Moved from D1 forum

[FireIceTalon]

You would have to be illiterate to not understand my posts, grammatical errors or not. That excuse wont wash with me.

Oh, I think it's clear what you are preaching in most of your post. Which is why several people have picked them apart for being contradictory. The poor writing also made it appear that you had no respect for the reader, of course you've stated you have no respect for the reader in clear words. Why would that make someone want to listen to you?

Well then, if you acknowledge that not everyone has an equal starting position, then how can there be equality of opportunity, as you guys keep claiming there is? Saying there is equal opportunity but then admitting not everyone has an equal starting position in life is a contradiction.

Because the opportunity is not denied to them. Just because I had to work, and take out loans, and prove myself worthy of an academic scholarship, so it was harder for me to go to college doesn't mean I couldn't go. Oh and I could have gone anywhere. I base that on the fact that I was accepted to MIT and while there are reasons why I did not choose to go there, I could have, and it was economics. My family was below the poverty line for most of my childhood. After I moved out at the age of 18, I believe I have given more money to my parents than they have to me. I don't track it, but while they give me gifts and such, I also give them gifts and such too. Was it harder for me than my classmates that had parents that were able to pay for all or most of their college? Yes. Was it easier for me than someone who was raised by a single mother who was addicted to crack and didn't pay attention to them, who lived in a neighborhood filled with others in the same situation, who didn't get much education because the school couldn't cope? Yes. Is college out of reach for that person? No, it isn't. It is much much harder for them, but the opportunity is still.

Some of the people you dismiss out of hand have suggested ways to help fix those inequalities, with systems that will survive in practice and not just in idea.

You could give me a 20 meter head start on Usian Bolt and he would still beat me in a 100 meter dash. Because he is better at running than I am. Does that mean he shouldn't be allowed to run that fast? Is there anything preventing me from trying to get faster if that is what I want? No. Of course if you give me a 60 meter head start on him, I am fast enough that I would win. I can run 40 meters in under 6 seconds still, he still needs over 9 to go 100. None of that will change that he is faster than me. I should not be given a head start so that we finish at the same time.

I never said capitalism was the CAUSE of inequalities for minorities and women. Indeed, women and minorities problems are socially constructed rather than economically. But social and political structures ALLOW for the economic difficulties of many minorities and women to be PERPETUATED. So the cause may be political or social, but the manifestation is also economical, as well as social and political. Capitalism divides people not so much by race or gender as by the broader category of class.

No, capitalism divides people by their ability to make money. The amount of power this grants to some people may not seem right, and there are systems that are put in place to put checks on this. But regardless of the system, since human nature is what it is, there will always be someone that tries to have more power than someone else because more power means better chance to survive, and we are hard wired to try and survive, no matter what other trappings we put on it. Every PRACTICAL system needs to put checks in place to stop this, regardless of the system.

But capitalism can (and has been) used as a justification to keep certain groups of people marginalized in society, even if it is not the direct cause, based on America's embracing of social darwinism,;which is probably the most evil and destructive ideology to ever be contrived. It just so happens that many of the poor are minorities. It is really interesting to note how we dont acknowledge the economy is in the tank until the middle class gets hit, even though the poor and working class struggle regardless of how well the current economy may be doing (relatively speaking), on a daily basis. But even if all the sudden, overnight, women and minorities were no longer marginalized, this still does not address the larger context of inequality: class. And THIS IS caused, at least in part, by economics (though political and social factors play a role too).

The economic system does not help people self select. That is part of why our political system tries to create programs that will help people find something they are good at, but it should not FORCE them to do something. Even if I would be a better, oh lets just say car mechanic, than I am a computer programmer. I should be allowed to try and be a programmer if that is what I want to do, even if I fail, and even if I and society would have been better off if I were a car mechanic.

I actually believe that we should have some safety nets. I think our healthcare system should be changed. I think everyone is better off if those with the greatest skill at making money do invest that money in someway to help people that are in situations that create higher barriers of entry, and I do think that for some of those programs the government is the best source for them, and so taxing them to force them to give is fine. I do not think that everyone should get X dollars every year and if you make more it goes in the pot and if you made less it comes out of the pot. Yes I'm simplifying the equation and turning EVERYTHING into money since, well money can buy you everything.

In capitalism, we want to privatize everything, so only those who can pay are entitled. There is now even talk of privatizing community colleges in some states, which is just another assault on the working class and poor. Privatize is a dirty, in my view but nonetheless it is what is occurring.

Private does not mean inaccessible, especially when it comes to education. I work at a public university, of course we only get 24% of our funding from state and federal sources now. Well direct funding. The federal government can and does provide money in the form of loans, or grants, to many students. I don't have the numbers, but NPR recently talked about the University of Pheonix, a for profit university, that when you factor in the loans and grants to students, gets I think they said 70% of their money from the federal government. I'm sure our University is right around the same level as are most other universities.

Now there are academic requirements to get into a university, as there should be. But you know what, even in your Marxist utopia I think there would still be those requirements and there would still be people that COULD NOT GET IN. Because not everyone is equal. Some people are faster, some people are smarter. You yourself have claimed in this thread that Jester made an argument because you felt he thought you were a better writer. That may be, you may be a better writer, because there are better writers. Not everyone should go to Harvard, because if everyone did, it wouldn't be Harvard. But everyone has the chance to go to Harvard. You can be 40 years old and get into Harvard. In fact I'd rather entrance be based more on intelligence than money because that makes the footing more level. The person who was born addicted to crack through no fault of their own still has the opportunity to go to Harvard, though it will be a hell of a lot harder for them.

The situations that created that crack baby should not be left unchecked. You believe that it is capitalism that is propagating it. I believe it is human nature for people to put themselves first that is propagating it and that we need to keep working to build a system that will keep that in check so that people aren't living like that. I believe the practical implementation of our democracy and capitalistic society as implemented here in the United States has done a pretty good job, but is by no means perfect and if you collected all my thoughts and ideas, you would see that I have been saying that other people that had the example of the US to follow, have done somethings better and that I would like to see the country try some of them for most of my life. I wrote a "paper" back in 4th grade (so in the mid 80's) about how I thought Japan was doing better than the US economically and also even mentioned that I thought South Korea despite it's small size compared to the US might take off as well. I wrote a paper in 6th grade about how our health care system should be more like that of Sweden.

I think we need to keep working at it, I pretty much always have. I think the ease with which Marxist ideals can be corrupted to centralize power makes it a system that won't survive human nature though.

You have some interesting thoughts, Gnoll, and I would say of all the people Im debating here, you are the most objective and reasonable, in particular with this post. Some of it I agree with, some of it not so much. But perhaps we can talk more about the issues rather than how many question marks I put after a sentence (lol). The Harvard thing is pretty much right on, it should be based on merit, not on money. Sadly this is not the case, and its hard to say if it ever will be. I have my doubts though, because at the end of the day, our institutions want to make a buck just as much or more than they want to educate us. Even as an admirer of Marxist theory, I do not believe in total handouts in everything by society, but education is one of those things that definitely should not have profits involved even if we must have a capitalistic society. A school is supposed to be an institution of philanthropy and learning, not profit. The same pretty much goes for the healthcare system.

I still disagree with you on that equality of opportunity issue though. You yourself said that it is way harder for someone who grew up in a crack infested environment to get into Harvard. The opportunity may be there, but like you said, its much much harder, so it's not really an equal opportunity if you think about it.

Our tax system needs modification, no doubt about that. But I don't think money can buy you everything, lol. Afterall, my girlfriend chose me over another guy because she was more attracted to me, and we were more compatible (he had more money than me though). We are happily in love. I don't think money can buy that. Now that Beatles song is stuck my head, lol.

To be fair, my attacks on capitalism are based on the current economic crisis that our country is in, but even when the economy is "good", it is my belief that what we are seeing now is a inevitable result in a capitalistic society. Unless of course as you suggested, we have more safety nets, reform education and healthcare, etc. But then this is sort of bordering on that evil S word that Americans fear so much, lol. Im all for it, but it seems most are not. We have seen repeats of these booms and busts for decades now, with 1929 and 2008 being the most notable examples. Private does not mean totally inacessable, but nevertheless, it essentially states that those who can pay can play, those who cannot, go without. In the case of community colleges, this is often an only option for many low income or economically disadvantaged students, and to privatize it would deny hundreds of thousands if not millions their ability to seek higher education. We have made alot of progress from the past. But at the moment, I think we are headed in the wrong direction, and interestingly enough, so do my opponents at the other end of the spectrum, but our difference in view comes from the context of what the problem is, and what we seek to achieve.

As for your running example, I take it you believe in inheritance and staggered starts as being just? This goes back to equality of opportunity, which we fundamentally disagree on I guess. All in all we probably disagree more than we agree, but I respect your point of view regardless. Take care.

*Edit*

My paper on John Rawls talks about much of this stuff in a bit more detail, and I said alot of the things I've said here, if in a more eloquent/articulate and fine-tuned manner . Paper was worth 100 points, got a 96 on it, as well as an A in the class itself (History of Western Political Thought). Ill post it later.