So you've realized that equality of outcome is actually very bad.
Now think about how many opportunities are outcomes.
Imagine a kid can go to college because her parents scrimped and saved to pay for it. That opportunity was earned. Why should another kid, whose parents recklessly lived beyond their means, be entitled to benefits that "level the playing field"? Why should parents manage their finances and behave responsibly if the state is just going to shore up any "inequality"?
A lot of opportunities are actually the result of someone's labor, discipline, or decisions. You can't just pave over those disparities without devaluing and indeed disincentivizing the good behavior that resulted in those opportunities.
Why should the child pay for the irresponsible behavior of the parents? Because that's how reality works. That's how you incentivize accountability and create a prosperous culture and nation.
None of this is to say that unfortunate kids should have no opportunities. We should strive to provide reasonable access to higher education, employment opportunity, healthcare, etc. But mandating literal equality of opportunity is no different than mandating equity. And any attempt to sever the fortunes of a child from that of his or her parents is nothing less than an attack on the very concept of family. Such attacks are a codified tactic under communism.
Now think about how many opportunities are outcomes.
This is what so many people don't get.
Generational wealth, even in small amounts, exists because someone gave up what they wanted now for the future of their children or grandchildren. My parents were able to pay part of my brother's college because the family saved up while the kids were younger. Why should some other family get the benefits of that outcome without the work? Where would it come from other than from taking from those who did the hard work to give to those who didn't.
It's a perverse world that rewards failure and punishes success in the name of "equality", but that's the perversion of incentives that the elite want: because it lessens the chance of any newcomer coming up and knocking them off the throne.
That's the thing. A lecture hall and a professor speaking is relatively inexpensive. We could certainly get back to the age where a person could work part time, live in a dorm, and pay their way through college.
When you have a million administrators demanding 6 figure salaries to "champion inclusivity" and expensive amenities, college is super expensive. But while there is always loans available with the lender not having any real skin in the game, we have what we have today.
So you've realized that equality of outcome is actually very bad.
Now think about how many opportunities are outcomes.
Imagine a kid can go to college because her parents scrimped and saved to pay for it. That opportunity was earned. Why should another kid, whose parents recklessly lived beyond their means, be entitled to benefits that "level the playing field"? Why should parents manage their finances and behave responsibly if the state is just going to shore up any "inequality"?
A lot of opportunities are actually the result of someone's labor, discipline, or decisions. You can't just pave over those disparities without devaluing and indeed disincentivizing the good behavior that resulted in those opportunities.
Why should the child pay for the irresponsible behavior of the parents? Because that's how reality works. That's how you incentivize accountability and create a prosperous culture and nation.
None of this is to say that unfortunate kids should have no opportunities. We should strive to provide reasonable access to higher education, employment opportunity, healthcare, etc. But mandating literal equality of opportunity is no different than mandating equity. And any attempt to sever the fortunes of a child from that of his or her parents is nothing less than an attack on the very concept of family. Such attacks are a codified tactic under communism.
This is what so many people don't get.
Generational wealth, even in small amounts, exists because someone gave up what they wanted now for the future of their children or grandchildren. My parents were able to pay part of my brother's college because the family saved up while the kids were younger. Why should some other family get the benefits of that outcome without the work? Where would it come from other than from taking from those who did the hard work to give to those who didn't.
It's a perverse world that rewards failure and punishes success in the name of "equality", but that's the perversion of incentives that the elite want: because it lessens the chance of any newcomer coming up and knocking them off the throne.
That's the thing. A lecture hall and a professor speaking is relatively inexpensive. We could certainly get back to the age where a person could work part time, live in a dorm, and pay their way through college.
When you have a million administrators demanding 6 figure salaries to "champion inclusivity" and expensive amenities, college is super expensive. But while there is always loans available with the lender not having any real skin in the game, we have what we have today.