EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN THE FREE SOCIETY

by Sanjeev Sabhlok

Everyone must be equally free. On that everyone is agreed. But the fact that this equality of freedom translates to equal opportunity (EO), a major plank of the liberal platform, is an area of considerable contention and calls for careful consideration.

The erstwhile Swatantra Party committed, as the first of its 21 principles , to “equality of opportunity for all people without distinction of religion, caste, occupation or political affiliation”. Similarly, the Liberal Party of Australia believes “in equal opportunity for all Australians”. But wherefrom do these conceptions about EO arise, and what exactly do they mean?

Meaning of equal opportunity
The most important connotation of EO, on which there is general agreement, has to do with political equality – things like equal citizenship, universal franchise, the uniform application of laws, and absence of discriminatory obstacles to achieving higher (public) office. But as Friedrich Hayek noted, this conception does not mean “that … the chances of the different individuals [will] be made the same.” EO does not imply equal prospects, leave alone equal outcomes. It is an enabling provision, with prospects and outcomes squarely determined by the efforts and demonstrated ability of each citizen.

The second part of EO is the social minimum – a connotation not at all agreed to by all people who advocate liberty. I side with Hayek and most classical liberals on this matter. Thus, Hayek noted in The Road to Serfdom that the (free) society assures everybody of “some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and capacity for work”. It must be noted that providing for a social minimum must be considered by a government only after adequately providing for defence, police, and justice. In my terminology, EO is a second order function.

It is worth mentioning that the social minimum outlined above has nothing in common with John Rawls’s difference principle which asks “social and economic inequalities are to be arranged … so that … they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society”. Rawls’s principle leads to illiberal outcomes and severely distorts property rights. In my view, his is a step towards socialism.

The equal opportunity social contract
But you could ask: Why is the conception of social minimum above not merely another socialist ruse for cross-subsidising the poor? Surely we are not responsible for others (for we didn’t bring them into the world). So why are we being asked to take on responsibility for their existence, even if it is set at a frugal level?

In response, note that equal freedom is meaningless to a sick and starving person or illiterate tribal. If our body and brain doesn’t function or we can’t think critically, we can’t be free. Everyone in the free society must therefore be minimally healthy and possess some basic knowledge.

But consider now the imperatives of our strategic (enlightened) self-interest. A moment’s reflection will show that EO is in our long term interest because it leads to a stable and aspirational society.

We know that our life energy springs from Nature. Therefore, at some point the laws of the jungle could well apply to us. The poor man who steals bread to feed his starving family, or kills a rich man who has denied him even a menial job, thus taking him to the brink of existence, is governed at that moment only by the brutal laws of nature. To construct a moral society we must get away from this precarious ‘state of nature’. We must create incentives to prevent amoral behaviour.

The problem is that Thomas Hobbes’s whimsical Leviathan allowed the rich to gain enormously at the expense of the poor. But this supercilious sovereign soon bit the dust with the beheading of Charles I. Out of this defeat (and the subsequent Glorious Revolution) arose the Equal Opportunity Leviathan where equal political freedom was assured more widely, and individual powers better balanced. Indeed, Kaldor and Hicks show us clearly that if we want stability then those who gain from the social contract must compensate those who lose. Buchanan and Tullock (Calculus of Consent, 1962) and other theorists have also thrown useful light on this matter. Robert Axelrod, in The Evolution of Cooperation, showed us how a tit-for-tat rule (balance of powers) leads to stability and cooperation.

The EO society with a social minimum thus acts as a strategic balance-of-powers society in which petty criminals, Naxalite revolts, and beggars sprawled on footpaths are absent because all of them have been empowered to make an honest living. It is important to emphasise that this contract is not motivated solely by the fear of the rich being attacked by the poor. There are untold benefits for everyone from having a healthy, well-educated citizenry. And, of course, we all gain deeply by ridding society of poverty. EO is really good for our soul.

This (EO) society is particularly stable (and optimal). The rich can reap the rewards of their efforts without the state confiscating their wealth. The poor prefer it because merit and hard work are rewarded, thus enabling their upward mobility, even as they can take shelter, if the need so arises, under the social minimum. The EO society thus motivates everyone to work hard (and ethically) to achieve their highest potential.

An equal opportunity package
The EO package has to start with an EO law to eliminate discrimination in opportunities for public office on grounds of religion, caste, sex, physical handicap, economic status, domicile, and the like. This law must necessarily abolish affirmative action and subsidies for religious groups, as both these things violate EO principles by discriminating on the basis of religion and caste, and by going well beyond the requirements of the social minimum (which is applicable to the basic physical and education needs of the poor, not to their desire for religious pilgrimage).

The social minimum (insurance) package includes universal school education delivered through private channels funded by the state in the form of top-up vouchers determined by parental income and assets. Health insurance vouchers as appropriate (not direct health care provided by government!), and emergency care entitlements, come next. Finally, the incomes of the poor are topped up through a negative income tax scheme (NIT) to eliminate poverty without distorting work incentives.

This social minimum has to be paid through an actuarially fair premium raised through taxes, with all calculations made public. My preliminary calculations show that NIT would eliminate poverty in India by redirecting existing (and ineffective) subsidies directly to the poor. For good quality school education some supplementation will be needed through borrowings, but these can be recovered through higher taxes from the well-educated citizens of the future.

In closing, it is important to note that delivering EO will need the resolution of numerous public choice, moral hazard, and public administration problems, some of which I will discuss in the coming months.

***

Sanjeev can be contacted at sabhlok AT yahoo.com

Past posts by Sanjeev:

How can anyone make a living from selling slices of coconut?!

Unbridled Capitalism? - Guest post by Sanjeev Sabhlok

What is Freedom? - by Sanjeev Sabhlok

Why bother with politics? - Sanjeev Sabhlok

*** UPDATE ***

I am traveling until the 10th of July with very limited internet access. There will be some delay before I am able to respond to (and moderate) comments.

Thank you for your patience and understanding.

***

Pl. note that if you do not enter your email address while leaving a comment, it is very likely to get stuck in the moderation/spam queue.

To avoid this, pl. enter a valid email address OR use this email address instead: satyacomment AT gmail.com

Email addresses are not published on the site.

Post from: || Satyameva Jayate ||

Dr Kalyanaraman-ji’s work:

http://sites.google.com/site/kalyan97/mlecc.hitavikalp

http://sites.google.com/site/kalyan97/indus-script

http://sites.google.com/site/kalyan97/a-new-decipherment-paradigm

http://sarasvati97.blogspot.com/

.

Varnam’s posts and research:

http://varnam.org/blog/2009/05/undeciphered-scripts/

http://varnam.org/blog/2009/04/indus-script-a-formal-language/

http://varnam.org/blog/2009/05/hostile-reactions/

http://varnam.org/blog/2009/05/indian-history-carnival-17/

.

Asko Parpola’s works:

http://www.helsinki.fi/~aparpola/

.

Please feel free to add any other links (to articles/documents) that you may be aware of - using the comments form below.

Thanks.

Related Post: Breaking the code: the Sarasvati-Sindhu Script

*** UPDATE ***

I am traveling until the 10th of July with very limited internet access. There will be some delay before I am able to respond to (and moderate) comments.

Thank you for your patience and understanding.

***

Pl. note that if you do not enter your email address while leaving a comment, it is very likely to get stuck in the moderation/spam queue.

To avoid this, pl. enter a valid email address OR use this email address instead: satyacomment AT gmail.com

Email addresses are not published on the site.

Post from: || Satyameva Jayate ||

*** Excerpts Begin ***

To understand why Democrats have had such a hard time winning the White House, consider two scenes from last week’s CNN/YouTube debate. First, Sen. Chris Dodd offered a highly precise response to a question about energy: “The 50-mile-per-gallon standard is something I’ve advocated by 2017.” Then former senator John Edwards told a moving story about a man who couldn’t speak for 50 years because of a severe cleft palate: “For five decades, James Lowe lived in the richest nation on the planet not able to talk because he couldn’t afford the procedure that would’ve allowed him to talk.”

Which appeal was more compelling? Which one grabbed you in the gut?

For much of the last 40 years, Democrats have ignored their guts and searched for the best facts and figures. But the most compelling fact is that during those 40 years, only one Democrat has been reelected to the presidency. Bill Clinton was also the only Democrat who intuitively understood that the best appeals seize people with something emotionally compelling, lay out the alternatives posed by the candidates and “close the argument” with inspiration or outrage.

…

If the other side is trashing you and you say nothing or back down, you cede to your adversaries the neural networks that constitute public opinion. People vote largely with their passions, and if you jam their emotional radar, you prevent them from making emotionally informed decisions.

…

Data from thousands of voters surveyed since the late 1940s suggest that voters tend to ask four questions (in this order) that determine how they vote:
· How do I feel about the candidates’ parties and their principles?
· How does this candidate make me feel?
· How do I feel about this candidate’s personal characteristics, such as integrity, leadership and empathy?
· How do I feel about this candidate’s stands on issues that matter to me?

Candidates who focus toward the top of this hierarchy and work their way down generally win. They drink from the wellsprings of partisan sentiments, which account for more than 80 percent of votes. They tell emotionally compelling stories about who they are and what they believe in.

*** End of Excerpts ***

Go read the article in full.

Drew Westen is a professor of psychology and psychiatry at Emory University and the author of “The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation.” This article was written in July 2007

Please note that all rights (including copyright) rest with the The Washington Post Company.

Also read: Winning Hearts and Minds: Why Rational Appeals Are Irrational If Your Goal is Winning Elections

*** UPDATE ***

I am traveling until the 10th of July with very limited internet access. There will be some delay before I am able to respond to (and moderate) comments.

Thank you for your patience and understanding.

***

Pl. note that if you do not enter your email address while leaving a comment, it is very likely to get stuck in the moderation/spam queue.

To avoid this, pl. enter a valid email address OR use this email address instead: satyacomment AT gmail.com

Email addresses are not published on the site.

Post from: || Satyameva Jayate ||

Spoke to two groups this morning and several conversations on  the side…This can be pretty exhausting…I have not spoken  so much in a very long time…worrying about a hoarse throat…Wonder how “real” politicians manage to go through an intense election campaign packed with meetings…

Two more meetings to go this evening…one beginning in about an hour…

Quick impressions:

• The young have an amazing sense of optimism in the future of the country…
• It is very refreshing and energising to start the day by talking to a group that has hope in their eyes and self-confidence to achieve their dreams
• The education system (in general) needs to encourage students to ask questions…I wonder if the present set-up stifles natural curiousity
• For a lot of people, “Politics” is still something that you read about

More later.
Related Post: Changing India - Step III

*** UPDATE ***

I am traveling until the 10th of July with very limited internet access. There will be some delay before I am able to respond to (and moderate) comments.

Thank you for your patience and understanding.

***

Pl. note that if you do not enter your email address while leaving a comment, it is very likely to get stuck in the moderation/spam queue.

To avoid this, pl. enter a valid email address OR use this email address instead: satyacomment AT gmail.com

Email addresses are not published on the site.

Post from: || Satyameva Jayate ||

I am talking about the dozen odd MPs who “attended classes at the prestigious Yale University” and remarked that it was a “great learning experience”…that would help them think “out of the box.”

All very fine and good except - as Ashvini points out - there may be more to this than meets the eye…From “Is Yale turning India into a Dynastic Democracy?” (Hat Tip: Sanjay Anandaram):

As I scrolled down the report, the choice of MPs selected for the programme intrigued me, and then began plainly irritating me.

Leader of the pack: Abhishek Manu Singhvi, son of L.M. Singhvi.

The other members of the squad:
# H.D. Kumaraswamy: son of former prime minister H.D. Deve Gowda.
# Naresh Goyal: son of former prime minister I.K. Gujral.
# Jayant Chaudhary: son of Rashtriya Lok Dal leader, Ajit Singh.
# Shruti Choudhary: daughter of Haryana tourism minister Kiran Choudhary, and grand-daughter of Bansi Lal.
# Priya Dutt, daughter of late Sunil Dutt.
# Mohammad Hamdullah Sayeed, son of the former Union minister P.M. Sayeed.
# Anurag Singh, son of the Himachal Pradesh chief minister Prem Kumar Dhumal.
# Mausam Noor: granddaughter of Congress leader A.B.A. Ghani Khan Choudhary.

In other words, eight of the ten members of the team (there is also Prakash Javadekar, who is just the son of his parents) are from political families. Sons, daughters, relatives of political leaders.

First, their family standing and surname helped most of them get tickets to contest the elections and enter Parliament. Now, they are getting preferential treatment for leadership courses!

…In a house of 543 MPs, were there no other “young MPs” who were found worthy of being chosen for this high honour?

But there are other questions bugging me:

• How is it that these “children” did not pick up leadership skills from their father, mother, uncles?
• Should a former chief minister like Kumaraswamy have been included in the list with first time MPs?
• Can an American university, howsoever great, really teach leadership for an Indian context?
• Are these first-time MPs in danger of being brainwashed and indoctrinated in the American way of thinking and learning?
• Should we not send delegations like these to places in India that are poor, disease-stricken so that they know the reality?
• Should not these MPs spend time with farmers, weavers, fishermen etc who face extreme hardships to make a simple livelihood and have little of no support from Goverment?

Ashvini concludes:

Going to Yale is good idea, but visiting different towns and villages at home in Bharat that is India will teach them more lasting lessons about leadership and challanges that an Yale can never teach.

Now that would be “thinking outside the box” and a “great learning experience”!

*** UPDATE ***

I am traveling until the 10th of July with very limited internet access. There will be some delay before I am able to respond to (and moderate) comments.

Thank you for your patience and understanding.

***

Pl. note that if you do not enter your email address while leaving a comment, it is very likely to get stuck in the moderation/spam queue.

To avoid this, pl. enter a valid email address OR use this email address instead: satyacomment AT gmail.com

Email addresses are not published on the site.

Post from: || Satyameva Jayate ||