Equality of Opportunity not Results
One reason I bristle every time I hear gay activists prattle on about equality is that many of them harbor political views similar to that of the current President of the United States. And his policies punish the productive to promote equal outcomes.
When I see the raft of legislation state “equality” groups advocate in order to supposedly advance gay interests, I fear they favor increasing amounts of state meddling to secure the “full equality” they claim as their goal. I prefer freedom to equality. It’s easier to define and requires far less state intervention.
Well, today, while doing my laundry, I picked up a copy of the Wall Street Journal.  (Sometimes, I really do miss reading a real dead-tree newspaper). Therein, I chanced upon Congressman Paul Ryan’s alternative to the president’s economic plans. Taking issue with the prevailing ethos in Washington, the up and coming Wisconsin Republican had this to offer:
In a nutshell, the president’s budget seemingly seeks to replace the American political idea of equalizing opportunity with the European notion of equalizing results.
In the past, we strove toward the goal of equal opportunity by tearing down discriminatory barriers initially erected at the government’s behest. But, in recent years, decades really, Democrats (with the help of some Republicans) turned to the government not to level the playing field, but to benefit those once burdened by those barriers and to redistribute the wealth of those who used that playing field to their advantage.
For those who think Republicans have no new ideas and are just the party of “No,” I suggest you read Ryan’s piece. After his prefatory criticism of the president’s policies, he focuses entirely on outlining his approach. And he’s not the only Republican to put forward ideas on how to address the current crisis.
For that alone, it’s an important document in our ongoing debate.
For me, it also serves as a reminder to address more regularly my concerns with any agenda which makes “equality” its goal. We don’t need additional legislation to promote the American ideal of equal opportunity.  We just need the state to get out of the way so that individual Americans can find their own way to success.
And to ensure our freedom so we can more readily travel that path.
14 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
The only time when all men will have equal results is when we are all so impoverished that we all depend on the state for our food. Free men are not equal, equal men are not free.
Comment by John in Dublin, Ca — March 2, 2009 @ 11:46 pm - March 2, 2009
The standard of “equality”, for the left, means that we’re all equally as miserable as they are.
I’ll have no part of it, thanks.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 3, 2009 @ 12:48 am - March 3, 2009
In bHo’s America, equality means everybody will get a pair of shoes. In a free America people who want shoes or need them will find a way to get a pair that fits.
Comment by bear1909 — March 3, 2009 @ 1:09 am - March 3, 2009
John Conyer’s Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act, comes to mind when we talk about the government stepping in and making life equal. I prefer individuals work for their own equality, rather than trying to politicize their ideology of equality, through legislation.
ABIDE!
Comment by Charles — March 3, 2009 @ 1:34 am - March 3, 2009
i like how suddenly a progressive taxation system is “redistributing the wealth”. last i checked, our tax structure has been that way for almost a century, under repubs and dems. tweaking the margins a bit doesn’t change the overall structure of the system. under bush, income tax as a percentage of income still went up with income. was that socialism?
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 3, 2009 @ 6:45 am - March 3, 2009
At the moment, the link to Ryan’s piece is broken – here it is:
http://www.house.gov/ryan/speeches_and_editorials/2009speechesandeditorials/3209WSJoped.htm
Why, GPW? Do you think reading will make a difference? You think bob, for example, cares about reason or facts? Let’s look:
Nothing about socialism, progressive taxation or redistribution appeared in either GPW’s piece or Ryan’s, which you would know if you had read them. Having said that, let’s play the game your way. There is nothing “sudden” about it, bob. Conservatives and so-called “progressives” alike have been saying it openly for a century, with the so-called “progressives” explicitly calling out the redistributionism as an allegedly positive feature of the tax system. Or where have you been? LOL
Oh – THAT makes it non-redistributionist. THAT changes its nature! Never mind that Republicans have generally tried to change it in one direction, and Democrats in the other. Never mind that, in the century of which you speak, swinging the top rate from as little as 1% to as much as 90%.
What a delightful way to mix apples with oranges and rub them all with red herrings. bob, I love the mush that is your brain. I’ll try to explain a couple things. I know it won’t work, but maybe other readers will enjoy it. Socialism is public ownership of the means of production. If you want to talk about socialism, bob, you have to talk about government owning shares of companies in the name of bailing them out, say, or government taking over sectors of the economy, say health care. Having said that, “progressive” taxation does accomplish much the same goal as socialism, which is to let the unproductive (that would be you, bob, if you happen to have a government or political job there in DC) exploit and/or punish the productive. Many conservatives and other economic libertarians have long advocated a flat income tax, or no income tax at all. Yes – gasp! – they even continued advocating it under Bush! (Unbelievable!) And have you been reading this blog *at all*, bob? Because if you had, you would be aware of the sharp criticism – indeed, rejection – of Bush’s economic policies that has often appeared in these pages. Some of Bush’s policies were indeed socialism, as some of us have long been saying.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 3, 2009 @ 7:51 am - March 3, 2009
At the moment, the link to Ryan’s piece is broken – here it is:
http://www.house.gov/ryan/speeches_and_editorials/2009speechesandeditorials/3209WSJoped.htm
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 3, 2009 @ 7:53 am - March 3, 2009
Why, GPW? Do you think reading will make a difference? You think bob, for example, cares about facts? Let’s look:
Nothing about socialism, progressive taxation or redistribution appeared in either GPW’s piece or Ryan’s, which you would know if you had read them. Having said that, let’s play the game your way. There is nothing “sudden” about it, bob. Conservatives and so-called “progressives” alike have been saying it openly for a century, with the so-called “progressives” explicitly calling out the redistributionism as an allegedly positive feature of the tax system. Or where have you been? LOL
Oh – THAT makes it non-redistributionist. THAT changes its nature! Never mind that Republicans have generally tried to change it in one direction, and Democrats in the other. Never mind that, in the century of which you speak, swinging the top rate from as little as 1% to as much as 90%.
What a delightful way to mix apples with oranges and rub them all with red herrings. bob, I love the mush that is your brain. I’ll try to explain a couple things. I know it won’t work, but maybe other readers will enjoy it. Socialism is public ownership of the means of production. If you want to talk about socialism, bob, you have to talk about government owning shares of companies in the name of bailing them out, say, or government taking over sectors of the economy, say health care. Having said that, “progressive” taxation does accomplish much the same goal as socialism, which is to let the unproductive (that would be you, bob, if you happen to have a government or political job there in DC) exploit and/or punish the productive. Many conservatives and other economic libertarians have long advocated a flat income tax, or no income tax at all. Yes – gasp! – they even continued advocating it under Bush! (Unbelievable!) And have you been reading this blog *at all*, bob? Because if you had, you would be aware of the sharp criticism – indeed, rejection – of Bush’s economic policies that has often appeared in these pages. Some of Bush’s policies were indeed socialism, as some of us have long been saying.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 3, 2009 @ 7:53 am - March 3, 2009
filtered – and if near-duplicate comments appear later, apologies
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 3, 2009 @ 7:54 am - March 3, 2009
under the catagory of ‘from each according to his ability’ yes bob, it is.
That would be why you see flat taxers on the right. The left’s way of taxation is ‘taxes for thee, not for me’ per the Obama adminsitration
Comment by The Livewire — March 3, 2009 @ 9:38 am - March 3, 2009
Dan, one of many great contributions from Jack Kemp to a constructive list of GOP tenets is the notion of the Opportunity Society vis a vis the Dem’s equality of outcome.
25+ yrs ago, he had it right; it still is right. America should be working toward ensuring an eqaul opportunity for all, not an equal outcome of govt programs for all.
I always appreciated Kemp using those famous words in the Declaration to prove that govt HAS a role in ensuring the Opportunity Society when it says:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed….”
To secure the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, governments are instituted among men.
We sometimes lose sight of the notion that govt DOES have a role in our society. I prefer to think of that role as one ensuring the equal opportunity of all, rather than monitoring the equal outcome of those opportunities for some.
Good piece.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 3, 2009 @ 11:14 am - March 3, 2009
yes, livewire, i’m aware that flat taxers are generally on the right. my point is that, in practice, we’ve had a progressive tax system for all of our lives, under both democrats and republicans.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — March 3, 2009 @ 6:17 pm - March 3, 2009
Oh, I’m sorry.
I was confusing your point with the question you were asking.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 3, 2009 @ 6:39 pm - March 3, 2009
Thanks for the article I agree completely.
I can also see how the emphasis on equality without the qualification of what you want to be equal can be misleading.
I am also in favor of flat taxes. If everyone is paying the same percentage, then everyone is “equal”.
Comment by DanM — March 3, 2009 @ 7:19 pm - March 3, 2009