3 ms·

So, just play whack-a-mole everything you don't like by making a law? As if just telling the government to outlaw something makes it go away with no other effec

by kolbe 7y ago

So, just play whack-a-mole everything you don't like by making a law? As if just telling the government to outlaw something makes it go away with no other effects. Go ahead and apply some systems thinking to what the unintended consequences of that law would be. If you're really interested in solving problems, you cannot be that lazy and narrow minded.

_bxg1 7y ago
There's no need to be rude. History has shown that the making of laws is the only way to curtail the negative side-effects of the free market. I am not a congressman or even a lawyer, so no, as any sane person could infer, I am not proposing that "Private schools are illegal" be written on a piece of paper and submitted to the legislature as a new bill. But I am proposing that weakening the circular mechanisms by which the powerful increase their own power could be a better - indeed, less "lazy and narrow-minded" - strategy for decreasing economic inequality than some other strategies that people propose and even enact. The only two purposes I can think of for having private grade-schools are a) allowing the rich to isolate themselves from the public school system, and b) religious schools. And to be honest - as someone who went to a religious elementary school and learned in my "science class" that evolution is fake and dinosaurs walked alongside humans - the latter probably shouldn't be allowed either.
- kolbe 7y ago
  Speaking of lazy things: your justification has entirely consisted of "history has shown" without even giving anecdotes, let alone data to support it. I will do some actual work and delve into said history. (1) Taxing the rich and corporations excessively -> offshoring income and sheltering assets. (2) Prohibition -> mass gang violence, marginal reduction in alcohol consumption and a repeal of it. (3) Recreational drug laws -> overcrowded prisons, broken families and generations of damage. You cannot just make a law and not consider all of the consequences. Especially one as flippant, unresearched, vindictive and pointless as banning the ability of people to pay to add intellect to their own children.
  - _bxg1 7y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man If the children of the wealthy were forced to remain in the public school system, then their parents would be forced to have a stake in it, and would therefore be forced to participate in its improvement - as voters, as donors, as volunteers - instead of jumping ship and leaving it to the people who don't have any choice. That would help intellect to be added to all children, not just the children of those who happen to have money.
    - kolbe 7y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_argument_whatsoever https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_argument_whatsoever How about a false equivalency? You're right that if people are forced to do things like you claim, some of the consequences would come about. But making a law is not the same thing as force.
- SamReidHughes 7y ago
  So do you support vouchers, which let the rich and poor alike avoid public schools?

by kolbe 7y ago

_bxg1 7y ago

There's no need to be rude. History has shown that the making of laws is the only way to curtail the negative side-effects of the free market. I am not a congressman or even a lawyer, so no, as any sane person could infer, I am not proposing that "Private schools are illegal" be written on a piece of paper and submitted to the legislature as a new bill. But I am proposing that weakening the circular mechanisms by which the powerful increase their own power could be a better - indeed, less "lazy and narrow-minded" - strategy for decreasing economic inequality than some other strategies that people propose and even enact. The only two purposes I can think of for having private grade-schools are a) allowing the rich to isolate themselves from the public school system, and b) religious schools. And to be honest - as someone who went to a religious elementary school and learned in my "science class" that evolution is fake and dinosaurs walked alongside humans - the latter probably shouldn't be allowed either.

kolbe 7y ago
Speaking of lazy things: your justification has entirely consisted of "history has shown" without even giving anecdotes, let alone data to support it. I will do some actual work and delve into said history. (1) Taxing the rich and corporations excessively -> offshoring income and sheltering assets. (2) Prohibition -> mass gang violence, marginal reduction in alcohol consumption and a repeal of it. (3) Recreational drug laws -> overcrowded prisons, broken families and generations of damage. You cannot just make a law and not consider all of the consequences. Especially one as flippant, unresearched, vindictive and pointless as banning the ability of people to pay to add intellect to their own children.
- _bxg1 7y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man If the children of the wealthy were forced to remain in the public school system, then their parents would be forced to have a stake in it, and would therefore be forced to participate in its improvement - as voters, as donors, as volunteers - instead of jumping ship and leaving it to the people who don't have any choice. That would help intellect to be added to all children, not just the children of those who happen to have money.
  - kolbe 7y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_argument_whatsoever https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_argument_whatsoever How about a false equivalency? You're right that if people are forced to do things like you claim, some of the consequences would come about. But making a law is not the same thing as force.
SamReidHughes 7y ago
So do you support vouchers, which let the rich and poor alike avoid public schools?