Originally posted by der schwarze RitterNo, government exists to serve the people, to provide them with an equal start in life. I believe that power should lie with the people- in terms of political and economic democracy.
More obfuscation. Say what you really mean: People exist to serve the government.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterMany of those things you mention tend to happen because of ignorance, I think a better education would be a good way to tackle this.
You can only do so much for people before you let them fly on their own. In your analysis, you've neglected to mention a host of other differences the "rich" and "poor" exhibit: cultural attitudes about work, authority, sacrifice, etc. One important difference is that the "poor" also tend to spend more of their money on things they value that mig ...[text shortened]... what you make of it and the opportunities are there for those who want to work for them.
I'm quite happy to comprimise though dsR, absolute equality of oppurtunity would be diffiucult to enforce because it would be restrictive on those who are rich. But the standards of schools in poorer areas is just unacceptable, this, at the very least, is something that needs improving.
Ultimately, life is what you make of it and the opportunities are there for those who want to work for them.
- True, but I think your background shouldn't ultimately determine whether you can do something or not.
Originally posted by Bad wolfThat's why there needs to be freedom of choice when it comes to parents choosing where to send their kids to school. I think vouchers would create a more level playing field in this regard.
Many of those things you mention tend to happen because of ignorance, I think a better education would be a good way to tackle this.
I'm quite happy to comprimise though dsR, absolute equality of oppurtunity would be diffiucult to enforce because it would be restrictive on those who are rich. But the standards of schools in poorer areas is just unacceptable, this, at the very least, is something that needs improving.
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterThe overall standard of the public school system needs to be raised; the education of children as they grow up is extremely important, it heavily influences what you can do later in life.
That's why there needs to be freedom of choice when it comes to parents choosing where to send their kids to school. I think vouchers would create a more level playing field in this regard.
Those in poorer areas will often find that they can't afford to pay for the additional transport needed to go better schools.
So you would use vouchers to fix this? Unless the standard were to be raised overall there will always be children who have to go to the poorer schools - and you know it wouldn't be the children's fault this happens.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterThe aim is to improve schools across the board. Using the market to create a two tier sysem is absurd- along with privitising other natural monopolies like healthcare, railways, energy, etc.
That's why there needs to be freedom of choice when it comes to parents choosing where to send their kids to school. I think vouchers would create a more level playing field in this regard.
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterWhich is precisely Bad Wolf's point, ironically. If you believe in meritocracy, equality of opportunity is the only logical ambition for a society that wants to realize all its talents and compete globally; a society that is afraid to do this has no right to call itself a meritocracy.
You can only do so much for people before you let them fly on their own.
Originally posted by Bad wolfWelcome to Marxism young Padawan.
Recently I've been toying with this idea: freedom loses its meaning when you yourself gain extra freedom by taking it away from someone else. (Pretty obvious really because you would be infringing on other people's freedoms).
Therefore, (my conclusion) the only reasonable way to develop freedom is by giving everyone equal oppurtunity.
Now this has got ...[text shortened]... a can work on many levels.
So what do you think? Does this sound logical to you, or not?
Originally posted by wedgehead2But that's not the rest of the story...in a single-payer system like Britain's or Canada's, Bo Nora would have had to wait in a queue for up to 18 weeks before he could even see a specialist. Since his condition is chronic, there would have been no money for advanced drugs or high-tech tests and treatments (ironically, if a cure or procedure for his condition is to be found, it will develop in those countries which have private health care since there is no incentive for companies to invest in new drugs or high tech medical equipment in single-payer systems). In all probability, once diagnosed, Bo Nora would have been shipped off to a nursing home where his care there would have been equally meager and he would probably already be dead.
Is this american freedom?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6302043.stm