Defining 'Equality of Outcome'

[Libhater]

Some intelligent American pin heads desire an equality of outcome as their religious faith: As the Dodo said in Alice in Wonderland, "Everyone has won, and all must have prizes." "Fair shares for all" is the modern slogan that has replaced Karl Marx's, "To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability."

Government measures that promote personal equality or equality of opportunity enhance liberty; government measures to achieve "fair shares for all" reduce liberty. If what people get is to be determined by "fairness," who is to decide what is fair"? As a chorus of voices asked the Dodo, "But who is to give the prizes?"

"Fairness," like needs," is in the eye of the beholder. If all are to have "fair shares." someone or some group of people must decide what shares are fair--and they must be able to impose their decisions on others, taking from those who have less. Are those who make and impose such decisions equal to those for whom they decide? Are we not in George Orwell's Animal Farm, where "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"?

In addition, if what people get is determined by "fairness" and not by what they produce, where are the "prizes" to come from? What incentive is there to work and produce? How is to be decided who is to be the doctor, who the lawyer, who the garbage collector, who the street sweeper? What assures that people will accept the roles assigned to them and perform those roles in accordance with their abilities? Clearly, only force or the threat of force will do.

Free to Choose by Milton Friedman

ps: the aforementioned piece concerning 'equality of outcome' can easily be applied to this ongoing controversy over the income gap between the rich and the poor

[midcan5]

The above OP is the typical BS straw man. No fucking body wants what you in your narrow fucking mind keep repeating like a fucking skipping record. What normal people want and you are obviously not among them, is a relatively fair playing field in which to operate. If the asshole Waltons hold 35% of the wealth of nation for doing not a damned thing as they inherited it, and they then pay their employees welfare wages which the rest of us have to pay, then sometime is fucking morally wrong. No one is going to take the Walton's billions, they simply want to be paid fairly. Do you simpletons ever fucking think. Apologies to the sane among the readers here, but when idiots make up shit over and over again as if they are saying something you gotta call them what they are.

[Libhater]

The above OP is the typical BS straw man. No fucking body wants what you in your narrow fucking mind keep repeating like a fucking skipping record. What normal people want and you are obviously not among them, is a relatively fair playing field in which to operate. If the asshole Waltons hold 35% of the wealth of nation for doing not a damned thing as they inherited it, and they then pay their employees welfare wages which the rest of us have to pay, then sometime is fucking morally wrong. No one is going to take the Walton's billions, they simply want to be paid fairly. Do you simpletons ever fucking think. Apologies to the sane among the readers here, but when idiots make up shit over and over again as if they are saying something you gotta call them what they are.

I'll take the gifted economist Milton Friedman's narrow fucking mind over your defeatist Keynesian-like mind that promotes total government control over every aspect of our economy and of our lives. Try re-reading the OP to find out why and how this 'fair share' or fairness doctrine or this equal outcome nonsense of liberalism is nothing but a ruse to redistribute monies from the respected rich/respectful peoples to the unproductive leeches of society. No amount of your profanity is going to help you explain this.

[Perianne]

Apparently the more profanity one uses the more serious the post?

[Libhater]

Apparently the more profanity one uses the more serious the post?

Yeah, his use of profanity is a good sign that he knows he lost the argument and is also perhaps a sign that his entire ideological mindset/agenda is disturbingly un productive and un American.

[donttread]

Some intelligent American pin heads desire an equality of outcome as their religious faith: As the Dodo said in Alice in Wonderland, "Everyone has won, and all must have prizes." "Fair shares for all" is the modern slogan that has replaced Karl Marx's, "To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability."

Government measures that promote personal equality or equality of opportunity enhance liberty; government measures to achieve "fair shares for all" reduce liberty. If what people get is to be determined by "fairness," who is to decide what is fair"? As a chorus of voices asked the Dodo, "But who is to give the prizes?"

"Fairness," like needs," is in the eye of the beholder. If all are to have "fair shares." someone or some group of people must decide what shares are fair--and they must be able to impose their decisions on others, taking from those who have less. Are those who make and impose such decisions equal to those for whom they decide? Are we not in George Orwell's Animal Farm, where "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"?

In addition, if what people get is determined by "fairness" and not by what they produce, where are the "prizes" to come from? What incentive is there to work and produce? How is to be decided who is to be the doctor, who the lawyer, who the garbage collector, who the street sweeper? What assures that people will accept the roles assigned to them and perform those roles in accordance with their abilities? Clearly, only force or the threat of force will do.

Free to Choose by Milton Friedman

ps: the aforementioned piece concerning 'equality of outcome' can easily be applied to this ongoing controversy over the income gap between the rich and the poor

The problem is and always has been that while coups are often followed by a certain amount of fairness the table becomes a little more tilted each generation. America used to produce Thomas Edisions now we produce Paris Hiltons. We don't need equality we need true equity of opportunity

[midcan5]

If one looked at just a bit of history you'd soon realize the period from FDR till JFK / LBJ was a wonderful Keynesian time. Consider for instance President Eisenhower's Keynesian Interstate Highway act. I'd also suggest quotes below and this link for the thoughtful non-brain washed reader. The GD and GR happened for a reason, think. http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm and http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Summary.htm

"Kristol was trying to detach conservatism from its schizophrenic devotion to free markets on the one hand and tradition on the other. He knew that you can't revere tradition if you admire the "creative destruction" that capitalism brings to life. He knew that you can't insulate the nuclear family from the heartless logic of the market if you accept the dictates of free enterprise. He knew that conservatism had to become more liberal if it were to sound like something more than hidebound devotion to a phantom past. A "combination of the reforming spirit with the conservative ideal," he declared, "is most desperately wanted," and cited Herbert Croly, the original big government liberal from the Progressive Era, as his source of inspiration.


Kristol also knew that the competitive, entrepreneurial economy Friedman and Hayek posited as the source of freedom was a mere fantasy. Capitalism had long since become a system in which large corporations, not small producers, dominated the market - those anonymous and unknowable laws of supply and demand which once made all producers equally subject to the discipline of market forces had been supplanted by the visible hand of modern management: "There is little doubt that the idea of a (free market,' in the era of large corporations, is not quite the original capitalist idea." Some producers had more market power than, others: some persons (and this is how corporations are legally designated) were more equal than others. So everyone was not "free to choose," as Friedman would have it, simply because he or she inhabited a market society. Corporate capitalism remained a moral problem. For in "its concentration of assets and power-power to make economic decisions affecting the lives of tens of thousands of citizens - it seems to create a dangerous disharmony between the economic system and the political." P11 'The World Turned Inside Out' James Livingston




"I am going to start, not with abstract principles or world-historical ideological analysis but with my own personal life situation, because that really shapes the way in which I view politics. I retired two years ago, after a fifty year career in which I enjoyed ever-rising salaries, life tenure after the first six years, first-rate medical insurance and a secure pension. These facts alone place me in a distinct minority in American society -- a privileged minority. I and my wife are supported now by money from four sources: My University of Massachusetts pension, provided by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and quite secure, if for no other reason because it is part of the same pension system that provides for politicians and the state police; a small TIAA-CREF pension from my thirteen years in the private higher education sector; my Social Security payments; and Susie's Social Security payments. Our medical needs, which of course grow more urgent with advancing age, are met by a combination of Medicare and a supplementary plan associated with my Massachusetts pension. Our annual income is significantly smaller than it was when I was working full-time at UMass, but it is more than adequate to support a comfortable, secure life style. Despite the fact that Susie has suffered from Multiple Sclerosis for twenty years, we have never had to worry that her disease would, as a "pre-existing condition," threaten our medical insurance, and thanks to our supplementary insurance, the sometimes very expensive medications that have been prescribed for her are always available for a nominal co-pay. In short, we are living exactly the life that seventy-five years of progressive state and federal legislation was designed to ensure." Robert Paul Wolff http://robertpaulwolff.blogspot.com/2014/06/i-said-it-once-i-will-say-it-again.html

[Libhater]

The problem is and always has been that while coups are often followed by a certain amount of fairness the table becomes a little more tilted each generation. America used to produce Thomas Edisions now we produce Paris Hiltons. We don't need equality we need true equity of opportunity

Isn't that 'equality of opportunity' what I put in the OP? Equality of opportunity is exactly what Republicans and Conservatives have been preaching all along. The liberals seek to even the playing field by pushing for 'equality of outcome'--just like the title of this thread states.

[Blackrook]

midcan5, I want you to know that I never read anything you post. You're the only person here that I skip, I even look at Cigar and exotix's stuff.

[Libhater]

midcan5, I want you to know that I never read anything you post. You're the only person here that I skip, I even look at Cigar and exotix's stuff.

For what its worth, I do believe that midcan is more intelligent than those other two bozos, and like you, I do still read the crap all three write for no other reason so as to occasionally push their nonsense back into their faces. But, I really don't see much difference at all between the three of them as to having any sense of reality or of having a positive attitude and or of having a reasonable political approach to any given issue. Frankly, its a waste of time getting into a debate with close-minded trolls in the first place.

[Matty]

The above OP is the typical BS straw man. No fucking body wants what you in your narrow fucking mind keep repeating like a fucking skipping record. What normal people want and you are obviously not among them, is a relatively fair playing field in which to operate. If the asshole Waltons hold 35% of the wealth of nation for doing not a damned thing as they inherited it, and they then pay their employees welfare wages which the rest of us have to pay, then sometime is fucking morally wrong. No one is going to take the Walton's billions, they simply want to be paid fairly. Do you simpletons ever fucking think. Apologies to the sane among the readers here, but when idiots make up shit over and over again as if they are saying something you gotta call them what they are.


Might you be willing to take the time to tell us who is forced to go to work for the Walton's? No really, I think we need to know who places a gun to their heads and forces them to take a job at Walmart. Once you've done that we may have a starting point. Think of it. If no one went to work at Walmart Walmart would not exist. Stop being an enabler.

[Kalkin]

The above OP is the typical BS straw man. No fucking body wants what you in your narrow fucking mind keep repeating like a fucking skipping record. What normal people want and you are obviously not among them, is a relatively fair playing field in which to operate. If the asshole Waltons hold 35% of the wealth of nation for doing not a damned thing as they inherited it, and they then pay their employees welfare wages which the rest of us have to pay, then sometime is fucking morally wrong. No one is going to take the Walton's billions, they simply want to be paid fairly. Do you simpletons ever fucking think. Apologies to the sane among the readers here, but when idiots make up shit over and over again as if they are saying something you gotta call them what they are.
The Waltons offer a wage in exchange for services provided. No one is forced to accept that wage, it's done willingly. Who the fuck are you to insert your namby-pamby maternal opinions into the transactions between other free adults? How about MYOB ?

[donttread]

Isn't that 'equality of opportunity' what I put in the OP? Equality of opportunity is exactly what Republicans and Conservatives have been preaching all along. The liberals seek to even the playing field by pushing for 'equality of outcome'--just like the title of this thread states.

I supposed you are gramarically spot on, however I think equity is a better work as it is less entitiling

[Matty]

I guess he isn't willing. Oh well ssdd.

[Matty]

You know what I've noticed about some shit spewing liberals here? They spew then run like hell, they never stick around to defend their positions.

[Libhater]

I supposed you are gramarically spot on, however I think equity is a better work as it is less entitiling

I hear you, but at this stage I don't think its a good idea to confuse these libs any further by playing the semantics game on them.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Some intelligent American pin heads desire an equality of outcome as their religious faith: As the Dodo said in Alice in Wonderland, "Everyone has won, and all must have prizes." "Fair shares for all" is the modern slogan that has replaced Karl Marx's, "To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability."

Government measures that promote personal equality or equality of opportunity enhance liberty; government measures to achieve "fair shares for all" reduce liberty. If what people get is to be determined by "fairness," who is to decide what is fair"? As a chorus of voices asked the Dodo, "But who is to give the prizes?"

"Fairness," like needs," is in the eye of the beholder. If all are to have "fair shares." someone or some group of people must decide what shares are fair--and they must be able to impose their decisions on others, taking from those who have less. Are those who make and impose such decisions equal to those for whom they decide? Are we not in George Orwell's Animal Farm, where "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"?

In addition, if what people get is determined by "fairness" and not by what they produce, where are the "prizes" to come from? What incentive is there to work and produce? How is to be decided who is to be the doctor, who the lawyer, who the garbage collector, who the street sweeper? What assures that people will accept the roles assigned to them and perform those roles in accordance with their abilities? Clearly, only force or the threat of force will do.

Free to Choose by Milton Friedman

ps: the aforementioned piece concerning 'equality of outcome' can easily be applied to this ongoing controversy over the income gap between the rich and the poor It is typical that nobody looks at absurd outcomes in the other direction. Logically, 47% of those born in the 1% should wind up in the 47%; only 1% should wind up back in the 1%.

Bootlickers contradict their point when they say that only 20% of those in the 1% were born in that percentile. That's 20 times what it should be, an incredible disparity that can't possibly have any explanation by merit. The San Diego metropolitan area has a population of about 1% of the total US population. What if one in five of our Senators had been born there, one in 5 CEOs, etc. Would any sane person think the people in San Diego were some kind of superior human species and deserved that outcome?

[The Sage of Main Street]

The above OP is the typical BS straw man. No fucking body wants what you in your narrow fucking mind keep repeating like a fucking skipping record. What normal people want and you are obviously not among them, is a relatively fair playing field in which to operate. If the asshole Waltons hold 35% of the wealth of nation for doing not a damned thing as they inherited it, and they then pay their employees welfare wages which the rest of us have to pay, then sometime is fucking morally wrong.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

No one is going to take the Walton's billions, they simply want to be paid fairly.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$


Do you simpletons ever fucking think. Apologies to the sane among the readers here, but when idiots make up shit over and over again as if they are saying something you gotta call them what they are. I do want the complete abolition of advantages of birth, by which I don't mean being born with superior talent. Apply this to any other field to see how destructive it would be. Imagine if his network let Jay Leno pass on his host job to his son. Outrageous and impossible to even imagine! Then why should we, who own the competitive playing field, allow any of this HeirDad cheating at all?

[Kalkin]

It is typical that nobody looks at absurd outcomes in the other direction. Logically, 47% of those born in the 1% should wind up in the 47%; only 1% should wind up back in the 1%.

Bootlickers contradict their point when they say that only 20% of those in the 1% were born in that percentile. That's 20 times what it should be, an incredible disparity that can't possibly have any explanation by merit. The San Diego metropolitan area has a population of about 1% of the total US population. What if one in five of our Senators had been born there, one in 5 CEOs, etc. Would any sane person think the people in San Diego were some kind of superior human species and deserved that outcome?
Outcomes are not absurd. Why does the left always ascribe subjective terms to objective situations?

[Kalkin]

I do want the complete abolition of advantages of birth, by which I don't mean being born with superior talent. Apply this to any other field to see how destructive it would be. Imagine if his network let Jay Leno pass on his host job to his son. Outrageous and impossible to even imagine! Then why should we, who own the competitive playing field, allow any of this HeirDad cheating at all?
Jay Leno does not own his job. If he were the owner of the network as well as the host, he could pass both titles to his heirs.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Outcomes are not absurd. Why does the left always ascribe subjective terms to objective situations? You bootlickers are slaves to the status quo. You preach that the rich must have earned their money or they wouldn't be rich, you tell yourselves that your boss should be absolutely obeyed or else you would have been boss. Yet all of a sudden you become defiant and rational when it comes to politics when you don't think that some incumbent must be the best man or he wouldn't have been elected.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Jay Leno does not own his job. If he were the owner of the network as well as the host, he could pass both titles to his heirs. You refused to read where I explained it. Just like the network's owners, we, the people, are the owners of the economic playing field where HeirDads try to give their offspring an illegitimate head start. And because they do that, we shouldn't accept the merit of the other people they put above and ahead of us.

Second, Jay and the other hosts could become so powerful that they could tell the networks whom to hire. Then the public would get cheated on every channel. When Richie Allen was with the White Sox, he did make the team add his no-talent brother to the roster. What is even more important about that excessive privilege is that it cheated a player who did belong in the major leagues. Heirheads replace talent. They should all be deported to the crumbling castles of Europe where they belong.