[Gnote]

Well, since I've been having this debate in seemingly every thread I post in, I'd like to see what the rest of you think.

In a capitalist society, does equality of opportunity exist? That is: are all people born with an EQUAL chance to succeed in life, regardless of the social standing of the family into which they are born? Are those children born into the poorest homes in Harlem as likely to succeed as children born into families in suburban Los Angeles?

Should the government do anything about it? In other words: should there be any form of wealth re-distribution in order to bridge the gap between rich and poor?

[Attenuated Signal]

Well seen as I believe firmly in statist approaches I'd say that people are not born into equal environments, they do not have equal opportunities to succeed and that government intervention is required.

While Libertarianism always seems like such a nice idea it's always completely unworkable as it requires people to be a lot nicer than they are. Statism recognises the fact that people are not inherently good and forces behaviour on them through legislature.

[The One.]

Yes they are born with equal opportunities. Everyone can reach the same end as someone who is rich and even go farther then them.
Only psychological barriers and moral corruption stops them from doing so.

No there should be no redistribution fo wealth as funds for social services serves little except the bureaucrats which is inevitable. And even if wealth was effectively distributed,we should oppose it because redistributing wealth does not create more wealth and slows down the economy.

[glinert]

Every is not born with total equality because total equality assumes that everyone is equal.

I may just have lower or Higher IQ or worse or better social skills than others.

This can curtail my succeses and ventures.

Anyone however can apply themselves their best of their ability. Success is relative, yes I am only proffessor but I feel succesful.

[Todd D.]

Well said glinert, very well said indeed.

[Subversive Rob]

One word - inheritance.

[Gnote]

One word - inheritance.

Exactly.

[Pope Perseus Peptabysmal]

One word - inheritance.

... is not always good. For every successful person who benefited from inheritance, there are 10 others who had jack shit or no inheritance and had more success.**

Eh, I've really got to stop multitasking.

[Gnote]

One word - inheritance.

... is not always good. For every successful person who benefited from inheritance, there are 10 others who had jack shit or no inheritance.

That's his point, I believe. People that start rich (i.e., through inheritance) have better opportunity to succeed.

[Attila The Nun]

It all varies. Capitalism is not as black and white as everyone wants to assume. I would say with America there is a lot more equality to succeed than other places, such as Chile (of course, there's always more need for reform, but that's inevitable).

[Reichsführer Wilhelm]

Yes, there is equal opportunity in capitalism. Greed is blind, it knows no race nor sex.

[Lionheart]

Nobody is truly born with any right to wealth, it depends on what your forebarers have accomplished.

For instance a poor man can have an idea that generates wealth, he can then take that wealth and invest it , make it grow, it doesn't even have to be a huge amount, said not-so-poor man then dies. His child, if he had one, then can take that money and repeat the cycle or loose it all.

This premise of "everyone is born with X opportunity" is relatively meaningless, there is only choice. Choice to have children or not, regardless of financial circumstances.

[Seán Himmelb(L)au]

We should all be given equal oppurtunity to do whatever we want in life, but it is up to the individual how they use and if they take that chance.

[jaakko]

I voted the third option:
"No, all people are not born with an equal opportunity to succeed, but people should play the hand they are dealth and not expect the government to equalize opportunity."

If the people wants more equality, it shouldn't expect the government to do that, quite the opposite. What I propose is not "lottery" mentality, however...

About the "equal opportunities". Maybe the simplest way to refute this unscientific assumption is to refer to the development of the society's class composition during capitalism's development. During the development of capitalism, the percentage of the capitalists has shrunk constantly. Obviously this is due to other factors than "people not using their opportunities". So we can see that opportunities vary over time between individuals, on the scale of society, as well as between countries and areas. Even such small-scale factor as how one is raised as a kid affects his opportunities.

[Clovis]

People certainly aren't born with "equality of opportunity," but, considering equality is impossible, they do have "fairness of opportunity."

[Gnote]

they do have "fairness of opportunity."

Can you define what you mean by that?

[Clovis]

they do have "fairness of opportunity."

Can you define what you mean by that?

Sure ... all people have an opportunity that is consistent with the eithics of civilization. People may not have the same resources to begin, but they are almost always given the opportunity to rise to the same level. In fact, most people are expected and encouraged to rise above their beginnings. Bankers can become bums and bums can become bankers.

[Gnote]

they do have "fairness of opportunity."

Can you define what you mean by that?

Sure ... all people have an opportunity that is consistent with the eithics of civilization. People may not have the same resources to begin, but they are almost always given the opportunity to rise to the same level. In fact, most people are expected and encouraged to rise above their beginnings. Bankers can become bums and bums can become bankers.

Ballpark the following for me:

If you had to take your best guess, what percentage of people born into a family that is at or below the poverty line would you say end up in the nations highest tax bracket?

Similarly, if you had to take your best guess, what percentage of people born into families in the top tax bracket will end up in the bottom tax bracket?

If you had to take your best guess, what percentage of people in the top tax bracket were born into families that were in the top tax bracket? What percentage were born into families at or below the poverty line?

[Clovis]

Ballpark the following for me:

If you had to take your best guess, what percentage of people born into a family that is at or below the poverty line would you say end up in the nations highest tax bracket?

Similarly, if you had to take your best guess, what percentage of people born into families in the top tax bracket will end up in the bottom tax bracket?

If you had to take your best guess, what percentage of people in the top tax bracket were born into families that were in the top tax bracket? What percentage were born into families at or below the poverty line?

I have no idea. But it really doesn't matter because we are talking about opportunity only, not statistics. For example, the statistics say that no black man has been elected president, but the reality is that black men have a fair (not equal) opportunity to do so.

[Gnote]

I have no idea. But it really doesn't matter because we are talking about opportunity only, not statistics. For example, the statistics say that no black man has been elected president, but the reality is that black men have a fair (not equal) opportunity to do so.

Fair opportunity for social mobility would require "fair" access to resources to employ in one's quest to move up. I don't think that "fair" access exists.