This approach allows for compromise and creation. It is the opposite of polarizing ideology. Ed, in his comment, shows the solution I’ve been saying for years. First let’s agree on a subject. Let’s take one you mentioned. Resolved: In a nation like ours, a land of wealth and opportunity, no person should be unable to afford medical care. Medical security is a necessity to be able to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?”
Now. Let’s argue about the best methods to bring this about. Neither the 100% private care nor the 100% Government care will get what they want. Each side gives to the greater middle who find the compromise that achieves the goal. The goals can be measured. No person shall spend more than x% of the family take home income, etc. First, start from a place of agreement, then work towards that agreement.
Equality of condition seems to me contrary to the American Promise. Having a CHANCE for opportunity and having a goal of EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY makes sense to me. Absolute equality is not really just or enforceable. Women make less than man per hour on average but it is also true that 1) men work more hours 2) work in more dangerous (deadly) fields A female dental assistance may not make as much as a miner or lumberjack. But she is much less likely to be maimed or killed.
Equality of condition seems to me contrary to the American Promise. Having a CHANCE for opportunity and having a goal of EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY makes sense to me. Absolute equality is not really just or enforceable. Women make less than man per hour on average but it is also true that 1) men work more hours 2) work in more dangerous (deadly) fields A female dental assistance may not make as much as a miner or lumberjack. But she is much less likely to be maimed or killed.
Another great editorial! I like this line: "Neither the American labor union leader nor the Dickens protagonist said anything about wanting as much as other people. They didn't ask for equality; they simply wanted more." I'm a retired professor, but during my lengthy career as a part-time prof at the Austin Community College, I fought for the better pay, benefits, and job security for the adjunct faculty, who earn (even on a prorated basis) maybe 20% of what the full-time faculty earn. We don't want to be equal to the full-timers, merely to make a living wage.
Excellent article and insight into "equality/equity".
I never thought about just stating the problem,
rather than both the problem and the solution
in the same sentence. What an obvious observation.
Similar to logical fallacies concerning a premise,
I can now, with your insight, declare
"I agree with the need but I deny your
solution (conclusion)"
There are many more conclusions than
the one offered.
This approach allows for compromise and creation. It is the opposite of polarizing ideology. Ed, in his comment, shows the solution I’ve been saying for years. First let’s agree on a subject. Let’s take one you mentioned. Resolved: In a nation like ours, a land of wealth and opportunity, no person should be unable to afford medical care. Medical security is a necessity to be able to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?”
Now. Let’s argue about the best methods to bring this about. Neither the 100% private care nor the 100% Government care will get what they want. Each side gives to the greater middle who find the compromise that achieves the goal. The goals can be measured. No person shall spend more than x% of the family take home income, etc. First, start from a place of agreement, then work towards that agreement.
Equality of condition seems to me contrary to the American Promise. Having a CHANCE for opportunity and having a goal of EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY makes sense to me. Absolute equality is not really just or enforceable. Women make less than man per hour on average but it is also true that 1) men work more hours 2) work in more dangerous (deadly) fields A female dental assistance may not make as much as a miner or lumberjack. But she is much less likely to be maimed or killed.
Equality of condition seems to me contrary to the American Promise. Having a CHANCE for opportunity and having a goal of EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY makes sense to me. Absolute equality is not really just or enforceable. Women make less than man per hour on average but it is also true that 1) men work more hours 2) work in more dangerous (deadly) fields A female dental assistance may not make as much as a miner or lumberjack. But she is much less likely to be maimed or killed.
Another great editorial! I like this line: "Neither the American labor union leader nor the Dickens protagonist said anything about wanting as much as other people. They didn't ask for equality; they simply wanted more." I'm a retired professor, but during my lengthy career as a part-time prof at the Austin Community College, I fought for the better pay, benefits, and job security for the adjunct faculty, who earn (even on a prorated basis) maybe 20% of what the full-time faculty earn. We don't want to be equal to the full-timers, merely to make a living wage.