It's not a fair game if the starting position and race conditions are radically different between people - as it is in your state 1.
You can clearly see that at the mobility of people between the econooc strata: The US is worst (or close to worst) of the "First World" states, while the "Socialist" states in Northern Europe are the top - and also the top in life satisfaction.
Ensuring equality in outcomes was never a goal in the US and only a small minority here would want a government that pushed it on us. We love Europe but we haven’t looked there for a sense of cultural identity for almost a century and we don’t envy its political models. We’re not overly critical, but it’s just not us.
Americans are aware that some people see us as the worst. We disagree. And most honestly don't care what they think.
Vive la difference.
You misunderstood. This is not about equal outcome. It's about equal start. Or in other words: fairness.
To use the picture of a marathon:
If you have two people, one with a birth defect that has resulted in only one leg, and the other leg has a chain with a stone; and you have a second, healthy person with a golf cart...
And then you set them at the start line and say: You can both do the same race track - then that not fair. ("that ruin the ability of contestants to play the game")
If you remove the chains and give the first person a mobility scooter, that is fair (for a given amount, as always.)
My point was not about the comparison of the 2 types of states, my point was solely about the first version being called fair, which it definitely is not.
No I got your point. And my response is the same.
I can extend your analogy to parents (say, yours are intelligent and caring and mine are dumb and uninterested in me) and conclude it’s not fair: Over time it seems the resources available to the unfortunates in both our analogies are getting better and there are safety nets that help more now than in earlier times. But the majority of people here are not going to see government intervention as the solution to ensuring equality.
You need to straighten out your understanding of equality vs equity before this could possibly make any sense.
Equity vs. Equality: What’s the Difference?
November 5, 2020
While the terms equity and equality may sound similar, the implementation of one versus the other can lead to dramatically different outcomes for marginalized people.
Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome.
https://onlinepublichealth.gwu.edu/resources/equity-vs-equality/
Thanks.
Same response.
If you stand by this:
But the majority of people here are not going to see government intervention as the solution to ensuring equality, you are mistaken.
The Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment specifically addresses the issue of equality of opportunity, as it is colloquially referred to, and, since the amendment was adopted (1868) in the aftermath of the Civil War, its ramifications have touched every branch of government and the administrative state.
There are few clauses in the constitution that influence so many different aspects of governance in so many ways, so that the Equal Protection Clause and its implications may well be characterized as an ongoing major constitutional concern.
But it is not merely a governmental concern as the ongoing public discourse shows.
Equity, however, refers to equality/inequality in outcomes, particularly when evaluating persisting inequalities in average/median social group outcomes which indicate low generational social mobility.
The issue is that, while equity is not directly a constitutional concern, generational persistence of disadvantaged socioeconomic circumstances in identifiable social groups might indicate a failure of equality of opportunity and thus fall under the Equal Protection Clause.
There are really only two ways to explain great differences in socioeconomic long term outcomes:
1. structural socioeconomic disadvantages affecting distinct social groups in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, or,
2. essentialist explanations using supposedly low intelligence, general laziness, propensity to criminality, type of religion etc., to justify the plight socially disadvantaged groups find themselves in.
In a nutshell, if one sees generationally entrenched socioeconomic disadvantage as indicative of failure of assuring equal opportunity as stipulated in the Equal Protection Clause and its historic ramifications, one can argue that equity in light of the Equal Protection Clause can be seen as a constitutional concern, and thereby a government concern, because it may be indicative of a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
In other words, persisting large differences in average social group socioeconomic outcomes might indicate violation of the equal protection clause unless one subscribes to essentialist (supremacist) ideologies.
So even if you change your false statement to:
But the majority of people here are not going to see government intervention as the solution to ensuring equality equity, one could still make the case that unequitable average/median social group outcomes might indicate violations of the Equal Protection Clause, thus making equity an indirect governmental and constitutional concern.
The Equal Protection Clause
Ratified as it was after the Civil War in 1868, there is little doubt what the Equal Protection Clause was intended to do: stop states from discriminating against blacks. But the text of the Clause is worded very broadly and it has come a long way from its original purpose.https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-xiv/clauses/702#the-equal-protection-clause
Poll
