Do you consider yourself more left or right wing?

[sc94597]

Chrkeller said:

sc94597 said:

Something that is true for individuals (outcomes should depend on decisions) don't generally apply to arbitrary groups/categories -- where different individuals within the group are making different decisions that should balance out on net in similar ways.

It makes sense (even if we assumed actual equal opportunity at birth, which would require no inheritance) for individuals to end up in different places. It doesn't make sense for arbitrary socially constructed groups -- like race for this to be the case, without considering some lurking variable(s) that applies generally to individuals in that arbitrary group. 

We should really want equality between arbitrary groups even if we don't think individuals should have equal outcomes, because that means we are on the right track with regards to equal opportunity. Being born into arbitrary group #1 shouldn't have a strong effect on the decisions you can make when compared to being born into  arbitrary group #2.

It is okay to suggest that we tolerate the inequality of opportunity that is inheritance to promote motivation (or long-term time-preference if you will) but there is a point where only prioritizing that just means society isn't equitable in any sense, including equal opportunity. There should be social institutions that allow one opportunities to fast- track past the decisions or luck of one's parents. Otherwise you have the opposite effect where motivation and productive capacity is stifled due to lack of opportunity inherited by the decisions or luck of others.

Honestly I just completely disagree.  I'm paying for kids college.  I put them in private school.  I hired them tutors.  I ensured they had extra curriculum for their applications.  Etc, etc.  That all stimulates the economy.  If we level the playing field I wouldn't have done any of that.  Nor would I be working 50 hours a week and paying close to six figures in taxes.  Ensuring my family has an advantage is 99% of my motivation.  People can argue that isn't fair to other kids...  but life isn't fair.  I'm not 6 ft 8 inch at 265 lbs with a 40 inch vertical leap...  thus I don't play professional sports, such is life.  

Parents should be encouraged to give their children advantages, not be lazy and expert somebody else to fix it.

Okay but your disagreement then is with equality opportunity as well as equality of outcome. 

If different people have different resources available to them at birth, and no capacity to bridge that gap unless they make even more exceptional decisions given the constraints they inherited, then there really isn't equality of opportunity. There is just mere equality before the law. 

The compromise in modern society for enabling inheritance has been to give alternative paths for people born in situations with fewer opportunities. This is what every modern successful society has done, including the United States. 

The social darwinist approach of the late 19th century of let people use whichever lemons they were dealt hindered productivity and general wealth accumulation, rather than enabling it. 

By the way, I don't have children, won't have childen, and plan to give all of my wealth away when I die. I still (voluntarily, not because I have to to survive) work 60 hours per week. The right-libertarian conception of time-preference while broadly true as a general perspective isn't precise enough, imo.

Last edited by sc94597 - on 04 September 2025