Skip to comments.Will ‘Equal Opportunity’ Thugs Outlaw Reading To Your Kids At Home?
Posted on 05/15/2015 10:50:16 AM PDT by IChing
Over a year ago, I posted a column here titled Why Equal Opportunity Is Immoral And Wrong.
As I expected, my message sailed over some readers heads. Multiple commenters weighed in with the typical, programmed response: Well, its bad to try to force equal outcomes but guaranteeing equal opportunity is good and right, and what our system is about, etc.
Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
I had tried to explain that if the doctrine of equal opportunity is really applied in principle, some third-party entity (government, of course) would by necessity always have to step in to forcibly strip parents of their ability and natural prerogative to give their children any advantages over the children of other parents who are, by comparison, derelict and/or less prudent, less competent at breeding successful offspring, and giving them better chances.
My earlier article/argument was soundly vindicated recently when a cultural bombshell of a news item went viral all across the fruited internets: A Leftist British professor has caused a huge sensation by claiming that parents who read to their children at home are giving their kids unfair advantages over the children of those who (for whatever reason) dont read to them.
In my previous piece, I took pains to point out that this type of dogma is at the very heart of Marxist philosophy and practice advocating the destruction of the traditional family as a cultural institution, replacing it with cultural indoctrination by the state: Public education instead of primary parental influences.
To those of us on the Right, thats an abomination, immoral, and wrong. Unfortunately, many of the same people who know this, also mistakenly think equal opportunity means something good and right. I say theyve just never really thought about it enough.
Ive had people react with disbelief when Ive tried to point out that every single opportunity is really also an outcome, and therefore, to speak of equal opportunity is to speak of equal outcomes.
One guys incredulous comment was How is giving everyone the opportunity of equal access to public school an outcome?! I had already gone around and around with him to the point where I realized that engaging him any more was pointless folly, so I just didnt answer him further. But if you, dear reader, cannot fathom how it is that the very existence of just the physical structure of a public school building is, by itself alone, the outcome of endless decisions and actions by others, not to mention the redistribution of others rightful property, then I probably cannot help you.
By definition, equal opportunity doesnt merely mean the idea that everyone should have a shot at some job as long as they meet minimum criteria, or that everyone be given the chance to take some test (even that supposedly fair philosophy is rife with widely unrecognized absurdities). In reality, what equal opportunity actually means is that nobody starts out in life with, or ever gains any, advantages over anyone else, ever. It means no inheritance rights, and no enjoyment of benefits of any kind by the children of those who worked and/or made smart choices in order to afford them.
The doctrine of equal opportunity means nothing less than completely erasing and cancelling out all benefits of parental involvement in their childrens lives, because for everyone to start out in life with equal opportunities, no child can have any better condition than, say, a crack baby abandoned in a garbage can, or some arbitrary minimum threshold determined by socialist bureaucrats(as if even that were possible).
It is the classless dystopia of communism. That is, relying mostly on the brute force of bureaucracy, instead of the personal benevolences and free market forces of capitalism, to compensate people.
This past Tuesday, Affirmative Action Obama went on one of his rambling socialist pontifications again, droning on with the same old crap, complaining about how awful it is when societys lottery winners(that is, people who generally make good choices and/or are the rightful beneficiaries of others good choices) often do whatever they can to distance themselves from dangerous and inferior elements & influences in society.
Obamas ungrateful Affirmative Action wife, as Im sure you noticed, also did quite a bit of the same old race-baiting/bellyaching very recently much worse than her husband did, in fact.
If you caught his tedious lecture at Georgetown University, you heard Obama doing his usual bashing of FOX News, saying the network depicts the poor of our society mainly as undeserving sponges and moochers. Obama griped on about FOX News: Very rarely do you hear an interview with a waitress, which is much more typical, who is raising a couple of kids and doing everything right but still cant pay the bills.
Theres much of the rub, right there. According to Obama and his party, unwed mothers are doing everything right.
Marx and Engels would agree. To them, and to modern progressives, an intact, two-parent family is the problem, the enemy of the egalitarian state.
Think they wont try it?
the current explosion of “support” for “transgendered” people..has its roots in the self same commie revulsions. They hate families. and the reasons that we exist.
“The Left would have the lowest commune denominator driving the bus.”
Incorrect - but fixed.
The Left would have the lowest common denominator CONTINUE TO RECEIVE MONEY FOR DOING NOTHING, while hard working people, even people that do as menial jobs as driving the bus, pay for all of it.
(At least until the second American Civil War begins - which is probably not as far away as I once imagined!)
Gonna be an interesting election this fall...
especially right after the greatest economic collapse ever in history
(Sept 11, 2015)
“Commune” is the word I intended, and “driving the bus” is a metaphor for economic policy.
I’ll bite — what’s the scoop?
Interesting, now it all makes sense. Equal opportunity does not mean the same to a liberal as it does to most conservatives.
If there IS an election...
It means what the words themselves mean. Conservatives have been brainwashed to think it means something other than what it really means.
Spread the misery so everyone is equally miserable.
How soon before fathers are ordered to abandon their children so that no child has an unfair privilege?
7 yr cycles of judgement on a nation.
2001, 2008, 2015
I guess I always thought of it like even though everyone is not born with the same abilities nor raised in the same environments, each individual can take personal responsibility and access the knowledge and other opportunities that are publicly available to everyone.
But now I see that my interpretation is not the only one.
Liberals want to make things equal for everyone by lowering standards. Then they wonder why we are falling behind other nations.
It’s true that there are different ways of interpreting it, but just as with the doctrine against discrimination, conservatives ALWAYS wind up giving the Left more firepower when we accept such egalitarian premises and rosy bromides — because by accepting those terms, we help them perpetuate equal opportunity and non-discrimination literally and in principle, which means we continually cede ground and cede the entire argument because we ourselves are agreeing that exercising free choice is bad. It’s not that complicated, it;s just that nobody ever really points this out, because if we really believe in and advocate freedom, we are advocating things like inequality and racism(which we’ve been brainwashed to fear and deem bad), which are in fact what you must allow if you are to openly advocate freedom.
Ah yes, thanks.
The problem is that most people never think it through to its full implications: All outcomes are opportunities, and all opportunities are outcomes. There is never any starting point, nor any finishing point.
Wow, I just realized that Jonathan Cahn is the Rabbi I watched/heard in an extremely compelling and rousing, fiery video speech recently, the guy blew me away, he is ON FIRE:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.