![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Thoughts on reading a 'debate' about whether liberals, no matter their intentions, are just awful.
Marx's communism is dead. Nobody has been advocating equality of outcome for years. Too many folk have been beating that dead horse for far too long.
One of the questions I have about the whole Milton Friedman debating point of equality of outcome vs. equality of opportunity is this, if one believes that we now have equal opportunities, how does one explain that women/the poor/minorities don't routinely find themselves at the same level of advancement/wealth/societal success as men/middle-to-upper-classers/white? Is it possible to reconcile income and social disparity with equal opportunity without saying that some folk (namely rich white men) are simply better than other people?
It seems logically that either the playing field is level, and I'm suceeding and you're not just because I'm better than you, or the playing field isn't level. Just my thought.
One of the questions I have about the whole Milton Friedman debating point of equality of outcome vs. equality of opportunity is this, if one believes that we now have equal opportunities, how does one explain that women/the poor/minorities don't routinely find themselves at the same level of advancement/wealth/societal success as men/middle-to-upper-classers/white? Is it possible to reconcile income and social disparity with equal opportunity without saying that some folk (namely rich white men) are simply better than other people?
It seems logically that either the playing field is level, and I'm suceeding and you're not just because I'm better than you, or the playing field isn't level. Just my thought.