[prottog]

I'll own the snark (and point out that height is only non-transferable if you aren't trying hard enough, a la Harrison Bergeron), but my point stands. Life is full of situations where someone has it better off than someone else in whatever dimension you care to look at. I believe in equality of opportunity but not equality of outcome, which is what GP seemed to suggest in coveting the personal freedoms of a billionaire.

[lostlogin]

> I believe in equality of opportunity

If this is to be achieved it is going to require a lot of money.

We are a long way from having a child growing up in social housing sharing the same opportunities as a billionaires child.

[hotpotamus]

Do you think the child of a poor single mother and the child of a billionaire have equality of opportunity?

[prottog]

Substantially equal in terms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? In equality before the law? In being judged not for the color of their skin, but the content of their character? Yes, and we should strive to make that even more so. Perfectly equal in all respects, including access to resources? Obviously not. If you define equality of opportunity as how many horseback riding lessons and unpaid internships a child is put through, then no, there is no such equality found in America or anywhere else in the world. Even the most egalitarian nations of the world in Scandinavia (the subject of this thread to begin with) have rich people and poor people.

A child of a poor single mother, Barack Obama, made his way to the highest office of the land (not to mention significant personal wealth), whereas a child of a billionaire, John du Pont, died in prison as a convicted murderer. Both had equal opportunities to make something of themselves in a cultural, legal, and economic framework that values the individual.

In this land of equality of opportunity, 93% of people born to parents in the bottom quintile of incomes ended up earning more than their parents, with 57% ending up in a higher quintile; and a full 60% of people born to parents in the top quintile of incomes ended up in a lower quintile[0].

Meanwhile, in Norway, famed for its egalitarian attitudes and highly redistributive policies, a higher percentage were able to climb out of the bottom quintile, but a similar percentage held on to their parents' top-quintile ranking[1]. The country has more billionaires per capita than the US, and still has a legally separate and privileged group of people, the monarchy, who by definition are unequal from the rest of the populace; and it's only a few generations removed from having legal privileges for the aristocracy.

[0]: https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_a...

[1]: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/02_econ...