Appenzell
Switzerland
A Daily Compendium
of Free-Market Thinking
The Daily Bell Newswire - It's FREE!    


Guest Editorial

There's No Level Playing Field or Equal Opportunity

Tuesday, June 22, 2010 – by  Dr. Tibor Machan


Dr. Tibor Machan

Yet another excuse for some people to gain power over others is this idea of the level playing field.  It's a metaphor, of course, but used often to mean starting in a race with no advantages for any of the participants. Another term by which to indicate this is equal opportunity. Even those who see through the ruse of peddling equality for all people tend to cave in to this one, agreeing that at least everyone has the right to an equal opportunity. The opportunity for what is not often spelled out but it may include obtaining a job, entering a school, embarking on travel, winning a contest or whatnot.  The image that's called to mind is that when people start out to achieve some goal, none may be favored or disfavored, none may have special advantages or disadvantages, etc.  

But the the idea is hopeless. In no actual or even imaginable endeavor do people enjoy the level playing field or an equal opportunity.  Take those who begin a marathon race at the same starting point. Looks like they are enjoying an equal opportunity or level playing field since none is provided with extra time or less distance to complete the race. Surely this amounts to treating all those in the race as equals.

Not really. Some of them will have gotten a good night's sleep, others tossed and turned for who knows what reason that's certainly unavailable for control by those who organize the race fairly. Some will have had a decent breakfast, others were too nervous to keep any food down; some had loving fans seeing them off to the races, others went it alone. There are, in short, innumerable sources of inequality right from the get go.  People are simply too different and face different situations as they embark on various tasks that others, too, attempt.  

But by holding out some vain hope for the true level playing field or genuine equal opportunity, meddlers can insist that they must butt in and that their legally mandated manipulations and interference are needed for the noble purposes of serving this utterly misconceived version of justice. It is all bunk. Not only are there predictable differences among virtually all people who embark on similar missions but there are always fortune and misfortune, like the weather or just a plain old cold, that can hit and tilt the odds in favor or disfavor of certain of the participants.  Even in sports wherein every possible effort is made to put all participants on a level playing field, this is an unrealistic aspiration.  Everyone knows that it is unattainable and any serious attempt to attain it will be futile.

Then quite apart from the natural, given, and unavoidable inequalities that place people into different categories with different chances of winning, there is also other people's preferences, wants, hopes, and such that upset the apple cart all the time – some athletes are loved by fans, others aren't so much. Or the sex appeal is simply missing.  

More significantly, say you are a farmer planting and harvesting a crop but the purchasing public just lost interest in it and the price you can ask for it plummets, while the efforts of others, say those diving for seafood, are in high demand all of a sudden?  Maybe this is because a popular TV chef has come up with some very appealing seafood dishes on the show and the audience is now smitten and demand for the the farmer's crop has subsided markedly. Surely this upsets any hope for a level playing field between farmers and seafood merchants.  

So how is all this to be rearranged without sending in the police who will have no clue what to do about it all but will insist on trying to do something, anything, so as to seem important?  And how will the disparity between the power of those embarking on the rearrangement and those who are subject to it be eliminated so that equality obtains between them?  Impossible.

The dream of full, robust equality is a nightmare, let's face it, and it is best to distance ourselves from it as far as possible.

Post Feedback

We look forward to reading your feedback. All comments are automatically posted. However, please note that any posts containing harassment, vulgarity, personal attacks or those which are deemed to be of a violent nature are not welcomed and will either not appear or be removed.






View Feedback

Posted by Peter M. Lutterbeck on 6/22/2010 6:14:24 AM

Equal Opportunity? In your dreams! There are three essential guidelines that may need to be appreciated before any semblance of opportunity, if it exists at all these days: 1) It's not WHAT you know, it's WHO you know, 2) It's not WHAT you say, it's HOW you say it and lastly, 3) It's not WHAT you do, but HOW you do it. These pearls of wisdom will surely help those able to comprehend and implement them. Forget the illusion of "equal opportunity" – there just ain't none, never was.

Posted by Puzzled on 6/22/2010 6:56:01 AM

Again, Dr. Machan, you have nailed it. My Q. is "How do we rid our country of those at the top,very soon, so that people will go back to reality? Common sense, right & worng, Reality? We as a nation can overcome these adversities, but we have to go back to the free market, based on reality.Oh, and do you think Joe Lieberman will get the I-net shut down?

Posted by Leonardo Pisano on 6/22/2010 9:12:49 AM

Interesting post.

What I miss, however, is discrimination between internal factors, which are under the control of the contender (talents, skills, motivation, speed of action, etc) and external factors, beyond the control of the contenders. Internal factors are characteristics that influence one's decision to contend in the first place, and involve inequalities by default. External factors, however, should relate to fair and equal conditions, and the rules of the game should not discriminate between types of contenders (although some obvious disadvantages may prompt to make different arenas, e.g. children in different age groups, disabled people in sport).

I agree with Dr Machan that not even the external factors are kept level in the real world. Not even the government of which you "expect" an independent and fair behavior. But not at all: they have their own agendas and a hidden interest in creating play fields to the benefit of those they want to give privileges.

Posted by Liberty666 on 6/22/2010 2:55:18 PM

@ Peter

Your ideas express the mentality of a socialistic economy, a cpitalistic economy promotes the ideal of a man being judged soley on his productive ability.

Posted by Lila Rajiva on 6/22/2010 7:07:46 PM

@ Liberty666

Why should a man be "judged" solely on his productive capacities if in all else everything is skewed?

Surely a moral judgment will take account of those differences?
Jesus certainly did when he considered that the mite of the widow was "more" than the pittance the rich were throwing into the coffer. That "moral" judgment is of course very different from redistribution through the state. Fine.

Nonetheless, if since the free market rewards people based on unequal production, in turn based on unequal endowment, why not simply leave it at that? Why turn the result of a market transaction into a moral judgment? It's not socialist to ask that. It's Christian.

Posted by Liberty666 on 6/23/2010 1:35:09 PM

@ Lila

A true free market doesn't care a lick about a mans religion, for what does that have to do with his productive ability? It is a superior morality that judges a man not by his religion but by his productive ability. Capitalism is superior morally because of this, a core truth of capitalism is that by helping others, by providing supplies or services in a free market that consumers freely choose, you help yourself. The free market rewards those who truly help their fellow man with profit, if you fail to provide what your fellow man needs and wants you wont profit. This is the moral superiority of capitalism.

Posted by Lila Rajiva on 7/26/2010 12:26:18 PM

@Liberty666

Nice theory.

Now let's see if it works in practice:

It means that pornographers and drug peddlers are "more productive" than, say, nurses, because they make more money..

Ergo, they're more "productive" (per your criteria)....

Ergo they serve more needs...

Ergo they're more moral....

Hmm.

What was that you said again about providing services that your fellow man freely chooses?

The free market is the best economic model out there. But it's only as moral as the people involved in it..

Post Feedback

We look forward to reading your feedback. All comments are automatically posted. However, please note that any posts containing harassment, vulgarity, personal attacks or those which are deemed to be of a violent nature are not welcomed and will either not appear or be removed.








[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

News & Analysis
09/08/10 EU Fizzling
09/08/10 Big Science Goes Broke?
09/07/10 TIME Spreads the Government-Wealth Meme
09/07/10 Combating HAARP Suspicions
09/06/10 EU Treasury Overkill?
09/06/10 Failure of the Famine Meme
Guest Editorials
09/08/10 Successful Economic Policies? For Whom?
by Dr. Ron Paul
09/08/10 Here We Go Again
by Dr. Tibor Machan
09/04/10 The Mind Conspirators
by Nelson Hultberg

Subscribe to the
Daily Bell Newswire

It's FREE!
Timely email notification of...
  • Breaking News
  • Feature Interviews
  • Guest Editorials
  • White Papers
  • eBooks & Shorts
  • Special FREE offers
...and much much more!
Exclusive Interviews
09/05/10 Nathaniel Branden on Mastering the Six Pillars of Esteem and 'Honoring' One's-Self
08/29/10 Steve Forbes on Overseas Wars, the Coming Gold Standard and the Rise of 'Citizen Agitation'
08/22/10 Nelson Hultberg on Libertarian-Conservatism and His New Conservative American Political Party
© Copyright 2008 - 2010 Appenzeller Business Press AG (ARBP). All Rights Reserved. The Daily Bell is an informative compendium of independent economic views and analysis, which is published by ARBP. The information contained in the Daily Bell is for informational purposes only, is impersonal and not tailored to the investment needs of any particular person and should not be construed as financial or investment advice. ARBP does not accept any liability or responsibility for, nor does it verify the accurateness of the information being provided in the Daily Bell. Daily Bell articles and interviews may include the contributions of several Daily Bell editors and may require factual editing after their initial post. Readers of the Daily Bell or any affiliated or linked sources or sites must accept the responsibility for performing their own due diligence before acting on any of the information provided within the report regardless of the source. In addition to proprietary, internally generated content, the Daily Bell publishes guest editorials from a selection of free-market thinkers, which may have been reprinted elsewhere and are not necessarily representative of ARBP's editorial views. Copyright is attributed to the author of any guest editorials featured at the Daily Bell, unless noted otherwise. ARBP often uses images licensed from Getty Images on the Daily Bell website.