Which Should be our Goal: Equality Before the Law or Equal Oppertunity?

[Publius1787]

Which Should be our Goal: Equality Before the Law or Equal Opportunity?

Equality before the law has never implied equal opportunity. The poor certainly don't have the opportunities of the rich. The uneducated certainly don't have the opportunities of the educated. The unskilled certainly don't have the opportunities of the skilled. The deaf certainly don't have the opportunities of the hearing. Over the years liberals have launched a crusade in the name of "social justice" to grant equality of opportunity at the expense of equality before the law. Which one should we strive for?

 

[Publius1787]

What Thomas Sowell has to say on the matter

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIv4L9M1ECU]Thomas Sowell - The Quest For Cosmic Justice - YouTube[/ame]

 

[blackhawk]

Equal Opportunity though some people do have more of advantage than other's that does not guarantee success there have been those born into wealth who lost it all and those who started out poor who became wealthy.

 

[Indeependent]

Neither has ever in history been attainable except for extremely short periods of time.
Equal opportunity is an illusion since it requires legislation composed by flawed humans who will leave it full of loopholes.

 

[OKTexas]

No one is born skilled or educated, both are obtained through personal decisions. You can be born into a family with money but that doesn't guarantee success and being born to a poor family doesn't guarantee failure. Social justice implies a some what equal outcome regardless of effort, which is antithetical to real American values of reward equal to the effort expended.

 

[rdean]

both

 

[Publius1787]

both

Both?

 

[Care4all]

I thought equal opportunity meant that if there were 2 people applying for a job, both equally qualified to fill an open position, that the employer could not exempt one of them due to them being a person of color or due to them being female or due to them being Jewish or due to them being a Catholic etc etc etc....EEO....equal employment opportunity...means the employer does not discriminate in their hiring, right?

It doesn't mean that a black person has to be hired over the white person, no matter how unskilled they are....and that is what the op seems to be implying (to a degree) in his question.....???

 

[Iceman]

Neither.

 

[DoItMyself]

The government should stay out of both! You aren't equal to shit. You ARE what you ARE. Whatever you can produce in life, is ALL your are. No handouts. No freebies. If all you can be is a fry cook, then it's not MY problem that your life sucks. MY tax money shouldn't be taken to help you in any way. Help yourself, and if you cant, then you ARE WHAT YOU ARE a damn fry cook for life, get over it.

 

[Publius1787]

The government should stay out of both! You aren't equal to shit. You ARE what you ARE. Whatever you can produce in life, is ALL your are. No handouts. No freebies. If all you can be is a fry cook, then it's not MY problem that your life sucks. MY tax money shouldn't be taken to help you in any way. Help yourself, and if you cant, then you ARE WHAT YOU ARE a damn fry cook for life, get over it.

Stay out of equality before the law? So the government should treat us unequal before the law? i.e. no rule of law?

 

[auditor0007]

Having equal opportunity does not mean everyone gets the same exact opportunity, but it does mean that anyone can work their way into a position to have a shot at a certain opportunity. It means that certain groups cannot be barred from having an opportunity based on discrimination.

 

[Iceman]

The government should stay out of both! You aren't equal to shit. You ARE what you ARE. Whatever you can produce in life, is ALL your are. No handouts. No freebies. If all you can be is a fry cook, then it's not MY problem that your life sucks. MY tax money shouldn't be taken to help you in any way. Help yourself, and if you cant, then you ARE WHAT YOU ARE a damn fry cook for life, get over it.

Stay out of equality before the law? So the government should treat us unequal before the law? i.e. no rule of law?

Yes

That is different entirely.

 

[Publius1787]

The government should stay out of both! You aren't equal to shit. You ARE what you ARE. Whatever you can produce in life, is ALL your are. No handouts. No freebies. If all you can be is a fry cook, then it's not MY problem that your life sucks. MY tax money shouldn't be taken to help you in any way. Help yourself, and if you cant, then you ARE WHAT YOU ARE a damn fry cook for life, get over it.

Stay out of equality before the law? So the government should treat us unequal before the law? i.e. no rule of law?

Yes

That is different entirely.

I'm curious as to what you mean by "neither." And yes, equality before the law is an integral part of the rule of law.

 

[DoItMyself]

The government should stay out of both! You aren't equal to shit. You ARE what you ARE. Whatever you can produce in life, is ALL your are. No handouts. No freebies. If all you can be is a fry cook, then it's not MY problem that your life sucks. MY tax money shouldn't be taken to help you in any way. Help yourself, and if you cant, then you ARE WHAT YOU ARE a damn fry cook for life, get over it.

Stay out of equality before the law? So the government should treat us unequal before the law? i.e. no rule of law?

Yes, Im for privatizing ALL government. If you want protection, pay for it. If you don't- which I DONT- don't pay for it. I can protect myself, screw the government. And its not my job to pay to protect you, or feed you or make sure your race gets you a job.

So yeah, government should stay out of all of it.

 

[Publius1787]

The government should stay out of both! You aren't equal to shit. You ARE what you ARE. Whatever you can produce in life, is ALL your are. No handouts. No freebies. If all you can be is a fry cook, then it's not MY problem that your life sucks. MY tax money shouldn't be taken to help you in any way. Help yourself, and if you cant, then you ARE WHAT YOU ARE a damn fry cook for life, get over it.

Stay out of equality before the law? So the government should treat us unequal before the law? i.e. no rule of law?

Yes, Im for privatizing ALL government. If you want protection, pay for it. If you don't- which I DONT- don't pay for it. I can protect myself, screw the government. And its not my job to pay to protect you, or feed you or make sure your race gets you a job.

So yeah, government should stay out of all of it.

You should read the history of the Roman Empire.

 

[Iceman]

Stay out of equality before the law? So the government should treat us unequal before the law? i.e. no rule of law?

Yes

That is different entirely.

I'm curious as to what you mean by "neither." And yes, equality before the law means that everyone is treated equal under the law.

"Equality before the law, also known as equality under the law, equality in the eyes of the law, or legal equality, is the principle under which all people are subject to the same laws of justice" Equality before the law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know what equality under the laws means. You clearly can't read.

What I am addressing is you suggested inequality in the law suggests "no rule of law". "No rule of law" is an anarchy. A legal system that treats different people differently is not an anarchy. In fact, there was no equality under the law in the original American system.

That concept of "equality" evolved out of the proto-marxist French Revolution, it didn't take hold in America until after the Civil War with the 14th Amendment.

 

[Publius1787]

Yes

That is different entirely.

I'm curious as to what you mean by "neither." And yes, equality before the law means that everyone is treated equal under the law.

"Equality before the law, also known as equality under the law, equality in the eyes of the law, or legal equality, is the principle under which all people are subject to the same laws of justice" Equality before the law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know what equality under the laws means. You clearly can't read.

What I am addressing is you suggested inequality in the law suggests "no rule of law". "No rule of law" is an anarchy. A legal system that treats different people differently is not an anarchy. In fact, there was no equality under the law in the original American system.

That concept of "equality" evolved out of the proto-marxist French Revolution, it didn't take hold in America until after the Civil War with the 14th Amendment.

Rule of law means that everyone is beholden to the law. Equality before the law means that everyone is treated equally before the law. You cannot have one without the other. If you are treated differently under the law than I then you cannot have rule of law.

 

[Iceman]

I'm curious as to what you mean by "neither." And yes, equality before the law means that everyone is treated equal under the law.

"Equality before the law, also known as equality under the law, equality in the eyes of the law, or legal equality, is the principle under which all people are subject to the same laws of justice" Equality before the law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know what equality under the laws means. You clearly can't read.

What I am addressing is you suggested inequality in the law suggests "no rule of law". "No rule of law" is an anarchy. A legal system that treats different people differently is not an anarchy. In fact, there was no equality under the law in the original American system.

That concept of "equality" evolved out of the proto-marxist French Revolution, it didn't take hold in America until after the Civil War with the 14th Amendment.

Rule of law means that everyone is beholden to the law. Equality before the law means that everyone is treated equally before the law. You cannot have one without the other.

Yes, but laws can be proscribed differently to different people.

Are you saying there was no rule of law in America before the 14th Amendment?

That would be an absurd assertion...

 

[Publius1787]

I know what equality under the laws means. You clearly can't read.

What I am addressing is you suggested inequality in the law suggests "no rule of law". "No rule of law" is an anarchy. A legal system that treats different people differently is not an anarchy. In fact, there was no equality under the law in the original American system.

That concept of "equality" evolved out of the proto-marxist French Revolution, it didn't take hold in America until after the Civil War with the 14th Amendment.

Rule of law means that everyone is beholden to the law. Equality before the law means that everyone is treated equally before the law. You cannot have one without the other.

Yes, but laws can be proscribed differently to different people.

Are you saying there was no rule of law in America before the 14th Amendment?

That would be an absurd assertion...

I see. Come to think about it, black codes were an excellent example of having the rule of law but not equality before the law. I stand corrected.