4 ms·
Just in case you don’t know the leftist response to this, let me take a crack at it. It’s not that people would choose ‘wrongly,’ it’s that only some people wou
by patentatt 5y ago
Just in case you don’t know the leftist response to this, let me take a crack at it. It’s not that people would choose ‘wrongly,’ it’s that only some people would be able to exercise the ‘choice,’ leaving those who are unable to behind. And while I think the classism of this is bad enough in itself, it just so happens that the division between the haves and the have-nots largely align along racial lines in the US. And just in case it’s not obvious, the reason why this matters in respect to public education is that all children deserve opportunity regardless of where they were born or who they were born to.
- angelzen 5y ago> the division between the haves and the have-nots largely align along racial lines There are twice as many white people in poverty than black people in poverty, even if the rate of poverty is twice as large in the black population compared to the white population. More than 80% of people of either race are not in poverty. Substituting race for poverty is such an intellectually stunted move. https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-raceethnicity https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-ra...
- patentatt 5y agoWhy do absolute numbers matter more than rates/ratios? Also I didn’t substitute race for poverty, in fact I never mentioned poverty in my comment. And for what’s it’s worth, I think it’s ‘intellectually stunted’ to hide your racism behind libertarian concepts that on their surface you think sound smart.
- angelzen 5y agohaves (rich) and have-nots (poor) ? Sorry, perhaps you meant something else?