Choice vs. Opportunity

My Intro to Politics class has been studying basic political theories. Liberalism, both classical and modern, Realism, Marxism, Feminism, Conservatism, and a whole bunch of others. One day we were comparing Classic Liberalism and Modern Liberalism, what big differences they have and why those changes were made. While it was never specifically said, I felt the difference ultimately came down to choice or opportunity.

Classical Liberalism, supported by John Locke, claims that people deserve to be equal. Well, this equality is freedom from being forced one way or another. What equality means according to him is the freedom of choice, without a government or other people forcing us to choose a certain way or belief. People are not born in the same situations, but our decisions move us up or down; they benefit us or bring us down, but we should always have a choice as to what action we will take. Economic inequality is acceptable, because it is based off the consequences of those people's choices. Classical Liberalism is very akin to Libertarians of today, as they believe government should be very limited and should stay away from individuals' lives. We have the right to choose our actions, but not the consequences of our choices.

Modern Liberalism claims that Classical Liberalism allows too many people to be oppressed due to their initial placement in society. The Democratic Party follows Modern Liberalism rather closely. A girl born to a single black mother in Detroit does not have the same possibilities that I have, because of her initial standing. What good does choice do her if she has no opportunity? The government should spend a lot of money making sure she can do the same things a WASP can, even though the white kid would have to pay for her/his choices out of her/his own pocket. Usually this plan means building that girl up. Sometimes Modern Liberals say that the higher class should be brought down so that the lower classes do not feel as oppressed though.

I think both sides are valid. Giving people equal opportunity is innately a good thing. But problems occur when you can't give someone else an equal footing, so you start taking away other people's ground. And we should all have equal choices, but we need to treat everyone with the same consequences which should take away opportunities. Once you take door A you can't go in door B. It wouldn't be fair. There can't be exceptions to that. The biggest problems I see occur when the consequences of my choice affect your opportunities. If I choose to rob a bank and take your money, where does that leave you? If NAU chooses to have a quota for 15% of their incoming freshman class to be of Asian descent, where does that leave Native Americans and everyone else? Most of the time one's choice does not affect another's, but in those cases I'm not sure what to do. Asians deserve to go to college, but is it fair if they receive an automatic advantage? What about health care, tax reform, or military service? If the government spends a bunch of money giving someone health care for life and I suddenly need an emergency heart transplant that the government promised to pay for, but can't, where am I? If I make a huge sum of money and another doesn't, should I pay the dividend to make up for it? If I have to serve because I'm a supposedly straight male, should women, gays, or children? If they all choose to have the same opportunities, should they have the same obligations?

Worse yet, I don't think any actual issue is simple enough to define as an issue of choice or opportunity.