Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Wow. Just wow.

    I hope you do realise that you have condemned the very institution of private property. It is the right of any person to have any voluntary transaction with another. The right to buy your child designer clothes is contingent on having the money to do so, it is not a universal right and therefore not a right at all - so designer clothes should be banned? This can be applied to anything. Food, drink, books. What you are basically arguing is that because some people are wealthier than others nobody should be wealthy which is the first argument on the road to serfdom and the best example of how equalitarianism quickly leads to totalitarianism.
    No, no you've misunderstood. I'm not saying we should ban anything that is not a universal right, I'm saying that private education cannot be defended on the grounds that it is a universal right or liberty.

    It is not a universal right to buy designer clothes, it is the privilege of those who can afford it but there seems to be no good reason to ban this so why should we? However private education is in the same boat with regard to not being a right but there do seem to be good reasons for banning it i.e for reasons of instrumental equality as I stated above.

    You cannot defend private education as a right, because it is not one. This does not entail that it should be banned, but forces us to consider banning it (as it has no rights based defense) if there are other good reasons for doing so. Do you see?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cognito)
    No, no you've misunderstood. I'm not saying we should ban anything that is not a universal right, I'm saying that private education cannot be defended on the grounds that it is a universal right or liberty.

    It is not a universal right to buy designer clothes, it is the privilege of those who can afford it but there seems to be no good reason to ban this so why should we? However private education is in the same boat with regard to not being a right but there do seem to be good reasons for banning it i.e for reasons of instrumental equality as I stated above.

    You cannot defend private education as a right, because it is not one. This does not entail that it should be banned, but forces us to consider banning it (as it has no rights based defense) if there are other good reasons for doing so. Do you see?
    I see now, but this depends entirely on how you treat education. I treat it is as a good to be consumed by those who can afford it (in the private sector) - if you start thinking of it as a right then you are on the wrong track, imo.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Wow. Just wow.

    I hope you do realise that you have condemned the very institution of private property. It is the right of any person to have any voluntary transaction with another. The right to buy your child designer clothes is contingent on having the money to do so, it is not a universal right and therefore not a right at all - so designer clothes should be banned? This can be applied to anything. Food, drink, books. What you are basically arguing is that because some people are wealthier than others nobody should be wealthy which is the first argument on the road to serfdom and the best example of how equalitarianism quickly leads to totalitarianism.
    He hasn't done so in the slightest. We as a society ban certain private transactions (drugs, certain chemicals, technologies, equipment etc) because we have collectively decided that it would be harmful to have them for sale. Other transactions are restricted on a similar basis.

    I see no reason why private education cannot be added to the list - on the grounds it damages social cohesion, the education of the majority and the opportunities of the majority.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopping Mad Kangaroo)
    He hasn't done so in the slightest. We as a society ban certain private transactions (drugs, certain chemicals, technologies, equipment etc) because we have collectively decided that it would be harmful to have them for sale. Other transactions are restricted on a similar basis.

    I see no reason why private education cannot be added to the list - on the grounds it damages social cohesion, the education of the majority and the opportunities of the majority.
    Is the only answer of the equalitarian to social problems coercion?

    And when you have banned everything that you think is causing the problem, what do you do when the problem still exists?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cognito)
    No, no you've misunderstood. I'm not saying we should ban anything that is not a universal right, I'm saying that private education cannot be defended on the grounds that it is a universal right or liberty.

    It is not a universal right to buy designer clothes, it is the privilege of those who can afford it but there seems to be no good reason to ban this so why should we? However private education is in the same boat with regard to not being a right but there do seem to be good reasons for banning it i.e for reasons of instrumental equality as I stated above.

    You cannot defend private education as a right, because it is not one. This does not entail that it should be banned, but forces us to consider banning it (as it has no rights based defense) if there are other good reasons for doing so. Do you see?
    Basically there are two issue to consider:

    1. Is private education a right?
    2. Should private education be banned?

    Things do not have to be rights for them to be legal. It is not a right to go to football matches, it is a privilege contingent on wealth (and interest).
    It is a right to have a fair trial as there is nothing that this is contingent upon in a just society.

    Thus you cannot defend private education as a right.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cognito)
    Thus you cannot defend private education as a right.
    No, you're quite right. However, I can and do defend private education as I would any other good that can be consumed because people have the right to intitiate transactions with each other without Government interference. That is a just society, in my eyes.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Is the only answer of the equalitarian to social problems coercion?

    And when you have banned everything that you think is causing the problem, what do you do when the problem still exists?
    It wont exist. Why? Because parents are not going to be given any choice where they send their children - which is how it always should have been.

    Its not coercion. Merely righting what is effectively mass theft of opportunity. You believe in private property - right?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopping Mad Kangaroo)
    It wont exist. Why? Because parents are not going to be given any choice where they send their children - which is how it always should have been.

    Its not coercion. Merely righting what is effectively mass theft of opportunity. You believe in private property - right?
    Coercion is where the state enforces a law that is so pervasive it changes how people would otherwise act in its absence. Yes, it is definitely coercion.

    OK, so your problems can be solved simply by banning what you believe is the source of the problem... totalitarianism at its finest.

    It is not a "theft" of opportunity. You can't own opportunity - and actually, I don't believe in intellectual property, or any other form of abstract property.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    I see now, but this depends entirely on how you treat education. I treat it is as a good to be consumed by those who can afford it (in the private sector) - if you start thinking of it as a right then you are on the wrong track, imo.

    Yes, we've established it's not a right.
    I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'good'. If you mean it promotes life chances then you are probably correct but this adds weight to my position. As job opportunities are finite, especially the top opportunities, it seems that a just society should allow for equal access to them (with regard to its institutions). If there is a two tier educational institution contingent on wealth, then the circumstances of birth will determine success within the institutions not just outside of them. This clearly is not a just institution, nor one we would rationally choose were we in the original position.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cognito)
    Yes, we've established it's not a right.
    I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'good'. If you mean it promotes life chances then you are probably correct but this adds weight to my position. As job opportunities are finite, especially the top opportunities, it seems that a just society should allow for equal access to them (with regard to its institutions). If there is a two tier educational institution contingent on wealth, then the circumstances of birth will determine success within the institutions not just outside of them. This clearly is not a just institution, nor one we would rationally choose were we in the original position.
    It is a good just like an xbox or a laptop, in the economic sense - it can be purchased by those who want it as a means to fulfillment of their ends.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Coercion is where the state enforces a law that is so pervasive it changes how people would otherwise act in its absence. Yes, it is definitely coercion.

    OK, so your problems can be solved simply by banning what you believe is the source of the problem... totalitarianism at its finest.

    It is not a "theft" of opportunity. You can't own opportunity - and actually, I don't believe in intellectual property, or any other form of abstract property.
    I'd like to pick you up on this notion of 'free transactions' as well.

    Even a minimal state would use coercion to stop certain transactions i.e paying assasins, selling people into slavery etc. There is no such thing as a just society that allows for completely free transactions.
    Equally a just society must have just institutions (for what is a society other than a complex of institutions?). If this is the case then the institution of education must be just also.
    Equally we already coerce to an extent within education. We decide what things children must learn, who can be teachers etc etc. Laissez faire states always encroach more than their advocates let on.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cognito)
    I'd like to pick you up on this notion of 'free transactions' as well.

    Even a minimal state would use coercion to stop certain transactions i.e paying assasins, selling people into slavery etc. There is no such thing as a just society that allows for completely free transactions.

    Equally a just society must have just institutions (for what is a society other than a complex of institutions?). If this is the case then the institution of education must be just also.

    Equally we already coerce to an extent within education. We decide what things children must learn, who can be teachers etc etc. Laissez faire states always encroach more than their advocates let on.
    No it wouldn't. It would make it illegal to murder, there is no reason why they would make it illegal to pay an assassin. Slavery is another total matter and is the ownership of one man by another. It is the act of owning, not selling, that is the unjust part of slavery.

    Yes, we must have institutions. Private education is one of the United Kingdom's greatest institutions and has trained some of the finest minds in the world.

    I don't agree with how our system works. I tihnk that state schools should be privately run and publically funded, and I think LEA's ought to be abolished, which would reduce the way in which the state directs its coercive power by a vast degree.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    It is a good just like an xbox or a laptop, in the economic sense - it can be purchased by those who want it as a means to fulfillment of their ends.
    well if a 'good' is 'something we purchase as a means to fulfil an end' then the purchasing of a sex slave is a 'good'. You will need a tighter definition than that.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cognito)
    well if a 'good' is 'something we purchase as a means to fulfil an end' then the purchasing of a sex slave is a 'good'. You will need a tighter definition than that.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_goods
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_goods
    Yes but my point is not that there do not exist goods, but that if we are to judge them morally or politically we must distinguish between them.

    A sex slave is not a legitimate or legal good because it violates the rights of the individual.
    A place at a private school is not a legitimate good because it prejudices and corrupts the system of an institution which in a just society must itself be just.

    Paying for education privilege is akin to paying for an employer to throw other people's applications in the bin. Just? I think not.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Coercion is where the state enforces a law that is so pervasive it changes how people would otherwise act in its absence. Yes, it is definitely coercion.
    So basically any state other than an Anarchist state is carrying out loads of coercion against its people. Glad we have that one settled...
    OK, so your problems can be solved simply by banning what you believe is the source of the problem... totalitarianism at its finest.
    Who said I would have to ban it - all that would need to happen is for universities to do their job properly and remove the business case of private schools.
    It is not a "theft" of opportunity. You can't own opportunity - and actually, I don't believe in intellectual property, or any other form of abstract property.
    Actually you can own opportunity - you should check out some financial tools and instruments that do precisely that. Its kind of ironic you don't believe in intellectual property, quite a lot of people in private schools are there because of royalties earned from it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopping Mad Kangaroo)
    So basically any state other than an Anarchist state is carrying out loads of coercion against its people. Glad we have that one settled...
    I'm saying we should minimise coercion. Presumably you believe poverty to be a bad thing - in the same vein do you surely not believe that it would be impossible to eradicate poverty? Does that mean that you don't agree with any measure that reduces the amount of poverty?

    (Original post by Hopping Mad Kangaroo)
    Actually you can own opportunity - you should check out some financial tools and instruments that do precisely that. Its kind of ironic you don't believe in intellectual property, quite a lot of people in private schools are there because of royalties earned from it.
    Opportunity is abstract.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cognito)
    Yes but my point is not that there do not exist goods, but that if we are to judge them morally or politically we must distinguish between them.

    A sex slave is not a legitimate or legal good because it violates the rights of the individual.
    A place at a private school is not a legitimate good because it prejudices and corrupts the system of an institution which in a just society must itself be just.

    Paying for education privilege is akin to paying for an employer to throw other people's applications in the bin. Just? I think not.
    Anything that comes from a voluntary transaction cannot be morally unjust.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cognito)
    I'd like to pick you up on this notion of 'free transactions' as well.

    Even a minimal state would use coercion to stop certain transactions i.e paying assasins, selling people into slavery etc. There is no such thing as a just society that allows for completely free transactions.
    Equally a just society must have just institutions (for what is a society other than a complex of institutions?). If this is the case then the institution of education must be just also.
    Equally we already coerce to an extent within education. We decide what things children must learn, who can be teachers etc etc. Laissez faire states always encroach more than their advocates let on.
    Clearly paying for education for your child is comparable to slavery and hiring assassins.

    /end sarcasm.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopping Mad Kangaroo)
    So basically any state other than an Anarchist state is carrying out loads of coercion against its people. Glad we have that one settled...

    Who said I would have to ban it - all that would need to happen is for universities to do their job properly and remove the business case of private schools.

    Actually you can own opportunity - you should check out some financial tools and instruments that do precisely that. Its kind of ironic you don't believe in intellectual property, quite a lot of people in private schools are there because of royalties earned from it.
    You are wrong, you can't own opportunity. You can stick some measure on it and it might be fairly accurate, but its not quantitative and the figures you give it can only ever be an estimation.

    Seriously, you are just as bad as the people who say 'we don't want state schoolers at oxbridge' and other stupid prejudiced stuff. Discrimanations works both ways, and sorry but discriminatining against private schoolers is a hell of a double standard.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.