(OK, now I'll actually read the article...)
Posted on 05/08/2003 8:07:01 AM PDT by William McKinley
Edited on 05/12/2003 4:31:12 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
- "Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience."
- "Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to the narrowing uniformity, egalitarianism, and utilitarian aims of most radical systems;"
- "Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes, as against the notion of a 'classless society'."
- "Persuasion that freedom and property are closely linked: separate property from private possession, and the Leviathan becomes master of all."
- "Faith in prescription and distrust of 'sophisters, calculators, and economists' who would reconstruct society upon abstract designs."
- "Recognition that change may not be salutary reform: hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress."
(OK, now I'll actually read the article...)
He'd fire them all!
Ha...nice try, but my brother already sent me a tape of this a year or so back. I refuse to click the link!
Yet he is not defining "opportunity" here the way most people do. Which is a problem, in that to have a rational discourse everyone must at least agree on the terms of debate, and agree on common assumptions, else there is just meaningless argument. Most people define "equal opportunity" as "having a consistent set of criteria for all applicants for a position" -- whether that is for a job, a spot on a sports team, or a role in a volunteer organization. Of course he is saying "equality of opportunity", not "equal opportunity". Yet his point that everyone is not genetically the same, or from the same background, is obvious and no one argues with that. So he is either being disingenuous or merely stating the obvious.
Take, for example, the Michigan affirmative action case. It is one of great importance, and there is significant disagreement over it. And the University is not by any stretch of the imagination arguing for "having a consistent set of criteria for all applicants for a position". Quite the opposite; just the color of the skin gives one candidate a certain number of points advantage on the scoring system they want to use.
What you say 'no one argues over' is actually one of the biggest arguments raging between the right and the left.
What Kirk says here is correct and self-evident. But in the bad old days I used to hear the same arguments used to justify segregation and discrimination, which is why I get hinky anytime I hear someone trot out these discussions.
I don't disagree, but I can't help it if I am left waiting for evidence as to which way he (not necessarily Kirk, but anyone engaged in this discussion) is going with it. Is his point to reject discrimination based on ethnic or genetic considerations, or is he another die-hard who is going to defend the old order as being somehow just?
To younger folks this is a conversation that has no connotations other than the obvious, surface ones. To the older among us, it reminds us of the old circular discussions of another era. Those days are mostly gone, and I thank God for it.
No. That is not his point. Which is what I pointed out in my original post to you. He is not actually addressing this point at all -- he is rather saying "equality of opportunity" is not a real world outcome. I think he is directing his point at the Marxists. But he is not discussing the "equal opportunity" issue at all. Which was my point, which is why I said he is either being disingenuous or stating the obvious. I retract that statement -- if he was addressing the Marxist philosophy, and I suspect he was, then he was not being disingenuous, but he was stating what (to us, but not to the Marxists) was and is obvious.
See the difference?
"Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes, as against the notion of a 'classless society'."
I'd state that differently. I'm not so sure that "orders and classes" are "required" as much as the imposition of a "classless society" must be resisted. I believe that "orders and classes" are the natural and usual state of things -- which is fine, as long as there are no artificial barriers to an individual, through their effort, being able to enter a higher class -- but if a classless society should somehow spontaneously develop (unlikely, but remotely possible), there is nothing inherently wrong with that.
Indeed, the only truly classless society would arise spontaneously. Any such imposed society would, if nothing else, have the class of people who enforce the classless society, as opposed to the class of people who merely live in it.
"Faith in prescription and distrust of 'sophisters, calculators, and economists' who would reconstruct society upon abstract designs."
I'm not sure how Kirk is using "prescription" here. It seems to me that these "abstract designs" are prescriptions, however wrong. Indeed, it seems to me that "prescription" is something planned and imposed, but I think I'm misreading this.
"Recognition that change may not be salutary reform: hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress."
Yeah... but resisting such change can be equally devouring.... and I guess this is my strongest break with traditional conservatism. I find that it's rarely possible to stand against change and innovation. It's more practical to mold it -- or, if that's not possible, surf above it.
I said I agree it is obvious that not everyone is the same. I am not sure I agree with you that no one argues with it. Further, I am 100% certain that there is not unanimity over if it should be accepted as a natural condition that men should try to overturn. And that is the crux of Kirk's point.He says in one essay: "Yet don't I believe in equality of opportunity? No, friends, I do not. The thing is not possible. First of all, genetic differences cannot be surmounted between individual and individual; Thomas Jefferson and the whole school of "created free and equal" knew nothing whatsoever of human genetics, a science of the late nineteenth and the twentieth centuries. Second, opportunity depends greatly upon family background and nurturing; and unless it is proposed to sweep away the family altogether, as in Jacquetta Hawkes's fable, the rising generation of one stock will differ greatly in opportunity from the rising generation of a different family. For instance, I read every evening to my four little daughters, or told them stories; while my neighbors did not so instruct and converse with their children; accordingly, my children have enjoyed superior opportunities in life. It would be outrageously unjust to try somehow to wipe out these advantages of genetic inheritance or familial instruction."
Yet he is not defining "opportunity" here the way most people do. Which is a problem, in that to have a rational discourse everyone must at least agree on the terms of debate, and agree on common assumptions, else there is just meaningless argument. Most people define "equal opportunity" as "having a consistent set of criteria for all applicants for a position" -- whether that is for a job, a spot on a sports team, or a role in a volunteer organization. Of course he is saying "equality of opportunity", not "equal opportunity". Yet his point that everyone is not genetically the same, or from the same background, is obvious and no one argues with that. So he is either being disingenuous or merely stating the obvious.
He isn't just saying that there is inequality, he is saying that if we try to craft society in a manner that levels existing inequality, the result will be inherently unjust. The University of Michigan case is a prime example of that. The University wants to give, essentially, preference based on skin color to compensate for the fact that if they went strictly on merit, they would not get the desired ethnic mix, presumably because in the inner city schools and inner city families the children have not had the same opportunities to develop into achieving students. The University wants to compensate for this. Kirk's argument, made generations before the University crafted their plan, is that this is unjust.
Further, Kirk talks about how one of the most obvious differences in opportunity that exists for people is the family. Is it fair that George Bush had a much easier path to the Presidency than someone not from a famous family? Kirk says it is a false question; that if we try to impose leveling of opportunity, one target must be the family, because family background is very important to the opportunities one has.
Is it any surprise that cultural Marxists often take aim at the family, and is it any surprise that conservatives by natural tendency oppose anything that weakens the family?
Posting a link to such....such......
What's next? Posting a link to Hildebeast's mating call??????
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.