BoatShoes;1376592 wrote: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.

I don't mind either, as long as they are effective and efficient. They generally are neither. They suffer from administrative bloat, paybacks to special interests, and milking the government teat (particularly, the latter).

From a dollar perspective, we continue to spend more and more on primary and secondary education, and subsidize debt for post-secondary education for little value. We have a generation that will be in debt their entire lives (unless they get a bail-out, which I predict will happen in Obama's second term) with fewer opportunities at a real career. At some point it doesn't make sense to be in debt $75,000 to get a degree in Sub-Saharan African Studies.

rydawg5;1376516 wrote:So if my parents take $2,220 of welfare per month, and I take $1895 of welfare per month, I'm successful?

What? Have no idea what your point is.

O-Trap;1376511 wrote:Which is "today's generation?" Aren't there multiple generations currently alive?

Today's generation is Sleeper's generation. Sleeper's parents' generation have done better...and will continue to do better than junior.

That's a direct product of 25/30 years of outsourcing, accumulating national debt, and a country that went from the greatest creditor nation (net exporter) to the greatest debtor nation(net importer).

I know you don't agree with that...but the numbers match up....and they certainly don't lie.

BoatShoes;1376588 wrote: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.

I think the issue is that we try to paint with too broad a brush, both on children of those with much and children of those with little, as well as anything in between.

As an example:

A son of parents whose combined income is about $160,000 a year wants to go to the same school as his friend, whose parents make a combined income of about $60,000 a year. Ultimately, neither son owns any rights to his parents' income. Thus, assuming the sons don't have jobs, they each have an income of $0 a year.

Now, the son whose parents make $80,000 find a way to pay for $4,000 of their son's schooling each year. The other parents decide to allow their son to own his education outright, and if he wishes to go to the university in question, he must pay for it.

The son with the parents who make half as much is in better standing. The son whose parents make more doesn't have any more property than the son whose parents have less.

Parents' ownership doesn't equate son's ownership. Doesn't matter if the sovereign owns billions inherently, because legally, it belongs to the sovereign. Not the son.

Footwedge;1376611 wrote:Today's generation is Sleeper's generation. Sleeper's parents' generation have done better...and will continue to do better than junior.

That's a direct product of 25/30 years of outsourcing, accumulating national debt, and a country that went from the greatest creditor nation (net exporter) to the greatest debtor nation(net importer).

I know you don't agree with that...but the numbers match up....and they certainly don't lie.

I'm not sure I inherently disagree with any of it. Not sure which part you thought I disagreed with. Perhaps the outsourcing? I believe there are indeed negative effects of outsourcing.

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

Answer: YES because success and happiness are relative. If I'm from "the welfare projects" and apply myself even in my "poor" inner-city public schrewl, graduate, and find a reasonable job then I get off welfare and contribute to society. I'd call that a modicum of "success."

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

Answer: Downsize Big Government.

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

Answer: While there are a relative few in society that truly need public assistance, it is morally unacceptable to confiscate wealth from the producers and redistribute that wealth to those who can be productive but choose not to contribute. Over-reaching Big Government has created an unnecessary welfare state designed almost entirely to "justify" the power and intrusiveness of government.

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

Answer: YES because success and happiness are relative. If - for obvious example - I'm from "the welfare projects" and apply myself even in my "poor" inner-city public schrewl, graduate, and find a reasonable job then I get off welfare and contribute to society. I'd call that a modicum of "success."

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

Answer: Downsize Big Government.

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

Answer: While there are a relative few in society that truly need public assistance, it is morally unacceptable to confiscate wealth from the producers and redistribute that wealth to those who can be productive but choose not to contribute. Over-reaching Big Government has created an unnecessary welfare state designed almost entirely to "justify" the power and intrusiveness of government.

ccrunner609;1376460 wrote: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.

I do not think this can be stressed enough. Children born to parents who value education have a much better chance to be succesful than children who's parents don't care. I do not know how any law is going to fix that.

FatHobbit;1376701 wrote:I do not think this can be stressed enough. Children born to parents who value education have a much better chance to be succesful than children who's parents don't care. I do not know how any law is going to fix that.

Well, in an extreme scenario you might have a world like those imagined by Plato or Aldous Huxley. If poor parenting is the crux in the divide between equal opportunities, you might have all children become wards of the state where they might be guaranteed competent child rearing, etc.

BoatShoes;1376706 wrote:Well, in an extreme scenario you might have a world like those imagined by Plato or Aldous Huxley. If poor parenting is the crux in the divide between equal opportunities, you might have all children become wards of the state where they might be guaranteed competent child rearing, etc.

That is the worst idea I have ever heard. You assume the state would provide competent child rearing etc.

BoatShoes;1376706 wrote:Well, in an extreme scenario you might have a world like those imagined by Plato or Aldous Huxley. If poor parenting is the crux in the divide between equal opportunities, you might have all children become wards of the state where they might be guaranteed competent child rearing, etc.

I actually don't think that's such a bad idea. What should happen is pretty simple. If a parent has a child that they cannot pay for, they go to jail for 5 years and lose their ability to reproduce. That would instantly solve all the moronic parents popping out babies they cannot pay for and they do not care about.

sleeper;1376723 wrote:I actually don't think that's such a bad idea. What should happen is pretty simple. If a parent has a child that they cannot pay for, they go to jail for 5 years and lose their ability to reproduce. That would instantly solve all the moronic parents popping out babies they cannot pay for and they do not care about.

Actually, quite a bit of research links a young, increasing population with economic growth. An aging population is usually correlated with slower growth and expanding debt as people retire, stop producing and start collecting govt benefits. China and India have a young demographic profile. Most of the developed countries, including the US and Japan, have aging profiles. It makes inherent sense - you consume more in you working years, accumulating assets and perhaps raising a family.

The only flaw with that logic is it presumes an economy is creating jobs, and that there is incentive to actually work.

gut;1376788 wrote:Actually, quite a bit of research links a young, increasing population with economic growth. An aging population is usually correlated with slower growth and expanding debt as people retire, stop producing and start collecting govt benefits. China and India have a young demographic profile. Most of the developed countries, including the US and Japan, have aging profiles. It makes inherent sense - you consume more in you working years, accumulating assets and perhaps raising a family.

The only flaw with that logic is it presumes an economy is creating jobs, and that there is incentive to actually work.

The other flaw is that you are assuming those who are having kids that can't afford them are raising individuals that are independent of need from government assistance. I don't care how many kids a person has as long as they pay for them.

Or perhaps another solution would be to force a civil union upon those that have children together. Make it a 18 year marriage commitment; problem solved.

sleeper;1376817 wrote:Or perhaps another solution would be to force a civil union upon those that have children together. Make it a 18 year marriage commitment; problem solved.

It still wouldn't make them good parents who made sure their kids valued education.

edit - although I find your solution amusing.

FatHobbit;1376837 wrote:It still wouldn't make them good parents who made sure their kids valued education.

edit - although I find your solution amusing.

It would once you eliminate all social benefits for them and the minimum wage. What parent would want their children to suffer through a life of poverty? Answer: None. It only is the way that it is now because their is a safety net and an incentive not to work.

sleeper;1376844 wrote:It would once you eliminate all social benefits for them and the minimum wage. What parent would want their children to suffer through a life of poverty? Answer: None. It only is the way that it is now because their is a safety net and an incentive not to work.

I disagree with that. There are plenty of "parents" who don't give a shit what their kids do unless they inconvenience them somehow.

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?

I'm generally very much on the side of avoiding redistribution and encouraging everyone to take responsibility for their own life and choices. But my experience at relatively elite (we can quibble a bit over that term) undergrad, law school, and law firm is that the vast, vast majority of the people there are upper middle-class whites and Asians from the suburbs. It seems abundantly clear that equally talented poor people have a drastically tougher row to hoe to get to the same spot, and it's not clear to me that it even makes sense to say that they have an equal opportunity.

Eg, my brother in law is a nice guy, smart guy, but by no means a rocket scientist. He carried a 2.5 in high school, went to a mediocre college, carried a 3.0, but by virtue of family name and connections (and family money) was able to take a mulligan on those early missteps and now appears likely to make a good six-figure income and have a solid upp-middle class lifestyle. Classmates from HS who were much smarter and harder working are now at Target or other retail-type job with no realistic possibility of turning it around. So perhaps we can say they had the opportunity, but a much smaller margin of error - - any mistake at all consigned them to mediocrity. Wealthier people with better connections/more motivated parents have a huge safety net that doesn't exist for the other half.

I don't know how we fix it, or whether the fix is worth it, but certainly there are vastly different opportunities out there based solely on where someone is born and how much their parents value education.

FatHobbit;1376852 wrote:I disagree with that. There are plenty of "parents" who don't give a shit what their kids do unless they inconvenience them somehow.

What an inconvenience it would be to have to support your child's financial needs 100% or face 5 years in jail and your gonads removed.

sleeper;1376863 wrote:What an inconvenience it would be to have to support your child's financial needs 100% or face 5 years in jail and your gonads removed.

I don't disagree with that. I disagree that forcing them to get married makes them decent parents.

FatHobbit;1376889 wrote:I don't disagree with that. I disagree that forcing them to get married makes them decent parents.

Forcing them to get married is a punishment. I'm all about ruthlessly and relentlesly punish the irresponsible and the stupid; also known as punishing the Democratic party.

1 - Yes.
2 - Though we all have an equal opportunity in this country, we are now competing globally, thus to achieve our ultimate goals we will have to eliminate the union mob-run public school monopoly.
3 - No; insert full competition and eliminate double pay penalty.