What do conservatives think about equality ?

[Tom]

But all the wolves work together to kill the animal. Those wolves that choose to not participate in the hunt, are not allowed to share the meal. When those who choose not to participate get hungry enough, they participate.

point well taken. the pups get fed though, I believe.

 

[cubeless]

there are at least 2 things in nature that are equal, death and time. Beyond that, equality is something that is created by how things interact, wolves share a carcass, the biggest wolf doesn't kill all the other wolves.

but death and time are not equal for all in any way... death can come to one due to getting hit by lightning and another by old age... time is biased by individual need to sleep or forage for food at the micro level, or the longevity of the species at the macro level...

 

[Mursilis]

thanks, that's what I'm looking for. See I believe discussions are better if we understand where we start from, otherwise some positions are hard to understand.

I agree with your statement on promoting equality of opportunity, lets take a specific.

estate tax. If we both believe in equality of opportunity for young people, and if I can assume that we can agree that money or the lack of it effects opportunity, then if that was the only consideration would we both want all youngster to start out with the same funds available ?

Of course there's a conflicting right, the right to profit by one's labors. I think we both agree on that right ?

If we do, now there's a conflict between the right to amass wealth and pass that on to one's heirs, and the inequality of opportunity that creates for the children of less wealthy parents.

Where we stand on that conflict seems to me ought to be the difference between liberal and conservative.

That's interesting, and you're right that much about access to opportunity has to do with money, but then again, so much doesn't, and I don't believe growing up poorer than another necessarily means you have less opportunity than another (provided the most basic needs are met - food, shelter, clothing). Regardless, in such situations the state can only go so far - ensure schools and other mechanisms of opportunity are available to all, and remove "artifical" barriers such as prejudice, etc. I believe the power to tax estates falls under the state's power to tax generally, so I have no issue with an estate tax, but beyond a certain level, any tax is odious. What is that "certain level"? I'm not completely sure, but probably <1/3.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Conservatives believe in equal opportunity for all.

This.

 

[Tom]

Let's cut to the chase. How much of what other people worked to achieve do you feel you're entitled to just because you popped out of a vagina?

The way I would look at it is how much of the benefit you acheived by your work is the result of the work of others; that portion you didn't earn, it was a gift to you.

And that portion, plus a little more, should go the furtherance of the society you're a part of, if it doesn't what's the point of your existence ?

 

[Mursilis]

The way I would look at it is how much of the benefit you acheived by your work is the result of the work of others; that portion you didn't earn, it was a gift to you.

And that portion, plus a little more, should go the furtherance of the society you're a part of, if it doesn't what's the point of your existence ?

I believe determining the "point" of our existances is something each of us is best left alone to decide. Provided our pursuit of purpose doesn't conflict on the rights of others, the ability to choose our own path is the essence of freedom.

 

[Tom]

I believe determining the "point" of our existances is something each of us is best left alone to decide. Provided our pursuit of purpose doesn't conflict on the rights of others, the ability to choose our own path is the essence of freedom.

I agree. I should have put "work" instead of "existence" but didn't want to edit it.

even edited it would have been pretty weak and meaningless.

 

[blackangst1]

It's real easy. Conservatives believe in equal opportunity for all.

Liberals believe in equal outcomes for all.

Thats a pretty good assesment.

 

[fskimospy]

Thats a pretty good assesment.

It's really not at all.

Liberals believe in the equality of opportunity the same as conservatives do. Conservatives think it is best done by not interfering at all, Liberals think it is best done through active work on equality. Instead of civil rights legislation liberals could have pushed to pass the 'give every black person a middle class income bill of 1964', but they would never do that. Instead they passed legislation to use the power of government to stop the insane racists in the South. Equality of opportunity through positive liberty.

The argument isn't that every kid should go to Harvard, it's that every kid should have an equal chance to go to Harvard if they have the motivation and ability.

This is the sort of partisan blindness I was referring to earlier, maybe this thread can dispel it.

 

[cubeless]

It's really not at all.

Liberals believe in the equality of opportunity the same as conservatives do. Conservatives think it is best done by not interfering at all, Liberals think it is best done through active work on equality. Instead of civil rights legislation liberals could have pushed to pass the 'give every black person a middle class income bill of 1964', but they would never do that. Instead they passed legislation to use the power of government to stop the insane racists in the South. Equality of opportunity through positive liberty.

The argument isn't that every kid should go to Harvard, it's that every kid should have an equal chance to go to Harvard if they have the motivation and ability.

This is the sort of partisan blindness I was referring to earlier, maybe this thread can dispel it.

partisan blindness aside, so a baby born in the Ugandan jungle should have an equal chance to go to harvard?

and harvard only has so many seats, so who chooses who's most equal, you?

 

[fskimospy]

partisan blindness aside, so a baby born in the Ugandan jungle should have an equal chance to go to harvard?

and harvard only has so many seats, so who chooses who's most equal, you?

We live in the United States, thus we have the ability to vote and have our voices heard on policies inside the United States. In a perfect world yes, any child from anywhere would have the chance to do so, but come on. This is a silly diversion.

Your question about 'choosing who is most equal' to go to Harvard shows a misunderstanding of my post. My argument is for the equality of opportunity to begin with, not manipulating the admissions standards of Harvard.

 

[cubeless]

point well taken. the pups get fed though, I believe.

sadly the pups get fed if their mother is healthy enough to partake of the hunt and feed them from the result... if she's dead because the stag gored her, the pups are part of dinner a couple days down the road...

and the 'you get what your labor/service is worth and we redistribute the rest' talk is where this all goes wrong... who decides what anyone's efforts are worth??? if not the market then some venal person...

 

[Jaskalas]

It's real easy. Conservatives believe in equal opportunity for all.

Liberals believe in equal outcomes for all.

Exactly.

 

[her209]

partisan blindness aside, so a baby born in the Ugandan jungle should have an equal chance to go to harvard?

and harvard only has so many seats, so who chooses who's most equal, you?

Do you think the Ugandan baby should be denied simply because of their skin colour?

 

[blackangst1]

It's really not at all.

Liberals believe in the equality of opportunity the same as conservatives do. Conservatives think it is best done by not interfering at all, Liberals think it is best done through active work on equality. Instead of civil rights legislation liberals could have pushed to pass the 'give every black person a middle class income bill of 1964', but they would never do that. Instead they passed legislation to use the power of government to stop the insane racists in the South. Equality of opportunity through positive liberty.

The argument isn't that every kid should go to Harvard, it's that every kid should have an equal chance to go to Harvard if they have the motivation and ability.

This is the sort of partisan blindness I was referring to earlier, maybe this thread can dispel it.

And I dont disagree with that. Much of the civil rights legislation *is* aimed at creating a level playing field. But so often its the left that complains we dont have enough black/latino/<insert minority here> CEO, doctors, whatever. But as has been pointed out, although that black kid from the ghetto might have an opportunity to excel, he/she probably wont due to many things, including family, personal decisions, whatever. And of course, theres the fact the majority of people, no matter what their background, just dont have the drive or intelligence to be a CEO, doctor, whatever.

But there are enough examples of people coming from terrible backgrounds to prove if someone has the desire they succeed at whatever they want.

 

[xj0hnx]

Say we can both agree with the "right to life". As a liberal I would say that includes the right to healthcare. Leaving aside who or how it's paid for for a moment.

Do you agree or disagree ?

I'd disagree because if you boil healthcare down to a doctor, and a patient, the doctor is providing a service to the patient, the patient doesn't have the right to be treated no matter what just because they are sick, but they do have the right to see the doctor and pay for his services. The doctor is free to give away his services, or sell them for whatever he thinks is right, the patient is free to pay the doctor, or not. We need food, but we don't have the right to walk into a grocery store and just take it because we are hungry, we do have the right to go to the store and buy food.

 

[cubeless]

We live in the United States, thus we have the ability to vote and have our voices heard on policies inside the United States. In a perfect world yes, any child from anywhere would have the chance to do so, but come on. This is a silly diversion.

Your question about 'choosing who is most equal' to go to Harvard shows a misunderstanding of my post. My argument is for the equality of opportunity to begin with, not manipulating the admissions standards of Harvard.

hardly a silly diversion, since we spend billions in foreign aid every year, and your same voters can direct monies in any way that they see fit to pressure their elected reps to do...

and where and what is the equality in the harvard analogy? everyone is equal in that they can apply to harvard if they like... beyond that there's no equality of anything... you are going to fix that a mentally retarded person has an 'equal' chance to go to harvard?

 

[Mursilis]

Say we can both agree with the "right to life". As a liberal I would say that includes the right to healthcare. Leaving aside who or how it's paid for for a moment.

Do you agree or disagree ?

I missed this before, but I'd like to respond. I believe in a basic right to life (few don't, really), but not in a "right" to healthcare, though I'm OK with the state providing it if it can do so in an efficient, fair manner. I think a modern, affluent society can and should provide a basic level of healthcare for all its citizens, especially the young.

But how can you say a person has a "right" to healthcare? Are you saying you can force others to treat you, even if you and they know you'll never pay them? How is that different from slavery?

 

[cubeless]

Do you think the Ugandan baby should be denied simply because of their skin colour?

where the fuck did that come from???

you are an idiot.

 

[jonks]

=CADsortaGUY;28945811]

Originally Posted by spidey07
Conservatives believe in equal opportunity for all.

This.

Yeah, this, except when conservatives are arguing against the opportunity of gays to get married and adopt children who otherwise would live in a foster home; or when conservatives opposed women having the opportunity for careers outside the home because it would disrupt the "family structure"; or when conservatives felt separate but equal was a perfectly acceptable alternative since hey, everyone got to ride on a bus, just on different parts of it, no biggie.

Now I know many if not most conservatives do not today believe in any of the above (ceptin the part about the gays), but those were all historically conservative positions. Standing athwart history shouting 'stop' and all that.

 

[Mursilis]

Liberals believe in the equality of opportunity the same as conservatives do. Conservatives think it is best done by not interfering at all, Liberals think it is best done through active work on equality. Instead of civil rights legislation liberals could have pushed to pass the 'give every black person a middle class income bill of 1964', but they would never do that. Instead they passed legislation to use the power of government to stop the insane racists in the South. Equality of opportunity through positive liberty.

To me, the state acting to stop racists is merely the removal of artifical barriers to opportunity - really, just an extension of the state's general authority to promote social order via a penal code. The state isn't interfering in the promotion of opportunity; it's merely preventing others from interfering on an unjust basis. The state is merely returning the playing field to level, after others have tilted it.

 

[fskimospy]

hardly a silly diversion, since we spend billions in foreign aid every year, and your same voters can direct monies in any way that they see fit to pressure their elected reps to do...

and where and what is the equality in the harvard analogy? everyone is equal in that they can apply to harvard if they like... beyond that there's no equality of anything... you are going to fix that a mentally retarded person has an 'equal' chance to go to harvard?

It most certainly is a silly diversion. Our ability to affect circumstances in Uganda is limited both by the means by which to direct funds (you can't just airdrop a trillion dollars onto them) and the self determination of the Ugandans. Like I said, in a perfect world sure, but that's certainly outside of any reasonable scope.

Once again you appear to have misread my original post. I specifically stated that each person should be able to go to Harvard if they have the motivation and ability to do so. Presumably someone who was mentally retarded would not have the ability to get into Harvard. If you honestly believe that everyone of equal motivation and ability has an equal shot of getting into Harvard, I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[PokerGuy]

It's real easy. Conservatives believe in equal opportunity for all.

Liberals believe in equal outcomes for all.

Ding ding, we have a winner. This is correct.

 

[Mursilis]

Yeah, this, except when conservatives are arguing against the opportunity of gays to get married and adopt children who otherwise would live in a foster home; or when conservatives opposed women having the opportunity for careers outside the home because it would disrupt the "family structure"; or when conservatives felt separate but equal was a perfectly acceptable alternative since hey, everyone got to ride on a bus, just on different parts of it, no biggie.

Now I know many if not most conservatives do not today believe in any of the above (ceptin the part about the gays), but those were all historically conservative positions. Standing athwart history shouting 'stop' and all that.

The definitions of conservative and liberal have changed with time - this is hardly news. 500 years ago, we'd all be flaming radicals for believing in the popular election of leaders.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Yeah, this, except when conservatives are arguing against the opportunity of gays to get married and adopt children who otherwise would live in a foster home; or when conservatives opposed women having the opportunity for careers outside the home because it would disrupt the "family structure"; or when conservatives felt separate but equal was a perfectly acceptable alternative since hey, everyone got to ride on a bus, just on different parts of it, no biggie.

Now I know many if not most conservatives do not today believe in any of the above (ceptin the part about the gays), but those were all historically conservative positions. Standing athwart history shouting 'stop' and all that.

So much misinformation... where to start.

Homosexuals have just as much chance to marry as we do. Any man, homosexual or not, has the chance to marry a woman. You may not like that FACT, but it most certainly is true.
Women working outside the home? That's not a Conservative(in todays political sense) position.
nice attempt to play the race on the sly - doesn't fly here either.