Is capitalism actually dying, despite appearances?

[Synobun]

The consumers. Would you continue paying into a non-profit that wasn't doing what it said? Or maybe they could sign a contract stating how they will spend the money.

So you are under the belief that no matter the region or area, there will be a functional non-profit solely dedicated to educating others at-cost. These companies will exist because... reasons.

If the free market is so benevolent, why are corporations constantly finding ways to circumvent law and regulation?

 

[bernie14]

And how do you think people do that best, bernie, in 2017?

Money.

I think as we, as a species, became better and better at taming our environment, the concept of the individuals ability to manipulate its environment essential for the goal of survival, from the viewpoint of the individual, became the goal of security, then accumulation, then money....seems like a natural progression....the fact that so many people, throughout history, have been "left behind" only reinforces the power of the individuals drives. please note, I am not making any moral ("randian") justifications or critiques, just tellin you like I see it

Nah, that's just ideology. Power is not, at a social level, an expression of individual charisma or willpower, it's something that operates through human institutions, which are sustained by human action. Even the Promethean snowflakes of Randian mythology require the rest of the population to go along with things like "money" and "property" to turn their defective personalities into tangible power.

you don't think that throughout history, individuals' charisma and will power have not initiated/caused much of the social changes that the world has seen? I can imagine some egalitarian hunter gatherer society with its egalitarian social rules and one guy tells them"eff you", and sets out with his small group of dissidents to some other lands (an option not available to current hunter gatherers) kinda allegorical to the whole banishment from paradise thing...

personally, I think you are transposing ideology with facts. As mentioned in a previous thread, I don’t discount that marx made some factual observations about events occurring during his lifetime. However, IMO, his premises and conclusions were faulty….at BEST, it can be referred to as an "ideology", I will leave the "objective" judgment of it to history. Certainly, no individual exists in a vacuum but EACH individual is obligated to a singular perspective, a point of view, a bias, which no amount of identification, sympathy or empathy, under or over compensating, will truly give you the perspective of a single other person, let alone a group.

Certain personality traits may lend themselves to the acquisition, exercise of retention of power, but they do not create the institution or the social relations through which power is exercised: the most forceful personality cannot turn a band of egalitarian personalities into a private fiefdom, while a relative forceful personality can still wield enormous power as an hereditary monarch.

Yet history seems to indicate that that is exactly what they did as soon as the opportunity arose

 

[Traitorfish]

you don't think that throughout history, individuals' charisma and will power have not initiated/caused much of the social changes that the world has seen?

Nope. Individuals are constrained by historical circumstances. Particularly forceful personalities may be able to leverage institutions and social structures to bring themselves to prominence, but without those institutions and structures, without the collection actions of a great many people acting for their own reasons and their own ends, these "Great Men" would be nothing but the biggest monkey at the watering hole.

True that. Here in America there's a growing radicalization of the left, hopefully this great big... "Circumstance" will manage to bring these warring factions together a little further. Nonetheless I think that it's important to develop theory lest you be caught post-revolution with no doctrine for moving forward.

In that regard, I'd argue, left unity is going to be more of a disadvantage than an advantage. "Unity" implies compromise and consensus, more than it does rigour. Productive disagreement is always preferable to a forced consensus; this is true of scholarship and of science, why not of politics?

 

[civver_764]

What would you consider is taught in school that is useless?

Depends on the person. When you try to cater to everyone you cater to no one.

How would a private school "do better" for all people in a school district? Do you have any idea how much education costs? The reason my parents moved from Georgia to Minnesota was that despite both of them earning solid incomes, they could not afford to send two kids to private school.

You're still thinking in terms of government constructs. There would be no "school districts" under a private system.

I refuse to accept that a persons access to education should be dependent upon some mercurial, patrician sense of "noblesse oblige". My old school district has a yearly operating budget of roughly $320 million dollars. I find it intellectually suspect to assume that they could yearly acquire $320 million dollars relying on "donations".

So you don't think people in general want to fund education for the poor?

It is 13, not 18 years. You start school when you are 5 and stay in it until you are 18.

My bad.

Care to point out the inefficiency that a private system could do better, while still providing a comprehensive education to all people?

That's for another discussion.

Who determines what kid receives what curriculum?

The parents.

How do you ensure that a student trained for, say, electrical engineering, receives enough general knowledge to be able to know the difference between North and South Korea?

What?

You also don't see any particular issue with assigning kids to pre-determined career paths? Christ, when I was in high school I want to be a historian, now I am working as a financial investigator.

I didn't say anything about assigning anybody, it's up to the parents.

Post-war the UK experimented with those types of "trade" schools for people in education (secondary technicals), and they were basically rubbish. Those schools were expensive and frequently opposed by parents in that by not providing a well rounded education the secondary technicals were basically condemning anyone in those programs to being unable to go to higher education should they wish it.

I don't know the specifics of that so I can't comment.

A well-rounded comprehensive education is probably the single most important thing a person can have,

This doesn't really mean anything.

and your proposals seem to vary between relying a perverse "noblesse oblige" for what should be yours by right or mandating a sort of technical serfdom. All of which has the sole effect of creating a stark hierarchy between those who have money to get a "real" education and those who have to content themselves with a crude facsimile. For someone who likes to claim they are against "the elites", you seem dead set on eliminating one of the few meaningful paths for social mobility.

Quite the contrary, I think the government is simply doing a bad job at this and wonder if the free market could do it better.

So you are under the belief that no matter the region or area, there will be a functional non-profit solely dedicated to educating others at-cost. These companies will exist because... reasons.

Ever notice how even the smallest towns have gas stations?

If the free market is so benevolent, why are corporations constantly finding ways to circumvent law and regulation?

The free market isn't benevolent, it just provides better incentives than state schools.

 

[Synobun]

Ever notice how even the smallest towns have gas stations?

Do they have non-profit gas stations?

 

[civver_764]

Do they have non-profit gas stations?

Sorry I misread. Here's another analogy: Ever notice how every school district manages to find members for its school board?

 

[Synobun]

Sorry I misread. Here's another analogy: Ever notice how every school district manages to find members for its school board?

Locally, I imagine it's because trustees get $20k a year for being on the board. Which is paid for by the government.

 

[civver_764]

Locally, I imagine it's because trustees get $20k a year for being on the board. Which is paid for by the government.

Exactly, and who pays the government?

 

[Cutlass]

So you're saying we can't trust the government to educate the poor?

Not when the poor are mostly colored and the state government is run by white people. Racism is the foundation of poor education in the US.

First of all, "comprehensive K-12 education" is just a state construct that is forced on everybody. In a free market of education we would see lots of different models.

All of which are inferior in every possible respect.

Second of all, I challenge the very premise of this question. I don't think the government is providing a comprehensive education at all. Our education systems utterly fails a lot of kids. A lot of the stuff taught in school is useless and upon exiting high school kids are scarcely ready for the real world. Even many of those that go on to college end up with useless degrees and tens of thousands of dollars in debt. Government schools in poor areas are just a complete mess, and have high dropout rates. Honestly, I would be surprised if a private system did worse than that.

A private system wouldn't do the job at all. Is no education better than a poor education? At least with a poor education some kids make it out of poverty. With no education none of them do.

Third of all, how would you solve this problem? If there was no government to educate the poor, how could we do it instead? There are really a ton of different ways to address this problem.

It wouldn't be done at all.


[/QUOTE]


Basically your ideas boil down to needing far heavier welfare spending for all the generation after generation of kids that will not be able to get jobs.

 

[civver_764]

Not when the poor are mostly colored and the state government is run by white people. Racism is the foundation of poor education in the US.

Ah. So then the solution is to get rid of all the white people?

 

[Cutlass]

Ah. So then the solution is to get rid of all the white people?

No. The solution is to not allow white people to enact racist policies. Talk about school reform has literally no point without first addressing segregation. There is nothing, and I do mean nothing, that you can do to fix the schools poor children go to so long as they are racially segregated. And the segregation is based on where people are forced to live. Wealthy people can get out, and cause segregation for the poor left behind. Under these circumstances it is an utter and complete waste of breath to discuss the schools! The schools are not the problem. The schools are a symptom of the segregation. End the segregation, and the problem ceases to be a problem. Allow white people to send their kids to all white schools, and pay welfare forever.

 

[civver_764]

No. The solution is to not allow white people to enact racist policies. Talk about school reform has literally no point without first addressing segregation. There is nothing, and I do mean nothing, that you can do to fix the schools poor children go to so long as they are racially segregated. And the segregation is based on where people are forced to live. Wealthy people can get out, and cause segregation for the poor left behind. Under these circumstances it is an utter and complete waste of breath to discuss the schools! The schools are not the problem. The schools are a symptom of the segregation. End the segregation, and the problem ceases to be a problem. Allow white people to send their kids to all white schools, and pay welfare forever.

So you have a state run by racist white people (according to you), and you want to give this state the power to tell people where to live?

 

[Synobun]

Exactly, and who pays the government?

Taxation. We don't choose where our taxes go, thus no individual directly pays for an exact service. This allows the standard for public resources to be mostly equivalent no matter where you are, rather than reverting to tribalism and hoping that someone in your community can teach to an adequate level and won't bankrupt you in the process. A functional government has a moral and systemic imperative to provide basic access to all citizens.

 

[Cutlass]

So you have a state run by racist white people (according to you), and you want to give this state the power to tell people where to live?

I'm talking about reducing the power of the state and increasing liberty. Those white conservatives want more state and less liberty.

 

[civver_764]

Taxation. We don't choose where our taxes go, thus no individual directly pays for an exact service.

So it is your position that if left to their own devices people wouldn't pay for the education of the poor?

This allows the standard for public resources to be mostly equivalent no matter where you are, rather than reverting to tribalism and hoping that someone in your community can teach to an adequate level and won't bankrupt you in the process.

But public schools are not at all equivalent, and public schools are already staffed by local teachers.

A functional government has a moral and systemic imperative to provide basic access to all citizens.

Right..and who makes sure it follows these imperatives?

I'm talking about reducing the power of the state and increasing liberty. Those white conservatives want more state and less liberty.

You're just being nonsensical now. You said:

Allow white people to send their kids to all white schools, and pay welfare forever.

How are you going to enforce that without the power of state?

 

[Perfection]

I don't know, what do you think? The poor don't seem to be getting a very good education to me. And you could make the argument that without any competitors, they don't really have any incentive to improve.

Schools in poor areas typically have smaller budgets. And a lot of the problems that occur in the classroom are caused by the instability of poverty which can and should be helped by government (hard to study if you don't know where you will be sleeping tonight or where you next meal will come from)

 

[El_Machinae]

One of the greatest failures of progressives was the way they enacted social housing. "Projects". It was just a terrible and bad outcome. The intent was good, but the outcome means that we have to do better next time.

Sometimes the government is very good at providing a good or service. And sometimes it's much better for the government to give cash, so that the market can provide the good or service.

 

[Synobun]

So it is your position that if left to their own devices people wouldn't pay for the education of the poor?

History has demonstrated rather effectively what society thinks of the poor.

 

[civver_764]

History has demonstrated rather effectively what society thinks of the poor.

Right, so then why would a government democratically elected by such a society adequately take care of the poor?

 

[Synobun]

Right, so then why would a government democratically elected by such a society adequately take care of the poor?

They don't. It's up to us to evolve as we have with other social welfare issues.