A Bad Idea from the Left

A new blog, promoted by other bloggers from all walks (from ParableMan to The Debate Link) got me to look at this.

The post goes on like this, and the comments are numerous, but many worth reading.

Left2Right: equality of opportunity: one: "It's not enough to stop handicapping some runners and privileging others. Equality of opportunity seems to depend on some version of equality of starting points. If the son of J. Paul Getty starts life with millions and goes to a fabulous school, and you start life in Watts and go to a 'school' that is mostly about social control, it's worse than facetious to say, 'okay, the two of you now should run the race; ready, set, go!' Yes, it's possible that you'll beat out the wealthy kid. But those of us who are standing on the sidelines betting will require pretty long odds to take you. Head starts in the race aren't fair, either."

Now if this is what passes for smart ideas from our leftist academy, I shudder to think what the less gifted leftist come up with. Explain perchance why I it's a bad idea for me to be allowed to spend my hard earned capital to give every advantage to my children that I see fit. I agree that we don't need to give anyone legal advantages based on class, race, or creed. In fact, I think in almost every case, those legal advantages produce the opposite effect as the one intended. Furthermore that public schooling is a mostly good idea (just that our implementation sucks). But for the rest of it, it is just completely muddy thinking. Life isn't fair. In fact, that's a good thing. We don't want life to be fair. We all want our children to have a head start. And by gum, that's what makes it fun. Why play the game, if it buys you nothing in the end? And to bring out another shopworn phrase, "Indeed the deck is stacked, but if you don't play, you can't win".

And finally, that son of Mr Getty might not come out ahead in the end. Recall what I've been musing about St. Paul's thoughts on character, perseverance, and suffering.