January 4th, 2018, 09:04
(This post was last modified: January 4th, 2018, 09:05 by ipecac.)
Posts: 2,698
Threads: 14
Joined: Apr 2011
(January 4th, 2018, 05:11)Bacchus Wrote: The only thing that can be provided equally are fungible goods, so actually no, the government can't possibly provide equal education.
Sure, but that's not the fuzzy ideal that most have in their minds. Nor would telling them that change any minds.
I find your points on medieval cities rather interesting, but most Westerners will regard them as not in any way applicable in contemporary society because the highest goal is now standardisation; this desired Equalising can best be enforced by a State.
Posts: 6,245
Threads: 17
Joined: Jul 2014
(January 4th, 2018, 09:04)ipecac Wrote: I find your points on medieval cities rather interesting, but most Westerners will regard them as not in any way applicable in contemporary society because the highest goal is now standardisation equal opportunity; this desired Equalising equal opportunity can best be enforced attempted by a State.
Everything points towards the fact that without state education you lose every chance at equal opportunity.
January 4th, 2018, 09:43
(This post was last modified: January 4th, 2018, 09:44 by ipecac.)
Posts: 2,698
Threads: 14
Joined: Apr 2011
The highest goal is Equality in the form of standardisation of education; no one has attempted a serious rigorous attempt at equal opportunity/standardisation of outcome in practice, because that would (among other things) imply deliberately handicapping more intelligent children or giving them worse education.
Posts: 6,245
Threads: 17
Joined: Jul 2014
Equal opportunity has nothing to do with handicapping anyone. It's not about hampering more intelligent children, it's about making sure that whatever the wealth of your parents may be you have an equal chance (or at least a good enough chance) of succeeding. The fact that most people who are born rich die rich and that most people who are born poor die poor is a sign that we are not giving everyone a fair chance, and by looking at the stats for which social class gets a high school/college education and which one doesn't you can see that the root of the problem is at who can get good education.
Posts: 2,698
Threads: 14
Joined: Apr 2011
As long as you want an equal chance, that implies handicapping the better ones so the weaker students can catch up.
So you're left with 'good enough' chance, which requires standardisation of education which then becomes the highest goal of education.
Posts: 8,244
Threads: 30
Joined: Jun 2004
(January 4th, 2018, 10:17)ipecac Wrote: As long as you want an equal chance, that implies handicapping the better ones so the weaker students can catch up.
So you're left with 'good enough' chance, which requires standardisation of education which then becomes the highest goal of education.
Different skills giving different results is absolutly ok. Equal skills but different rich parents giving different results is not.
Posts: 2,698
Threads: 14
Joined: Apr 2011
Why?
At a very young age, I learnt that life isn't 'fair'. Imagine my surprise when I grew up and found out that a large part of the West wanted the state to make things so.
Quote: Different skills giving different results is absolutly ok. Equal skills but different rich parents giving different results is not.
How do you propose to prevent rich parents from sending their children to elite private schools and colleges? Or nullify the very significant effect of 'connections' and cultural capital?
---------
Why should it be a key role of the government to try to ensure that people with the same skill level have the same chance of being upper classes?
Posts: 2,698
Threads: 14
Joined: Apr 2011
(January 4th, 2018, 10:35)Rowain Wrote: Different skills giving different results is absolutly ok. Equal skills but different rich parents giving different results is not.
Also, why is it okay for inequality due to Nature to be uncorrected, but imperative that inequality due to Nurture has to be?
Posts: 23,229
Threads: 132
Joined: Jun 2009
Good luck solving inequality due to nurture without banning 95% of people from raising kids.
Current games (All): RtR: PB80 Civ 6: PBEM23
Ended games (Selection): BTS games: PB1, PB3, PBEM2, PBEM4, PBEM5B, PBEM50. RB mod games: PB5, PB15, PB27, PB37, PB42, PB46, PB71. FFH games: PBEMVII, PBEMXII. Civ 6: PBEM22 Games ded lurked: PB18
Posts: 5,455
Threads: 18
Joined: Jul 2011
I've seen this thread forever but never waded in and I've finally decided to get rid of the "unread" tab so I've only clicked the last page and I'm picking up the discussion 900 posts in. But we're apparently talking education, so I'm in. If anyone can summarize recent relevant discussion I'll gladly read it. Anyway:
(January 4th, 2018, 15:50)ipecac Wrote: How do you propose to prevent rich parents from sending their children to elite private schools and colleges? Or nullify the very significant effect of 'connections' and cultural capital?
An estate tax, that is, taxation of some reasonable (amount TBD) percentage of property/wealth at a certain threshold would reduce an inordinate accumulation of wealth for the privileged few to be passed down to offspring. This money could be applied directly to programs intended to assist people in disadvantaged socioeconomic situations.
(January 4th, 2018, 15:50)ipecac Wrote: Why should it be a key role of the government to try to ensure that people with the same skill level have the same chance of being upper classes?
I would reframe this rather than an issue of class to be an issue of access and opportunity. Why should a government do anything other than remove obstacles from its citizens' path? Ostensibly, the purpose of a government is to see to the welfare of its people. Is having too many resources an obstacle? No. Is having too few an obstacle? Yes. What means are available to the government to ensure that those with too few resources have access to more? A reasonable tax policy is one such mean. Is this an unreasonable imposition on the privileged few? Who determines this? If the government is not corrupt, let the people decide.
Does the state work to serve the people or do the people work to serve the state? Are those in government seen as treating their work as service to country or as a means of service to self, or personal enrichment? If a government is not seen to be working in the interests of its people is it a legitimate government? What is the appropriate balance between the needs of the many (a downtrodden, socioeconomically disadvantaged citizenry) versus the needs of the few (a wealthy would-be oligarch class of politicians, titans of finance and industry, well-endowed nepotists, etc)? Who determines this? Again, if the government is not corrupt, let the people decide.
(January 4th, 2018, 15:52)ipecac Wrote: (January 4th, 2018, 10:35)Rowain Wrote: Different skills giving different results is absolutly ok. Equal skills but different rich parents giving different results is not.
Also, why is it okay for inequality due to Nature to be uncorrected, but imperative that inequality due to Nurture has to be?
Do you have a means of addressing inequalities doled out by Nature? Let's start a bio-ethics conversation and weave it into the larger conversation. Should we all be the product of genetic engineering with the intended goal of equality from the womb? Will we also be required to remove violate civil rights of pregnant women and remove their agency in the form of decisions about meals, exercise, etc? At some point, Nature is going to give it the good old RNG roll and the result may be equal or unequal to the mid-line of the bell curve in any number of measurable areas such as IQ, physical attributes, etc. Let us aim to correct those inequalities where we may reasonably make a meaningful difference through good policy. It's the low hanging fruit. I'll leave Nature's inequality diversity alone for now.
Preview edit: Crossposted Krill. Pretty much that too.
|
