Hacker News Reader

Comment by Pensacola | Hacker News Reader

All of these replies seem to co-mingle the concepts of equal opportunity and equal outcome. The foundation of a free society is personal responsibility. Personal outcomes in such a system are pretty much guaranteed not to be the same (equal), since different people will use their freedom in different ways. Sucks for kids of irresponsible parents, who truly don't have self-autonomy. But then again, our society is full of compassionate safety nets for such kids.

View on HN

Exactly. Outside of the state taking away children from their parents at birth and raising them there will never truly be equal opportunity. Even then there are genetic differences which give some more opportunity than others: I got blessed by flat ass feet and bad joints from my parents. I will never be able to be an athlete and will always be somewhat limited in the physical endeavours I can persue. Being tall and attractive is directly correlated with better life outcomes, but if you are ugly or short you are just out of luck.

The real question which needs to be answered is where do institutions need to draw the line for equal opportunity? Do institutional services need to be a zero sum game? Can we offer the same services to everyone — education, healthcare, UBI — where providing services to certain individuals is not at the expense of other individuals?

> Outside of the state taking away children from their parents at birth and raising them...

Don't give them any ideas!

You raise a very fair question of “when does someone have the responsibility for turning their opportunity into their outcome and how quickly does that responsibility ramp from 0% theirs to 100% theirs?

Could it ever begin before conception? Could it ever begin before birth? At 6 months of age? At 1, 2, or 3 years of age? Is it 100% “on them” at 12, 16, 18, or 21?

> But then again, our society is full of compassionate safety nets for such kids.

That really depends on what you are referring to by "our society." If you're talking about the US, many would dispute that characterization.

I'd not call it a characterization but a fact. I was initially thinking of Western(ized) society, although a moment's reflection suggests to me that it's nearly all current human society. For starters, (nearly?) every nation offers free public education. Westernized nations offer food assistance or some form of welfare for low- or no-income families. There are countless other programs at just at this "systemic," nation-state level; then consider that the world abounds with private and religious charities, which although they mostly hail from wealthier nations, dispense educational and life support to children (and adults) around the world. A myriad of privately-sponsored orphanages in India. Whatever the Gates foundation is doing this week in Africa. Privately sponsored open-to-the-community schools and day cares in Harlem. The list is endless.

> I'd not call it a characterization but a fact.

It's a subjective, unquantified statement. It cannot possibly be called a fact.

In any case the proof is in the pudding: children in the US who are born poor are highly likely to die poor, and we are significantly worse in that respect than other Western countries.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com