Adding a continuity requirement smuggles in a substantive egalitarian metric that FEO was never designed to satisfy, conflating procedural fairness with outcome-sensitive redistribution.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Egalitarian(as used in political philosophy): Based on the belief that all people deserve equal treatment and should have fair access to the same opportunities and resources.
FEO (Fair Equality of Opportunity)(as used in political philosophy and justice theory): A principle saying that people should have equal chances to succeed based on their talents and efforts, not on things like race, gender, or wealth. It's a theory about what makes a society fair.
Outcome-sensitive redistribution(as used in political philosophy and economics): Redistributing money, resources, or opportunities based on *what actually happens* to different people—for example, taking from the rich and giving to the poor to make sure everyone ends up in a similar situation.
Smuggles in(argumentation and logic): Introduces something quietly or without acknowledgment, making it seem innocent when it's actually a controversial addition.

Based on where you are in your exploration