Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[Rowain]

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?

Same chance of education is the key.
Otherwise we lose too many skilled people on one hand and educate too many spoiled rich idiots who will never do anything with their education on the other hand.

@Krill One can try to minimize the effects of bad nurture.

[darrelljs]

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.

You say that like its a bad thing .

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?

I would never advocate policy that achieves equality by negative action.  I recognize that means full equality won't happen, but that doesn't mean we should just give up.  An option available to all that provides access to a quality education for those who choose to take advantage of it...

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?

There is probably an argument around efficient use of human capital, but I'm just going to go with "because we aren't assholes".  If the nuance is around government vs. ________, then that's different .  I just don't see another entity having the resources or mandate to do so, but I'd certainly be open to it.

Also, why is it okay for inequality due to Nature to be uncorrected, but imperative that inequality due to Nurture has to be?

Whose to say genetic modification won't someday make them both a subject for debate?  For now, Nuture is within our capability, and I would posit therefore a moral obligation.

Darrell

[darrelljs]

P.S. Just to say ipecac, I hope I am not coming across as combative.  I want to understand you position and thought process better and I think the conversation is instructional .

Darrell

[Commodore]

Glad to see Harrison Bergeron is still relevant.

[Krill]

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?

Same chance of education is the key.
Otherwise we lose too many skilled people on one hand and educate too many spoiled rich idiots who will never do anything with their education on the other hand.

@Krill One can try to minimize the effects of bad nurture.

No, you actually can't so long as the right to family life is a thing, as that overrides the right to not be nurtured by fucking retards.

[Krill]

Actually let me qualify that.

You can try, but you aren't going to succeed.

[ipecac]

IAn 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.

That's a reasonable approach to reduce tackle wealth-hoarding across the generations, but still wouldn't address the advantages that having rich parents confer.

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?

Obstacles aren't per se bad. For example, many youth in the US want unfettered access to the distinction of being a [generic] college graduate, which taken to a general policy would result in all of them being able to attain it, and then destroying the distinction in the process.

Also too many college graduates will mess with the labour market, which is already happening in many countries. Students fork out for college education then find out that there are too few jobs for graduate, and they become baristas or something. And things don't actually get better since each year brings another surplus of college graduates.

If the government is not corrupt, let the people decide.

Usually a bad idea.

[ipecac]

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.

So you think both Nature's and Nurture's inequalities are basically too big to tackle. What's left then? Also, what's the point?

[ipecac]

Same chance of education is the key.
Otherwise we lose too many skilled people on one hand and educate too many spoiled rich idiots who will never do anything with their education on the other hand.

There were traditional solutions to this, such as technical institutes to train skilled workers and leave colleges for artsyfartsy rich students, who would generally pay for such education at private colleges instead of the government, and go on to do nothing with their degrees besides being cultured.

Subsequently, middle class people in the name of Equality aspired to the distinction of being upper class, namely a college degree, and things unravelled.

[ipecac]

You say that like its a bad thing .

It actually is a bad thing, when billions of dollars are spent to achieve something unattainable and making lots of things worse off in the process.

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?

There is probably an argument around efficient use of human capital, but I'm just going to go with "because we aren't assholes".

Why is it being an "asshole"?

P.S. Just to say ipecac, I hope I am not coming across as combative.  I want to understand you position and thought process better and I think the conversation is instructional .

:thumb: