3 ms·
I think you've missed my point. I am just saying that creating a better world for your children is very motivating to a lot of people. Both rich and poor. And i
by cloutchaser 5y ago
I think you've missed my point. I am just saying that creating a better world for your children is very motivating to a lot of people. Both rich and poor. And if you do that your children will have an advantage over others, just like if statistically you stay together in your marriage your children will have an advantage.
Does that mean in the name of equality we should level the playing field for children advantaged by their parents? How will that affect society if you try and nullify the hard work of every parent?
- oblio 5y agoAnd you're talking about personal responsibility and I was talking about group dynamics. Yes, it sucks for individuals. But as long as you have entire swathes of people discriminated against, personal responsibility is not enough. You need general principles, laws, policies. And yes, laws and policies can be blunt instruments and some people get hurt. Yet we still use them because on aggregate they help us. And no, I don't believe that people will be less motivated to take care of their kids even if they're at a disadvantage. If anything, I'd just make these shadowy ideas in the article actual written policies. "Yes, we only accept new students in proportion to population quotas". People will adapt.
- cloutchaser 5y agoYeah, I mean that worked out well in the Jim Crow era didn’t it? And yes I know it was for a different group, what you are proposing is creating the same situation but in reverse, over time. Two wrongs make a right?
- oblio 5y agoNo, because you can turn that into actually fair (if unpleasant) policies. For example the proportional representation. Just always have it always be proportional, no matter how the distribution changes. That's fair (again, probably unpleasant for some groups).