False Position: The government should provide equal opportunity for all citizens.
Opportunity per se is too ambiguous (and it is meant to be by those you use it). It is right for the government to protect each individual from forcible breach of their right to life and the obtained trade value of their effort (property). The government has a true role in securing equal protection for each individual under the law. This would be seen as the government's rightful involvement in protecting individuals from forcible interference with 'opportunity' that the individuals would have otherwise secured for themselves by expenditure of their own time, thought, and effort.
The provision of 'equal' opportunities for all however, as contrasted with the protection of individuals from forcible theft of their property, is absolute nonsense. As do all these concocted 'economic rights,' government forcibly providing 'opportunity' in the sense of distributing items of measurable value, actually is the destruction of fundamental individual rights, because someone's property rights had to be breached in order to distribute 'opportunity'. Opportunity in this sense could include, for example, 'equal computer quality at equal school quality with equal teacher quality with equal school lunch quality and equal equipment until you go to equal quality university with equal job offers and on and on and on..." As with healthcare, these things don't grow on trees. Someone, somewhere had to spend their life to produce these values that are spoken about as if they were just dangling from every branch, and it was just so terrible that some greedy few picked more than their share before everybody else could get a chance. Nonsense! Someone spent their life producing every one of those positive values that are lumped into the context stripped term "opportunity." When the government proposes to provide these 'opportunities,' they immediately nullify their defined first priority - to protect individual right to life (someone is being forced to hand over their life's effort to provide these values.)
Opportunity per se is too ambiguous (and it is meant to be by those you use it). It is right for the government to protect each individual from forcible breach of their right to life and the obtained trade value of their effort (property). The government has a true role in securing equal protection for each individual under the law. This would be seen as the government's rightful involvement in protecting individuals from forcible interference with 'opportunity' that the individuals would have otherwise secured for themselves by expenditure of their own time, thought, and effort.
The provision of 'equal' opportunities for all however, as contrasted with the protection of individuals from forcible theft of their property, is absolute nonsense. As do all these concocted 'economic rights,' government forcibly providing 'opportunity' in the sense of distributing items of measurable value, actually is the destruction of fundamental individual rights, because someone's property rights had to be breached in order to distribute 'opportunity'. Opportunity in this sense could include, for example, 'equal computer quality at equal school quality with equal teacher quality with equal school lunch quality and equal equipment until you go to equal quality university with equal job offers and on and on and on..." As with healthcare, these things don't grow on trees. Someone, somewhere had to spend their life to produce these values that are spoken about as if they were just dangling from every branch, and it was just so terrible that some greedy few picked more than their share before everybody else could get a chance. Nonsense! Someone spent their life producing every one of those positive values that are lumped into the context stripped term "opportunity." When the government proposes to provide these 'opportunities,' they immediately nullify their defined first priority - to protect individual right to life (someone is being forced to hand over their life's effort to provide these values.)
Comments