I used to think “fairness” in education was nothing but an anti-concept—a word thrown around to justify bad policy. The only reform I thought worth discussing was abolition. Then I read Ian Underwood’s Rethinking Fairness in Education and Stop Lying About Education Savings Accounts. These books completely redefined the term for me. Through sharp visuals, humor, and simple thought exercises, Ian cuts through the noise and shows how fairness can actually be discussed—even within a publicly funded system. You may not agree with every conclusion, but you won’t walk away unchanged.
I mean, are you not a little concerned you guys are having a conversation saying you don't want the stupids (and likely by extension, the poors) to vote? isn't that a little aristocratic? is that really a line we want to cross? or could this all likely be an indicator that the system of organization we have for ourselves as humanity isn't fit to purpose anymore.
Plenty of smart, rich people who are uneducated. This isn't about class or IQ, but if I'm being honest, no, I don't want illiterate, innumerate, or irrational people to vote--not least when 51% of them can literally vote away my rights.
You know, it's scary when taking peoples right to vote away becomes the RATIONAL choice. I see what you're saying. It's just... Something that we are in this position.
I wom’t support taking their vote AWAY, I just think we need to have a serious conversation about why voting matters sooooo much (too much), and how it’s no longer a republic we have but dualing tribal factions who are increasingly unwilling to coexist peacefully, such that voting literally is how they attempt to force submission.
We’re not in a good place and it’s bc of our education system.
You might want to consider page 16 of The Great Gatsby in this conversation about whether the rabble should have access to democracy or whom it's desirable to disenfranchise.
Meanwhile, no mention of the fact that lobbyists (and their money) speak louder right now than whole blocs of voters.
You’re making my case for me. Voting is too important and even then monied people can BUY influence, why? BC the state has access to our money and enough people who want them to keep having it.
No, I don't mind the state taxing me so that I might have access to roads, parks, schools, mail delivery, and clean water.
But the state hasn't enforced antitrust law since the '70s (Thanks, Bork and Friedman!), and the state enforces the moats around the monopolies that dominate every single industry right now, the same monopolies that abuse their workers, their customers, their advertisers, and their investors because they're so big they don't have to care. Even if they wreck the entire economy, they can just get bailouts.
Capitalists have never really liked competition, but now they have the resources to buy up the regulators, congress, and the courts; move fast, break things, and break people; and rig the whole dadgum economy till we're all living in a neofuedalistic dystopia where we all have to pay rent just to have our most basic needs met (and sometimes, in the case of slum lords, even get shafted on that).
And these billionaire plutocrats don't even see us as people; some think of us as disposable NPCs ("nonplayer characters"). But they do want to manipulate us such that we're more angry at each other (and groups of convenient scapegoats) than them for how rotten our lives are getting, but it might just be time to start working together (angry, fed-up people on the left and the right and in the middle) to build guillotines on certain billionaires lawns (See: We are capable of doing more than just tearing stuff down; we too can build stuff. Every billionaire should get a free glorious guillotine installed on their lawn and a free demonstration on how they should work!). And if they retreat to their bunkers, we can smoke them out.
We are not going to agree. Youndon’t mind being taxed for things that the state gets to define as it (and its corporate crimes) define them. “Schools” are not a thing you can define -- they’re defined FOR you. How’s that working out? You LITERALLY (and I am using the word correctly) cannot defend the results, so you cannot defend the coerced funding.
"Democracy" is for one purpose only: to get your enemies to submit peacefully to your will. Voting people into submission is what we have; it's why Dearborn looks (and sounds) like it does. It's why members of Congress can (again) be openly racist and suffer no negative consequence. It's why you feel like you MUST vote just to protect yourself from actual harm. In contrast, a republic, organized for the purpose of enforcing the ONE rule and only ONE rule that matters, no further discussion, no debate: YOU SHALL NOT BE AN AUTHORITARIAN INDIVIDUAL. You shall not violate anyone else's rights, and your rights are limited to what you can do to stay alive without violating anyone else's rights to do the same. You shall not even organize others to help you violate rights--and we know what that looks like, and representatives are held to the SAME standards. Most importantly--to maintain this--the rule above: a total separation of govt and the economy. Its ONLY purpose is to enforce The One Rule. We are SO far from being a "free" country, and yet still freer than the majority of the world, and losing that fast because we just have tribal warfare that is only peaceful bc people are still using voting rather than fists and bullets. We are holding on by a thread--as soon as there are enough people who don't even know what the Bill of Rights says, that thread will be broken. But keep sending your children to schools that teach them voting isn't good enough, and it won't be long before we are Balkanized for real--probably sooner than you think. And why do you "have to" send them, or at least pay for others to? BC 51% of your neighbors VOTED that you must.
I mean, are you not a little concerned you guys are having a conversation saying you don't want the stupids (and likely by extension, the poors) to vote? isn't that a little aristocratic? is that really a line we want to cross? or could this all likely be an indicator that the system of organization we have for ourselves as humanity isn't fit to purpose anymore.
Plenty of smart, rich people who are uneducated. This isn't about class or IQ, but if I'm being honest, no, I don't want illiterate, innumerate, or irrational people to vote--not least when 51% of them can literally vote away my rights.
You know, it's scary when taking peoples right to vote away becomes the RATIONAL choice. I see what you're saying. It's just... Something that we are in this position.
I wom’t support taking their vote AWAY, I just think we need to have a serious conversation about why voting matters sooooo much (too much), and how it’s no longer a republic we have but dualing tribal factions who are increasingly unwilling to coexist peacefully, such that voting literally is how they attempt to force submission.
We’re not in a good place and it’s bc of our education system.
You might want to consider page 16 of The Great Gatsby in this conversation about whether the rabble should have access to democracy or whom it's desirable to disenfranchise.
Meanwhile, no mention of the fact that lobbyists (and their money) speak louder right now than whole blocs of voters.
You’re making my case for me. Voting is too important and even then monied people can BUY influence, why? BC the state has access to our money and enough people who want them to keep having it.
No, I don't mind the state taxing me so that I might have access to roads, parks, schools, mail delivery, and clean water.
But the state hasn't enforced antitrust law since the '70s (Thanks, Bork and Friedman!), and the state enforces the moats around the monopolies that dominate every single industry right now, the same monopolies that abuse their workers, their customers, their advertisers, and their investors because they're so big they don't have to care. Even if they wreck the entire economy, they can just get bailouts.
Capitalists have never really liked competition, but now they have the resources to buy up the regulators, congress, and the courts; move fast, break things, and break people; and rig the whole dadgum economy till we're all living in a neofuedalistic dystopia where we all have to pay rent just to have our most basic needs met (and sometimes, in the case of slum lords, even get shafted on that).
And these billionaire plutocrats don't even see us as people; some think of us as disposable NPCs ("nonplayer characters"). But they do want to manipulate us such that we're more angry at each other (and groups of convenient scapegoats) than them for how rotten our lives are getting, but it might just be time to start working together (angry, fed-up people on the left and the right and in the middle) to build guillotines on certain billionaires lawns (See: We are capable of doing more than just tearing stuff down; we too can build stuff. Every billionaire should get a free glorious guillotine installed on their lawn and a free demonstration on how they should work!). And if they retreat to their bunkers, we can smoke them out.
Huzzah! That should help fix the problem.
We are not going to agree. Youndon’t mind being taxed for things that the state gets to define as it (and its corporate crimes) define them. “Schools” are not a thing you can define -- they’re defined FOR you. How’s that working out? You LITERALLY (and I am using the word correctly) cannot defend the results, so you cannot defend the coerced funding.
Posted this earlier on X:
Owl of Athena
@owl_elc
"Democracy" is for one purpose only: to get your enemies to submit peacefully to your will. Voting people into submission is what we have; it's why Dearborn looks (and sounds) like it does. It's why members of Congress can (again) be openly racist and suffer no negative consequence. It's why you feel like you MUST vote just to protect yourself from actual harm. In contrast, a republic, organized for the purpose of enforcing the ONE rule and only ONE rule that matters, no further discussion, no debate: YOU SHALL NOT BE AN AUTHORITARIAN INDIVIDUAL. You shall not violate anyone else's rights, and your rights are limited to what you can do to stay alive without violating anyone else's rights to do the same. You shall not even organize others to help you violate rights--and we know what that looks like, and representatives are held to the SAME standards. Most importantly--to maintain this--the rule above: a total separation of govt and the economy. Its ONLY purpose is to enforce The One Rule. We are SO far from being a "free" country, and yet still freer than the majority of the world, and losing that fast because we just have tribal warfare that is only peaceful bc people are still using voting rather than fists and bullets. We are holding on by a thread--as soon as there are enough people who don't even know what the Bill of Rights says, that thread will be broken. But keep sending your children to schools that teach them voting isn't good enough, and it won't be long before we are Balkanized for real--probably sooner than you think. And why do you "have to" send them, or at least pay for others to? BC 51% of your neighbors VOTED that you must.
I'm fixing the editing issues and will be re-uploading a corrected version shortly! Sorry!
Oops! Editing goof! Sorry
There was ONE extra "ado" LOL