Quote:There is an inherent conflict between two ideals that most Americans ascribe to: private property rights and equality of opportunity.   Most people would agree that a child born to a poor unwed mother does not have the same level of opportunity that a rich kid has.   On the other hand, most people would agree that people should get the rewards in life that they earn, and if a rich guy wants to send his son to a private school, he should be able to do that.   So how do we level the playing field without completely throwing out the right to private property and the incentive to work hard?   We compromise.   And that  is why we have this mildly redistributive system that attempts to balance the right to keep what you earn and dispose  of it as you wish, against the right to equal opportunity and the American dream. 

 

If we strictly enforce private property rights, with no redistribution at all, we wind up with an aristocracy- a permanent upper class and a permanent underclass, where rich kids have it made without ever earning anything, and climbing out of poverty is almost impossible.   On the other hand, if we go too far in redistributing wealth, we kill all the incentive to work hard and succeed.  

 

And that's why we have a mildly redistributive system.   It's not communism.   I'm not sure what you'd call it.  It's a compromise. 

 

I understand where you are coming from and somewhat agree with you on a few points.

 

The first key point is the "equality of opportunity".  To me, "equality of opportunity" does not equal "income equality".  I agree with you that a child born to a poor unwed mother doesn't have the same level of opportunity as a child born to a married couple that happen to be financially secure.  So how do we "level the playing field" so to speak?  The liberal answer is usually to throw more money at the problem in the form of welfare/food stamps and paying for it by taxing the rich even more, or claiming that the rich don't pay their "fair share".

 

Why not address the issue at hand by providing vouchers for school choice to the poor mother so that she can send her child to a better performing school?

 

Why not look deeper into the issue of the skyrocketing numbers of children born to unwed mothers and the skyrocketing numbers of single parent homes?

---