"Classical Liberals"

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What people do argue is that everyone who wishes to participate in X should get the opportunity to participate in X and their achievements or lack of achievements should be judged fairly.

I've always thought that's what made me a "liberal" and is why I have always described myself as such in conversation. Liberals believe in more shared freedom and have a kind of confidence that societies are better off the freer it's individual members are.

Perhaps I have lived in error for many years but I have always believed that to be conservative was to be resistant to change and less willing to share personal freedoms. I've always associated conservatism with being fearful as opposed to hopeful. The white male slave owners who founded this country were reacting against European monarchies and as such were more liberal in their thought. So liberalism is certainly relative. Shared self-government is a very liberal idea.

Not sure what it means to be a classical liberal.

 

[steve_bank]

Equality of outcome is antithetical to equality of opportunity.

I agree. Progressives have taken equal opportunity to mean in all areas of the economy there must be a statistical reflection of all groups in the country.

On the CNN ite yesterday 'Why are black athletes less represented in baseball than basketball and football'.

The idea that all kids have the same starting block is impossible in our diverse society. There are no restrictions as to who can have kids and now intentional single parents are socially acceptable. Kids grow with different degrees of attention ans support at home. There are kids who grow up in homes where English is not spoken.

I watched a Seattle school board meeting where an angry black African woman immigrant who barely spoke English complained her kid who does not speak English as a first lnguage was falling behind and what would be done about it. There were several similar speakers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Show how the law is wrong, don't just claim it is and expect us to take it on faith.

"The law", as you put it, applies to everyone equally. So far, so good, but it assumes a level playing field. The field is not level, and not just from a monetary point of view. That is just the most visible aspect of some people starting with a handicap.

Have you ever wondered why starting blocks for longer foot races on ovals are staggered?

400 metre race at the 2012 London Olympics

Money means resources to be spent on education. It's no surprise that those who come from money do better in school. That doesn't mean you pretend inferior students are as good as superior students.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That is not the point. The point is that the different positions of the starting blocks level the playing field. Those differences are in fact what ensures that the fastest runner is the most likely winner.


I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

The different positions of the starting blocks means that each lane has the same distance to the finish line. Equality. Not putting a starting block farther forward because the person in that lane went to a school that didn't have a running track.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So-called social justice is often opposed to actual justice because the latter is supposed to seek justice on an individual level, while "social justice" concerns itself with groups.

This is the fundamental difference.

Groups don't actually exist (harming Peter to help Paul doesn't produce any justice), it should be about individuals.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I would rather see every child get as much education as they are capable of.

Not "as much education as their parents can afford", but "as they are capable of".

School vouchers so the parents can send their children to the best school rather than the failing public option. + 1.

The problem is school vouchers are a codeword for state-funded religious education.

There's also the adverse selection problem--the average budget per student is well above the median cost to educate a child. The private schools won't get the special ed students.

It's one of these ideas that looks good until you dig into the details.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sure they are. So long as they get to define equality of opportunity. It's when the equality of outcome comes into play that they start crying unfair advantage!

Equality of outcome is antithetical to equality of opportunity.

How so? No one argues that everyone participating in X should achieve the same outcome. What people do argue is that everyone who wishes to participate in X should get the opportunity to participate in X and their achievements or lack of achievements should be judged fairly.

If they meet the standards to engage in X. Are you going to say I should be allowed to be a fighter pilot? Never mind that I don't meet the uncorrected vision standards for any branch of military aviation, why are you discriminating on me because of my eyes?? You're an eyeist!

 

[Toni]

Sure they are. So long as they get to define equality of opportunity. It's when the equality of outcome comes into play that they start crying unfair advantage!

Equality of outcome is antithetical to equality of opportunity.

How so? No one argues that everyone participating in X should achieve the same outcome. What people do argue is that everyone who wishes to participate in X should get the opportunity to participate in X and their achievements or lack of achievements should be judged fairly.

If they meet the standards to engage in X. Are you going to say I should be allowed to be a fighter pilot? Never mind that I don't meet the uncorrected vision standards for any branch of military aviation, why are you discriminating on me because of my eyes?? You're an eyeist!

You’ve stated that you do not meet the standards to engage in X because of the lack of a physical requirement pertinent to the tasks expected of a fighter pilot. Of course anyone who lacked the pertinent physical requirements should not expect to get the job. For instance, no one in their right mind would suppose I would meet the physical requirements ( or training) to be a ballet dancer or to be an opera singer. It is not discrimination to keep me from dancing or singing in public for pay. Indeed, those who have heard me sing might well conclude that it should be downright illegal for me to sing in public.

But, supposing I was still in my 20’s, being female should not keep me from being a fighter pilot. Nor should the color of my skin or the language my parents speak nor the religion I or any member of my family practices nor where my grandparents were born or if my great greats were enslaved. None of that is pertinent with regards to the qualifications of becoming a fighter pilot. Or doctor or lawyer or marine biologist or teacher or police officer and so on. So long as I am able to meet the physical requirements and to achieve the education and training requisite for the job , I should be able to become a fighter pilot. Nor should any of those conditions prevent me from obtaining the requisite education and training.

 

[laughing dog]

So-called social justice is often opposed to actual justice because the latter is supposed to seek justice on an individual level, while "social justice" concerns itself with groups.

This is the fundamental difference.

Groups don't actually exist (harming Peter to help Paul doesn't produce any justice), it should be about individuals.

It is counterfactual to claim groups do not actually exist. Do you mean that groups should not matter?

 

[Trausti]

So-called social justice is often opposed to actual justice because the latter is supposed to seek justice on an individual level, while "social justice" concerns itself with groups.

This is the fundamental difference.

Groups don't actually exist (harming Peter to help Paul doesn't produce any justice), it should be about individuals.

It is counterfactual to claim groups do not actually exist. Do you mean that groups should not matter?

Groups exists, certainly. But the 20th Century had plenty of lessons on why treating people as groups rather than as individuals is a shitty thing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sure they are. So long as they get to define equality of opportunity. It's when the equality of outcome comes into play that they start crying unfair advantage!

Equality of outcome is antithetical to equality of opportunity.

How so? No one argues that everyone participating in X should achieve the same outcome. What people do argue is that everyone who wishes to participate in X should get the opportunity to participate in X and their achievements or lack of achievements should be judged fairly.

If they meet the standards to engage in X. Are you going to say I should be allowed to be a fighter pilot? Never mind that I don't meet the uncorrected vision standards for any branch of military aviation, why are you discriminating on me because of my eyes?? You're an eyeist!

You’ve stated that you do not meet the standards to engage in X because of the lack of a physical requirement pertinent to the tasks expected of a fighter pilot. Of course anyone who lacked the pertinent physical requirements should not expect to get the job. For instance, no one in their right mind would suppose I would meet the physical requirements ( or training) to be a ballet dancer or to be an opera singer. It is not discrimination to keep me from dancing or singing in public for pay. Indeed, those who have heard me sing might well conclude that it should be downright illegal for me to sing in public.

But, supposing I was still in my 20’s, being female should not keep me from being a fighter pilot. Nor should the color of my skin or the language my parents speak nor the religion I or any member of my family practices nor where my grandparents were born or if my great greats were enslaved. None of that is pertinent with regards to the qualifications of becoming a fighter pilot. Or doctor or lawyer or marine biologist or teacher or police officer and so on. So long as I am able to meet the physical requirements and to achieve the education and training requisite for the job , I should be able to become a fighter pilot. Nor should any of those conditions prevent me from obtaining the requisite education and training.

You are assuming that the restrictions are based on invalid metrics--sorry, but scholastic performance isn't an invalid metric for figuring what school to admit them to.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So-called social justice is often opposed to actual justice because the latter is supposed to seek justice on an individual level, while "social justice" concerns itself with groups.

This is the fundamental difference.

Groups don't actually exist (harming Peter to help Paul doesn't produce any justice), it should be about individuals.

It is counterfactual to claim groups do not actually exist. Do you mean that groups should not matter?

The basic problem is the victims and the beneficiaries are different people. Lumping them together by some arbitrary characteristic (skin color) doesn't a group make. AA provides no redress to any victim of discrimination.

 

[Trausti]

So-called social justice is often opposed to actual justice because the latter is supposed to seek justice on an individual level, while "social justice" concerns itself with groups.

This is the fundamental difference.

Groups don't actually exist (harming Peter to help Paul doesn't produce any justice), it should be about individuals.

It is counterfactual to claim groups do not actually exist. Do you mean that groups should not matter?

The basic problem is the victims and the beneficiaries are different people. Lumping them together by some arbitrary characteristic (skin color) doesn't a group make. AA provides no redress to any victim of discrimination.

Worse, it tells newborn children of group A that they should have grievance against newborn children of group B. What result?

 

[Toni]

Sure they are. So long as they get to define equality of opportunity. It's when the equality of outcome comes into play that they start crying unfair advantage!

Equality of outcome is antithetical to equality of opportunity.

How so? No one argues that everyone participating in X should achieve the same outcome. What people do argue is that everyone who wishes to participate in X should get the opportunity to participate in X and their achievements or lack of achievements should be judged fairly.

If they meet the standards to engage in X. Are you going to say I should be allowed to be a fighter pilot? Never mind that I don't meet the uncorrected vision standards for any branch of military aviation, why are you discriminating on me because of my eyes?? You're an eyeist!

You’ve stated that you do not meet the standards to engage in X because of the lack of a physical requirement pertinent to the tasks expected of a fighter pilot. Of course anyone who lacked the pertinent physical requirements should not expect to get the job. For instance, no one in their right mind would suppose I would meet the physical requirements ( or training) to be a ballet dancer or to be an opera singer. It is not discrimination to keep me from dancing or singing in public for pay. Indeed, those who have heard me sing might well conclude that it should be downright illegal for me to sing in public.

But, supposing I was still in my 20’s, being female should not keep me from being a fighter pilot. Nor should the color of my skin or the language my parents speak nor the religion I or any member of my family practices nor where my grandparents were born or if my great greats were enslaved. None of that is pertinent with regards to the qualifications of becoming a fighter pilot. Or doctor or lawyer or marine biologist or teacher or police officer and so on. So long as I am able to meet the physical requirements and to achieve the education and training requisite for the job , I should be able to become a fighter pilot. Nor should any of those conditions prevent me from obtaining the requisite education and training.

You are assuming that the restrictions are based on invalid metrics--sorry, but scholastic performance isn't an invalid metric for figuring what school to admit them to.

No. I was following up directly on YOUR post.

You are making assumptions and using poor examples.

My mistake was responding directly to your example.

 

[laughing dog]

So-called social justice is often opposed to actual justice because the latter is supposed to seek justice on an individual level, while "social justice" concerns itself with groups.

This is the fundamental difference.

Groups don't actually exist (harming Peter to help Paul doesn't produce any justice), it should be about individuals.

It is counterfactual to claim groups do not actually exist. Do you mean that groups should not matter?

The basic problem is the victims and the beneficiaries are different people. Lumping them together by some arbitrary characteristic (skin color) doesn't a group make. AA provides no redress to any victim of discrimination.

Worse, it tells newborn children of group A that they should have grievance against newborn children of group B. What result?

How do you come up with such inanity?

 

[Hermit]

The point is that the different positions of the starting blocks level the playing field. Those differences are in fact what ensures that the fastest runner is the most likely winner.

Are you suggesting that when the playing field is level we’d still get disparate outcomes because people are not equal in ability? That’s an astute observation.

It's more than a suggestion. You put in other words what I actually wrote.

So disparate impact does not mean unfair rules or discrimination?

Eh? I wrote "The point is that the different positions of the starting blocks level the playing field." and "Those differences are in fact what ensures that the fastest runner is the most likely winner." That does mean, as you put it "when the playing field is level we’d still get disparate outcomes because people are not equal in ability." It says nothing about unfair rules or discrimination.

 

[bilby]

So-called social justice is often opposed to actual justice because the latter is supposed to seek justice on an individual level, while "social justice" concerns itself with groups.

This is the fundamental difference.

Groups don't actually exist (harming Peter to help Paul doesn't produce any justice), it should be about individuals.

It is counterfactual to claim groups do not actually exist. Do you mean that groups should not matter?

The basic problem is the victims and the beneficiaries are different people. Lumping them together by some arbitrary characteristic (skin color) doesn't a group make. AA provides no redress to any victim of discrimination.

Worse, it tells newborn children of group A that they should have grievance against newborn children of group B. What result?

In my experience, when you tell a newborn child anything, it just stares at you. Occasionally it might laugh, or cry. It's likely going to try to grab hold of you if you are in range.

 

[Hermit]

Show how the law is wrong, don't just claim it is and expect us to take it on faith.

"The law", as you put it, applies to everyone equally. So far, so good, but it assumes a level playing field. The field is not level, and not just from a monetary point of view. That is just the most visible aspect of some people starting with a handicap.

Have you ever wondered why starting blocks for longer foot races on ovals are staggered?

400 metre race at the 2012 London Olympics

Money means resources to be spent on education. It's no surprise that those who come from money do better in school. That doesn't mean you pretend inferior students are as good as superior students.

Tell someone who pretends inferior students are as good as superior students. I certainly do not. My argument is that the different positions of the starting blocks level the playing field. Those differences are in fact what ensures that the fastest runner is the most likely winner.

 

[Hermit]

Nixon's 'War on Drugs' is proof that some laws are specifically aimed at particular demographic sectors of a society.

Nixon wasn't a classical liberal. Classical liberals do not agree with the War on Drugs.
You are kind of disproving the point made by others on this thread who want to equate classical liberalism with conservatism.

Way to miss the point, Derec. I did not claim that Nixon was a classical liberal. If you want to work out what I meant, read the sentence you just quoted. If you still don't comprehend, read the preceding sentence you snipped:

Conservatives also insist that laws apply equally to all people. Nixon's 'War on Drugs' is proof that some laws are specifically aimed at particular demographic sectors of a society.

 

[Hermit]

Have you ever wondered why starting blocks for longer foot races on ovals are staggered?

To ensure equality of opportunity by having each lane be the same length.
It is not there to ensure equality of outcomes aka "equity".

Exactly! Creating a level playing field ensures equality of opportunity. It does not ensure equality of outcomes, nor is it meant to.