From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:18:42 GMT

In article <lc6lmhINN2pq@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>|> 
>|> You did not answer the more pertinent question:  how can you quantify
>|> what is equal?  The answer is extremely important to your position 
>|> because you claim equality is the just goal.  Therefore, until equality
>|> is obtained there can be _no_ justice.  Or do you just want things to
>|> be more equal?  That would indicate that you are envious of achievers
>|> rather than a true believer in equality.
>
>Actually, I am not in a position to be too envious.  But your question
>is reasonable.  What I define as equality is equality of opportunity.
>Everyone needs to have the same opportunity to fail, or succeed.  If
>adequate nutrition, basic health care, and a decent education are
>required to provide this, then that's my measurement.

Coincidentally, I was thinking about this during the weekend.  I tried to
imagine exactly what it would take to ensure that everyone had an equal
opportunity at being X.  The variables are infinite.  Think about it, 
even genetically people have advantages - I could never lead the NOW
movement due to a few genes out of place.  How about the Jordan example
again?  His experiences in his environment may have given him advantages
in confidence or toughness which someone else would not - is this fair?
I think that we should make certain that everyone has the same information
in their heads so that when we take tests or apply for jobs that we
all have the same opportunity to succede.

There is no way to be certain that equality of opportunity is acheived
but I will grant you that some basic things can be done out of compassion
which you outlined above.

>|> Your hypothetical situation above is a sad one indeed, but it is so
>|> often used to justify the wholesale promotion of equality of results.
>|> Those in poverty deserve help, it's the concept that the only way
>|> to do it is to bring down the rich that I object to.  And once all
>|> the wealth is taken and used up then what?  Where does your philosophy
>|> believe the future support for the poor will come.
>|> 
>You have retargetted the issue to "equality of results" rather than
>"equality of opportunity."  I have no interest in "bringing down" the
>rich.  You have two choices since you agree that those in poverty
>deserve help.  The "rich" can help directly or there needs to be
>taxation and a governmental system to do it.  What the rich want is
>to not have to do anything and to not have government programs that do
>anything.  That is what is immoral.  The wealthy control the resources
>necessary to provide opportunity - dollars, jobs, etc. -- and show
>no desire to "help."

Put aside the fact that those truly poor people do receive significant
help from the government.  I was not aware the the rich did not want to
help (period).  What about the fact that charitable contributions went
up during the "evil" 80's?  Does this not imply that the rich gave more
when they had more?

Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,tx.politics