3 ms·

Me. But with no authority. My individual opportunities are far greater if I'm part of a society that ensures equal opportunity for all. Much like how having a l

Me. But with no authority. My individual opportunities are far greater if I'm part of a society that ensures equal opportunity for all. Much like how having a large population of immunized individuals far outweighs an individuals rights to not receive immunizations, living in a population where no one is allowed to attend an inferior school improves my own life opportunity. Educated people live longer, healthier and more peaceful and productive lives -- I would personally benefit in a scenario where everyone in my community was educated fairly. There is no way that poor people demand to live in slums. The self-segragation idea is insulting and couldn't be supported by even an uninformed hypothesis.

tomjen3 12y ago
You end up in, essentially, an philosophical debate over what issues are most important - don't go there. Such debates cannot be resolved (in the same way that the halting problem cannot be resolved) because they rest on fundamental disagrements about axioms of morality.
- heygrady 12y ago
  You're saying that the issue of "who's segregating from whom?" is unsolvable? Probably. It's also irrelevant. Looking purely at the effects of segregation should answer if it's a good idea. For an individual it's possible to benefit from segregation but as a group we're worse-off. Arbitrarily picking out second-class citizens and lowering their opportunities is a short-sighted idea even if in the near term that means that more resources can be used to advance your own interests. It doesn't matter if people are choosing to be disenfranchised, it matters that we're all hurt by it -- suicide is roundly discouraged for the same reasons.
bjelkeman-again 12y ago
Most of Europe has created a society based on this principle, that our society is better for all of us if we accept that a minimum standard of health care and education is essentially available to all. It isn't without its problems, but by and large it works well, and creates decent social mobility.

tomjen3 12y ago

You end up in, essentially, an philosophical debate over what issues are most important - don't go there. Such debates cannot be resolved (in the same way that the halting problem cannot be resolved) because they rest on fundamental disagrements about axioms of morality.

heygrady 12y ago
You're saying that the issue of "who's segregating from whom?" is unsolvable? Probably. It's also irrelevant. Looking purely at the effects of segregation should answer if it's a good idea. For an individual it's possible to benefit from segregation but as a group we're worse-off. Arbitrarily picking out second-class citizens and lowering their opportunities is a short-sighted idea even if in the near term that means that more resources can be used to advance your own interests. It doesn't matter if people are choosing to be disenfranchised, it matters that we're all hurt by it -- suicide is roundly discouraged for the same reasons.

bjelkeman-again 12y ago

Most of Europe has created a society based on this principle, that our society is better for all of us if we accept that a minimum standard of health care and education is essentially available to all. It isn't without its problems, but by and large it works well, and creates decent social mobility.