Is capitalism actually dying, despite appearances?

[civver_764]

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

So then what's the point of the state schools if they don't?

 

[Perfection]

So then what's the point of the state schools if they don't?

Let's work towards evolving instead of throwing up our hands and giving up on large segments of the population.

 

[civver_764]

I never advocated giving up. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

 

[Perfection]

What do you advocate then?

 

[Synobun]

So then what's the point of the state schools if they don't?

To educate every citizen to a knowledge baseline.

 

[civver_764]

To educate every citizen to a knowledge baseline.

But you just said it doesn't care about every citizen.

What do you advocate then?

See my earlier posts in this thread.

 

[Synobun]

But you just said it doesn't care about every citizen.

No, that is not what I said.

What I said is "They don't." to your question about whether or not I felt that the current government adequately takes care of poor people.

 

[civver_764]

No, that is not what I said.

What I said is "They don't." to your question about whether or not I felt that the current government adequately takes care of poor people.

So they care about every citizen but they don't take care of every citizen? How do you explain this?

 

[Perfection]

See my earlier posts in this thread.

Nonprofits and advertisers (ie corporate misinformation)? You're dreaming.

And yes all children deserve a comprehensive basic education because all children will be citizens and have a duty to vote.

 

[Synobun]

So they care about every citizen but they don't take care of every citizen? How do you explain this?

The two phrases don't come to the same definition. There is nothing to explain. Every citizen is entitled to a baseline standard in education.

 

[civver_764]

The two phrases don't come to the same definition. There is nothing to explain.

Let me rephrase. How can a government which is democratically elected by a society care more about poor people than the society itself?

 

[Synobun]

Let me rephrase. How can a government which is democratically elected by a society care more about poor people than the society itself?

It doesn't. Nobody has attempted to claim that it does.

Beyond that, the state can perpetuate an agenda far better than a line-up of individuals. For every person that's in staunch favour of something, there's one who couldn't care less and one who feels the exact opposite. All three will toe the company line at the end of the day. That's why many social reforms in our history required violent or otherwise forced revolution.

 

[civver_764]

It doesn't. Nobody has attempted to claim that it does.

You said the state was necessary because society didn't care about the poor enough.

Beyond that, the state can perpetuate an agenda far better than a line-up of individuals.

What is the state, if not a line up of individuals?

For every person that's in staunch favour of something, there's one who couldn't care less and one who feels the exact opposite. All three will toe the company line at the end of the day. That's why many social reforms in our history required violent or otherwise forced revolution.

So it is your position that we actually live in a dictatorship where social welfare is forced on society against their will?

 

[Sommerswerd]

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.

FTR, there's some all-white areas of the US that are dirt-floor poor. I don't see how you desegregate all-white schools in Elliot County, Kentucky, or how any such hypothetical desegregation ends any problems.

I agree that de-facto segregation causes problems... I've lived that reality... but I think it unhelpfully oversimplifies to say that we get rid of the problems with just desegregation.

 

[Synobun]

You said the state was necessary because society didn't care about the poor enough.

Nope.

What is the state, if not a line up of individuals?

A semester of psychology would bring you up to speed on the difference between the individual and the herd.

So it is your position that we actually live in a dictatorship where social welfare is forced on society against their will?

Nope.

 

[Perfection]

Let me rephrase. How can a government which is democratically elected by a society care more about poor people than the society itself?

Providing solutions to problems poor people face isn't about society making sacrifices out of a sense of charity but a recognition of their true value.

 

[civver_764]

A semester of psychology would bring you up to speed on the difference between the individual and the herd.

There is not much that is fundamentally different about a non-profit educational organization and a government school board, except that one is sustained by voluntary donations and the other by coerced taxation.

Nope.

So people agree to the social welfare, but they also would not pay for it voluntarily?

 

[inthesomeday]

>In which supporters of capitalism argue how best to "help the poor", forgetting that poor doesn't have to be a condition of people

 

[Synobun]

There is not much that is fundamentally different about a non-profit educational organization and a government school board, except that one is sustained by voluntary donations and the other by coerced taxation.

One is sustained on a thin regional basis and the other is maintained from border to border. There is a significant difference between a local organization and a system that has a national baseline that must be met regardless of wealth and status.

So people agree to the social welfare, but they also would not pay for it voluntarily?

Yes. We pay for a lot that we wouldn't actively seek out to pay by our own volition. An individual can't be expected to allocate their earnings equitably to the entire range of services that are available to the public. I feel like I've already said this. Are you almost done trying to push me into a "Gotcha!"?

 

[civver_764]

One is sustained on a thin regional basis and the other is maintained from border to border. There is a significant difference between a local organization and a system that has a national baseline that must be met regardless of wealth and status.

There's no reason that a non-profit could not be extended to a national level, if that proved to be the best system.

Yes. We pay for a lot that we wouldn't actively seek out to pay by our own volition. An individual can't be expected to allocate their earnings equitably to the entire range of services that are available to the public. I feel like I've already said this.

Ok, so basically your argument is that it would be too difficult for individuals to manage all the different non-profits? Imagine that there are different companies that specialized in streamlining this. Imagine if you could buy into a "social welfare non-profit" of your choice that gave money to various other non-profits.