A prominent line during the campaign season was that conservatives/republicans supported "Equal Opportunity and Not Equal Outcome." The presumption was that democrats/liberals on the other hand support income-leveling and seeking more equal outcomes.

So I ask,

1. Do you think all people in the United States have an equal opportunity to achieve success/become wealthy/pursue their happiness?

2. If not, how do conservatives propose improving opportunity?

3. Even public schools, universities, vouchers, Milton Friedman's negative income tax, etc. require some wealth redistribution. Is that morally acceptable?

1. No.
2. Reforming public schooling.
3. Yes.

1. No
2. "Republicans" not conservatives. Sorry, a conservative is not the same as a Republican, would propose a solution. Democrats would then propose a counter solution. They would argue and come up with a terrible plan that is not a solution. They would pass that with 40 billion dollars of pork.
3. Does morals having anything to do with anything in this situation?

1. In how it applies to protected classifications, yes. Otherwise, no. I would argue that to do so would be to deny any personal benefit to progress.
2. This is something I think only communities can answer, as answers will differ from place to place.
3. Yes, but only at a community level.

ccrunner609;1376460 wrote:1. Yes all people can reach a certain level of success (do better then their parents)
2. Unless conservatives have to actually go to kids houses and make them study or do what their parents are supposed to do then it doesnt matter. Its not a LIb/Pub thing, its a parents need to do something thing.
3. I feel that everyone should pay into or be part of the system and not drain its resources. If we had a national consumer tax would be the first step to making a fair system.

1. Does a man in Africa getting a "double wide hut" mean he is a success because his parents had a single wide?

1. No.
2. Get the government out of the business of granting favors to their crony buddies, all of them, including the bankers.
3. Taking someone's property by force is morally reprehensible in every case, no matter the reason.

rydawg5;1376470 wrote:1. Does a man in Africa getting a "double wide hut" mean he is a success because his parents had a single wide?

Ah ... the Botswana Balla!

ccrunner609;1376474 wrote:WTF does that even mean and how is that relevant?

It means that "doing better than your parents" doesn't mean success at all.

rydawg5;1376470 wrote:1. Does a man in Africa getting a "double wide hut" mean he is a success because his parents had a single wide?

Well. I would definitely say yes. Moving on up is....moving on up.

rydawg5;1376490 wrote:It means that "doing better than your parents" doesn't mean success at all.

Disagree. But let me add that today's generation is the first generation in America that collectively are doing worse than their parents.

O-Trap;1376476 wrote:Ah ... the Botswana Balla!

Looks to me that the guy as your avatar just scored himself some doublewide.

Footwedge;1376508 wrote:Disagree. But let me add that today's generation is the first generation in America that collectively are doing worse than their parents.

Which is "today's generation?" Aren't there multiple generations currently alive?

Footwedge;1376508 wrote:Disagree. But let me add that today's generation is the first generation in America that collectively are doing worse than their parents.

So if my parents take $2,220 of welfare per month, and I take $1895 of welfare per month, I'm successful?

1. Yes anyone want to talk about given away at birth, growing up poor, living in housing projects, welfare, dylexia, public education, juvenile detention future to failure ...... But that was not an option

2. Entitlement with standards and goals with a defined progression of accomplishing an end to support.

3. Wealth distribution really .... Take what I have earned and someone else has pissed away .... What aspect of that is fair. You want what wealth can bring, work for it and what level wealth you achieved, you will be proud and respect your accomplishment.

At what point might we say that everyone has an equal opportunity???

BoatShoes;1376534 wrote:At what point might we say that everyone has an equal opportunity???

When everyone's property rights are completely and totally upheld.

Cleveland Buck;1376547 wrote:When everyone's property rights are completely and totally upheld.

I think it's pretty clear that people with no claims to property over which they would have rights would not have the same opportunity as those who were born with claims over property.

But,

Kind of off-topic; Suppose when you turned 18, became an adult, first started working....at some ordained time, the state presented would be adult citizens with the opportunity to objectively assent to taxation of some kind? How would you feel about such an arrangement?

BoatShoes;1376551 wrote:I think it's pretty clear that people with no claims to property over which they would have rights would not have the same opportunity as those who were born with claims over property.

What kinds of properties are people born with? I'm not attacking the statement. Just looking for clarification as to what you mean.

BoatShoes;1376551 wrote:Kind of off-topic; Suppose when you turned 18, became an adult, first started working....at some ordained time, the state presented would be adult citizens with the opportunity to objectively assent to taxation of some kind? How would you feel about such an arrangement?

I honestly would not mind it at the local level. To be totally honest, I don't mind MOST tax decided on at a local level.

"What kinds of properties are people born with? I'm not attacking the statement. Just looking for clarification as to what you mean."

I've read it a dozen times and still have no idea what its supposed to mean. People are born with certain advantages, whether it is athletic (LeBron James) or wealth (kids of LeBron James) or superior intellect or something else. This isn't a Harrison Bergeron society where everyone is guaranteed equal anything which only brings us to the lowest common denominator.

What grinds my gears is the idea that some people focus on what opportunities or advantages that people are "born" with, as opposed to the advantages, opportunities or the work that people sacrifice to give their children said opportunities or advantages. Why should successful parents be punished for wanting the best for their own children? If we make the right decisions with our families, why should we have to accept mediocrity for all?

Manhattan Buckeye;1376583 wrote:... or wealth (kids of LeBron James) ...

Here's the thing: The kids of LeBron will likely have a nice raising, but nothing guarantees them a cent of that money beyond the 18 years at home. A wealthy parent who insists that his/her children make their own way is not totally uncommon. Yet the child is assumed to have been "born wealthy" because his or her parents are wealthy, when in fact, they might not necessarily benefit from that wealth in any way as an adult. A wealthy couple can easily send their child to public school, make them ride the bus until they can buy their own car, make them responsible for their own college schooling, and even make them pay for their own cell phone. Even potentially make them move out when they turn 18.

That child was "born wealthy" as much as any, but I daresay they really have no more opportunity than someone from a family considerably less wealthy.

See, they have no "property" that they are born with, at least as far as I can see.

However, I don't know if that was what BoatShoes meant, and I'd hate to put words in his mouth, which was why I asked for clarification.

Manhattan Buckeye;1376583 wrote:What grinds my gears is the idea that some people focus on what opportunities or advantages that people are "born" with, as opposed to the advantages, opportunities or the work that people sacrifice to give their children said opportunities or advantages. Why should successful parents be punished for wanting the best for their own children? If we make the right decisions with our families, why should we have to accept mediocrity for all?

It's the 'Murican way.

O-Trap;1376561 wrote:What kinds of properties are people born with? I'm not attacking the statement. Just looking for clarification as to what you mean.

Well, if we were to take it to the extreme...You have a prince and a pauper....the son of the sovereign who owns all property and then a pauper. If the Prince were guaranteed protection of his property rights...it seems pretty clear that the pauper doesn't have similar opportunity.

Ultimate point, there does seem to be somewhere along the line wherein the guaranteed protection of 100% of claims to property ensures that there isn't equal opportunity. Whether we have breached that threshold is another story.

Manhattan Buckeye;1376583 wrote:some people focus on what opportunities or advantages that people are "born" with, as opposed to the advantages, opportunities or the work that people sacrifice to give their children said opportunities or advantages.

Yeah, a pretty successful friend of mine has been doing consulting his whole life. The Mon-Thurs routine and averaging close to 70hrs/wk. Should he apologize or feel guilty for the money he makes? He made his choice, just like his friends who settled for nice corporate jobs working 40 hrs per week and home every night.

And to you point about parents....What about parents who pay for their kids school? Is that an "unfair" advantage? Ignoring the fact that college loans are pretty stinkin' cheap and easy to get, those same parents could have just have easily foregone that choice in favor of a second home or lavish vacations.

Redistribution IMO is not about basic necessities, as it should be, but entitlement to material possessions. People would like to have insurance, but you don't really want it until you need it and most uninsured don't want to give up a nicer car, a nicer house, the big screen tv and smartphone to pay out-of-pocket.

Manhattan Buckeye;1376583 wrote:"What kinds of properties are people born with? I'm not attacking the statement. Just looking for clarification as to what you mean."

I've read it a dozen times and still have no idea what its supposed to mean. People are born with certain advantages, whether it is athletic (LeBron James) or wealth (kids of LeBron James) or superior intellect or something else. This isn't a Harrison Bergeron society where everyone is guaranteed equal anything which only brings us to the lowest common denominator.

What grinds my gears is the idea that some people focus on what opportunities or advantages that people are "born" with, as opposed to the advantages, opportunities or the work that people sacrifice to give their children said opportunities or advantages. Why should successful parents be punished for wanting the best for their own children? If we make the right decisions with our families, why should we have to accept mediocrity for all?

Do you think that certain types of wealth redistribution like public schooling or public universities to improve opportunities of the non-Harrison Bergerons amounts to handicapping the Harrison Bergerons?

I don't feel like conservatives who strive to create an opportunity society...which necessitates at least minimal wealth redistribution...would consider themselves to be handicapping naturally advantaged/talented/etc.

BoatShoes;1376588 wrote:.it seems pretty clear that the pauper doesn't have similar opportunity.

The pauper might not be able to afford property in the big city, so if that's his desire he can move to a smaller town or in the country where he can afford it.

Everyone is born with property, their bodies. After that some may be given more from their parents than others, but in a free society where buying politicians does you no good, everyone would have to perform to survive, and the better you perform the more successful you are. That is equal opportunity.