Day 223: Equality of Opportunity: Introduction – Equality and Human Rights – Part 3

Continuing from: Day 219: Equality and Human Rights
Day 221: Are Humans Equal? – Equality and Human Rights – Part 2

Within this blog we will be looking at some of the interpretations of the concept ‘Equality of Opportunity’. The views on Equality of Opportunity can be broadly split up in two perspectives, one which is considered an ‘egalitarian’ view and looks at Equality of Opportunity as Equality of Starting Point – and another which is connected to a liberal point of view which sees Equality of Opportunity as Equality of Access.

When the topic of discussion is Equality of Opportunity, the term ‘opportunity’ is linked specifically to opportunity within the sense of education, job and career. Those who are more liberal believe that what is important is that everyone has ‘access’ to the same opportunities. This basically means that ‘the opportunity exists’, not per se that you will be able to make use of it. This view of Equality of Opportunity is defended on the basis of merit, talent, skill and effort – where there is an inherent belief existent that if you ‘work hard enough, you’ll be able to pursue your dreams’. According to this view, material conditions are not a deciding factor in whether or not someone will be able to make use of an opportunity. From their perspective, the egalitarian view of Equality of Opportunity as Equality if Starting Point is ineffective and inefficient.

Within the stance of Equality of Starting Point, material conditions are taken into consideration as important variables which will influence one’s success in pursuing a particular education/career. Not everyone comes from the same social background, and this may lead to some facing obstacles, hindering their path to achievement. To remove these obstacles, everyone should be given adequate material resource availability so that everyone can enjoy the same start and thus the same opportunities. But – because not everyone will use these opportunities in the same way (eg. One does not study sufficiently to pass one’s exams) – we still have a difference in outcome. This difference, is dubbed to be an ‘unequal’ outcome – and used as an argument by those who are pro-opportunity-of-access to dismiss the concept of Equality of Starting Point – as in the end, those who ‘deserve’ success based on effort, talent and skill – still reach success, while those who didn’t exercise effort, talent or skill will not reach their point of success. From their perspective, the establishment of an Equal Starting Point is just a waste of scarce resources while promoting ‘unequal outcome. The only way to have ‘real equality’ within a context of Equality of Starting Point, is apparently by forcing the same outcome on everyone – by either enabling those who are disadvantaged, or by disabling those who are advantaged (translation = ‘the industrious, ambitious and talented people’). Within following either method, it is believed that the more ambitious/able people are being disadvantaged for the sake of enabling the disadvantaged and is considered to be unfair. Whether it is through appropriating additional resources to the less advantaged (because apparently it means ‘taking it’ from the more advantaged), or directly, through medically and genetically disabling the more able (no joke, this actually comes up as an argument) – those who are in positions of advantage are being abused.

From the liberal side, there is also a strong belief present that human beings are not a product of their environment (which is one of the reasons why economic/material conditions are believed to not be relevant factors in the context of equality, freedom and opportunity). One’s ability to work hard and exhibition of particular talents is a ‘natural’ phenomenon, and is therefore a matter beyond morality or justice – as it merely ‘is’ and therefore cannot be fair or unfair.

It is these exact same beliefs that are in the end used to justify inequality within the world. We are unequal by nature – so this is by default ‘the just and right way’ – why bother to make equal that which was not equal in the first place? It’s just not ‘natural’.

So within this blog, we had a look at two different interpretations of Equality of Opportunity and had a look where each side is ‘coming from’. Within the next blog, we will be looking further into the justifications/beliefs used to defend inequality within the world, namely:

1. Equal starting point leads to unequal outcomes – so why bother
2. People are not a product of their environment
3. One’s genetic endowment as determining one’s position in society is beyond morality/justice

In the end, these beliefs/arguments are all just derivations of a single, essential belief – which is that we are not equal and thus it means that this is the way it should be – or alternatively: Equality is Unnatural.

Related articles

• Day 219: Equality and Human Rights
• Day 363: Basic Human Rights and Crime (Part One)
• Day 221: Are Humans Equal? - Equality and Human Rights - Part 2
• Day 367: Investigating Human Rights
• Day 220: Justice and Human Rights - Part 2
• Day 213: Equal Pay Day Every Day with Equal Money

Day 40: What is Economics?

Economics is about how a society decides to answer particular questions in relation to resource distribution – which can be brought down to the follow three:

1)    What should be produced by a society?
2)    How should it be produced?
3)    Who gets to consume what is produced?

Many hold the believe that economics is a ‘one way street’, where for instance ‘Capitalism’ is treated synonymous to ‘economics’, as the ‘only way’ that economics can ever be – while this is only one way of answering the above basic economic questions, and where the Equal Money System is another way of answering these three questions.

The above three questions are the basis of economics, and any form of economic system has to answer to these three questions. So whether you have an economic system based on complete government control or an economic system based on total individual control – the same questions are being dealt with, but in different ways.

Currently within the world there are several different types of economic systems, which economists like to present within a spectrum which runs from the one polarity of absolute government control to total individual control – where most of the economic systems currently lay in-between these two polarities.

Total Individual Control	What is produced, How and Who gets it is decided by individuals
Stage 2	Government deals with basics only such as police protection, enforcement of contracts, protecting property rights, national defense
Stage 3	Includes Stage 2 + additional services such as education, science, roads, fire protection
Stage 4	Stage 3 + additional programs such as health care and retirement
Stage 5	Stage 4 + state industries (steel, cars, agriculture), distribution of basic consumer goods (food, housing)
Stage 6	Stage 5 + government in charge of employment, housing, food, production, prices
Total Government Control	What is produces, How and Who gets decided by Government

However, as capitalism is the main overall system implemented within the world – students are mostly taught within the context of capitalism only – and since this is the system we are currently living in and as – this will be the system that we’ll walk through within these blogs.

So keep in mind that all the vocabulary points, concepts, views etc. which will be explained in this blog are specific to the current system in play, and may not necessarily be relevant to an Equal Money System. Yet we will still discuss these points as they form part of the current system, and the thought pattern of economists -- and thus form part in completing your understanding of how economics currently works and what requires to be corrected – both in how things are viewed and how things are structurally manifested according to these views.

Let’s have a look at some definitions which have been given to the term ‘Economics’, so we can establish the starting point of our current economic system.

“Economics is the study of how our scarce productive resources are used to satisfy human wants.” – George Leland Bach

“Economics is the study of how people allocate their limited resources to provide for their wants.” – Jack Harvey

“Economics is the study of the use of scarce resources to study unlimited human wants.” – Richard Lipsey

Within each one of these quotes we can derive the following components:

•    Scarcity of Resources
•    Human Wants
•    Choices

The current Economic Paradigm assumes an inherent conflict between “Scarcity of Resources” and “Human Wants” – which are often referred to as ‘unlimited’. Since we have only so many resources available – but unlimited wants to satisfy: we have to make certain choices – and something or someone will always have to be sacrificed (this is another re-occurring trend found within ‘trade-offs’ and ‘opportunity cost’).

So what’s fascinating to be observed from the statements of various people about “what is economics” – is that various value judgments* are implied, but which are never questioned or explained.

The component of ‘Human Wants’
This trend returns over and over again throughout current economic theory where precedence is being given to ‘human wants’ over ‘needs’.

The Anthropocentric View**
Another value judgment is implied, since the definitions of economics as the framework which encompasses the distribution of resources, only takes into consideration humans: what about the animals? plants? Earth itself?

Sacrifices Have to be Made
Since the definition of economics was agreed to be ‘unlimited wants vs limited resources’ – there is a value judgment implied, which we pointed out earlier as ‘wants over needs’ – and where this choice/preference inevitably leads to having to sacrifice since the definition as a mathematical equation is not balanced – which in itself reveals another value judgment, which is that sacrifices are acceptable – within the decision/agreement that wants ought to be placed over needs. Because if you have look at it, if the definition of economics had been around the lines of ‘the management of limited resources towards limited needs’ – then the point of conflict with which we are currently faced with as ‘unlimted’ vs ‘limited’ resulting in sacrifice – would not have existed!!

The starting point of current economic thought is completely self-contradictory:

Unlimited Wants + Limited Resources = Wants can never be satisfied

I mean, it’s simple math that this is an unsustainable goal – so why pursue it at all? It just doesn’t make any sense! So – the amount of suffering and destruction currently taking place on Earth, is really no surprise if one just consider this one statement, as the definition of economics – which is not only completely beside the point (in terms of wants over needs – humans over everything), but mathematically impossible to be sustained. Yet, this is what we’ve accepted and allowed to be lived within the World – and within this chase of obtaining and achieving the impossible (satisfying all our desires), we are driving millions into their grave, as the sacrifice we willingly give – as pointed out above. And for what? For wants and desires which are apparently worth more than basic needs?

This is completely unacceptable.

Yet no-one seems to question this point – thus economic thought is really just a reflection of our own thought as living beings, as our character as Human Beings, where we all collectively decided within ourselves that our personal desires and wants are to be prioritized over the tending of everyone’s basic needs with what we have, as available resources on Earth.

Isn’t that just plain…..evil?

* Value judgment:
a judgment assigning a value (as good or bad) to something

** Anthropocentric:
1 : considering human beings as the most significant entity of the universe
2 : interpreting or regarding the world in terms of human values and experiences