dominated by the megacorporations were more than just entertainment, then... unfortunately.

[Stanisburg]

Except that's not how it works, because the goal is to give both the opportunity to do well, not force one person down to build another up.

Everyone in America has opportunity, though. There are no laws saying that a certain group can't go to school and better themselves. Opportunity isn't the probem. The problem for those that preach equality is that opportunity is not working fast enough, so they need to resort to more sinister means to quell those that do succeed. Look at taxes on the rich and it will fit in with the school metaphor I just gave. You tax those that succeed and give it to those that fail. Where is the incentive to succeed if you are just going to face crippling taxes for it?

This is rather zero-sum logic, though. There's no reason overall productivity can't go up at the same time that the gap between higher and lower incomes gets smaller. All you need is a system that ensures gains in productivity are evenly distributed in the form of higher incomes. The U.S. pulled this trick off nicely after World War II via laws protecting trade unions. We've moving in the opposite direction since then, with a higher percentage of economic growth accruing to a smaller percentage of the population.

NS seems to give you a choice between social equality and economic growth, and it's a common Libertarian canard to think economies actually work that way. In reality economics is much more complex than that. They're mostly two independent variables. (Look at Germany--powerful unions, a massive welfare state, and they're still in a better position than we are economically, with their biggest worry being defaults on the part of countries who owe them money--basically it's because they played their cards right to have trading advantages over the rest of the EU, so they can afford to pay for their welfare state and high wages using the profits they're making from international trade.)