Originally posted by WajomaThe freedom to start on a level playing field is the point being made. That's what you aren't understanding.
The only treatment I want from the guvamint is to be left alone.
"is it ok when someone infringes on someone elses freedom;"
Damn it, no wonder I'm so opposed to the public education system if it's turning out young people with your level of comprehension. Where have I said it's ok to infringe on anothers rights. Point it out and I'll send you $500.
You don't seem to understand that there are many different interpretations of freedom. You make it sound like the one that you use is somehow the "right" one, when it is simply one of many.
Originally posted by wedgehead2Precisely why it is so important to defend the one and only correct definition.
The freedom to start on a level playing field is the point being made. That's what you aren't understanding.
You don't seem to understand that there are many different interpretations of freedom. You make it sound like the one that you use is somehow the "right" one, when it is simply one of many.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
Originally posted by WajomaDamn it, no wonder I'm so opposed to the public education system if it's turning out young people with your level of comprehension. Where have I said it's ok to infringe on anothers rights. Point it out and I'll send you $500.
The only treatment I want from the guvamint is to be left alone.
"is it ok when someone infringes on someone elses freedom;"
Damn it, no wonder I'm so opposed to the public education system if it's turning out young people with your level of comprehension. Where have I said it's ok to infringe on anothers rights. Point it out and I'll send you $500.
My initial point was that equal opputunity should be given to all; when I said this I was referring to education.
If certain people in the education system are given more resources (because of their class, colour) to work with (i.e. better teachers) the system becomes unfair. And so impeaches on these people's freedoms to have equal opputunity (not outcome)
Teaching those with higher ability more is different, they have been able to use what they have been given more effectively, this is OK.
They have been given the same oppurtunity, and have done better than others, again this is ok.
By opposing this it imples that you don't want equality of oppurtunity (again I'm not saying outcome) in the education system. I don't see how this isn't infringing their right to equal oppurtunity.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bad wolfIt's very interesting that the people who dismiss the idea of equality of economic opportunity are invariably the same people who take the idea of equality of legal opportunity for granted - and presumably the same people who would be shocked if we reverted to the days when there was no legal system at all, and the physically weak had their property expropriated fairly by the physically strong.
...or waste disposal, law enforcement, firefighters, national defence, etc...
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
Originally posted by AmauroteIndeed, if you take something for granted you invariably end up losing it in the end.
It's very interesting that the people who dismiss the idea of equality of economic opportunity are invariably the same people who take the idea of equality of legal opportunity for granted - and presumably the same people who would be shocked if we reverted to the days when there was no legal system at all, and the physically weak had their property expropriated fairly by the physically strong.
Originally posted by Bad wolfYou can only do so much for people before you let them fly on their own. In your analysis, you've neglected to mention a host of other differences the "rich" and "poor" exhibit: cultural attitudes about work, authority, sacrifice, etc. One important difference is that the "poor" also tend to spend more of their money on things they value that might not be in their best interest considering their circumstances. For example: lottery tickets, X-Boxes, big-screen TVs, cigarettes, drugs, gold-plated spinner rims, etc. Ultimately, life is what you make of it and the opportunities are there for those who want to work for them.
Recently I've been toying with this idea: freedom loses its meaning when you yourself gain extra freedom by taking it away from someone else. (Pretty obvious really because you would be infringing on other people's freedoms).
Therefore, (my conclusion) the only reasonable way to develop freedom is by giving everyone equal oppurtunity.
Now this has got ...[text shortened]... a can work on many levels.
So what do you think? Does this sound logical to you, or not?
Originally posted by wedgehead2If you and other liberals/socialists are so enamored with the idea of an inheritance tax, you are quite free to donate your inheritance to the government. Also, if you think the government isn't collecting enough taxes, then at the end of the year you're also free to donate above and beyond what is legally taxed. So, wedgehead2, how often have you "overpayed." I have another question: Do you have any skin in the game or are you a student?
You see the light!
100% inheritance tax is the only way to get equal opportunities.
Originally posted by wedgehead2More obfuscation. Say what you really mean: People exist to serve the government.
You represent the distorted view of freedom that freedom is all to do with the individual being able to do anything they want, rather than the view of freedom that giving people equal opportunities is giving them freedom. Your idea of freedom is deeply flawed, as by "giving everyone freedom to do what they want" simply leads to the wealthy being able to infringe on other people's freedoms to a equal start in life.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterEquality of opportunity at the start of life. Your argument seems to say people who are poor make bad choices. Give everyone the same chances to start off with, and then see what happens.
If you and other liberals/socialists are so enamored with the idea of an inheritance tax, you are quite free to donate your inheritance to the government. Also, if you think the government isn't collecting enough taxes, then at the end of the year you're also free to donate above and beyond what is legally taxed. So, wedgehead2, how often have yo ...[text shortened]... "overpayed." I have another question: Do you have any skin in the game or are you a student?