You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

6
1

[–] miro 6 points 1 point (+7|-6) ago 

This one, I believe, would resonate well on Voat.

True, I doubt anyone on Voat will argue for equality of outcome, but what about some balancing of outcome? I'd argue every developed nation does this to some degree. The line is drawn somewhere between the two extremes this quote suggests.

1
7

[–] b0ard2death 1 point 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

What do you mean by balancing of outcome? If you're talking about things like family friends giving people opportunities, that would go back to opportunity being equal, which I agree with. I however do not agree that people should get further with less achievement because of opportunity, so I would completely agree with this quote. I may be missing the point you're making though.

3
3

[–] miro 3 points 3 points (+6|-3) ago 

I'm thinking of programs such as social security in the US. Retirement benefits have nothing to do with opportunity since the people who collect it aren't looking for employment. The aim is not to make outcome perfectly equal, but it certainly makes outcome more equal than it would otherwise be.

0
1

[–] ovix 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I agree, going full right is a wrong way to go. There's always going to be people left behind and if your answer to this is "just let them die" because they didn't earn it, you've gone too far. The problem is that people stick to ideology and have a tendency to take it to logical extremes instead of acknowledging shortcomings and filling in those gaps with ideas that counter their main narrative. There needs to be an honest and rational compromise.