On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 10:54 AM, William Conger <[email protected]>wrote:
> Yes, I'm inclined to go with Saul on this. While there is never a solid > guarantee that some people will be forever excluded from opportunity to > improve > their lots by their own efforts, it's evident that it is indeed the case > just as > it's the case that some with privilege and wealth will never lose it by > their > own foolishness. (When you have billions of dollars, as many do nowadays, > even > a dedicated profligacy couldn't drain it all). > > It comes down to the old struggle between 'rights by opportunity' or > 'rights by > condition'. Some people, always the ones who have superior rights by > condition, > want to deny those same rights to others and claim that the inferior > conditions > of others are set by some divine code. The most they will allow is that > those > others can earn their way toward a new condition by making their own > opportunities. Then they restrict those opportunities by many insidious > means, > replacing the harsh, rigid reality with a foggy mythologizing such as > "anyone > can make good with hard work". Again, if you begin with social and economic > privileges you have a good chance to keep and improve them. If you begin > with > social and economic deprivations, you will probably never escape them > fully. So > far as I know, this has been the case in every complex society since the > beginning of history. It's true that some societies are more open to > 'change by > opportunity' and maybe none has done better than the USA (excepting the > period > of slavery) but permanent inequality and injustice remains the central > problem > of human society, in my view. > "Does equality of opportunity produce..equality?": http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2012/07/23/does-equality-of-opportunit y-produce-equality/
