Equal Opportunity

As Dan mentioned this is a discussion that began on the forums and carried over into a debate setting. I'm particularly interested in the line Dan is arguing here due to the fact that it's a position that is rarely argued (in my experience) even by those on the libertarian-right. Regardless, Dan was adamant about the position and I'll begin my argument for why equal opportunity is not a legitimate argument for justifying differences in class. Differences in Natural Ability This is the first point that comes to mind, as I specified in the introduction this point relates to substantive liberties rather than formal liberties. It's no secret that people are born with certain advantages and disadvantages, some capable of being overcome while others are utterly crippling. In my mind, this alone should invalidate the "equal opportunity" argument. Dan mentions here that he has an IQ of 128 or 142 depending on the scale. A friend of mine suffers from Williams Syndrome which entails an IQ in the 60s [1]. Needless to say, an IQ at that level severely hampers job prospects and relegates many of those in that IQ range to a life of permanent low-wages. State records in Wisconsin found that around 10,000 physically and mentally disabled workers don't even make the minimum wage [2]. Take this in contrast to a friend of mine who will be graduating Notre Dame shortly and is guaranteed a job at an investment firm upon graduation. It's these very blatant inequalities in natural abilities that should render the claim of "equal opportunity" dead in the practical world. Whether the quality in question is athletic ability, intellect, or somewhere else there were be vast differences in ability from the moment of birth in the form of genetics. Economic Differences Each family will divide its income in different ways depending on the priorities of that household. Choices such as "Will my child attend a private school rather than the public one?" Or whether tutors will be hired (and how often) are all decisions that need to be made by households with a given amount of disposable income. Even those in the same income brackets will invariably divide these differently depending on the needs of the children or external costs such as medical care or providing supplementary income to a family member in need. It follows that each child in a given income bracket will be allocated a different amount of income that will be spent either on education, athletic endeavors (private trainers, perhaps), music lessons, or any number of other activities. Moreover, if a child is not given the resources needed to succeed in a certain area (for instance, if the family does not provide piano lessons for a child has a strong natural ability in that area) that talent may never be recognized. Combined with the natural abilities point, it should follow that in actuality the resources provided for a child's growth will entail that there is no true equality of opportunity.Remember, the equality of opportunity we are referring to is one that relates to the "everyday." If there are two children who have a very strong natural ability in cello yet only one is provided with the resources to pursue that talent there will inevitably be a strong difference in substantive opportunities. A similar line of thought applies in sports and academics. Vast differences in resource allocation during childhood will mold experiences as an adult.Cultural DifferencesPrevious discussions with DanT on this topic implies that he conceives of "success" in an atomistic framework that depends solely on motivation and intellect [3]. Even if this is true, it seemingly supports my first argument and leads to a concession on his part. It should also be noted that both Dan and I agree that IQ is largely heritable. I want to take this issue away from the traditional nature vs. nurture debate and ask Dan to consider the same individual (lets say this boy is intelligent, but not a genius) and consider him in two different cultures and environments. In one, the boy is in a successful public school absent gang violence and given parents who routinely instill the value of education. In the other, the boy attends a public school plagued with gang violence and instilled with family values stressing the necessity to stand up for oneself and practical, hands on knowledge over intellectual theorizing. In this situation, the conceptions of "the good life" vary from one focused largely on education achievement while the other conceives of success more through personal attributes. Of course, if we were to apply "equal opportunity" in terms of advancing economic class one of these conceptions of "the good" has better implications for that goal.Additionally, even controlling for parental influences that child in the gang-infested school is likely not an atomistic individual that will be ignored by his peers if he focuses his energy on academics. In interactions between males in a gang-related setting, or really any setting for that matter, the element of relative status within that group will play a major factor in determining success in relation with one's peers. Given the need to balance social and status-related issues with academic ones, the child in the gang-related setting will face tougher circumstances in the idea that "proving oneself" through the gang environment usually has dangerous implications. Failure to do so will likely result in social alienation, bullying, and shame towards one's family. Once this atomistic conception of an individual is abandoned it becomes much easier to perceive the fairly obvious truth that natural ability, economic situation, and cultural values all create an uneven playing field for individuals when the goal is advancing social class. Good luck to Pro. [1]http://www.nytimes.com...; [2]http://www.wkow.com...?clienttype=printable [3]http://www.debate.org...;