On the question of "equal opportunity"

First, to address the quotes around the words, "equal opportunity;" I'm not suggesting that there is not equal opportunity, and that I am therefore using the term in a mocking or sarcastic way. The words have been quoted to illustrate that the words together are the point of the topic - the words as used in policy discussions in this country. The policies that discuss everyone's right to "equal opportunity," which is to say that, regardless of race, ethnicity, class, or any other demographic, we all have the same opportunities, unlimited by these factors.

I bring up the question of whether or not there exists equal opportunity because of a debate I listened to about whether or not, in this country, all men are truly created equally. For this debate, there was the typical lef-wing Democrat and right-wing Republican (of course, the Democrat saying that there is not equality, and the Republican arguing there is). The debate actually centered on whether or not the government should be putting more resources into helping minorities and disenfranchised citizens - such as with more government-subsidized education for adults, more in the way of helping those without insurance to get it, more help with the unemployed, etc. The Repubilcan rejected the idea that the government had a responsibility to provide resources, whether expertise or tax revenues, to those who would take it - arguing that people would just take advantage of the program, relying on government funding as opposed to their own ability to work. The Democrat was arguing that the government has the responsibility to accept the risk of manipulation in order to help those that need it, and that so long as this country did not provide equal opportunity for all, the government must play a role in providing more balance between the haves and the have-nots.

Here's where it got good - the Republican defended the rich against paying more taxes, because they should not be punished for making money and providing jobs. The Democrat suggested that because of the inequality that persists in the country, that the rich do indeed have a responsibility to help those who cannot help themselves, through paying their share of taxes, which the government then needed to fulfill its duty by using those taxes to better serve the people working in this country who, because of their unequal share of opportunity, are in need (including legal residents and immigrants) - not the top five percent. Because of this divide, the question of whether or not we are created equally, and therefore have equal opportunity, was argued over. It was suggested that the rich have a right to their wealth because they earned it through means open to anyone - it's not as if the path to wealth is closed only to affluent, white, elitists. Anyone can build a business empire in this country - this is the country of rags-to-riches opportunities.

The problem with this argument, as I see it, is that while everyone is born equally - that is, we all come from the same process of being born into this world - we are not born into equal circumstance. Each of us is not raised in the same environment, where we are separated by merit and ability, and those who succeed are those who have the best to offer, while those who don't are those who didn't work for or earn it. We live in a world of diversity, where there are those who have a variety of opportunities, and those whose opportunities are limited. A child raised in a household of plenty, with parents who encourage reading and exploration and knowing yourself, will have more opportunity than a child raised in a house of want, with parents who are disinterested in their child's development, who would not encourage a college education, who bring negative influencers into the household.

It is not the government's fault, nor is it the fault of the affluent. But the question is not about fault - it's about whether we can deny those people, who have not had the opportunities in life to make their life better, some help. If there is a difference in opportunity, then the argument that it's possible for a poor person to have been or become rich, does not really matter. It doesn't matter if there is the potential for anything to happen if the reality is that it is institutionally unlikely that it will. The rich become richer, the poor become poorer, simply by virtue of how the market works. And we are a market economy. It becomes the responsibility of the government to redistribute wealth because the rich won't do it themselves. I would never suggest that this government should take away the wealth of people who work hard to build it, but there's a difference between greed and fairness. It is the market, and the grace of fate, that has bestowed what the rich have - it's not because of an impartial force that rewards only those that deserve it. I feel the rich should make their contribution in recognition that it is not the fault of the poor that they are not rich, and it is only fate which has allowed the opportunities to be provided to those who can become rich.

Because inequality is institutional, whether because of issues like lingering racism or because it's harder for people without wealth to gain the means to become wealthy, we must institutionalize equality-restoring policies. We don't need to be a country where everyone gets the same opportunities... but we are supposed to be a country of equal opportunities.