Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[Bacchus]

There still seems to be some confusion: "Is education important for human welfare?" and "Should the state provide it, in what form and to what extent?" are two completely separate questions. Hygiene, clothing and protection from criminals are all good things, but they are provided partially, not at all, and exclusively by the state, respectively. And that's not because punishment of criminals is somehow a priority good over hygiene, or that clothing is not important, but because the state is not equally well suited to provide all possible human goods. I don't think anyone doubts that education is important, the question is why is it the state's job?

[MJW (ya that one)]

The vast majority go to college to make $. For this reason it doesn't make sense to think in terms of making society better and you should think in the relative way that T-hawk does. I should also point out that in Japan only accept university degrees from some universities. We are heading to this future. This makes total sense because the college transfer system is a total joke. It's very common for someone to transfer to the 2nd-tier university of mine and flunk out. Giving college to everyone would just push the battle to highschool which would give an even greater edge to rich-kids. Trying to make the transfer system not a joke would require a planned system like the USSR.

Some highschools are terrible and this could be worked on. This is a separate issue from the college issue.

Most of the money from tax cuts come from shafting blue states. However, this is fine because the ability to pay should be considered when you make the budget. Their expensive are bigger but they are at fault for making more of a welfare state so that shouldn't be considered.

[Bacchus]

My point is an unlucky birth should not consign someone to a job & life below their innate potential

What is the "innate potential"? With proper training and dedication, pretty much any healthy human can become capable at most tasks -- engineering, medicine, law, politics, management, cooking, take your pick. People who work in Amazon Warehouses, Walmart stores, do cleaning duties, or even admin work in hospitals, in schools, in prisons, all of those are pretty much consigned to a job and life below their "innate potential", if that means "a level of expertise one could realistically reach, provided all necessary support in the course of his life".

[Commodore]

My point is an unlucky birth should not consign someone to a job & life below their innate potential

What is the "innate potential"? With proper training and dedication, pretty much any healthy human can become capable at most tasks -- engineering, medicine, law, politics, management, cooking, take your pick. People who work in Amazon Warehouses, Walmart stores, do cleaning duties, or even admin work in hospitals, in schools, in prisons, all of those are pretty much consigned to a job and life below their "innate potential", if that means "a level of expertise one could realistically reach, provided all necessary support in the course of his life".

...




....


wut.




Have you ever worked a fast food job? Or on a factory floor?

[Bacchus]

Yes, and besides that I spent some time with coal miners in Central Asian steppe at -30, without having to be one, thankfully. I'm just trying to figure out what "living below innate potential" could possibly mean in the mind of a person who would use that phrase -- I made a guess that darrell meant working gruelling, low-paid jobs when you are potentially capable to acquire the expertise to do higher-paid jobs. If it's not that, then I really don't know what he meant. It seems you saw some kind of value judgment on my part regarding the occupations I listed? It's not there.

[TheHumanHydra]

There still seems to be some confusion: "Is education important for human welfare?" and "Should the state provide it, in what form and to what extent?" are two completely separate questions.

I agree. Some people seemed to be denying the first.

I also believe the state should provide education, up to a certain level, and subsidize it as much as possible beyond that, because it seems that if it does not, not everyone will be educated sufficiently, or as they merit.

[Mardoc]

The proper framing IMO is instead that everyone should have some sort of baseline opportunity level,

....  okay teachers that are paid enough to not flee as soon as humanly possible. 

It's my understanding that pay is the least of the reasons why teachers enter inner city schools, and the least of the reasons why they leave.  They enter because they want to make the world a better place, bringing education to those who need it the most.  The fact that they don't have to starve to do so is a nice bonus, usually.

They leave because of policies that are meant to ensure universal access, and equality, and have the practical effect of making teachers ineffective:
- Minimal discipline (especially if it appears racially disparate, or parents object), no matter the offense
- Discipline focused on administrative effects like detention and permanent record, rather than anything an unmotivated kid would care about.
- No tracking, no high expectations, self esteem valued over accomplishment
- Social promotion/graduation, often combined with mandatory grade inflation
- No expulsions

When this happens, at best the class moves at the pace of the slowest kid, leaving everyone else bored and learning basically nothing.  At worst, the teacher has no control and the lessons taught are how to win fights or get out of the way, with teacher as another spectator.

In any event, why would a teacher stick around?  With those policies, they can't do any good anyway.  If they stay, they get to have all their hopes and dreams crushed, get the blame for everything, and occasionally are even in physical danger.  No one knows how to educate someone who doesn't want to learn.  If they leave - they're not making as huge a difference as they dreamed, but at least they will help kids learn.  It's not like it's a bad thing for rich kids to learn things, after all.

But...if you change those policies, then you have to admit that you're performing triage, abandoning disruptive kids even if they don't know they're making a horrible mistake, in order to educate the rest.

[Commodore]

Yes, and besides that I spent some time with coal miners in Central Asian steppe at -30, without having to be one, thankfully. I'm just trying to figure out what "living below innate potential" could possibly mean in the mind of a person who would use that phrase -- I made a guess that darrell meant working gruelling, low-paid jobs when you are potentially capable to acquire the expertise to do higher-paid jobs. If it's not that, then I really don't know what he meant. It seems you saw some kind of value judgment on my part regarding the occupations I listed? It's not there.

Not at all. I just kniw there are some people, that's the best they can do. So I'm all about that being worthy of respect and decent pay, and (not really a comment to you here) it's gross arrogance and snobbery to talk to a miner and say "you could do better, you're not living up to your potential".

[Bacchus]

there are some people, that's the best they can do.

What do you mean, exactly? That even if they had been raised in an affluent family, exposed to diverse and quality intellectual and aesthetic experiences, supported by individual tuition, they still couldn't probably master a professional discipline beyond burger flipping? Or that the people are doing the best they can with the tools they've been given, and you can't look down on them for it? I completely agree with the latter, but not at all with the former, regardless of the "innate potential".

gross arrogance and snobbery to talk to a miner and say "you could do better, you're not living up to your potential"

Of course it is. But they will frequently say it. And many of them will do everything they can so that their kids don't end up underground for six hours a day breathing carbon dust and risking death.

In any case, I am trying to figure out the statement of principle that darrell is hanging his entire approach on -- "an unlucky birth should not consign someone to a job & life below their innate potential" -- what does that mean? What is "below potential"?

[AdrienIer]

The proper framing IMO is instead that everyone should have some sort of baseline opportunity level,

....  okay teachers that are paid enough to not flee as soon as humanly possible. 

It's my understanding that pay is the least of the reasons why teachers enter inner city schools, and the least of the reasons why they leave.  They enter because they want to make the world a better place, bringing education to those who need it the most.  The fact that they don't have to starve to do so is a nice bonus, usually.

They leave because of policies that are meant to ensure universal access, and equality, and have the practical effect of making teachers ineffective:
- Minimal discipline (especially if it appears racially disparate, or parents object), no matter the offense
- Discipline focused on administrative effects like detention and permanent record, rather than anything an unmotivated kid would care about.
- No tracking, no high expectations, self esteem valued over accomplishment
- Social promotion/graduation, often combined with mandatory grade inflation
- No expulsions

When this happens, at best the class moves at the pace of the slowest kid, leaving everyone else bored and learning basically nothing.  At worst, the teacher has no control and the lessons taught are how to win fights or get out of the way, with teacher as another spectator.

In any event, why would a teacher stick around?  With those policies, they can't do any good anyway.  If they stay, they get to have all their hopes and dreams crushed, get the blame for everything, and occasionally are even in physical danger.  No one knows how to educate someone who doesn't want to learn.  If they leave - they're not making as huge a difference as they dreamed, but at least they will help kids learn.  It's not like it's a bad thing for rich kids to learn things, after all.

But...if you change those policies, then you have to admit that you're performing triage, abandoning disruptive kids even if they don't know they're making a horrible mistake, in order to educate the rest.

That's very US-centric. In the high school I work at only the second item on your list ("Discipline focused on administrative effects like detention and permanent record, rather than anything an unmotivated kid would care about) is true. It's possible to create a good working environment in a bad neighborhood school.