Is segregation making a comeback?

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

39 minutes ago, Swed said:

Classical Liberalism argues that we do start on an equal playing field, equity meaning we all have the same rights.

Reality shows we don't start on an equal playing field in terms of school quality etc. Public school wasn't around at the time of america's founding and college was extremely rare. Trying to argue we should follow classical liberalism is like saying poor people should just get a plow and start farming. Also I'm well aware of the basis for american government I am a double major in history and political science

[Swed 2651]

11 hours ago, Ordinarygamer96 said:

Reality shows we don't start on an equal playing field in terms of school quality etc. Public school wasn't around at the time of america's founding and college was extremely rare. Trying to argue we should follow classical liberalism is like saying poor people should just get a plow and start farming. Also I'm well aware of the basis for american government I am a double major in history and political science

Then you missed the point entirely. Liberalism defines an equal playing field as equal rights. Equal opportunities != equal outcomes.

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

4 hours ago, Swed said:

Then you missed the point entirely. Liberalism defines an equal playing field as equal rights. Equal opportunities != equal outcomes.

Equal rights would mean equal quality schools etc. So therefore that is not the situation we are in today.

[TurtleFrenzy 2612]

Guess we should all share the same wealth and same possessions, same amount of land, some wages regardless of our job, and equal access to all government programs.

 

Sure worked out for the USSR

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

1 hour ago, TurtleFrenzy said:

Guess we should all share the same wealth and same possessions, same amount of land, some wages regardless of our job, and equal access to all government programs.

 

Sure worked out for the USSR

Equal quality schooling is not nearly the same thing as that. Using the USSR is a straw man argument

[Swed 2651]

1 hour ago, Ordinarygamer96 said:

Equal quality schooling is not nearly the same thing as that. Using the USSR is a straw man argument

Public school is the embodiment of the right to equal quality schooling.

 

If you think private schools are against this, than your problem is with the free market and unregulated capitalism. Also tenants of Liberalism. Liberalism acknowledges that there are winners and losers in the free market. You're advocating for socialism.

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

11 minutes ago, Swed said:

Public school is the embodiment of the right to equal quality schooling.

 

If you think private schools are against this, than your problem is with the free market and unregulated capitalism. Also tenants of Liberalism. Liberalism acknowledges that there are winners and losers in the free market. You're advocating for socialism.

Not all public schools are equal quality. Richer areas have better funded public schools. I never once mentioned private school. I went to a private high school  because the schools in my area were substandard. The quality was way better than the public schools in my area but in some ways behind the public school of my girlfiend who lives in a wealthier area. The problem with the current school system in the country is if rich people congregate to one area the school system becomes much better funded than one in a poor area. So once again it means if you are born wealthy even your public school options tend to be far superior. 

[Swed 2651]

11 minutes ago, Ordinarygamer96 said:

Not all public schools are equal quality. Richer areas have better funded public schools. I never once mentioned private school. I went to a private high school. The quality was way better the public schools in my area but in some ways behind the public school of my girlfiend who lives in a wealthier area. The problem with the current school system in the country is if rich people congregate to one area the school system becomes much better funded than one in a poor area.

So you have problems with fair representation? Taxes are taken with the understanding that those being taxed have ample representation in government, whether that be local, state, or federal. You can't just redistribute those local taxes to other localities. States have a little more leeway because they have a larger jurisdiction. The jurisdiction grows exponentially when you go to the federal level. But then you have a large number of people all vying for the same tax dollars.

 

You offer no solutions in fairness. Is it fair that a person who is taxed hundreds of thousands of dollars doesn't see that money go back into their government/community? No

 

How would you prefer we re-distribute wealth?

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

17 minutes ago, Swed said:

So you have problems with fair representation? Taxes are taken with the understanding that those being taxed have ample representation in government, whether that be local, state, or federal. You can't just redistribute those local taxes to other localities. States have a little more leeway because they have a larger jurisdiction. The jurisdiction grows exponentially when you go to the federal level. But then you have a large number of people all vying for the same tax dollars.

 

You offer no solutions in fairness. Is it fair that a person who is taxed hundreds of thousands of dollars doesn't see that money go back into their government/community? No

 

How would you prefer we re-distribute wealth?

The gradual solution would be switching from it being a local tax to a state or federal level tax that is only allowed to be spent on schooling. Schools would be assigned funds based on total number of students with a certain amount left over in a fund for emergencies etc. A student in a wealthy town can get 5 times the money spent on his schooling as a student in a poor city. While some scream this is re-distribution of wealth I look at it as a investment for the country when a large number of our schools cannot afford to provide decent education to large numbers of students when other schools can afford to build a new auditorium just because it looks nicer. America's educational system used to be the envy of the world but without a better overall investment that allows all schools to cater to the students needs we're going to continue to be second rate. Is it fair that a kid is born in a poor area so he's not going to be given the opportunity to go to a decent school and make himself not poor? 

[trav 6834]

If the rich man has 1% of his income go to funding public education and the poor man has 1% of his income go to funding public education, then it is fair no matter how much either of them are giving to the system, IMO.

 

Taxes are meant to help all in your country and to be divvied fairly between all citizens. You don't simply just pay your amount of taxes, whether it be big or small, and hope it returns as an investment for yourself or your family. You also pay your taxes to not only help your family but also help the lives of other less fortunate ones inside your own country (such as the poorer neighbourhood schools).

 

Every public school should receive the same amount of funding, no matter what neighbourhood they're in. And taxes should be divvied to better raise all education systems up together and not specifically the school your kids are going to, just because you pay taxes in that area.

 

Maybe that way the U.S. could potentially see themselves in the top 10 of education systems around the world if they do so. However, as of right now you guys are struggling to do so... You're only as strong as your weakest link.

[JFK 546]

On 9/9/2016 at 4:24 PM, Swed said:

Public school is the embodiment of the right to equal quality schooling.

 

I'm sorry, but I can safely say as someone that spent their early childhood in a relatively low income neighborhood and then moved to one of the wealthier suburbs in my state that this is complete and utter bullshit. What make this worse is that I see this thought process spewed on daily basis by libertarian types that are completely clueless to what its like living in a lower income environment and believe that falling into a higher tax bracket is a form of oppression.

 

You're completely ignoring how schools in poorer districts don't receive nearly as much funding in cities that have little to no issues with money in comparison. I went from being that student who always received those student of the month awards and was always at the top of my class to severely lagging behind the rest of my classmates in pretty much every subject besides history once I had moved and never really catching up until junior high.

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

39 minutes ago, JFK said:

 

What make this worse is that I see this thought process spewed on daily basis by libertarian types that are completely clueless to what its like living in a lower income environment and believe that falling into a higher tax bracket is a form of oppression.

 

 

I really need to use this line next time I'm in an argument with a libertarian. Most libertarians I know live in a fantasy land where they believe everyone can be wildly wealthy if the government did absolutely nothing and have a complete disconnect with the reality of life for many. And honestly swed I'm completely at a loss for what you were even trying to argue by bringing up classical liberalism and then saying public school is equal.

[Llethander 230]

Gotta love regressives.

[Swed 2651]

You guys are missing the point of my argument completely.

 

Having the opportunity to go to public school is where the equality is. I understand that not all schools are equal, especially in the inner city. I went to a college which is contained in probably one of the worst public school districts in the U.S. I'm not ignorant as to how things are. I'm arguing the point that everyone being able to go to school free of direct charge is the equality that our democracy strives for.

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

3 hours ago, Swed said:

You guys are missing the point of my argument completely.

 

Having the opportunity to go to public school is where the equality is. I understand that not all schools are equal, especially in the inner city. I went to a college which is contained in probably one of the worst public school districts in the U.S. I'm not ignorant as to how things are. I'm arguing the point that everyone being able to go to school free of direct charge is the equality that our democracy strives for.

The concept of public school wasn't even really around at the time of our founding so trying to argue that it would strive for mostly substandard schools with some nice ones for rich kids is absurd. Some schools in america are so shitty going to them could arguably be considered a waste of time for some poor kids. How could you honestly still try to argue with the proposal I made or what Travesty said. Poor kids don't have the same rights as rich kids in reality. 

[Swed 2651]

2 hours ago, Ordinarygamer96 said:

The concept of public school wasn't even really around at the time of our founding so trying to argue that it would strive for mostly substandard schools with some nice ones for rich kids is absurd. Some schools in america are so shitty going to them could arguably be considered a waste of time for some poor kids. How could you honestly still try to argue with the proposal I made or what Travesty said. Poor kids don't have the same rights as rich kids in reality. 

 

> Liberal democracy is a political ideology and a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of classical liberalism. It is also called western democracy. It is characterised by fair, free, and competitive elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, and political freedoms for all people. To define the system in practice, liberal democracies often draw upon a constitution, either formally written or uncodified, to delineate the powers of government and enshrine the social contract. After a period of sustained expansion throughout the 20th century, liberal democracy became the predominant political system in the world.

 

Your argument is flawed. Just because the United States didn't have an ideology when it was founded and by extension anything since then isn't related is absolutely ridiculous. You know what the country had when we were founded? Slavery. Your response's logic would say that Slavery is ok because it was around when the country was founded. Slavery isn't allowed under the idea of liberal democracy. I don't argue that our democracy strives for sub-standard schools anywhere. I argue that our democracy strives for the right to be educated, which is achieved via the public school system.

 

To respond to Travesty's post, directly from the U.S. Dept. of Education's website:

 

Quote

n the 2004-05 school year, 83 cents out of every dollar spent on education is estimated to come from the state and local levels (45.6 percent from state funds and 37.1 percent from local governments). The federal government's share is 8.3 percen

 

83% of public school funding comes from local and state taxes. You know who pays those taxes? The people in those states. That money is coming from residents in that area. Schools are funded locally first, at the state level second, and at the federal level third. Every school in a locality is getting the same $ per student based on how that localities' taxes are budgeted. Every school in a state is getting the same $ amount from the state's budget for each student. And finally, each school is getting a $ amount from the federal government for each student, divided equally. That's fair.

 

What you can't do is move money from one locality to another, and one state to another. The way this happens legally is through state and federal taxes. That's how we redistribute wealth in this country. The state taxes are the redistribution of the locality. The federal taxes are the redistribution of the state and the locality. If you don't like how much money is being distributed now, then advocate for higher taxes, or a progressive tax law, not cry about how unfair the system is.

 

You can't arbitrarily re-distribute money from one locality to another without rules, if that happens, what stops a rich locality from taking money from a poor one? Who decides whats "fair"?

[Ordinarygamer96 785]

3 hours ago, Swed said:

 

> Liberal democracy is a political ideology and a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of classical liberalism. It is also called western democracy. It is characterised by fair, free, and competitive elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, and political freedoms for all people. To define the system in practice, liberal democracies often draw upon a constitution, either formally written or uncodified, to delineate the powers of government and enshrine the social contract. After a period of sustained expansion throughout the 20th century, liberal democracy became the predominant political system in the world.

 

Your argument is flawed. Just because the United States didn't have an ideology when it was founded and by extension anything since then isn't related is absolutely ridiculous. You know what the country had when we were founded? Slavery. Your response's logic would say that Slavery is ok because it was around when the country was founded. Slavery isn't allowed under the idea of liberal democracy. I don't argue that our democracy strives for sub-standard schools anywhere. I argue that our democracy strives for the right to be educated, which is achieved via the public school system.

 

To respond to Travesty's post, directly from the U.S. Dept. of Education's website:

 

 

83% of public school funding comes from local and state taxes. You know who pays those taxes? The people in those states. That money is coming from residents in that area. Schools are funded locally first, at the state level second, and at the federal level third. Every school in a locality is getting the same $ per student based on how that localities' taxes are budgeted. Every school in a state is getting the same $ amount from the state's budget for each student. And finally, each school is getting a $ amount from the federal government for each student, divided equally. That's fair.

 

What you can't do is move money from one locality to another, and one state to another. The way this happens legally is through state and federal taxes. That's how we redistribute wealth in this country. The state taxes are the redistribution of the locality. The federal taxes are the redistribution of the state and the locality. If you don't like how much money is being distributed now, then advocate for higher taxes, or a progressive tax law, not cry about how unfair the system is.

 

You can't arbitrarily re-distribute money from one locality to another without rules, if that happens, what stops a rich locality from taking money from a poor one? Who decides whats "fair"?

Your argument in the first part basically boils down to tough shit be happy you have a school in the first place. I still don't even see the point you're trying to make.  Just bringing up liberal democracy's definition like it means the government shouldn't have a responsibility to make sure the services it provides are quality as long as they exist. Your initial argument is that america is founded on liberal democracy and my counter was that because concepts that didn't exist at the time are the ones we are discussing that your liberal democracy point is moot. Also me and travesty both advocated for switching to it being a federal level and not local tax if you actually analyzed what we said. I laid out a plan up above. I don't even know what you mean by your last couple sentences. We said all students should have the same amount of funding for their education.Once again your argument about public school being an equal right is false. While everyone has public school the quality is so different place to place that it becomes something entirely different when you look at different ends of the economic spectrum. Right now the american school system is dropping in international ranking because people like you think its more of a crime for your tax dollars to help someone in another state rather than for a kid to go to a school barely able to afford books and fair wages for the teachers while a rich neighborhood school buys a new fucking basketball court because it looks nice. A young kid in a poor city deserves just as much rights as a rich kid. Both have the same capacity to contribute and learn under the proper circumstances. Denying that right to a kid because his area is poor and giving another kid that right because he got lucky with where he was born to me is an injustice. You don't even have to change tax levels. Just make it a federal tax and distribute it so every student in america gets an equal share. How would higher taxes or progressive tax law help fund schools in an area that is extremely poor?

[trav 6834]

On 9/11/2016 at 9:25 AM, Swed said:

You guys are missing the point of my argument completely.

 

Having the opportunity to go to public school is where the equality is. I understand that not all schools are equal, especially in the inner city. I went to a college which is contained in probably one of the worst public school districts in the U.S. I'm not ignorant as to how things are. I'm arguing the point that everyone being able to go to school free of direct charge is the equality that our democracy strives for.

 

Can't it be taken a bit further than that? It's great that we/you have this luxury of public school but shouldn't everyone and every public school have the same resources to learn and be educated?

 

Just as JFK said, the students in the poorer, less funded public schools have a severe disadvantage in preparation for a post-graduate degree. Hell many of them struggle to just graduate highschool. The buck shouldn't just stop at the fact that we are giving them free public education. It should be taken further to provide equal opportunity for every student.

 

If you want to pay for better school, you have all means to do so with private school. However public schools should be funded the equally so that everyone in the public school system has a good shot of being better educated members of society.

 

On 9/9/2016 at 0:58 PM, TurtleFrenzy said:

Guess we should all share the same wealth and same possessions, same amount of land, some wages regardless of our job, and equal access to all government programs.

 

Sure worked out for the USSR

 

I know you're being sarcastic and facetious but equal access to learn is incredible important for your society and/or country to grow. I see Americans complain about all the stupid people in their own country but then at the same time they think their education system doesn't need any fixing.

 

21 hours ago, Swed said:

To respond to Travesty's post, directly from the U.S. Dept. of Education's website:

 

83% of public school funding comes from local and state taxes. You know who pays those taxes? The people in those states. That money is coming from residents in that area. Schools are funded locally first, at the state level second, and at the federal level third. Every school in a locality is getting the same $ per student based on how that localities' taxes are budgeted. Every school in a state is getting the same $ amount from the state's budget for each student. And finally, each school is getting a $ amount from the federal government for each student, divided equally. That's fair.

 

What you can't do is move money from one locality to another, and one state to another. The way this happens legally is through state and federal taxes. That's how we redistribute wealth in this country. The state taxes are the redistribution of the locality. The federal taxes are the redistribution of the state and the locality. If you don't like how much money is being distributed now, then advocate for higher taxes, or a progressive tax law, not cry about how unfair the system is.

 

You can't arbitrarily re-distribute money from one locality to another without rules, if that happens, what stops a rich locality from taking money from a poor one? Who decides whats "fair"?

 

Exactly, what I'm arguing is how it's distributed. IMO it should just be funded with a state tax and that state tax should be equally distributed between all public schools within that state. Hell I'd take it even further to a solely federal tax overall funding schools so that each state is evenly divided. But I understand that's not how you guys run a country down there.

 

The system with how it's taxed is also part of the public school system.

 

 

For instance in my province of Manitoba, Winnipeg (800,000) is one of the biggest, certainly the wealthiest and I'm pretty sure the only city in Manitoba that is over 100,000 population. School taxes are taken from property owners in the city of Winnipeg and all the money accumulated goes to the Province and then the Province redistributes the money equally to the school divisions on various conditions, such as number of students, different programs they offer and extra transportation funding for more rural schools, etc.

 

Our view (at the very least my view) is that just because someone lives in a different city/town than me, doesn't mean they should have the same resources I do. If my city is doing well off and managing just fine, why shouldn't other smaller towns farther away (who are not able to transport to my city every day) have an equal opportunity as me?

[< FoxCom > 18]

It would appear that this is an isolated incident; also seems to be for the benefit rather than at the expense of the victims, but appearances can be deceiving. Just as long as we watch and step in if it becomes a norm again, things should maintain their liberal progression.

[Ian 325]

More pro-segregation protests on our university campuses, this time at UC-Berkeley.

 

 

50-60 years ago students protested segregation all across the south demanding that they be integrated at public universities. Now in 2016 we have students who demand to be segregated from people who look, think, and act different from them. This is so strange.

[Musicfreak 181]

3 hours ago, Ian Kinsler said:

More pro-segregation protests on our university campuses, this time at UC-Berkeley.

 

 

50-60 years ago students protested segregation all across the south demanding that they be integrated at public universities. Now in 2016 we have students who demand to be segregated from people who look, think, and act different from them. This is so strange.

I'm so unsurprised this was at Berkeley.