Just Say “No” To Equality of Opportunity
Larry Summers recently wrote an op-ed arguing that although there is a rift between liberals and conservatives over the issue of income inequality, one thing everyone can agree on is that there is not enough equality of opportunity. “It is hard to see who could disagree with the aspiration to equalize opportunity.”
Damn few, that’s for sure. This notion of “equality of opportunity” has been taken up by everyone from Arthur Brooks to Milton Friedman.
But allow me to demur. Just think of what it would mean to take this idea seriously.
- Do I have the same equality of opportunity as Steve Jobs’s children? Nope. So I guess that means the government needs to take some of their inheritance and give it to me.
- Do I have the same equality of opportunity as Barack Obama’s children? Nope. So I guess that means the government needs to give me some of their connections.
- Does the child of two morons have the same opportunity as the child of two geniuses? Nope. So what’s the government to do? It can’t make one kid smarter. Is “equality of opportunity” going to require it to bash in the brains of the intelligent child?
“Equality of opportunity” is incompatible with freedom. Indeed, in practice there is no difference between the egalitarian attempt to equalize outcomes and the attempt to equalize opportunity. One man’s outcome is another’s opportunity. A parent’s success is his child’s opportunity. A business owner’s success is a future employee’s opportunity. The only way to try to equalize opportunities is to equalize outcomes.
The sad irony in all this is that freedom is the source of opportunity. When a country is free, everyone has the opportunity to succeed. Although some will inevitably face greater struggles than others, no one can stop another person from succeeding.
The more you promote “equality of opportunity,” the less opportunity any of us will have.
21 Comments to “Just Say “No” To Equality of Opportunity”
This article is, what I consider, original thinking. It enlightened me, it made my day.
Many thanks.
The way I see it, opportunity is not some static commodity; it is an infinite potential. Opportunity is discovered, realized, and hopefully exploited, as opportunity only exists where something could be done better. Opportunity is in the eye of the beholder.
A potential to be nothing definite, ie, a liberal.
Great insight, as usual, but I thought I’d offer my perspective on the issue. Equality is sameness. Vertical sameness, but it’s sameness nonetheless. It’s a form of homogeneity, a concept usually despised by those in the mainstream (ironic, isn’t it?) Why is diversity sought in every dimension except economics? Why can we not embrace the notion that you can’t use force to instill ANY form of sameness? This notion of equal opportunity is about as difficult to achieve as any other floating abstraction such as perfect competition or the absence of ‘rule’ (AKA anarchy). It is incumbent upon those of us who reject faith-derived knowledge in all its forms to show our left-leaning counterparts that their attempt at faith-derived knowledge in the economic and social realms are inconsistent with the rest of their beliefs.
Remember, we’re talking about the ideological movement that goes on railing against consumerism but holds Paul Krugman and John Maynard Keynes as their most important economists. The contradictions are stark and clear, but we’re not doing a good enough job illustrating that fact.
Time to embrace the world of Harrison Bergeron.
“Equality of opportunity” is another of those bait-and-switch terms that people take to be well-meaning but is in fact the curtain behind which hides a philosophical monster.
Wow Don!! Once again incredibly well written. You never cease to amaze me on how you take a concept and break it down to the essence of its philosophical meaning in just a few shorts sentences so that anybody can grasp it. I pre-ordered Yaron’s and your book a few weeks ago and am really looking forward to reading it.
Great article Don.
What is desperately needed is not “equality of opportunity”, but the freedom to compete, which means: the freedom to produce and trade values under strictly voluntary terms mutually agreeable to all parties involved, with no party to the transaction having the power to physically coerce another and with government playing no role other than protecting the right of all parties to be free of physical coercion.
And history shows that when the freedom to compete is protected, inherited wealth and “connections” are no match for the ingenuity and energy of the innovator. Ironically, the freedom to compete is what the left’s cherished “little guy” or “commom man” needs and benefits from the most - and yet it is precise this freedom that the left is furiously devoted to stamping out through government regulation of economic activity.
Keep up the good work gentlemen. As Miss Rand said, the only way to answer bad ideas is with good ideas — and you two do a great job articulating them.
What Mr. Watkins describes is equality of results. Better intelligence, connection, resources, celebrity, etc. are advantages but they do not change the base opportunity of going from nothing to wealth. Making the standard for opportunity the same experience for everyone is another form of egalitarianism. Opportunity is the path. You measure its availability by those who reach the end. Since the majority of new millionaires come from the entrepreneur pool and not the inheritance pool then the conclusion I come to is that the path is still open.
“Equality of opportunity” has no context, no content and refers to nothing. Summers was head of Harvard, a school that has been teaching nothing, with citations, for a long time.
I don’t find this argument very compelling. No one is advocating bashing in heads of intelligent children, death duties or forcing the people that know Obama to meet poor kids. Unless you can show that that is the inevidable outcome of equality of opportunity measures, it is a straw man argument. Even if you could it is a only utilitarian argument. Where is the moral principal? What’s wrong with taxing millionares to provide scholarships or first time business loans for the poor? That wouldn’t be equalizing outcome, just opportunity.
I don’t quite follow you Stephen. What I tried to show was the immoral consequences of taking the principle of “equality of opportunity” seriously. The example you give only reinforces my point. You’re taking away the freedom of some people to use their wealth for their own purposes in order to promote other people’s opportunity. And, what’s more, you’re also really just equalizing outcomes—you’re making rich person less rich in order to make a poor person less poor.
No one is advocating taking equality of opportunity to its logical consequence. The Soviets and Khmer Rouge bashed in many sculls, but not to equalize intelligence. It would be compelling if you proved that 100% death duties, social equalization and intelligent reduction operations are an inevitable consequence of equality of opportunity, but I don’t think you have done that. Alternatively you could show that the moderate application of equality of opportunity, which is being proposed, is undesirable or immoral.
My understanding of equalizing outcomes is making the outcomes the same. Taxing millionaires (which I don’t advocate) will still leave them rich. The business load to a poor person will only make him rich if he succeeds on his his own merit (plus the loan).
Evaluating human choices and actions according to their logical consequences is precisely how moral principles are formed and used. To show the logical consequences of an action *is* to show its (im)morality.
The fact that most advocates of “equality” don’t advocate (or practice) the logical consequences of their alleged ideals, should give one pause.
Don, what is the purpose of this blog? Is it:
a) Reinforcing the convictions of those who have thoroughly studied and accepted Rand’s philosophy, who fully accept the arguments of Anatomy of a Compromise and believe that any form of moderation is a transitory state to extremism and an excise tax and scholarship will inevitably lead to the Anthem universe;
b) To give Rand followers arguments to counter those advocating altruism; or
c) To give those who believe in individualism and freedom, but who have also accepted some altruistic premises because of the influence of culture, to question the altruistic ideas?
b) and c) are more useful objectives, but require arguments that cannot be refuted to the satisfaction of most non-objectivists.
there is no equality of opportunity. there is only the freedom of opportunity
The idea that equality of opportunity is important stems from the false premise that we all come into this world competing to get some amount of a fixed pie, and if my neighbor starts out with better opportunities, he’ll get more and consequently I’ll get less. However, this is simply untrue.
The question that should be asked of any advocate of ‘equality of opportunity’ is “Equality — measured how?” You have two people in different concrete life circumstances. Each of them has certain opportunities available to them as a result. How shall we measure those opportunities in a way that renders them commensurable, so that we can judge whether they are equal? Which is a better opportunity, having parents who read to you regularly or parents who send you to a Montessori preschool? Is the opportunity to attend a state university worth more or less than the opportunity to work in the family business? How can we compare?
I submit that it can’t be done, and that if pressed the advocates of equality of opportunity must fall back on some variation of “I *feel* that this person had less opportunity than that one.” And that means that ‘equality of opportunity’ reduces to assuaging the feelings of a self-selected advocacy group, which seems like a bad basis for public policy.
Another problem that the advocates of equality of opportunity need to address, but cannot, is the question of squandered opportunities. Merely because someone has been presented with an opportunity does not mean they took advantage of it. At what point can we hear the plea “I just want a chance” and respond with “You had one and you blew it”?
I agree with the post, but you’re making an assumption when you say “..So what’s the government to do? It can’t make one kid smarter. Is “equality of opportunity” going to require it to bash in the brains of the intelligent child?”
Yes, most likely the child of the two morons will not be as smart as the child of two geniuses, but the “lack of opportunity” is more likely based on the relative success of the parents (at least when the child is young). It’s clear you’re talking about the brain power of the children since you reference bashing in the brains of the intelligent child, which of course you’re assuming came from the two geniuses (which is most likely true).
Many things are genetic but don’t we need to check ourselves when we start to prejudge?
This might have worked better: “Should the government lobotomize a genius to the level of the dullest among us.”?
Mr. Summers, agree and disagree with your posted article. Equal Opportunity is not to equalize a fortunate kids, individuals over what they have earned through hard work or inherited. EO is to giving a chance to men mind and their ability to peruse, to excel, to challenge, and to strive. . . .
Geniuses started from nothing, started from fears of the humans domination and exclusively to specific elites.