Equality of Opportunity Leads to Freedom of Results

There exists a natural tension between two of our most cherished American ideals—equality and freedom.  Where the first speaks to the democratic principles that underscore our nation’s founding, the second speaks to free-market beliefs and principles of capitalism that similarly factor into society’s design.  Where the ideals clash, however, is at the point where people are likely to conflate opportunity with results, confusing the two as one, when they are not.

For instance, a strain exists within the populace that believes equality of opportunity must necessarily lead to equality of results when it comes to life outcomes for people.  Under the influence of such thinking, it follows that the sameness of results must surely be evidence of less freedom at work.  To address this apparent reduction in freedom, it is further reasoned that restricting opportunity can thus yield unequal results, with the final conclusion being that such differing results can serve as evidence of more freedom.

In response to this circular reasoning, I ask, when have restrictions on opportunity—the parceling out for some and not for others—ever yielded greater freedom for people?  Common sense and use of our God-given eyes reveal otherwise.  Reality proves how debilitating a lack of opportunity actually is for people, in fact resulting in less freedom and in reduced autonomy and agency, instead producing greater dependence on structural safety nets, government-funded or not.

If equality of opportunity provides people with the agency to do with that opportunity what they will and fashion from it whatever life they desire for themselves, then it is equality of opportunity that produces the freedom of results so cherished.

Access to quality education is synonymous with equality of opportunity, if not the most supreme example.  Reasoning that touts freedom without opportunity is nearly vulgar in its disingenuousness.