Equality of Opportunity vs. Equality of Outcome

We are not born into the same condition or endowed with the same abilities. One may be the son of a learned Tax-law professor born into a nurturing, intellectually stimulating environment; yet another may be the son of a self taught, GED recipient cemetery custodian who taught his son through the school of hard knocks. Relatively speaking, we are promised nothing, but that we all start the race at the same time. Then the question becomes who wants it more? What inner initiative or grit will the two sons draw upon to achieve it? And what is “it”? And who is the arbiter of the objectives or the valuation of the objectives should the sons choose different or similar career objectives?

In this country each is afforded the opportunity to attain their own personal zenith regardless of innate or endowed abilities in conjunction with or in spite of said conditions. That is the essence of equality of opportunity. Unfortunately, in politics and in the current socioeconomic environment there have been great strides to redefine or equate equality of opportunity with that of equality of outcome.

Equality of opportunity embodies the concept of equality before the law to pursue individually desired careers (Cooray, 1996). Perhaps best described as the absence of arbitrary obstacles that prevent people from achieving what their natural talents and values lead them to seek. That is, only talent and achievement should determine the opportunities available to a person.

Equality of opportunity means freedom, freedom to pursue one's private interest or vocation without arbitrary restrictions. It should not include a power to force others to pursue their private interests or vocation. In business, equality of opportunity means freedom to engage in a trade (Cooray, 1996). Arguably the workplace and business environment needs to be free of racism; however it should not mean a right to compel someone else to afford you an equal chance of participating in that trade. Unfortunately businesses are now compelled to choose minority in conjunction with talent. In some cases the weight of the ramifications of choosing the best talent are trumped by affording a lesser qualified minority the “opportunity”. This is a disservice to the business’s industry and all qualified applicants by lowering the “bar” of excellence in favor of equality of outcome.

Equality of outcome is a radically different concept than equality of opportunity. Equality of outcome attempts to ensure that everyone finishes at the same time. That is the goal of radical socialism. Everyone must be a winner, everyone must be equal. Socialists do not really point towards absolute equality but they point to a vague, nebulous idea of fairness and social justice. Essentially, government have usurped the role of parental right and individual initiative and become the arbiter of outcome for its people. 

The compulsory imposition of anti-discrimination programs upon private firms is an example of equal opportunity in action (Cooray, 1996). This version of equal opportunity is actually counteractive to the concept of equality of opportunity because it interferes with the freedom of others to pursue their interests as they see fit. There are MANY factors (family of origin, genetics, intellect, physical health, place of birth, psychological health) that provide opportunities one can utilize rather than submitting to and utilizing victimhood to subvert or manipulate the opportunities of others.

http://www.topnews.in/people/stephen-hawking

Steven Hawking, arguably one of the most brilliant minds on the planet; likely, history will recognize him as one of humanity’s more remarkable figures in science. He also has Lou Gehrig's disease that has left him almost completely paralyzed. In spite of his health condition, Hawking was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge for 30 years, and now Director of Research at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology University of Cambridge. If government had its hand in leveling the playing field, Mr. Hawking would have been dead long ago. He would have rotted away or been “resting comfortably” in a government subsidized nursing home and conveniently forgotten, or prevented from exerting himself that could have worsened his condition.

Government measures to achieve what Obama terms as a “fair share” actually reduces equality. The idea of equality of opportunity has been subverted, transformed, or redefined by the liberal left into a concept equal outcome. This version of equal opportunity departs from the ideals of personal freedom. They redefined equal opportunity to mean an equal chance of participation, wherever there is any opportunity of participation.

There is an inescapable, inevitable and fundamental conflict between the ideal of fair share and freedom (Cooray, 1996). Government measures to promote equality result in a movement towards communism. Action for equality must necessarily involve government regulation and thereby reduce liberty. If public ownership is the ideal, government ownership and centralization of power is a necessary consequence.

Equality based policies aim to impose equality but, in fact, increase inequality (Cooray, 1996). It destroys incentive and individual initiative. Modern economic development has systematically raised the lot of the ordinary man to a level of prosperity undreamed of in past ages, when such prosperity was confined to just a few. This development was the direct result of individual initiative and endeavor within a system which allowed individuals to reap the rewards of their labors and FREE activities.

 

If we espouse 1976 Nobel Prize Economist Milton Friedman's “Free to choose” ideals one must either be hostile to the ideals liberty and prosperity or (much) more likely, ignorant of them. This begs the question to whether we are a nation that still believes in equality of opportunity, or whether we are moving away from that, and towards an insistence on equality of outcome. By directly impinging upon individual incentive and free activity; current policies and programs actually inhibit the process of economic growth and development, thus inhibiting the only mechanism in history by which inequality has been systematically, successfully and continuously ameliorated on a large scale (Cooray, 1996).

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greater dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
-- Justice Louis Brandeis, Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 479 (1928)

 Works Cited

Cooray, M. (1996). The Australian Achievement: From Bondage To Freedom. Sydney: LJM Cooray, Faculty of Law, University of Sydney, Sydney NSW 2000 —July 1996.

Freidman. (1980). Free to Choose: A Personal Statement . New York: harcourt, Inc.