 |
|  |
 |
|
Park Avenue
|
 |
Liberal and defender of freedoms for the people
Oct 1999 time: 05:29
|
|
Was sat on the bus home from work thinking what a situation completely equal opportunities would lead to. A rather bad one.
Think about it. Those of you with children, what is the (main) thing that encouraged you to work harder, to go for those higher-income jobs? For yourself, partly, for your wife, partly as well. But I am hypothesising that providing the best possible start for your children is the main incentive.
..to provide them with the best schooling..a decent neighbourhood to grow up in..sports..clothes that at least aren't tatty..
Now, let's think for a moment that no matter how hard you try to work for your children's future, their "opportunities" are forced through some social policy to be equal. There would be no incentive to work more productively to provide for your kids future as any achievements you make in order to further their chances will be cancelled out by the social policies that would be implemented in order to have "equal opportunities" for all.
There would be less need to work hard. There would be less need to go for that income-boosting stressful job, as the incentives just to provide for yourself and your wife will not be as big as when the incentive included providing for your kids. Your productivity would fall. Consider this on a larger scale. Poor economic growth.
See where I am heading? Equal opportunities might sound a nice dream to aim for, but it's on a par with communism - sounds a good idea but clearly is not when examined beyond the spin and nice-sounding phrases.
Inequal opportunities are necessary for incentives - and as we all know, incentives are the driving force behind our market-based systems. And since inequal opportunities obviously exist, it's beneficial for our economy that they do.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Cruddy
|
|
I don't think there will ever be totally flat opporunity for all... but I must admit, the situation of grossly unfair opportunity is hardly ideal.
Why not try to smooth out the bumps rather than build out the barriers?
Don't see your way as being the least bumpy Bods.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999 time: 00:29
|
|
GePap:
actually Alexander the Great did have a son except he was brutally murdered a few years after Alexander died
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003 time: 05:29
|
|
I knew I was in for a laugh when I saw the thread title 
Equality of opportunities shouldn't be legally enforced to the point at which they hurt liberty imo, but they should be socially encouraged.
Equal opportunities for success dont mean equal success.
In that sense, everyone should have equal legal rights and legal status, however, when it comes to employers, they should be free to choose who they want, on whatever basis because it is private domain.
Obviously, in public sector services for employment, people shuold be chosen on the basis of ability not race or sex. In that sense, it should be govt policy not to actively discriminate, but also not to have quotas of demographic groups in proportion to the population.
Two whom do you refer advocating that they should have less opportunity?
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29. Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|