On the Hanson/Henson thread Bronywn made the following comment

"I actually believe that a fair and decent society should strive to create equal outcomes for its citizens. That actually involves treating them differently, not equally. People who are disadvantaged need assistance that others born into better circumstances do not. When you treat all people equally you actually end up with an unjust society." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1896#38554

There was some further discussion on that thread about outcome vs opportunity with PaulL and I both commenting.

Bronywn added some additional comment at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1896#38642 (and around it).

I suspect that there is an elemnt of semantics in this, the things Bronywn describes seem to me like things we'd do to create equality of opportunity.

But then how do we measure either, at an individual level neither make sense but possibly across large groups measures can be made with some meaning. If we measure outcomes can we account for the differences which drive people to make different choices and do we measure broadly enough to get a real sense of outcomes.

Is this just semantics? Is it valid to measure fairness and equality by outcomes and if so what outcomes do we need to measure to get a valid sense of how we are travelling?

R0bert

Robert,

>>”? Is it valid to measure fairness and equality by outcomes and if so what outcomes do we need to measure to get a valid sense of how we are travelling?

No. In answer to your question it is not valid to measure fairness and equality by measuring and then manipulating outcomes.

The Soviets and numerous other communists tried to create a society where (most) people had equal outcomes, (we’ll ignore the party hierarchy at the moment).These societies showed that without incentive people refused to work with any real commitment. This led (amongst other factors)to the eventual bankruptcy of these countries. They just couldn’t produce the amounts of food and other materials they needed because there was no incentive to work hard.

It is neither fair nor desirable to ensure that people have the same outcomes. It is a de-motivational policy that helps no one except the lazy and the stupid.

In my opinion we need to ensure that we all get equal opportunities in education, health and welfare to allow us to take advantage, if we wish, of the possibilities. This is not to say that some groups won’t need more funding or resources to ensure they get an equal opportunity, they will. And that is not a problem.

The problems come when we attempt to dictate equal outcomes for people. This is mostly motivated by the politics of envy.

Innovation has more often been bred of a desire to do something faster, better, longer, usually with a profit of some sort in mind. Take away this profit motive and we see our baser instincts of laziness and ignorance begin to reappear.

Hi Robert, interesting issues you raise.

The long and the short of the debate is

People are different, diversity is great.

We are not all the same.

Some excel at sports
Some excel at music

We applaud those who excel so.

Other folk do not excel.

Based on my own school and college days,

Should we deny the elite sports person right to the oval because he can out perform someone like me?

Should we deny those gifted people right to musical scholarships because they can play better than folk like me who are tone deaf?

I would hope neither. I enjoy and applaud the gifted, with a sense of “if only I could” but without envy or angst.

Now we come to the financially and materially astute.

Some folk know what is a good investment, what is a good commercial opportunity, which suburbs are about to increase in value, where they can gain the best return on their resources and efforts.

Should their ability to stand out in their field of excellence and acceptance of the kudos and reward be denied them?

I would suggest. not if you are prepared to recognise and applaud the elite sports person or musician.

“Is it valid to measure fairness and equality by outcomes and if so what outcomes do we need to measure to get a valid sense of how we are travelling?”

No point in measuring ‘fairness’.

There are too many uncontrollable input variables, ranging from genetic inheritance to material circumstances of parents to social customs and practices or some obsessive desire to protect children from the shortcomings of their own parents, to ever achieve “fairness”.

“Equality of outcomes” can only be considered when the quality of effort, commitment, research and focus are also assessed.

A lot of whiners (fractelle springs to mind) go on about the supposed success of others without knowing the degree of effort which those others put into achieving their successes.

So “Equality of outcome”.

Not so long as we are free choose to commit unequal amounts of personal effort and take personal risks.

I think I agree with you Col Rouge.

One of the fallacies of modern politics is that "we are all born equal"
We are not born equal at all. If we reduce it all to the ability of make money, I would consider "being the right person at the right time" as being more appropriate. I really don't think we need, or can expect total equality

Of course everyone would agree that an equal opportunity for everyone would be the goal to aspire to, but even this is reaching for the impossible, because in a free society money will buy more opportunity for some. Generally speaking, ability in any chosen pursuit, will rise to the top, but there is often a notion of luck that comes with it. There are so many examples of well known people, who have benefited from some kind of serendipity while others arguably more talented have not succeeded.

Unfortunately we live in a society of envy and an attitude often prevails that suggests that people who are successful should be reduced to a common denominator, hence the "tall poppy syndrome" that we have to put up with in this country.

The slogan 'equal outcomes' sounds good, but what does it mean in practice? I am keen to read practical examples of what it means in real life so that I can make sense of it.

I suspect, however, 'equal outcomes' is in fact part of the 'we are all victims' campaign. This requires no effort on our part because every problem we face is somebody else's fault and all problems will be fixed by the nanny state.

So what does 'equal outcomes' mean?

Does it mean we all come first in the 100m dash in Year 1?

Does it mean we all receive the same marks at school regardless of aptitude or effort?

Do we all get paid the same regardless of whether we are good at the job or even turn up every day?

I'm personally in the working towards equality of opportunity camp. The points Bronywn raised in the other thread did look to me as if thats what she suggesting as well (is it mostly semantics).

Thinking about the issue I have wondered if outcomes are a useful measure of success when used across large groups. If so we'd also have to have a range of measures as individual ones can be easily impacted by group characteristics. As others have already pointed out differing individuals will have differing abilities, interests and motivations. Two people raised in almost identical situations and given the same opportunities may still make significantly different life decisions.

When we look across groups we'd expect that those differences to average out across a range of measures.

The difficulty comes in valuing different measures against each other. As an example of what I mean women on average earn less than men but live longer than men. Who has the better outcome? Ignoring other factors (choice, spending power, sense of control etc) to simplify the point the answer probably depends on what you value.

On the other hand from what I've seen as a group indiginous people tend to fair worse on most measures than the average for our society. That suggests that for a variety of reasons they are not getting equality of opportunity.

R0bert

Robert “equality of opportunity camp”

That is an input measure, not output orientated.

And contemporary wisdom suggests the best overall “return” is found by focusing on the best equipped to benefit, not the least likely to succeed (in whatever arena of human endeavour you care to name).

“if outcomes are a useful measure of success”

You need to define “success”

Doubtless the vast majority would measure ‘success’ only the financial / material, as they struggle through the mud and grime at the lowest level of Maslow’s stepped hierarchies.

The more spiritual folk, oblivious to the material world and finding “success” as a warm feeling existing solely between their ears.

Fellas’ like me measure “success” as something associated with a sense of personal autonomy and results which reflect that autonomy, like developing what I think is right and testing it in the market place, the reward being a mix of the material and the more spiritual.

“The difficulty comes in valuing different measures against each other. As an example of what I mean women on average earn less than men but live longer than men. Who has the better outcome?”

That encompasses the issue, do you measure on the quantative or qualitative scale?

Personally, I would select the qualitative over quantative any day but agree with the dilemma you hypothesise.

“On the other hand from what I've seen as a group indiginous people tend to fair worse on most measures than the average for our society. That suggests that for a variety of reasons they are not getting equality of opportunity.”

That might be so but it might just be that the equality of opportunity and (possibly) disproportionate support represents a waste of effort in the deployment of limited resources.

The quick-fix: limit the rights of the able until the less able caught up.

But such an arbitrary solution would encourage the mass migration of the able and thus, greater disadvantage for those who were left.

Time for a Margaret quote

“Let our children grow tall, and some taller than others if they have it in them to do so.”

I'm leaning toward neither, heavily so in some cases.

Dear Robert,

An interesting thread.

As Ian Robertson in his book, 'Sociology,' points out, "Equality of opportunity cannot ensure social and economic equality, because people are differently equipped to take advantage of opportunites. It is like giving everyone an equal chance to run in a footrace, even though some are lame or have never trained for an athletic event. The
'equal' chance merely ensures that those who are already better equipped are able to maintain their advantage... a fairer conception of equality would involve equality of social and economic results, which would require a major redistribution of the nation's wealth. But this is not a conception to which, as a people,...we have much inclination...we prefer to see life as a race won by the 'fittest.' "

I feel that on the whole those statements are pretty accurate. Our society tends to reward those with unique talents and capabilities.
We talk about a 'fair go' for all - forgetting that people grow up to be unequal in skills, talents, determination, perseverance, thrift, and so on. 'One size does not fit all.' And it's these differences
that determine our social position in society, and our access to economic success.

Now this is an interesting thread!

ColRouge made me smile,
<'And contemporary wisdom suggests the best overall “return” is found by focusing on the best equipped to benefit, not the least likely to succeed'> Isn't that what the communists did? Think athletes and olympics for instance. I thought you hated the commies. The rest, the masses were condemned to mediocrity.

Tell us, how do you determine that somebody is least likely to succeed at anything. At which point do you 'pull the plug'? And how do we get our money back when lots of focus has been expended and we don't get a 'return' after all?

Love the Maggie quote. But that does only refer to those who buy their investment houses in the right suburb and make the right business deal right? Not the gifted musician, for instance, who can barely make ends meet, let alone 'plan' for a self funded retirement.

That is the problem. A successful life is correctly seen as one where there is 'personal autonomy' as ColRouge points out. But, increasingly larger amounts of money are required to live an autonomous life. It is all about earning power.

We put a much higher value on some kinds of work, which is right for a variety of reasons, others less so. Some work and effort do not warrant the same income. And there is work, ability and talent that is financially very poorly rewarded, but which is vital for a vibrant, stimulating and interesting society.

When we speak of equality of outcome or opportunity what we are really wondering is whether only some are entitled to being personally autonomous, that is, have the financial wherewithal to live a decent independent life; and are there others who deserve to be poor?

No.

So, it a case of both.

Equality of outcome: each person is valued and is entitled to a decent life with security in housing, health and education. Therefore, not all will be treated equal.

Equality of opportunity: each person is supported to develop to their best ability. Personal talent counts.

Let me surmise what I think.

1. Equality of opportunity is prerequisite to reducing inequality of outcomes.
2. Equality of opportunity does not and cannot necessarily guarantee equality of outcomes.
3. True equality of outcome equates to all competing participants coming equal first.

Predetermined outcomes rob us of incentive to compete. Motivation is necessarily (eventually?) replaced by enforcement (why else would one participate?).

The best we can hope for is to narrow the possible range of outcomes. The more we do so however, the less efficient we can be as whole (I agree with Col). The costs can easily outweigh the benefits.

Interesting thread. Quite probably the most important single issue that faces mankind, I think. All others flow from this very debate in one way or another.

I'd put it to you that Col and yvonne are both right, but I'd qualify certain things.

Fundamentally, I agree with Col. I think that unfortunately, without a personal reward to the individual for their efforts, society cannot function. Altruism and collectivist attitudes are laudable and can be harnessed for great things, but never relied upon as the entire basis for a society. Nor can something so vast as a society be micromanaged, as those doing the managing will never do so in a manner that is suitable for all, or even I suspect, most.

That being said, I think most of yvonne's points were accurate, though perhaps these stem from the lack of opportunity, and in many cases they are aberrations which have been allowed to occur due to influence wielded through things such as cartels or monopolies, or simply entrenched professions. Take lawyers for instance - I tend to think an entrenched profession extorts more than market value for their services under the guise that it's required for complexity instead of manufactured profession-based jargon, but that's one example. My point is, it's a flaw in the reward based system of professions.
Though correcting these flaws is tough as it's the aforementioned micro-management. Quite the quandary.

I'd add an additional third qualifier - a basic, fundamental, liveable support net, which applies for even those who are simply too lazy to work. It's regrettable, but I don't think we'll ever be able to create an efficient assessment system for welfare, but I'd never condone a society where we let people die or suffer to a significant degree.

That being said, if they're too lazy for work, they need an incentive, so I'm suggesting the chronically unemployable have enough to live sufficiently but not comfortably. (Those genuinely unable to work for reasons such as disability are a different issue. As I said, welfare is difficult to assess, though I guess we need to make attempts).

Yvonne, it please me to make you smile : - )

“And contemporary wisdom suggests the best overall “return” is found by focusing on the best equipped to benefit, not the least likely to succeed'” Isn't that what the communists did?

Maybe in the area of sport but not in the area of economics and social policy, where party membership was the entry card for greater things (nepotism).

What contemporary wisdom cannot factor into any assumption is the “chaos” factor. Good parents who have bad kids and geniuses are born to under-achievers.

The only way the able succeed is by being left to do so, not be being favoured.

At dinner, retired business man said to me the other evening “leather shoes to clogs in three generations”

My zeal for autonomy is simple.

Governments and highly organised or structured social orders cannot spot the diamonds among the dirt. No one can.

Trying to enforce equality of both opportunity and outcome forces government to restrain the able, because they cannot enhance the outcomes of the unable.

“But that does only refer to those who buy their investment houses in the right suburb”

There is no one single measure for “success” or happiness, one extreme example

A masochist will only find he/she wants at the mercy of a sadist. But does what the masochist seek actually bring them success or happiness?

(only if you are a masochist)

Back to the original point, the best outcome

Will only be achieved by letting chaos do its thing and allowing, as Maggie said, those who can grow tall to do so.

“We put a much higher value on some kinds of work,”

We do, through the supply/demand of the employment market.

I studied Graphic art for a year before I realised I would never make a good living at it, so I became an accountant and also developed into software production. On the personal happiness, as well as material, scale, they have been good choices.

But should I be rewarded for being a not-too-good graphic artist compared to being a better accountant and software developer?

RObert

I hadn't seen this thread till now, in case you're wondering at my last post on the Hanson/Henson thread!

You've generated some interesting comment and much more than I thought the issue would.

Foxy

”The 'equal' chance merely ensures that those who are already better equipped are able to maintain their advantage. “

Thank you Foxy. I needed your Ian Robertson quote on the other thread! It is exactly the point I was trying to make when I said I believed in ‘equal outcomes’ as opposed to ‘equal opportunity’.

To all, in particular Paul and Col

I wasn't referring to a conformist society or a totalitarian regime of any sort. I’m not talking about lopping off tall poppies. I’m talking about assistance to the disadvantaged, or positive discrimination, which is what Hanson supporters were never able to understand and/or tolerate and is what began this particular discussion in the first place.

Seeing as RObert has been good enough to begin a thread devoted specifically to the issue, I would like to restate my position and at the risk of boring those who’ve already read it on the Hanson/Henson thread repeat the example I used then.

In a typical class of students there will always be a small group who do not manage to achieve at grade level. Teachers have two choices.

They can deliver the same lessons to all and give the same amount of time to each student, or in other words provide equal opportunity. In which case by the end of the year the gap between the achievers and the under-achievers will have widened.

Or, teachers can spend more time with the slower students than they do with the more able, with the aim of lifting those disadvantaged students closer to the grade average, or in other words aiming for equal outcomes.

The latter choice to my mind is the best and fairest choice. It gives the disadvantaged a better chance than the first option would have, and it also means in the long run a more harmonious and safer society for all.

Dear Bronwyn,

Eloquently put as always!

Bronwyn, good to hear from you!

I agree with your sentiment, but I disagree that slower students have a higher need for teacher time than able ones. I don't think that is the way to achieve what you envision.

Student 'ability' is measured archaically. There is no dispute that children develop at very different rates and that people have different learning styles, but education systems insist on children learning in age groups with a teacher-focussed auditory, with some visual aids, mode of imparting knowledge. No wonder the conventional education system barely achieves mediocrity.

Col, quite a lyrical post. I'm relieved there is some poetry in your hard conservative heart.

Libertarianism is an ideology that often mistakes a piece of glass for a diamond, especially when covered with mud.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-social-welfare-state is just one link.

'The Economics of a Welfare State' by Nicholas Barr is also very interesting.

Do you like Chaos Theory? Beautiful in the physical world. But remember flapping butterfly wings in Brazil cause hurricanes in the USA. It has very limited application to economics or social welfare. There are too many variables and interferences, human endeavour does not happen in a vacuum.

Economically and politically I'm far more inclined towards Game Theory. The choices any of us make are determined by what is perceived to result in the best possible outcome, like a move to win in a game. Generally we only look at what is best for me, and what that may be is of course heavily influenced by the culture we live in.

Some choices may not appear logical to you, but there is not a person who does not make a logical choice. Even a drug addict, or a burglar.

We live in a community. The choices that are genuinely available, the value our society places on different human endeavours or choices determines the level of satisfaction a population has.

It is in everybody's personal interest, if altruism sticks in your craw, to care about the disenfranchised members of their community. The cost of crime, poor health, general poverty, loss of potential is enormous

Yvonne “Col, quite a lyrical post. I'm relieved there is some poetry in your hard conservative heart.”

Thankyou Yvonne, I am an accountant but understand, a gram of emotion can sometimes outweigh a kilo of reason.

That is why I may seem ‘hard nosed’ about finance and economics:

At the end of the day, ‘sentimentality’ never produced any worthwhile result, it only makes people feel good in the moment.

As for chaos theory, Australia represents 23 million decision nodes and each node has multiple independent relational variables. No one will ever manage to make any predictable sense of it, chaos is all it will be and recognizing the reality of that chaos is what I mean as being a ‘hard nosed’ realist.

Now apply that reasoning to the world and you can understand what I mean.

“It has very limited application to economics or social welfare.”

Show me an economic model, which attempts to reflect, with any accuracy, the world economy and I will believe you.

The truth is “economics” and “social welfare” are notions, art forms, not science.

The theories which drive both are continuously debated, adopted found wanting and then discarded.

The chaos theory produces more predictable outcomes than any machinations by economists or social welfare experts.

“a move to win in a game. Generally we only look at what is best for me,”

Game theory assumes you know the rules, otherwise it is chaos.

Nothing wrong with looking at what is “best for me”, that is what every politician does (regardless of what he of she says) and if you are looking after you, then you are not a burden on the state and are in a position to help those you see as needy, rather than leaving it to government to act on your behalf.

“but there is not a person who does not make a logical choice.” Agree and I am not accountable for their bad choices.

With libertarianism comes responsibility.

“the value our society places” its called the “market”

“care about the disenfranchised” human compassion cannot be transferred to government, see above.

Interesting subject RObert.

I am tempted to say the answer is obvious and that equality of opportunity is at the crux of an equal society. Recognising of course that true equality does not exist and that our ideas and expecations about what constitutes success are different. The trick for government is to ensure that access to these opportunities are equal and open to all groups regardless of income or race for example.

This may not always be possible and there are a few situations where I can see the validity of equalising outcomes.

Equalising outcomes as a blanket policy would imply Communism and that is undesirable.

EQUALITY OF OUTCOME may require INEQUALITY OF ASSISTANCE?

Seems to be how Bronwyn and other affirmative action oriented folks are arguing.

Sure..this might be true, and is true in greater and lesser ways depending on where.

In Melbourne, I've raised the issue in the past of the State government buying up homes along various creeks which have significance to Aboriginal tribes connected to the area, and then leasing those homes to indigenous people.

My purpose in suggesting that was bending as far as possible toward re-establishing the spiritual element in their lives.
While my preferred outcome is for Aboriginal people to come to know the new life in Christ which will set them free of the clinging to many debilitating ancient chords of cultural attachment, I know this is not something which can be orchestrated at the political level, it must come from the individual heart response.

Bronwyn, did you by any chance check the links I provided in the other thread ? I hope you did as you would see the vast difference of a formerly decaying tribe which had the spiritual vacuum filled,(the Lun Bawang of Sarawak) and a group which is still living in former darkness and current squalor.(Many Aboriginals)

"EQUALITY OF OUTCOME may require INEQUALITY OF ASSISTANCE" that's almost a certainty.

My own stance is closer to "EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY may require INEQUALITY OF ASSISTANCE" with a mix of the point Col makes that "human compassion cannot be transferred to government".

I suspect that the way to tell how successful we have been in creating equality of opportunity is to measure outcomes across large groups and across a wide range of outcomes. Individual outcomes won't give us an indication of how well we are travelling.

I certainly don't think those who won't make an effort should expect the same outcomes as those who strive for something. I'd like to see institutional barriers which leave members of some groups feeling they have no chance removed but thats a different issue to personal disinterest of lazyness.

R0bert

Quite so Robert...but 'laziness' might be caused by any of a number of causes.

1/ Personality.
2/ Despair, hopelessness.

Point 2 can be caused by various factors obviously. If the cause is a sense of loss of identity which is tied to traditional beliefs being 'trashed' by the new system, the only real solution is to change the beliefs or change the system.

If it's caused by closed doors, institutional racism etc.. that can be fixed at the system/policy level.

Traditional beliefs simply don't cut it in the modern world, I can hardly imagine occupational progress if a man going to work suddenly returns home because a blackbird flew across his path.....
Or a Dingo barked... you know..'bad omens'..the 'spirits have spoken' ..taboo kind of thing.

Robert “measure outcomes across large groups and across a wide range of outcomes.”

Of course, what is also being assumed with an expectation of ”Equality of Outcome” is that everyone wants the same outcome or is striving for some common goal.

You allude to it with “issue to personal disinterest of lazyness.”

Whilst I would suspect you and I share many common values and possibly general aspirations, we might not share the same personal “outcomes”.

Example, not every one wants to own their own house.
Not everyone is motivated by social recognition.
Not everyone wants to be a part of the footie club brigade.
Not everyone is driven to earn a lot of money, preferring to focus more of their personal values and motivations in spiritual things.

Measuring some Australian wide generic “outcome” is completely fallacious and as meaningful as demanding a pay rise based on the CPI index, regardless of the employment conditions.

There is a limit to how much “equality of opportunity” can be regulated because in many aspects of life, “merit” is not equally spread and affirmative action only holds back the best from competing on a level playing field with those being affirmatively favoured.

“Horse, water and drinking” also comes to mind too.

Ian Robertson, "Sociology," tell us that:

"In our society we are primarily concerned with freedom "of" :
freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of the individual to make a fortune. In other societies they are...
concerned with freedom "from" : freedom from want, freedom from hunger, freedom from unemployment, freedom from exploitation by people who want to make a fortune." In other words we interpret freedom as meaning "liberty," other societies interpret it as meaning
"equality."

Robertson says that, "Liberty and equality are uneasy bedfellow. In general, the more you have of one, the less you will have of the other. Your liberty to be richer than anyone else violates other people's right to be your equal: other people's rights to be your equal violates your liberty to earn more than anyone else..."

We have chosen to emphasize personal liberty, an emphasis that can lead only to social inequality.

As Robertson emphasizes, "Most people do not rationally consider the various alternatives. No matter what country they inhabit, they tend simply to accept the system they have been socialized to believe in.
We tend to overlook our lack of equality. Extensive research on political socialization has shown that people take the legitimacy of their particular political system for granted very early in life, and usually adopt the political views of their parents. By the time they are in elementary school, children all over the world take an overwhelmingly favourable view of their own country's system and of its national leaders."

Yvonne

"I agree with your sentiment, but I disagree that slower students have a higher need for teacher time than able ones. I don't think that is the way to achieve what you envision."

So what do you see as the best way to achieve greater parity in educational outcomes? Or don't you consider striving toward greater parity as a priority? You referred fairly scathingly to the "conventional education system" and how it "barely achieves mediocrity". So I'm inferring from this that you believe in educational excellence over mediocrity. Is that excellence for all children? Or excellence for some and mediocrity for the rest?

BD

"EQUALITY OF OUTCOME may require INEQUALITY OF ASSISTANCE?

Seems to be how Bronwyn and other affirmative action oriented folks are arguing.

Sure..this might be true, and is true in greater and lesser ways depending on where.

In Melbourne, I've raised the issue in the past of the State government buying up homes along various creeks which have significance to Aboriginal tribes connected to the area, and then leasing those homes to indigenous people."

BD, I must admit I sometimes see a glimmer of good in your posts and this is one of those rare occasions.

"Bronwyn, did you by any chance check the links I provided in the other thread ? I hope you did as you would see the vast difference of a formerly decaying tribe which had the spiritual vacuum filled,(the Lun Bawang of Sarawak) and a group which is still living in former darkness and current squalor.(Many Aboriginals)"

Yes I did. And I posted a response.

Those pictures are very selective: the situation is not entirely the grim one that they are painting. There are some good things happening you know. It's a long and eclectic list of photos. Do you collect them and have them ready to wheel out whenever you think it's time to cast a few more aspersions on Aboriginals?

Foxy “We have chosen to emphasize personal liberty, an emphasis that can lead only to social inequality.”

I see no problem with making that choice. I would suggest “Social equality” is something which can only be administered by the state or some other collective authority to regulate and presumably reign in the benefits which might accrue from the pursuit of individual liberty.

Lenin said the same thing, in a different way (and bluntly more effectively)

“When there is state there can be no freedom, but when there is freedom there will be no state”

I make no apology for placing my faith in personal liberty at the expense of social equality and limitation to the authority of the state.

It is simple really

‘Life’ and free will and ultimately "personal growth" is experienced through the expression of personal choice personal preference, personal self interest and produces personal reward.

Compliance with externally imposed rules designed to ensure we conform with the social edicts of the state and aspire only to those levels ascribed by the state('glass ceilings', be they in pursuit of equality or just the status quo) is mere ‘existence’

and I, personally, do not want to merely ‘exist’.

The other thing, millions died at the hands of communisms attempts to enforce equality of outcome upon them and something else Lenin said

“the goal of socialism is communism”

Col, you're in great form here,

'At the end of the day, ‘sentimentality’ never produced any worthwhile result, it only makes people feel good in the moment.'
Too true.

'Of course, what is also being assumed with an expectation of ”Equality of Outcome” is that everyone wants the same outcome or is striving for some common goal.'

I see so much harm has been done in the world by people thinking they know what's best for other people. I've always seen this a big flaw in gender equity arguments which constantly ignore differing goals in life that men and women may legitimately have.

US “Col, you're in great form here,”

Thankyou US

Individualism is my “passion”.

It is my one core belief, from which all my other values derive their direction, like a compass point.

I believe people, even if they do not know what is best for themselves, are entitled to pursue their dreams, whatever those dreams may be.

Some will fail (maybe just bad dreams) but when the state denies everyone from the opportunity to dream, they kill the individual.

Many folk compare humanity to the productive orderliness of an ants nests, where everyone with a role within a rigid social hierarchy.

But we have free-will and ants lack cognitive skills.

“I see so much harm has been done in the world by people thinking they know what's best for other people.”

Exactly, no one knows what is best for anyone else, let alone everyone else.

I know only that the best way of pursuing personal growth, fulfillment, success or whatever we care to call it, is to allow people to decide for themselves.

But it is better to fail as a result of making your own mistakes than failing because of mistakes the state demanded to make for you.

“I've always seen this a big flaw in gender equity arguments which constantly ignore differing goals in life that men and women may legitimately have.”

It does not apply simply to gender but to everything.

Check out Maslow’s hierarchy. The socialists are stuck on the base level because that is how they measure everything, in terms of material needs.

Bronwyn, every child is entitled to excellence in education. By lumping all children together according to their age, not stage of learning ability, there will necessarily be kids labelled 'slow' or 'gifted'. It's a nonsense.

Col: by equating Social equality within the narrow framework of communism, you show yourself to still be stuck somewhere in the early 60's.

I've told you before; Lenin is dead and so is communism.

It is simplistic for you to imply that the only possibilities are either full state control or no government interference.

It pragmatic to be aware that a group of disenfranchised people in your community will affect you. You cannot isolate yourself from any section of your society.

The sentimentalists are those who keep on and on about how those who have achieved have done that with their own two hands, all by themselves. That you deserved it. With which comes the implication that those who do not have financial or housing security or physical health deserve that too.

The only sentimentalist is you Col, with your unwavering belief in that ideology: Libertarianism.

Embracing free market economics, does not mean that there is no place for the State to ensure and encourage that the wealth generated benefits all of society. You know, being aware of the Pareto principle.

And your last little note on Maslow, what a stupid remark for you to make. If the first step is not met it is not possible to get to the next step.

You rail against people expecting to be rewarded for nothing. Imagine the State determining how much you should earn, can't possibly share my wealth with anybody-that's communism/socialism. If your resentment at paying taxes and social services is not about your material wealth than what is it? You are all about material wealth and the personal freedom it brings.

You've been reading a few too many American self improvement books.

I'm finding myself after starting this thread largely sitting on the sidelines following the arguments and contributing little. I hope thats not bad manners, I'd expected to post more but as the discussion has developed I've not felt that I've had much to contribute.

I can appreciate the points Col makes and generally agree but I'm also aware that as an individual I owe much to those who have gone before. I can appreciate that choice is probably the only thing that is truly ever mine and the most precious thing I have. I can also appreciate that without "society" my life would be vastly poorer and probably vastly shorter, that I'm not independant of others.

In the middle is a balance between freedom and responsibility. As Col points out governments don't do well at compassion but overall neither have individuals when governments don't try.

At one end of the spectrum is survival of the fittest and at the other a lack of choice for the individual and meaning stripped from life.

There is a balance which neither we as individuals or our governments will ever get and keep right so maybe to use a cliche it's more a journey than a destination.

R0bert

Yvonne “I've told you before; Lenin is dead and so is communism.”

but his useful idiots live on.

“full state control or no government interference.”

Find where I have objected to the role of government
as regulator, please read my posting history and
note, I have consistently described the appropriate
role of government as regulator versus that of
operators of commerce.

“You cannot isolate yourself from any section of
your society.”

I don't seek to, I would be happy to sell everyone
the benefits of my businesses, unfortunately
not many private individuals have a need or resources
for them, let alone understand what they do
(so I largely rely on the bigger corporations and yes,
government,

My income is your taxes at work, how ironic).

“those who do not have financial or housing security
or physical health deserve that too.”

We should all be free to plot and follow our own
destiny, that some destinies lead to pixies and other
sentimental childhood fantasies is a better destination
than a government enforced path, which ends somewhere dreamed
up by the Brothers Grimm.

“sentimentalist is you Col, with your unwavering belief
in that ideology: Libertarianism.”

Not sentimental at all, passionate yes but someone said
of me, many years ago, that I had dreams but dreams
founded in reality.

And even as an accountant, I do understand and
respect the significant differences between logic, emotion
and the dross which associates with sentimentality.

“wealth generated benefits all of society.”
through the imposition of taxes the wealth benefits
more than just the earner, however, it should not be
used to cosset the indolent.

“Maslow, what a stupid remark for you to make.
If the first step is not met it is not possible
to get to the next step.”

What an ignorant and stupid comment Yvonne,

The whole point with Maslow, he is about self perception
and not material comfort. Anyone can be at any level
regardless, it is all in our own mind.

I guess you are not managing to stand even on level
one, more like slipped and landed on your arse

Robert “I owe much to those who have gone before.”

Mostly our parents and those who know or knew
us, not an official from some remote government bureaucracy.

“I can appreciate that choice is probably the
only thing that is truly ever mine and the most
precious thing I have.”

Exactly and we each need to cherish it.

“I can also appreciate that without "society" my
life would be vastly poorer and probably vastly
shorter, that I'm not independant of others.”

But neither are you totally dependent upon others.

Infact, psychiatrists consider co-dependency a
singularly unhealthy thing, yet we hear socialists
pronounce its virtues every day.

“At one end of the spectrum is survival of the fittest
and at the other a lack of choice for the individual
and meaning stripped from life.”

And I believe, simply, that a life without choice or
individual meaning is not worth surviving for and
the proof of that are in the people who chose to risk
death to escape over the Berlin Wall, although some
say we should forget that because, hey,
it was 20 years ago.

“There is a balance which neither we as individuals
or our governments will ever get and keep right “

I prefer to keep government “power poor”
and authority devolved, because
once they get power they find excuses not to
give it back.

And of course, life is a journey and the sad folks
are those who arrive at the destination before they die.

Thanks for bringing up this topic Robert, I have
certainly enjoyed myself, not to necessarily
persuade others but to clarify for myself some of
what I believe in and stand for.

Equality of outcome is socialism. Equality of opportunity is a 'brand' of capitalism, though it doesn't have to take that form.

Most western soceties are somewhere in between. We all get a basic education regardless of how rich our parents are. We have health and income safety nets. But we all have lots of opportunities we are free to take up, but choose not to.

There is a role for government - as Col points out, as regulator. But precisely what constitutes regulation is a definition that shifts.

I wouldn't embrace anarcho-capitalism. One of the more interesting discussions I've had on OLO was here, where a self described socialist, a moderate free-market supporter and myself discussed the issue. I lean more to the free market approach, but with appropriate government intervention where required.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=464#9913

Capitalism is not perfect. Some say we can't improve it. I say that's bollocks, and as I said before, the ground is always shifting. As R0bert said, it may be a well worn cliche, but it is indeed the journey - because there's no destination in sight.

No system is static, and any system taken to its extremities is ultimately is harmful to society at large. The idea of capitalism is unfettered freedom to sell and purchase, but when you consider that companies tend to aggregate toward monopolies, you quickly see that pure capitalism would be destructive.

But of course, it's still the best system. I just don't want capitalism without checks and balances.

I've argued in favour of protectionist agricultural policies (only because competitors to Australia use them and I think we should peg ours to a proportion of theirs in an effort to discourage them). Similarly, I think the US system of capitalism delivers far less for the American people than the sheer wealth produced by their economy dictates it should, when compared to European countries and Australia. This, to me, suggests something is very wrong.

Col, I've found the discussion very interesting and thought provoking. When I spoke of those who had gone before I wasn't thinking so much of family, friends or government officials but rather those who have worked to build the body of human knowledge that I tap every day. The knowledge that continues to be built upon and passed down to those who've neither paid for it or earned it. The knowledge that was once as simple as how to start a fire to cook food and keep the cold at bay.

I'm very practical and can generally do most problem solving tasks but I can't think of anything I do thats not built on the knowledge left over from someone elses work.

I enjoy opportunities and freedoms that my ancestors didn't enjoy because somewhere back in the past others struggled to ensure that normal people could have access to an education (other than the school of hard knocks). I love books and have lots but I also appreciate that I can get access to other books via the library or via online sources.

I don't owe government bureaucrats, they are just those we pay to administer stuff.

Governments do abuse power, we do need to keep checks in place and treat any attempt to take more power with great suspicion and be adamant about taking back what no longer needs to be in their control.

I tread a line between personal autonomy and a recognition of the broader needs of society. I know that without the efforts of others who I'll never know I and my family would have little opportunity to choose because we would not know enough to make choices.

R0bert