TL;DR: The Thread

[Claeyt]

Society isn't for the strong only.

Of course not. It is an edifice that the strong create precisely so as to protect the weak. The truly strong would do fine without it.

The truly strong would be weaker outside of society than in it. They would be alone and weak.

The strong don't create society, the masses do. The strong direct and formulate society within the beliefs of the masses, towards an acceptance by the masses. When the masses don't accept the society created for whatever reason they rebel against it, unless the strong change and form something new within the changing beliefs of the masses that they find acceptable.

Democracy is that process made real and more stable, as the strong are elected by the masses directly.

...? "Equality of opportunity" can mean whatever you want it to mean. The only predictable result from your schemes and calculations are massive redistributions of wealth according to political whims -- as opposed to personal merits -- and horrible bouts of socialism that fail miserably.

Those massive re-distributions of wealth and Democratic-socialism are the exact reason your country is safer, more stable, and freer than Syria or South Africa or Brazil or Russia. Your country has chosen that path successfully based on it culture and political choices. New aspects to society like large immigrant populations just need to be incorporated into your society, and that takes time and tantrums. Eventually, hopefully they integrate into your cultural society and your society will change also. The food will change, the language will change, the ideas will change, the religions will change, society as a whole will change for a more vibrant different future, as long as you both can look past the different colors of skin.

[Nimmeth]

i find it rather difficult fully understanding jorbs opinions, and i even consider myself rather tolerant when it comes to other peoples opinions.
but just reading it, i imagine a soccer match, where jorb is playing. they start out, jorb takes the ball all the way to the other team goal keeper, dibbles around him and are ready to score.
but instead, he turns around and shoot at his own goal.
knowing that he is aiming for his own goal, slim chances to being able to score and knowing that when the match is done he would prolly have to hide from his team members.

but everyone is entitled to their opinions, specially on their own forum!

[Potjeh]

Let us assume that Mozart and I are children growing up at the same time.

Should we be given...

A) The same number of piano lessons
B) The same amount of money to spend on whatever we wish
C) The same amount of money to spend on lessons
D) The same number of hours in school

Given by whom? Parents, who's available resources have absolutely nothing at all to do with the child's natural talent? It can't be the government, because apparently government handouts are evil.

[jorb]

Given by whom? Parents, who's available resources have absolutely nothing at all to do with the child's natural talent? It can't be the government, because apparently government handouts are evil.

Anyone. The reason I prefer property rights to political cronyism is obviously at least partly an answer to the question of societal distribution of wealth. The issue I was debating here is another one, however.

[Potjeh]

The issue is inequality of opportunities, and I'm trying to argue that it's a very real problem which stems from unequal socio-economic backgrounds of different people.

[lachlaan]

While I do believe in rewarding people for merits and not just by default, there are two points I'd like to address out of all the possible scenarios that arise when discussing this topic.

A form of socialism where you give everyone a minimum amount of resources to survive isn't exactly the same as redistributing all of the wealth among all of the people equally. In that sense, the rich would be slightly poorer but still rich should their merits warrant that wealth, and the poor would have a high enough standard of living to allow for the exploration of one's potential.
A new born child has absolutely 0 skills, so if we were to imagine some sort of absolute measuring tool that would allocate resources to each child according to their respective skill, all of the children would starve. "What can the child do?" the assessor would ask. "Poop all over the place, cry incessantly and ***** the entire family" the mother would answer. Well then, would that child, and every other child for that matter, not receive absolutely 0 funds from this absolute measuring tool used by meritocracy? The fact of the matter is that you need to first help develop each child's potential to the fullest, and then allow for meritocracy to kick in. Equal amounts of education for everyone wouldn't be that expensive a goal to achieve. Nobody would have to starve and nobody would be robbed of their rights so that everyone could have the same rights in terms of education. Past that point, sure, reward people by merit. But before that point anything short of equal rights to a minimum of education and quality of life is silly.

To make an analogy that might better emphasize my point, a meritocracy for the sake of meritocracy is like a botanist trying to breed the best plants, to get new generations of seeds, but only tending to some of the plants rather than all of the plants, and never really witnessing which features all plants present given proper watering practices and fertilizer was used. Insisting that that sort of half-assed measurement of merit actually has any merit itself is in my opinion rather ignorant, and instead we should just agree that it's very silly to generalize and stick to any one major ideal or concept that encompasses everything, and that a giant logic chart that branches out into a huge web of ifs and ors would be more appropriate to guide the decisions taken about our very complex world.

[jorb]

The issue is inequality of opportunities, and I'm trying to argue that it's a very real problem which stems from unequal socio-economic backgrounds of different people.

Indeed. I don't disagree at all, there certainly is.

I however, was trying to point out how equality isn't a meaningful ideal toward which we should strive.

[alloin]

Jeeez, I still have the biggest, no matter how many fancy words you type, mine is biggest, best and strongest !

(you gotta work for it!!)

[Claeyt]

The issue is inequality of opportunities, and I'm trying to argue that it's a very real problem which stems from unequal socio-economic backgrounds of different people.

Indeed. I don't disagree at all, there certainly is.

I however, was trying to point out how equality isn't a meaningful ideal toward which we should strive.

If you're not striving towards equality, then you're striving towards inequality.

again,

Progressive thought would define "Equality" as: "a dream, a goal of least inequality and most opportunity."- Robert M. La Follette

[jwhitehorn]

If you're not striving towards equality, then you're striving towards inequality.

again,

Progressive thought would define "Equality" as: "a dream, a goal of least inequality and most opportunity."- Robert M. La Follette

Certainly there must be a meaningful difference between not striving for something and advocating its inverse position.

Chief PeePooKaKa
MM Tribe