Equal Opportunity?

[Backroads]

Again, in this context I am only discussing equal opportunity in monetary issues. So for a child to start out having at least close to the same opportunities as another each child's standard of living must be about equal. Of course, as any child grows, they make choices and one child may excel above another. This is as it should be. Equal outcomes are inherently unfair. I am here concerned with the starting point (or close to it).

That in bold is what concerns me. Even if we were to declare a minimum standard of living that the government meets, we are still going to have a difference in standard of living. Somebody living happily and comfortably in middle-class will have a decent standard of living, but it will be no where as impressive as someone with millions of dollars.

I might be missing an option here, but it seems that the concept would wind up as improvement of some kids' lives and destruction of other kids' lives in order to get them about equal.

Now as a former educator I'm all about improving public education. Your average private school is usually considered to have superior educational opportunities. I'm all for making public schools' educational opportunities competitive with private institutions.

I guess, beyond education, I'm struggling to see what else a kid would need in order to compete with richer kids that would require money.

[Guest xforeverxmetalx]

I demand a source for that.

"The problem with quotes from the internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." - Abraham Lincoln

But anyway, try looking at it from the other side of the coin. If it were somehow possible to ensure everyone was given the same opportunity, then is it fair for parents who are better off to not be allowed to provide their children with the best opportunity possible? The problem I'm seeing is that it's not physically possible to give some people (the poor) better circumstances without being unfair to others (the richer) by forcing them to stay at the same level.

Sometimes life just isn't fair and there's little or nothing we can do about it.

[Vort]

"The problem with quotes from the internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." - Abraham Lincoln

[skippy740]

But anyway, try looking at it from the other side of the coin. If it were somehow possible to ensure everyone was given the same opportunity, then is it fair for parents who are better off to not be allowed to provide their children with the best opportunity possible? The problem I'm seeing is that it's not physically possible to give some people (the poor) better circumstances without being unfair to others (the richer) by forcing them to stay at the same level.

Sometimes life just isn't fair and there's little or nothing we can do about it.

Could you imagine a government mandate that says you have to make $x per year before you can have children?

China had their own form of government regulated birth control... 1 child per family... and now (if I remember correctly) they have more boys than girls and are facing a birth rate decline.

In fact, demographics in the United States are showing a slowing birth rate. Thank goodness for illegal immigrants who keep popping out more babies (that they can't afford) so we can keep up.

End of rant.

[Guest xforeverxmetalx]

Could you imagine a government mandate that says you have to make $x per year before you can have children?

China had their own form of government regulated birth control... 1 child per family... and now (if I remember correctly) they have more boys than girls and are facing a birth rate decline.

In fact, demographics in the United States are showing a slowing birth rate. Thank goodness for illegal immigrants who keep popping out more babies (that they can't afford) so we can keep up.

End of rant.

Exactly. It'd just create far more problems than it's worth, would most likely be unsuccessful anyway, and all because we tried to make things a bit easier for a particular group of people. I agree that it can be harder for them sometimes, but with free public education and so much financial aid available to the poor during college (plus scholarships, grants, jobs, or worst case scenario, student loans, on top of going to cheaper schools), I don't think that being born into a poor family is an excuse. We all struggle with one thing or another. And the poor are far from the only ones who struggle with paying for college anyway, myself being an example.

[james12]

And when this successful child grows up and decides to give their children additional help. By means of the money/connections they earned... then what?

Estradling, Good question. So do you agree that there should not be equal opportunity as xforeverxmetalx has commented? Are we to be satisfied with the unfairness of inequality? A world where the rich get richer and the poor must constantly struggle?

[Vort]

[james12]

That in bold is what concerns me. Even if we were to declare a minimum standard of living that the government meets, we are still going to have a difference in standard of living. Somebody living happily and comfortably in middle-class will have a decent standard of living, but it will be no where as impressive as someone with millions of dollars.

I might be missing an option here, but it seems that the concept would wind up as improvement of some kids' lives and destruction of other kids' lives in order to get them about equal.

Now as a former educator I'm all about improving public education. Your average private school is usually considered to have superior educational opportunities. I'm all for making public schools' educational opportunities competitive with private institutions.

I guess, beyond education, I'm struggling to see what else a kid would need in order to compete with richer kids that would require money.

But it all starts with education and is perpetuated from parent to child. It is not simply the education of one generation but the next and the next. It spills over into bad communities and structures that make it hard for a child to escape. Is this satisfactory?

[Guest xforeverxmetalx]

Estradling, Good question. So do you agree that there should not be equal opportunity as xforeverxmetalx has commented? Are we to be satisfied with the unfairness of inequality? A world where the rich get richer and the poor must constantly struggle?

Just to clarify, I'm all for equal opportunity, as far as simply agency and responsibility. We all have that. Life is what you make of it, despite the struggles and injustices. What I'm against is the government getting involved to try and fix it.

[skippy740]

This link is to Chris Gardner (of Pursuit of Happyness) speaking about "placism". It's a great speach and I would encourage listening to it.

[Just_A_Guy]

But it all starts with education and is perpetuated from parent to child. It is not simply the education of one generation but the next and the next. It spills over into bad communities and structures that make it hard for a child to escape. Is this satisfactory?

Plato grappled with this problem in The Republic, and finally washed his hands of the whole issue by suggesting that children be removed from their birth families and raised in groups with other children of similar aptitudes and abilities.

[Saldrin]

I am an equal opportunity pest.

[HoosierGuy]

I am NOT a statistic! :)

Most likely you are a statistic. If you were not, political advertising and advertising in general on TV and radio and print would not work.

[skippy740]

Most likely you are a statistic. If you were not, political advertising and advertising in general on TV and radio and print would not work.

Print advertising? Who does THAT anymore?

I may fit into a demographic...

[Backroads]

But it all starts with education and is perpetuated from parent to child. It is not simply the education of one generation but the next and the next. It spills over into bad communities and structures that make it hard for a child to escape. Is this satisfactory?

Hard, yes. Impossible, no.

I already presented my solution. Work on public education. I'm not about to barge into people's homes and tell them exactly what they should be thinking and doing. Once again you are suggesting we remove children from their parents. I know you'll deny this, but you keep coming back to how tragic it is that kids in poorer families are worse off than those in richer families.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Backroads

[Backroads]

Plato grappled with this problem in The Republic, and finally washed his hands of the whole issue by suggesting that children be removed from their birth families and raised in groups with other children of similar aptitudes and abilities.

Reminds me of a book recently discussed in the book forum...

[james12]

Hard, yes. Impossible, no.

I already presented my solution. Work on public education. I'm not about to barge into people's homes and tell them exactly what they should be thinking and doing. Once again you are suggesting we remove children from their parents. I know you'll deny this, but you keep coming back to how tragic it is that kids in poorer families are worse off than those in richer families.

Backroads, You're correct, I do deny that children should be removed from their parents. Apparently Plato thought so, but I do not. Your also correct that I see the injustice of inequality most starkly when looking at children in their formative years and that involves education.

I also believe that the government should never force equality either through redistribution of wealth or public policy. Freedom must be maintained. Including the freedom to fail or succeed. I would go so far as to say that I prefer a voucher system for education, an independent postal service, and a privatized social security system among others.

Actually my thoughts lately have revolved around our current economic system and the United Order. As a matter of fact I could ask my original two questions in relation to the United Order.

Question 1: Does the United Order allow all people to have equality of opportunity? Why or why not?

Question 2: If yes, can it be achieved without destroying freedom and initiative? How?

I believe these two questions are fundamental. Until a system can have both there will be disagreement and protests just as we have seen with the Occupy movement or the Tea Party.

[Backroads]

Question 1: Does the United Order allow all people to have equality of opportunity? Why or why not?

Question 2: If yes, can it be achieved without destroying freedom and initiative? How?

I believe these two questions are fundamental. Until a system can have both there will be disagreement and protests just as we have seen with the Occupy movement or the Tea Party.

I honestly don't know enough about the intentions of the United Order to determine these things.

[james12]

Understood. The two questions are really more for the general audience. Though I've found that few people want to discuss the United Order. I'm not exactly sure why.

[Backroads]

I'm all for hearing about it!

[Just_A_Guy]

Question 1: Does the United Order allow all people to have equality of opportunity? Why or why not?

Question 2: If yes, can it be achieved without destroying freedom and initiative? How?

As to 1): In an agrarian society, I should think it would have been pretty straightforward because your initial "stewardships" was a plot of land. Assuming that plot size could somewhat compensate for the irrigation and soil quality of individual lots, making sure that everyone's initial stewardships provided equal opportunity would seem to be reasonably attainable.

In an industrialized society, I suppose the best you could do is to institutionally give the individual the tools he needs to begin on his chosen career, and then let the chips fall where they may. Your "stewardship" becomes a medical degree, or a bar card, or a CDL or a teaching credential or a pest control operator's license or whatever.

The United Order wouldn't threaten freedom or initiative, because I understand the individual typically decided for himself how much "surplus" to return to the Church each year. But it would require extraordinary honesty and self-awareness on the part of its participants. I should think it would also require people to choose a vocational path far earlier than American youth typically do.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[james12]

As to 1): In an agrarian society, I should think it would have been pretty straightforward because your initial "stewardships" was a plot of land. Assuming that plot size could somewhat compensate for the irrigation and soil quality of individual lots, making sure that everyone's initial stewardships provided equal opportunity would seem to be reasonably attainable.

In an industrialized society, I suppose the best you could do is to institutionally give the individual the tools he needs to begin on his chosen career, and then let the chips fall where they may. Your "stewardship" becomes a medical degree, or a bar card, or a CDL or a teaching credential or a pest control operator's license or whatever.

The United Order wouldn't threaten freedom or initiative, because I understand the individual typically decided for himself how much "surplus" to return to the Church each year. But it would require extraordinary honesty and self-awareness on the part of its participants. I should think it would also require people to choose a vocational path far earlier than American youth typically do.

Just_A_Guy, Even today I could see land and private property as an important part of the United Order. Based on what I have read I see the process happening like this... After a person has deeded everything to the Lord the individual and the bishop would meet together and decide what land and possessions were fair for the person (or family) to posses. They would obviously consider the other members of the ward, and the amount the individual received may be more or less then the person originally possessed. The person would then own these items. They could sell them or improve upon them with the condition that the excess go back to the church. The process would be maintained through an annual stewardship interview where both would discuss how well the individual took care of what he had been given.

I agree with your thoughts on freedom as long as you also agree that the individual will be able to decide how to make a living. My questions start to arise when I think about the initiative angle. The reason to work would not be to make money anymore. There would be no profit motive. So is there another motivation?

[Just_A_Guy]

I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that the United Order would be the complete death knell of the profit motive.

I think you've already touched on one aspect of it--there is a (very blurry) line between "improving one's situation" and "excess". Is it right to put $5,000 into a kitchen re-design that will improve traffic flow and make mealtimes work better? Do my three children really need their own bedrooms? Isn't it excessive for my family to own and operate two automobiles? If I build a go-cart for my kids on my days off--isn't the resulting toy excess? I doubt the United Order would ordinarily prevent us from doing any of those things. Hard work continues to allow for self-improvement--perhaps not luxury, but a more comfortable life nonetheless.

Also, I think ideally the United Order would be practiced in small-ish communities; so the worker sees how his labor is benefitting the less fortunate and also how it contributes to the prosperity of the community as a whole. Hopefully there's a realization that "a rising tide floats all boats", and so self-interest remains an indirect motive for hard work.

And, frankly, we have doctrinal (if not historical) precedent for excommunicating those who deliberately milk the system (see, e.g., D&C 75:29; 42:42). I strongly suspect that members of the community who could work but didn't, would not remain part of the order for long.

[Vort]

And, frankly, we have doctrinal (if not historical) precedent for excommunicating those who deliberately milk the system (see, e.g., D&C 75:29; 42:42).

And Acts 5:5, 10.

[Just_A_Guy]

(Yes, I laughed. I'm a despicable human being.)