SoylentNews

Let's suppose, for a moment, that it were possible, with sufficient expenditure of resources, to produce perfect equality of opportunity across society.

I'm afraid it is not, but let's assume for the moment it is. BUT, it's extremely expensive.

Just how much would you pay for it? Just how much is it worth?

Now I know the standard sort of politically correct reply has to be any amount, because money is never more important than equality, right?

But that's bullshit. That really is bullshit. Think that logic through. Increase the price till you don't have enough left over to feed everyone. But hey, everyone is equally starving? What? How can that sound like a good idea.

Which is why I keep insisting equality can't be placed alongside fundamental rights, not without a lot of qualification at least. Imagine two buttons, one makes everyone wealthy (but unevenly so) while the other one makes everyone absolutely equal, and desperately poor. Do you REALLY think that the second button is better?

Thank you. That's an excellent analysis of the problem. That's why I think the best solution is to strike a careful balance: a little bit of regulation to keep the peace and uphold basic morals, a little bit of social welfare to limit absolute suffering, and a lot of freedom and civil liberties. Compromises like this aren't in fashion though. Many politicians and their supporters seem to be spending much of their time instead arguing for and against extremes.

One of many reasons the importance of such 'leaders' should not be exaggerated.

Oh, I couldn't agree more.

It's irrational or unjust discrimination that we really mean when we talk about discrimination being bad. It's plain bad logic.

Of course but the trouble is everyone has their own idea of what forms of discrimination are, or are not unjust. Obviously some discriminators can be unquestionably wrong if they believe a fact about a demographic that is the inverse of a statistical truth about it. But the question of whether a discriminatory choice is unjust is harder. For example, I would argue that any decisions, that a motor insurance company make for a quote that are based upon the past behavior of other drivers that share attributes with the applicant, are unfair discrimination because they are not considering that person as an individual. Increasing or reducing their premium based on their own past behavior would be fair though.

Social justice, as I have seen it expressed many times, directly contradicts that point. They define racism in such a way that it's impossible for a "non-white" to be racist, and impossible for a "white" to be non-racist, so that all men are rapists, and all women are victims. This is not just wrong it's obviously wrong, it's lazy, dishonest thinking.

Oh up until this bit you were starting to win me over, Arik. What you're describing sounds so extreme it almost seems like a hyperbolic caricature, if you'll excuse my language. What percentage of social justice proponents really believe exactly this? I don't doubt there will be some very stupid individuals (or intellectually lazy, as you note) that do, but there will always be bad apples in every school of thought. You are careful to qualify the observation by saying you have seen social justice expressed this way many times. I too have come across these ideas a number of times although strangely in my case it's almost invariably been opponents of so-called "SJWs" that have expressed them. Perhaps I just don't frequent the right echo chambers to observe this sort of thinking first hand. One thing that bothers me is that some "SJW" opponents fall into the very collectivist, discriminatory trap you've described (though you are careful to avoid it yourself) by automatically assuming that every "SJW" thinks in this same extreme, hypocritical, dishonest way.