Enacting Equality

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Note: This thread is to discuss how equality can be brought to fruition.

THIS THREAD STIPULATES that political inequality exists and has manifested in financial inequality, inequality of opportunity, inequality in justice, inequality in health, but that politics, not racism, is the primary cause.
If you do not stipulate this as true for the sake of this discussion, then go start your own thread about how racism is the cause of all the problems of the world.

This thread STIPULATES that political inequality exists. That political inequality is the primary inequality. Blaming it primarily on racism is the lazy way out for the intellectually incurious.

So for all those who wish to discuss mechanisms of change having stipulated that political inequality exists:

What are some methods and acts that can change inequality to equality? How long do they need to come to fruition? What cost needs to be borne to accomplish these things? I am thinking of things like

• Removing barriers to opportunity as embodied in business licensing, a practice that protects established enterprises from up and coming competitors. Some people like to say "oh the janitor can do brain surgery?" as if that were a serious answer, but real examples can be found at this civil liberty website. Those who say "oh the janitor can do brain surgery?" probably did have the janitor do brain surgery.
• Ending the drug war. If I were asked to name one policy above all others that those in power use to oppress people, while exempting themselves from the consequences of their own actions, I would name this one program. It has some major competitors, but this edges them out by how it leaves basically innocent people with criminal records for the rest of their lives while also establishing an "us vs. them" mentality among the police and empowering ever greater growth of government.

Things like that. Thoughts?

 

[Trausti]

School choice.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

School choice.

School choice is about funding religious schools, not about fixing problems.

 

[Trausti]

School choice.

School choice is about funding religious schools, not about fixing problems.

It's about breaking the teacher's union's monopoly. Parents shouldn't be forced to send their kids to shit schools simply because the unions donate to Democrats.

 

[Arctish]

School choice.

School choice is about funding religious schools, not about fixing problems.

It's about breaking the teacher's union's monopoly. Parents shouldn't be forced to send their kids to shit schools simply because the unions donate to Democrats.

School choice won't truly exist until the schools have to accept whichever students apply for admittance.

A genuine solution would be to equalize funding, resources, classroom materials, class size, and teacher qualifications in order to elevate all lower tier schools to the level of the top tier ones. Eliminate the advantages of wealth and class.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It is true that currently the majority of school funding is at the local level, and local property values and property taxes vary differently between jurisdictions. That in turn leads to great variation between the school board budgets.

 

[Toni]

It is true that currently the majority of school funding is at the local level, and local property values and property taxes vary differently between jurisdictions. That in turn leads to great variation between the school board budgets.

Where I live, most of public education funding comes from the state which uses a variety of funding formulas that are supposed to remotve or mitigate inequalities. Unfortunately, this is not particularly successful, especially as a pro-urban bias has demolished transportation funds statewide, the rural districts feeling the brunt, for one example.

 

[bigfield]

THIS THREAD STIPULATES that political inequality exists and has manifested in financial inequality, inequality of opportunity, inequality in justice, inequality in health, but that politics, not racism, is the primary cause.

Political inequality is, fundamentally, inequality of power, which in turn is primarily determined by inequality of wealth.

Across many civilisations, we see the same distribution of both wealth and power in society. Two groups: a tiny aristocracy that owns virtually everything and has all the power, and a massive majority of commoners who have virtually none of the wealth or power. Western civilisation follows this pattern back throughout its entire history, and persists today. Our modern aristocracy isn't as formalised as it was in previous ages, but their wealth and social status are still largely hereditary, and their wealth is still many orders of magnitude greater than that of the average citizen. (You think a millionaire has a lot of money? That's nothing: Your average business magnate is worth more than a thousand millionaires.)

Extraordinary wealth doesn't just allow people to buy more stuff, it allows them to buy whole different kinds of stuff. The super-rich can buy access to politicians, they can make or break governments, they can buy influence, they can pursue massive projects requiring extraordinary amount of labour and resources. They can change the world, for better or worse, in measurable ways. The rest of us are pretty much at their mercy.

With that in mind...

What are some methods and acts that can change inequality to equality? How long do they need to come to fruition?

I don't know.

Communism hasn't worked for anyone who's tried it, and there's no reason to believe that it would ever work.

Liberalism doesn't produce equality, and I don't think it was ever intended to.

I am thinking of things like

• Removing barriers to opportunity as embodied in business licensing, a practice that protects established enterprises from up and coming competitors. Some people like to say "oh the janitor can do brain surgery?" as if that were a serious answer, but real examples can be found at this civil liberty website. Those who say "oh the janitor can do brain surgery?" probably did have the janitor do brain surgery.
• Ending the drug war. If I were asked to name one policy above all others that those in power use to oppress people, while exempting themselves from the consequences of their own actions, I would name this one program. It has some major competitors, but this edges them out by how it leaves basically innocent people with criminal records for the rest of their lives while also establishing an "us vs. them" mentality among the police and empowering ever greater growth of government.

Things like that. Thoughts?

They are good ideas that would benefit a lot of people, but they wouldn't make much difference to the balance of power in society.

I looked through the examples and generally agree that licensing that doesn't protect customers is detrimental.

Just looking at the things you listed--money, opportunity, justice, and health, there are a few things that could be improved:
- Redistribute money from the super rich to everyone else.
- Change the law to prevent corporations from using lengthy legal battles to stifle competitors or deter potential litigants.
- Fund public education properly, including tertiary education, and stop funding exclusive private schools with public funds.
- Make world-class healthcare available to everyone, instead of a user-pays system.

Many of the problems in the system exist because our laws and institutions are shaped by powerful people for their own benefit. Healthcare and education are run for profit; court battles incur expenses that most people can't possibly afford; tax law allows corporations to pay negligible tax and successive changes have shifted the tax burden onto the middle class.

 

[ruby sparks]

Thoughts?

I am not intending to participate in this thread further than this, but I do just want to say one or two things and then I'll go and leave the thread in peace.

Imo, there's a mix of factors, including politics, socioeconomics, culture, and racism, and probably others, and what's more, they'e all fundamentally intertwined.

I am so fed up with the incessant fighting between those who says it's this and those who say it's that, especially when those who say it's this hardly ever ever properly acknowledge that it's partly that as well, and vice versa. The arguments are often far far too polarised, and as such simplistic and unbalanced, which imo are very serious flaws indeed.

Maybe it is primarily politics, or maybe it's primarily socioeconomics, I would not like to say which individual factor or combo of factors among several is primary, but I think at the same time there's more factors to do with unfair discrimination than some are prepared to acknowledge.

As such, I'm not sure I can or should try to participate in this thread, but I hope it's ok if I just post the above to explain why.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Note: This thread is to discuss how equality can be brought to fruition.

THIS THREAD STIPULATES that political inequality exists and has manifested in financial inequality, inequality of opportunity, inequality in justice, inequality in health, but that politics, not racism, is the primary cause.
If you do not stipulate this as true for the sake of this discussion, then go start your own thread about how racism is the cause of all the problems of the world.

This thread STIPULATES that political inequality exists. That political inequality is the primary inequality. Blaming it primarily on racism is the lazy way out for the intellectually incurious.

So for all those who wish to discuss mechanisms of change having stipulated that political inequality exists:

What are some methods and acts that can change inequality to equality? How long do they need to come to fruition? What cost needs to be borne to accomplish these things? I am thinking of things like

• Removing barriers to opportunity as embodied in business licensing, a practice that protects established enterprises from up and coming competitors. Some people like to say "oh the janitor can do brain surgery?" as if that were a serious answer, but real examples can be found at this civil liberty website. Those who say "oh the janitor can do brain surgery?" probably did have the janitor do brain surgery.
• Ending the drug war. If I were asked to name one policy above all others that those in power use to oppress people, while exempting themselves from the consequences of their own actions, I would name this one program. It has some major competitors, but this edges them out by how it leaves basically innocent people with criminal records for the rest of their lives while also establishing an "us vs. them" mentality among the police and empowering ever greater growth of government.

Things like that. Thoughts?

As someone who has started several companies and has been involved in at least a dozen others there are substantial barriers to opportunity. But I've never heard anyone complain about getting a business license. At least in Oregon and Washington, it's quick and fast and costs as much as an outing through in and out burger with the kids.

Yes, I'd relax the war on drugs. However, I'd favor increasing our help to families ravaged when Mom and Dad are stoned. I have no problem with someone wasting away on drugs; but they shouldn't be allowed to bring others down with them.

 

[Emily Lake]

Disallow corporate money in politics of any sort. Get rid of lobbying and other ways of currying favor. Institute ranked choice voting for all elected positions.

That would go a long way toward fixing the inherent political inequality experienced by the citizens of the US as a whole.

 

[Arctish]

And get the money out of our court system.

Wealthy citizens and corporations should not be able to use their money to buy favorable or more lenient outcomes. Being able to do so subverts the entire concept of 'justice for all'.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's about breaking the teacher's union's monopoly. Parents shouldn't be forced to send their kids to shit schools simply because the unions donate to Democrats.

School choice won't truly exist until the schools have to accept whichever students apply for admittance.

That will simply destroy the good schools. Private school outperforms public because they have standards.

A genuine solution would be to equalize funding, resources, classroom materials, class size, and teacher qualifications in order to elevate all lower tier schools to the level of the top tier ones. Eliminate the advantages of wealth and class.

Nice pipe dream, it doesn't work in reality.

1) Very often those shit schools have as much funding--it's just spent on different things.

2) There's no point in expensive classroom materials in a shit school, it's just an exercise in throwing money away. The stuff is rapidly destroyed or stolen.

3) Good luck getting the qualified teachers to accept the bad positions. Especially with the current trend on evaluating teachers based on student performance--You're asking them to sacrifice their career on the altar of equality.

4) Once again, I bring up Poland. They had to rebuild after WWII, the communists did a very through job of what you're asking for. It didn't make a difference.

5) In practice, elevate all to the level of the top really means beat down the top until it's no better than the bottom.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is true that currently the majority of school funding is at the local level, and local property values and property taxes vary differently between jurisdictions. That in turn leads to great variation between the school board budgets.

Where I live, most of public education funding comes from the state which uses a variety of funding formulas that are supposed to remotve or mitigate inequalities. Unfortunately, this is not particularly successful, especially as a pro-urban bias has demolished transportation funds statewide, the rural districts feeling the brunt, for one example.

I do agree there is a problem with resource distribution with rural schools. However, the shitholes are mostly urban..

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As someone who has started several companies and has been involved in at least a dozen others there are substantial barriers to opportunity. But I've never heard anyone complain about getting a business license. At least in Oregon and Washington, it's quick and fast and costs as much as an outing through in and out burger with the kids.

You're lucky! Many years back my wife needed a business license in a business-in-a-business situation. It took a day of visiting various offices and cost nearly $400.

Yes, I'd relax the war on drugs. However, I'd favor increasing our help to families ravaged when Mom and Dad are stoned. I have no problem with someone wasting away on drugs; but they shouldn't be allowed to bring others down with them.

Mom and Dad being stoned is already a problem, legal or not. Drug use doesn't go up with legalization.

 

[Emily Lake]

And get the money out of our court system.

Wealthy citizens and corporations should not be able to use their money to buy favorable or more lenient outcomes. Being able to do so subverts the entire concept of 'justice for all'.

Good call on that.

I was toying the other day with the idea of having lawyers not be able to specialize as defense or prosecution. Treat the lawyers like the jurors - if you're licensed, you go in the hat for that case. Probably some element of specialty involved, I mean I don't think I'd want the probate lawyer from my dad's death to handle a criminal defense. He was a great probate guy, but not really his area.

 

[Arctish]

School choice won't truly exist until the schools have to accept whichever students apply for admittance.

That will simply destroy the good schools. Private school outperforms public because they have standards.

Well then, let's all stop pretending 'school choice' is real.

If parents can't send their kids to the schools they choose because the schools won't accept them, then that slogan is bullshit.

Also, no one is talking about lowering the standards of the top tier schools. We are talking about raising up the lower tier schools so that the quality of education they offer matches that of the best ones.

A genuine solution would be to equalize funding, resources, classroom materials, class size, and teacher qualifications in order to elevate all lower tier schools to the level of the top tier ones. Eliminate the advantages of wealth and class.

Nice pipe dream, it doesn't work in reality.

Sure it does. Here's just one example:

According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a group of 35 wealthy countries, Japan ranks highly among its peers in providing its rich and poor students with equal educational opportunities: The OECD estimates that in Japan only about 9 percent of the variation in student performance is explained by students’ socioeconomic backgrounds. The OECD average is 14 percent, and in the United States, it’s 17 percent. “In Japan, you may have poor areas, but you don’t have poor schools,”

1) Very often those shit schools have as much funding--it's just spent on different things.

2) There's no point in expensive classroom materials in a shit school, it's just an exercise in throwing money away. The stuff is rapidly destroyed or stolen.

3) Good luck getting the qualified teachers to accept the bad positions. Especially with the current trend on evaluating teachers based on student performance--You're asking them to sacrifice their career on the altar of equality.

4) Once again, I bring up Poland. They had to rebuild after WWII, the communists did a very through job of what you're asking for. It didn't make a difference.

5) In practice, elevate all to the level of the top really means beat down the top until it's no better than the bottom.

Citation needed for your first and fifth points, the others are opinions.

 

[Harry Bosch]

As someone who has started several companies and has been involved in at least a dozen others there are substantial barriers to opportunity. But I've never heard anyone complain about getting a business license. At least in Oregon and Washington, it's quick and fast and costs as much as an outing through in and out burger with the kids.

You're lucky! Many years back my wife needed a business license in a business-in-a-business situation. It took a day of visiting various offices and cost nearly $400.

Yes, I'd relax the war on drugs. However, I'd favor increasing our help to families ravaged when Mom and Dad are stoned. I have no problem with someone wasting away on drugs; but they shouldn't be allowed to bring others down with them.

Mom and Dad being stoned is already a problem, legal or not. Drug use doesn't go up with legalization.

Well, it's based on the state. But yea, I'd agree that $400 is excessive.

 

[DBT]

Wealth and Power appears to be inseparable.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You mean power and wealth, not wealth and power.

Well, on education. My proposals about occupational licensing and the drug war have an immediate benefit, but education is what will give the long term benefit. The problem is, it isn't a simple problem to solve. The standard "throw more money at it" response is, well, short sighted. There are structural flaws to the education system and great resistance to change.

Oh some things are easy to change. Popular trends such as whole language and whole math sweep the country for a while, before people return to phonics English and Saxon math. When my son brought home his elementary school homework, he was supposed to draw pictures to determine which fraction was larger. Yeah, the drawing skills of a seven year old. So I showed him how to find a common denominator, and even how to find a common numerator (hey, it does work for inequalities even if it doesn't work for solving an equation) and he took his homework to school. The teacher sent back a note saying he wasn't supposed to learn that for another few weeks and I gave my kid an unfair advantage.

There were a few times when I, as an engineer, had to read his elementary school math homework a few times to try to understand it.

So resistance to change is relative depending on the issue.

But the more deep-seated structural issues will be harder to address.