
On Liberty (1859) [pdf] - mrfusion
https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/mill/liberty.pdf
======
smhmd
One of my more used quotes. Page 35 on the document.

> He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His
> reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he
> is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not
> so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either
> opinion. The rational position for him would be suspension of judgment, and
> unless he contents himself with that, he is either led by authority, or
> adopts, like the generality of the world, the side to which he feels most
> inclination. Nor is it enough that he should hear the arguments of
> adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and
> accompanied by what they offer as refutations. That is not the way to do
> justice to the arguments, or bring them into real contact with his own mind.
> He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who
> defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them. He must know them
> in their most plausible and persuasive form; he must feel the whole force of
> the difficulty which the true view of the subject has to encounter and
> dispose of; else he will never really possess himself of the portion of
> truth which meets and removes that difficulty.

~~~
Pinegulf
Foundation of the concept of 'Steel-manning'. I'd like to see this idea more
wide-spread. Heck, i'd make it mandatory for positions of trust. Ability to
see both sides.

~~~
Reedx
Absolutely. It would be amazing to see political debates (and discourse
generally) where they're able to steelman each other's position and interact
in good faith. That would have a profound effect on our democracy.

Instead we get strawmen, soundbites and kayfabe. Somehow we've got to get away
from this.

~~~
klyrs
> Somehow we've got to get away from this.

 _pssst_ put down your phone.

Posted from my phone.

Goddammit.

------
xpe
I've noticed what may be a pattern in many HN discussions: a particular
philosophy, such as stoicism, makes the rounds. (I would expect there is a
common cause, such as a popular lecture, but that common cause is not always
clear.)

Given that we have many thousands of readers here, I think it is better to
have a diversity of philosophical explorations (rather than intense interest
only on a few).

For example:

A. There are variations within utilitarianism that Mill lays out but does not
resolve. For example, 'rule utilitarianism' or 'act utilitarianism' [1]

B. Another level out, there many theories of political economy that contrast
with utilitarianism.

C. Political economy is a fascinating area. Many people already read Milton
Friedman, so I often recommend reading Arthur Okun's "Equality and Efficiency:
The Big Tradeoff" as a counterpoint [2]

D. Go another level out, and you will find many theories of ethics that are
worth examining.

    
    
      1: https://www.iep.utm.edu/mill-eth/#H5
      2: https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/content/uploads/files/content/docs/OKUN_EQUALITY_AND_EFFICIENCY_(AS08).PDF

------
rayiner
The dedication to his deceased wife hit me in the feels.

> To the beloved and deplored memory of her who was the inspirer, and in part
> the author, of all that is best in my writings- the friend and wife whose
> exalted sense of truth and right was my strongest incitement, and whose
> approbation was my chief reward—I dedicate this volume. Like all that I have
> written for many years, it belongs as much to her as to me; but the work as
> it stands has had, in a very insufficient degree, the inestimable advantage
> of her revision; some of the most important por- tions having been reserved
> for a more careful re-examination, which they are now never destined to
> receive. Were I but capable of interpret- ing to the world one half the
> great thoughts and noble feelings which are buried in her grave, I should be
> the medium of a greater benefit to it, than is ever likely to arise from
> anything that I can write, unprompted and unassisted by her all but
> unrivalled wisdom.

------
dvt
Just a few of the ideas that this seminal text brought to the fore:

    
    
        - The Marketplace of Ideas
        - The Harm Principle
        - Utilitarianism as the moral mechanism of social policy
    

One of my all-time favorite pieces of political philosophy. I wish more people
(not just philosophers or political scientists) took the time to read it. Also
consider checking out Hobbes' _Leviathan_ [1] and Rousseau's _On the Social
Contract_ [2].

[1]
[https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm)

[2]
[https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46333/46333-h/46333-h.htm](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/46333/46333-h/46333-h.htm)

~~~
xpe
> Utilitarianism as the moral mechanism of social policy

Is this a quotation? A phrase from a particular work? Could you share the
context?

I do not accept that utilitarianism is "the" moral mechanism of social policy.
Yes, many economists use utility maximization in their analyses, but there is
a diversity of thought around many things, such as (but not limited to):

(a) what should utility include;

(b) the functional form of utility (the sum/average? the minimum? something
else?); and

(c) to what extent reductionist theories of happiness/contentment/whatever are
useful tools given that humans exist interdependently, with biological,
tribal, social, and intellectual connections.

There is a whole field of thought that digs into these variations.

~~~
dvt
> Yes, many economists use utility maximization in their analyses

This has nothing to do with economists; the Western legal system is (more or
less) based on the weighing of different interests (definitionally:
utilitarianism). There are, of course, a few exceptions -- which graze
deontology, and even rarer still virtue ethics and (more historically) some
divine command theory -- but overall, I'd say that yeah, we're pretty much
utilitarian.

> There is a whole field of thought that digs into these variations.

Agreed, ethics is a rich and valuable field.

~~~
xpe
Could you please answer my other question:

>> Utilitarianism as the moral mechanism of social policy

> "Is this a quotation? A phrase from a particular work? Could you share the
> context?"

~~~
dvt
Alexis de Tocqueville in his _Democracy in America_ said it quite well:

"Democratic laws generally tend to promote the welfare of the greatest
possible number; for they emanate from the majority of the citizens, who are
subject to error, but who cannot have an interest opposed to their own
advantage."

This is, by definition, utilitarianism (greatest amount of good, least amount
of bad, and all that).

[1]
[http://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper/DETOC/1_ch14.htm](http://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper/DETOC/1_ch14.htm)

~~~
phs318u
That's a great quote, but I'd suggest it is mistaken in its last clause.
Citizens, including the majority, can and have indeed held interests opposed
to their own advantage. This has happened in the past and continues to occur.
I'd suggest this is precisely because they "are subject to error" \- a fact
which few powers have failed to exploit.

~~~
dvt
I totally agree, and the most obvious example is Julius Caesar (of course!). A
charitable interpretation, though, would push us to look at the "average case"
(us engineers often solely look at the extremes), where Tocqueville I think
has a point.

------
lukev
This is, of course, an eloquent expression of a vital philosophy. We should be
seriously grateful that it gained serious uptake through the 18th and 19th
centuries, giving us(1) the democracy and freedom we enjoy today. Everyone
should read it.

However, critical thought about how to run a just, fair society should not
stop with 1859. Particularly in light of events in the 20th century, and with
observations of the failure modes of actual democracies (which have (with some
exceptions) only existed since the late 18th century). We should continue to
read and reason about how to make our society even fairer, and even better,
and how to prevent failure modes and regression to a less free state.

There is too much good material here to cite (it has been the focus of
basically all political philosophy from WW2 forward) but relevant to this
discussion, I can recommend Popper's "The Open Society and its Enemies", and
Hannah Arendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil".

Also of interest are historical treatments of how support of libertarianism in
the mid-18th century could coincide with the most brutal zenith of race-based
slavery.

I mention these because, I presume, this is being posted and upvoted in the
context of the current political discourse. Understanding more _recent_
political philosophy, with more data available, is critical if one actually
wants to understand and engage with movements such as (mentioned elsewhere in
the comments) "cancel culture", or how to combat massive disinformation which,
in the words of Sartre, "seek[s] not to persuade by sound argument but to
intimidate and disconcert."

1\. does not apply to all skin colors, genders or sexual orientations

~~~
gentleman11
Curious why posts like this get downvoted so often. Is there something I am
missing? It seems like a reasonable statement, and whether you agree with it
or not, it’s worded in a way to encourage discussion

~~~
concordDance
I think it's this bit: "does not apply to all skin colors, genders or sexual
orientations"

If he'd said "does not apply to all countries" he'd probably not get
downvoted, but the idea that people of different sexes and races don't have
equal freedom is a hotly contested political question in many countries.

~~~
gentleman11
> giving us(1) the democracy and freedom we enjoy today

I think the point is that not everybody benefitted equally. I don’t think
that’s very contentious, we can just look at the civil rights movement or even
women’s suffrage, both of which are relatively new things. It would seem that
the benefits are very slowly evening out though - every couple of decades
there is a noticeable improvement. It’s not as fast as would be ideal, but at
light speed compared to most of human history (which has been pretty brutal
over all)

~~~
lukev
And yet the history of the 20th century, there are plenty of cases where a
society has _regressed_ along this axis. Sometimes quite suddenly.

European fascism is the obvious example, but it's also really interesting to
look at the trajectory of social freedom in places like China, Iran,
Afghanistan, etc. Progress is not guaranteed.

------
acabal
Also as an epub/azw3 for your ereader at Standard Ebooks:
[https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/john-stuart-mill/on-
libert...](https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/john-stuart-mill/on-liberty)

~~~
brigandish
There's also an HTML version at
[https://www.bartleby.com/130/](https://www.bartleby.com/130/)

There can't be enough ways to get this work in front of people.

------
nsm
Jonathan Haidt's org has a nicely illustrated, highly abridged version called
"All Minus One" \- [https://heterodoxacademy.org/library/all-minus-
one/](https://heterodoxacademy.org/library/all-minus-one/)

------
claudeganon
A relevant quote that seems to always be passed over in discussion of this
work-

“Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians,
provided the end be their improvement.“

-which of course was intended as an expression of support for the British colonial project in India.

------
austincheney
The two things I learned most from On Liberty is:

1\. The greatest enemy of liberty is a repressive majority.

2\. Truth is the result of two, or more, opposing points of view.

Essentially most people seek agreement, not truth, and will actively suppress
truth when agreement is challenged.

------
imustbeevil
> Though society is not founded on a contract, and though no good purpose is
> answered by inventing a contract in order to deduce social obligations from
> it, every one who receives the protection of society owes a return for the
> benefit, and the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that
> each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest.

> This conduct consists, first, in not injuring the interests of one another;
> or rather certain interests, which, either by express legal provision or by
> tacit understanding, ought to be considered as rights; and secondly, in each
> person’s bearing his share (to be fixed on some equitable principle) of the
> labours and sacrifices incurred for defending the society or its members
> from injury and molestation.

> These conditions society is justified in enforcing, at all costs to those
> who endeavour to withhold fulfilment. Nor is this all that society may do.
> The acts of an individual may be hurtful to others, or wanting in due
> consideration for their welfare, without going to the length of violating
> any of their constituted rights. The offender may then be justly punished by
> opinion, though not by law.

> As soon as any part of a person’s conduct affects prejudicially the
> interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it, and the question
> whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering with
> it, becomes open to discussion.

> But there is no room for entertaining any such question when a person’s
> conduct affects the interests of no persons besides himself, or needs not
> affect them unless they like (all the persons concerned being of full age,
> and the ordinary amount of understanding). In all such cases, there should
> be perfect freedom, legal and social, to do the action and stand the
> consequences.

> It would be a great misunderstanding of this doctrine to suppose that it is
> one of selfish indifference, which pretends that human beings have no
> business with each other’s conduct in life, and that they should not concern
> themselves about the well-doing or well-being of one another, unless their
> own interest is involved. Instead of any diminution, there is need of a
> great increase of disinterested exertion to promote the good of others. But
> disinterested benevolence can find other instruments to persuade people to
> their good than whips and scourges, either of the literal or the
> metaphorical sort. I am the last person to undervalue the self-regarding
> virtues; they are only second in importance, if even second, to the social.

I cannot imagine what the other people in this thread think he wrote to
respond as if it supports their idea of society not having authority over
policing harmful conduct.

~~~
rjkennedy98
> Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still
> vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public
> authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself
> the tyrant—society collectively over the separate individuals who compose
> it—its means of tyrannising are not restricted to the acts which it may do
> by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute
> its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any
> mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a
> social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression,
> since, though not usually upheld by such ex- treme penalties, it leaves
> fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of
> life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the
> tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against
> the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of
> society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and
> practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the
> development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality
> not in harmony with its ways, and compels all characters to fashion
> themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate
> interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find
> that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a
> good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.

I think this quote is equally applicable to what is happening with our new
cancel culture.

~~~
imustbeevil
I tried to quote as much as possible because basically every paragraph hedges
the former. This is the paragraph that immediately follows yours:

> But though this proposition is not likely to be contested in general terms,
> the practical question, where to place the limit—how to make the fitting
> adjustment between individual independence and social control— is a subject
> on which nearly everything remains to be done.

> All that makes existence valuable to any one, depends on the enforcement of
> restraints upon the actions of other people. Some rules of conduct,
> therefore, must be imposed, by law in the first place, and by opinion on
> many things which are not fit subjects for the operation of law.

It seems pretty clear that absolute free speech is absolutely off the table.
We can agree that the pendulum has swung too far, without spiking it in the
other direction.

~~~
pdonis
_> It seems pretty clear that absolute free speech is absolutely off the
table._

Actually, speech is probably the one area that actually realizes Mill's
otherwise unrealistic ideal case for when society should have _no_
jurisdiction over individual action:

"when a person’s conduct affects the interests of no persons besides himself,
or needs not affect them unless they like (all the persons concerned being of
full age, and the ordinary amount of understanding)"

Mere speech cannot affect the interests of anyone: words are not magic spells.
So by Mill's logic, society should indeed have no jurisdiction over speech--
absolute free speech should _not_ be off the table.

~~~
imustbeevil
That's one interpretation.

Another would be that there are any number of externalities of speech that
affect society directly, such as coercion and fraud.

~~~
pdonis
Coercion and fraud are not speech. More generally, verbal statements that are
part of other actions, such as negotiations for a market transaction, are not
speech. The whole point of "speech" is that it is just expressing the beliefs
or opinions of the speaker.

~~~
sudosysgen
One almost never expresses speech for no ulterior motive. Speech is almost
always purposeful, and when it concerns beliefs or policy (and it does more
than one may think), it is an action intended to influence the political
process, ie, how things are done. Not that I disagree that speech should be
free, but I think the distinction that was made is fairly absurd and lacks
realism.

~~~
pdonis
_> One almost never expresses speech for no ulterior motive._

Depends on what you mean by "ulterior motive". If it's just speech, it is an
expression of belief or opinion, as I said, and that is all it is. Everyone
who hears it can judge it for themselves solely as an expression of belief or
opinion. If it's a belief or opinion about public policy, any honest motive
for expressing it will be part of the speech itself, so it won't be an
"ulterior" motive in the sense of being hidden.

If it is not evident what a person's motives are for expressing a belief or
opinion about public policy, any sane hearer will take that fact into account
when judging the speech. If the hearer is not being given the freedom to make
such judgments, then we're not talking about speech any more, we're talking
about coercion or fraud.

 _> when it concerns beliefs or policy (and it does more than one may think),
it is an action intended to influence the political process_

No, it's an action intended to influence other people--but whether it does or
not depends on the merits of what is said. Speech by itself can't change the
political process; that requires changing the Constitution or laws.

 _> I think the distinction that was made is fairly absurd and lacks realism._

I think it is absurd and lacks realism to refuse to recognize the distinction
between speech and action. The whole point of having the category "speech" at
all is to force people to accept the reality that, if you want to live in a
free country, you have to be enough of a mature adult to be able to tolerate
people expressing beliefs that you think are false and opinions that you
abhor. In a free country, the proper response to speech you think is wrong is
more speech to refute or rebut the speech you think is wrong. Once the idea
takes hold that it's okay to suppress people just because they say things you
think are wrong, we no longer have a free country. Talk about "ulterior
motives" is really just another way of suppressing people who say things you
think are wrong.

------
gentleman11
Old ideas about government and liberty are under attack from both the left and
the right these days, not to mention the substantial portion of the world
living under authoritarianism. I have not read this book yet, so thanks for
sharing the link

------
jessriedel
Can't recommend this essay highly enough. In particular, it gives a thorough
defense of the claim that the importance of protecting freedom of speech ought
to guide our personal action and community norms; freedom of speech is _not_
just about restrictions on the government like the first amendment, as so
often is unwisely argued.

~~~
sudosysgen
I think that naturally leads to a distinction of positive and negative liberty
- having the negative liberty against government censorship is useless is you
do not have the positive liberty of expression. This applies just as well to a
ton of subjects, and is also I think lacking very severely in pre-modern
philosophy and does derived from them. It also personally led me to a total
shift in policy when I realized how meek positive liberty is for the vast
majority of people.

------
yasp
Why is this trending right now?

~~~
creddit
Because many people see the prevalence of the cultural phenomenon know as
“cancel culture” to be a new means of societal control in opposition to the
values of Liberty Mill espouses. That’s my guess at least. Can’t say for sure
why anyone upvotes anything.

~~~
nine_k
I upvoted exactly for this.

------
arminiusreturns
A classic everyone should read, especially today. Individual liberty is
increasingly disregarded, belittled, and discarded, and I find that extremely
dangerous. JSM is one of the handful of pillars of that thinking whose
eloquence makes it accessible to all.

~~~
supernova87a
_> A classic everyone should read, especially today. Individual liberty is
increasingly disregarded, belittled, and discarded, and I find that extremely
dangerous. JSM is one of the handful of pillars of that thinking whose
eloquence makes it accessible to all._

Wow, well I have to voice some public disbelief over this statement. Maybe you
just write it as a reflex?

You think personal liberties are at a low point? I must live in a different
world.

We are in the age of the greatest emphasis on personal choice, personal
satisfaction, and personal decision making in recent history. If anything we
are in danger of the opposite -- personal freedoms making us unable to do or
support things that are for the communal good.

Everything that is marketed to us, that enters our political discourse, that
is stressed in our daily lives (as well as what many people seek to display to
others) is about you deciding what you want and not having to put up with
someone telling you what to do. "You do your way", "how you want it, when you
want it", etc. The ease of finding subcultures and not having to have your
individual interests and quirks diluted by a generic community. The ease of
creating/joining isolated interest groups and segregating onesself from your
neighbors, community, state, country. (This is not a new thesis -- written
about extensively such as in "Bowling Alone".)

It's driven by our consumerism, of course, but it leaks into our government
and other aspects of societal life very strongly. Note today, even governments
almost feel they cannot force people to act in ways that benefit the
community, and have to ask politely people to do things like wear masks (for
fear of backlash and being voted out for violating people's personal liberties
-- or what they believe are their liberties).

JSM was writing in an age where tyranny (or lack of recourse to rebel against
tyranny) and material deprivation were common, social mobility was almost non-
existent, and the notion that you could have a prosperous life without relying
on the rest of society (and its rigid rules) laughable.

If you feel that (at least in the US) personal liberty is at risk, I shudder
to think how your head would not explode in a real authoritarian country.

~~~
nine_k
> _You think personal liberties are at a low point?_

They are again under attack, as is free speech, mostly out of outwardly good
intentions such as preserving justice, public safety, or even, ironically,
inclusion.

This is a perpetual conflict, though.

> _Everything that is marketed to us, that enters our political discourse, ...
> "You do your way", "how you want it, when you want it", etc_

...as long as it's politically correct, and there's no vocal minority which is
opposed to your doing that — again, out of some best intentions. Liberty
inherently creates conflicts like that, because people are not going to want
the same thing. Liberty is when you are allowed to do something that others
might not like, and _reciprocally_ must tolerate other people doing something
you don't like. A lot of people are uncomfortable with this.

> _JSM was writing in an age where tyranny_

A tyranny of majority is a thing :( Consider all the minorities who were
disenfranchised not by dictators but by majority of local voters back in the
day.

> _I shudder to think how your head would not explode in a real authoritarian
> country._

I was born in the USSR. I can compare. I see the vast difference. I also see
certain disconcerting similarities.

~~~
newacct583
> A tyranny of majority is a thing :(

It's a meme for sure. Whether it's a "thing" in the reality of modern American
discourse is sort of an open question.

The fact that the people most enthused with the idea of being suppressed by
the tyrannical majority are members of the ruling party, dominant gender and
most affluent racial demographics sorta makes the logical construction a bit
complicated.

~~~
nine_k
Do you think that racial segregation regulations, anti-gay regulations, long-
gone anti-Jewish regulations and fresh anti-immigrant regulations were created
against the will of the majority? Often the majority directly voted for them,
like city-wide sundown laws.

It takes a rather hard conscious effort to remember that other people freedoms
need preserving if you value your own, because you are not always guaranteed
be on the side of the majority.

~~~
newacct583
I don't disagree that it's happened as an issue of historical fact. I'm
pointing out that the _argument_ is most often deployed in defense of very
much _unsuppressed_ voices. And I'm implying strongly that it's being deployed
in bad faith.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
I'm curious how you're squaring _unsuppressed_ with the "cancel culture" thing
whose very purpose appears to be the suppression of those views.

You're also ignoring survivorship bias. It's no surprise that the victims of
majoritarian tyranny you hear from are not the weakest in society, because the
weakest in society don't have enough power to command the spotlight. That
doesn't mean tyranny of the majority doesn't exist or that they are not its
victims, only that you won't hear it from them, because you don't hear
anything from them, because they don't have enough power to be heard.

~~~
newacct583
> the "cancel culture" thing whose very purpose appears to be the suppression
> of those views

Because the "cancel culture" thing doesn't work? The whole concept is nearly a
complete fabrication. It's about 20% anecdotes of college kids saying dumb
things mixed with 80% paranoia fueled by the conservative media. No one
actually gets cancelled, certainly not the white republican men we're talking
about constantly yelling (loudly, in a rather, let's say "unsuppressed"
manner) about their Free Speech rights.

------
HenryKissinger
Can old philosophical texts like this be used in legal arguments and affect
the outcome of a trial or a court's judgement? Just curious.

~~~
frandroid
Scarcely. IANA(C)L, but you would have to find an area of law that is not very
well legislated, and then you would have to exhaust existing areas of national
and international law, comparable laws from other countries, constitutional
law, jurisprudence, still finding yourself wanting, and even then you would do
much better to use contemporary philosophers, some of which might be descended
from Mill in their philosophical outlook.

------
senthil_rajasek
Came here to point out that this was written before economics was considered a
science.

This was written by a white man with a white life experience.

A lot of the ideas here are unproven and have no rational basis.

------
person_of_color
*On Liberty (for white people).

~~~
abecedarius
[https://www.aier.org/article/john-stuart-mill-on-slavery-
and...](https://www.aier.org/article/john-stuart-mill-on-slavery-and-the-
american-civil-war/)

------
young_unixer
"Mill’s thinking on women’s rights was influenced by his wife, Harriet Taylor
Mill (1807-1858). In 1869 Mill published his famous essay 'The Subjection of
Women', in favour of equality of the sexes."

[https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-
heritage/transforming...](https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-
heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/womenvote/parliamentary-
collections/1866-suffrage-petition/john-stuart-mill/)

You know what's funny?

He was early in the fight for sex equality, but if he lived today he would
probably be qualified as a sexist by the "progressive" mob for wanting
equality of opportunity instead of equality of outcome.

~~~
badRNG
> He was early in the fight for sex equality, but if he lived today he would
> probably be qualified as a sexist by the "progressive" mob for wanting
> equality of opportunity instead of equality of outcome.

This "equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome" discussion is a
mischaracterization of the position of "the progressive mob" that is misguided
at best, dishonest at worst.

Historically, in feminist, anti-colonial, and anti-racist circles, an
inequality of outcome, on the basis of race or sex is the best indicator one
would have of an inequality of opportunity. This is why the "separate but
equal" doctrine of Plessy V. Ferguson was manifestly unequal: it consistently
resulted in unequal outcomes.

Those that hold that certain races or sexes are inferior conclude that these
inequalities are due to the natural, inherent superiority of
men/whites/westerners/etc rather than an inequality of opportunity. It doesn't
take being in the so-called "progressive mob" to reject that line of
reasoning.

~~~
young_unixer
> an inequality of outcome, on the basis of race or sex is the best indicator
> one would have of an inequality of opportunity.

It's good if you use it as an indicator, but it's currently used as "evidence"
and as a justification to give certain advantages to certain groups under the
(almost always unproven) assumption that there's inequality of opportunity.
For example: quota laws, and affirmative action in general. Quota laws and
affirmative action that are notably pushed by progressive mob that I talk
about, so I don't see the mischaracterization.

~~~
badRNG
Inequality "of outcome" is the best evidence one can have of inequality "of
opportunity", and again, it was the primary evidence in the Brown v. Board of
Education overturn of Plessy v. Ferguson.

The distinction didn't hold water in 1954, and I don't think it holds water in
2020. Consistent inequality on the basis of sex or race is the principle
evidence that there is inequality "of opportunity."

~~~
young_unixer
> Consistent inequality on the basis of sex or race is the principle evidence
> that there is inequality "of opportunity."

How so?

