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.