John Edwards calls for mandatory military service

[Geogaddi]

"One of the things we ought to be thinking about is some level of mandatory service to our country, so that everybody in America _ not just the poor kids who get sent to war _ are serving this country,"

He also called for a war protest on Memorial day, which pissed off a lot of veterans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/21/AR2007052100866.html

 

[Absinthe]

He said some level of mandatory service, not necessarily military. It's difficult to attack or defend that quote because there's no idea what he's talking about. Paying your taxes could be construed as service. =\

 

[brink's]

His heart is in the right place........i guess.

 

[Ennui]

I expect it's more of a way to make a point than something to be taken seriously, since that won't happen - he's just trying to say that the underprivledged shouldn't be the ones fighting the war.

 

[Geogaddi]

True enough he didn't say military, but he did mention war right in the middle of the quote.

I wish there was more context to go with the quote. Meh.

It's still eyebrow raising promote mandatory anything.

 

[repiV]

How do poor kids "get sent to war"?
First of all, kids don't go to war, and secondly, how can anybody get "sent" to war in an all-volunteer military?
And why is his solution to drag everybody down to the lowest common denominator? Total bullshitting idiot.

Now, there is some merit in national service, although I don't agree with it - but it has absolutely jack shit to do with effectively punishing more privileged members of society.

 

[Geogaddi]

Poor kids get sent to war because they can't afford college and military is their only viable option.

 

[Qonfused]

If he advocates the draft, he won't win the election.

 

[Adabiviak]

I suppose if everyone had to do mandatory service in the military (not necessarily front line material, and keep in mind that this makes an assumption on the context of his quote), a lot more people would be doing constructive protests/votes against the war (or any, for that matter) and would at least pay serious attention to what's going on over there. Because it is technically a 'volunteer' service, it's easy to dismiss it as such.

 

[repiV]

Poor kids get sent to war because they can't afford college and military is their only viable option.

Bullshit.
I didn't go to university, and that was a choice. I have plenty of options besides the military.

Although your response really just highlights the whole hypocrisy. Socialism isn't about helping the poor, it's about bringing everyone down to their level. Not everyone can be well off so noone should be.

 

[Solaris]

I feel an obligation as a Socialist to jump in here although I don't want to see the thread derailed.

Socialism is about creating an equality of opportunity, so no-one is prevented from decent education or health care becuase of the socio-economic status of their parents.

 

[repiV]

No, capitalism is about equality of opportunity.
Socialism is about equality of outcomes.

 

[Gray Fox]

I'm against sending anything but a volunteer army in a warzone especially front line to fight a war.

But I'm pro military service. It instill good discipline and independence. I wouldn't like it to be like as brutal as the voluntary army training. But exercises in teamwork, discipline, safe handling of firearms, construction, field medicine would be useful psychically as wel as mentally.

 

[repiV]

I'm against sending anything but a volunteer army in a warzone especially front line to fight a war.

But I'm pro military service. It instill good discipline and independence. I wouldn't like it to be like as brutal as the voluntary army training. But exercises in teamwork, discipline, safe handling of firearms, construction, field medicine would be useful psychically as wel as mentally.

While in some respects I completely agree with you, I can't condone it as I consider it a fundamental breach of civil liberties. It's essentially paid slavery, no matter how pretty a bow you put round it.
You need to look beyond the equation of military service = good young citizens, and find what it is about that military service that makes people respectable. It probably has something to do with responsibility, duty and discipline - things all lacking from our entitlement-obsessed PC culture.
Bring back responsibility, duty and self-discipline and you will fix this problem. There are many methods of doing so.

 

[No Limit]

Bullshit.
I didn't go to university, and that was a choice. I have plenty of options besides the military.

Although your response really just highlights the whole hypocrisy. Socialism isn't about helping the poor, it's about bringing everyone down to their level. Not everyone can be well off so noone should be.

Grow the **** up.

Many in the military come from shitty backgrounds. Wether they were poor and were stuck at a dead end job or they came from not a very nobel past.

In many ways I was a **** up as a kid and had friends that were even bigger **** ups. Their only way out was to go to the military, I was fortunate enough to be able to get a good job. I had 3 close friends in the marines, 1 that came back ****ed up after 3 out 4 people people riding in a humvee with him died in an accident, he was the 4th and only one to survive. These guys didn't go into the military to go and fight a nobel war for their country, they went there to get out of the shit hole they were living in, and frankly it worked. The military is a great way out of a shitty life, but don't sit here and pretend rich kids with wonderful lives go in there all the time to fight for their country.

Edwards has a great point. And if we talked about mandatory service in this country maybe people would finally wake up and pay attention to what is going on. And if that happened I can promise you we would never be suckered into a voluntary war based on lies again.

 

[No Limit]

No, capitalism is about equality of opportunity.
Socialism is about equality of outcomes.

I can do that too. I don't have to address any of your points, instead just say:

No. Socialism good. Capitalism bad.

Now your turn to say no Capitalism good, socialism bad. Go for it.

Capitalism is based on letting the market run totally unregulated. This has been happening for the last 7 years, how has it worked out for this country? E coli break outs, medicines being pulled off the shelf because they made your heart explode, jobs getting outsourced by record numbers.

For those 7 years the poor have gotten poorer and rich have gotten richer, wonderful system.

 

[repiV]

Grow the **** up.

Many in the military come from shitty backgrounds. Wether they were poor and were stuck at a dead end job or they came from not a very nobel past.

In many ways I was a **** up as a kid and had friends that were even bigger **** ups. Their only way out was to go to the military, I was fortunate enough to be able to get a good job. I had 3 close friends in the marines, 1 that came back ****ed up after 3 out 4 people people riding in a humvee with him died in an accident, he was the 4th and only one to survive. These guys didn't go into the military to go and fight a nobel war for their country, they went there to get out of the shit hole they were living in, and frankly it worked. The military is a great way out of a shitty life, but don't sit here and pretend rich kids with wonderful lives go in there all the time to fight for their country.

So ****ing what?
They still chose to join. They weren't "sent" to war. If they were stuck in dead end jobs, then that's because they were incapable of doing anything better, not because they were poor.
People join the military for all sorts of ****ing reasons. It's not a last resort for the unfortunate and underprivileged. I would be in the military, if I could pass the medical. I'd like nothing more.

Edwards has a great point. And if we talked about mandatory service in this country maybe people would finally wake up and pay attention to what is going on. And if that happened I can promise you we would never be suckered into a voluntary war based on lies again.

Right, so you go on some immature rant about how the poor have such restricted lives they're FORCED to join the military, which is terrible. Then you follow it up by supporting the idea of actually forcing EVERYONE to join the military. Such a viewpoint could only be borne from the idea of wanting to get revenge on the successful. An extremely childish perspective.
You're a complete and utter bullshit artist with not a logical cell in your brain. Grow up - you're the one who needs to.

 

[repiV]

I can do that too. I don't have to address any of your points, instead just say.

No. Socialism good. Capitalism bad.

Now your turn to say no Capitalism good, socialism bad. Go for it.

I didn't say anything about good or bad. You're acting like a petulant child again.
If you can't comprehend the simple fact that capitalism allows free scope for people to achieve whatever they are capable of and socialism tries to make everyone the same, then you don't deserve the right to vote.

 

[No Limit]

I didn't say anything about good or bad. You're acting like a petulant child again.
If you can't comprehend the simple fact that capitalism allows free scope for people to achieve whatever they are capable of and socialism tries to make everyone the same, then you don't deserve the right to vote.

So that's it, all those poor people out there are poor because they don't want to be rich. And I'm the one that shouldn't be allowed to vote .

 

[repiV]

So that's it, all those poor people out there are poor because they don't want to be rich. And I'm the one that shouldn't be allowed to vote .

Did I say that?
No, mostly they're poor because they're incapable of being rich and don't have any valuable service to offer that people are willing to pay lots of money for.
Do the world a favour and shut the **** up and return to your hiding place - at least Solaris is a nice guy who's (mostly) nice to talk to. You're just an immature prick.

 

[No Limit]

So ****ing what?
They still chose to join. They weren't "sent" to war. If they were stuck in dead end jobs, then that's because they were incapable of doing anything better, not because they were poor.
People join the military for all sorts of ****ing reasons. It's not a last resort for the unfortunate and underprivileged. I would be in the military, if I could pass the medical. I'd like nothing more.

And recruiters mostly set up in poor city districts across low income high schools because everyone out there, no matter how much money they make, is jumping to get on board with the military.

There are certainly exceptions, but the army isn't stupid, they know exactly where most of their force comes from.

Right, so you go on some immature rant about how the poor have such restricted lives they're FORCED to join the military, which is terrible. Then you follow it up by supporting the idea of actually forcing EVERYONE to join the military. Such a viewpoint could only be borne from the idea of wanting to get revenge on the successful. An extremely childish perspective.
You're a complete and utter bullshit artist with not a logical cell in your brain. Grow up - you're the one who needs to.

Where did I say EVERYONE was forced to join the military if they were poor. Once again you totally missed my point. The point is if there was a chance that you could be forced to go into the military you would take a much deeper look at why we are going into war. You wouldn't hear bullshit talking points, such as "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" from kids that are faced with the possibility of going to war. How am I wrong in saying that? No where in my prior post or this post am I actually for this option, but I am telling you that there is a valid reason behind supporting this.

 

[No Limit]

Did I say that?
No, mostly they're poor because they're incapable of being rich and don't have any valuable service to offer that people are willing to pay lots of money for.
Do the world a favour and shut the **** up and return to your hiding place - at least Solaris is a nice guy who's (mostly) nice to talk to. You're just an immature prick.

You're the one that called out Geogaddi, I just wanted to defend him. You live in the UK, don't you? Therefore you know very little about the people that join the US military. I know what kind of people join there from my own personal experiance and from the fact that I see where recruiting stations in this city are set up, they weren't put in those parts of the city by accident. And I promise you that there is a poll out there somewhere that backs this up.

 

[No Limit]

Did I say that?
No, mostly they're poor because they're incapable of being rich and don't have any valuable service to offer that people are willing to pay lots of money for.

And what would you say makes them incapable of being rich? From what I understand from capitalists is that we are all born equal with the ability to succeed. And that our backgrounds shouldn't have anything to do with it (I wish someone told the people in Sudan of this).

 

[CptStern]

Did I say that?
No, mostly they're poor because they're incapable of being rich and don't have any valuable service to offer that people are willing to pay lots of money for.

do you truely believe that opportunity is the same across the board? so a person who can barely afford to feed his family has the same opportunity to send his children to medical school as the child of a professional? could you afford to feed/clothe/house a family? how would you give your children an opportunity for a higher education if you cant support a family? even if you made a decent living it's no comparison to a family that can afford a $700/week at a montesorri preschool ..at some point you will be unable to compete with other families, I can guarentee it ..you live in this completely clinical vacuum where everything you know/say reeks of the newly graduated from some post secondary institution where you absorbed far more theory than practicality

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Owned.

 

[repiV]

And recruiters mostly set up in poor city districts across low income high schools because everyone out there, no matter how much money they make, is jumping to get on board with the military.

There are certainly exceptions, but the army isn't stupid, they know exactly where most of their force comes from.

Maybe that's because the military offers some of the best opportunities for those without specialist talents available?
Market forces would skew the figures in favour of people on low incomes, as an engineer will make far more money in the private sector than they would in the military. Joe Average will get a superb opportunity to learn and develop in the military that won't be available to them anywhere else. It's a no brainer, really. Certainly noone is being "sent" to the military or forced in. People join because it's attractive.
Why would it be common for people with a bright future in investment banking, law or something like that to join the military? The payscale on offer is far below that available in the higher end of the private sector. If military wages were double what they are now, things would be very different.
Also, the vast majority of people who have been in the military are very glad to have done it and very proud of what they have done. So your humanitarian slant doesn't fly.

Where did I say EVERYONE was forced to join the military if they were poor. Once again you totally missed my point. The point is if there was a chance that you could be forced to go into the military you would take a much deeper look at why we are going into war. You wouldn't hear bullshit talking points, such as "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" from kids that are faced with the possibility of going to war. How am I wrong in saying that? No where in my prior post or this post am I actually for this option, but I am telling you that there is a valid reason behind supporting this.

I also said there is a valid reason behind it, but it has nothing to do with turning the youth into anti-war eco-nuts.
That's not necessarily a bullshit talking point - yes, 99% of people who say it don't have a clue about what they're on about and just say it because it's trendy. But if Iran, Al Qaeda etc. weren't busy feeding the fire in Iraq, they would have a lot more resources to focus elsewhere. So there is some truth to it.

 

[repiV]

You're the one that called out Geogaddi, I just wanted to defend him. You live in the UK, don't you? Therefore you know very little about the people that join the US military. I know what kind of people join there from my own personal experiance and from the fact that I see where recruiting stations in this city are set up, they weren't put in those parts of the city by accident. And I promise you that there is a poll out there somewhere that backs this up.

I'm sure the "type of people" that join the US military has as much to do with culture as with economics. US working class culture is very conservative...middle-class culture less so. Most people in the US military are Republicans.

 

[repiV]

And what would you say makes them incapable of being rich? From what I understand from capitalists is that we are all born equal with the ability to succeed. And that our backgrounds shouldn't have anything to do with it (I wish someone told the people in Sudan of this).

Of course we're not born equal. Socialism is a disaster precisely because it tries to defy that fact. Capitalism allows people to find their natural level within society - the excellent will excel, the average will plod along and the useless will fail. Socialism relegates everyone to a low quality of life, and so long as resources are limited it always will.
Capitalism is the only fair way we have of distributing finite resources.

 

[repiV]

do you truely believe that opportunity is the same across the board? so a person who can barely afford to feed his family has the same opportunity to send his children to medical school as the child of a professional? could you afford to feed/clothe/house a family? how would you give your children an opportunity for a higher education if you cant support a family? even if you made a decent living it's no comparison to a family that can afford a $700/week at a montesorri preschool ..at some point you will be unable to compete with other families, I can guarentee it ..you live in this completely clinical vacuum where everything you know/say reeks of the newly graduated from some post secondary institution where you absorbed far more theory than practicality

So you point to inadequacies in the state funded system that people with money quite rightly compensate for in order to justify yet more state control?
That's a bit of a non-starter if you ask me.
What is your argument exactly, that we should prevent the wealthy from paying for services that are superior in quality to the state-funded alternatives, despite the fact that they would be paying more for those than the poor anyway and not even using them?

 

[Sulkdodds]

It's true to say that socialism is based on equality of outcomes. That is, in fact, the whole point of it. It is probably also true to say that capitalism as a deliberate ideology is based on equality of opportunity - on freedom, and thus self-determination. Whether it achieves this is arguable, and in fact I would say capitalism possesses the strange trait of debalancing itself. If its aim is to give all an equal chance in life it very quickly conspires to defeat its own goals. My view is that a mixed economy is the way to mitigate this while retaining the advantages that the system confers.

I specified 'capitalism as a deliberate ideology' above because we have to make a distinction: where socialism is a system concieved originally to make society better, perhaps mistakenly, capitalism is one that emerges organically and whose main driving factor is initially greed and self-interest only. It is only since its emergence that ideological justifications for it have been sought, or even its precepts turned into an ideology and adopted to all walks of life (hi Thatcher!).

I think that using the military is a tool of social levelling is a bad idea. Yes, recruiters deliberately target people down the social spectrum and the military is deliberately made attractive to people who are unlikely to otherwise get a job. But in the absence of actual conscription I think it's silly to say 'the poor are sent to war'. It was true in Vietnam. It is not true now. I'm never reluctant to argue that capitalism, pupporting to offer freedom or choice, forces people down certain routes for quite arbitrary reasons - but not being in America I have no idea the extent to which the military is "the only viable option". That's certainly not true here, though the armed forces do their best to make themselves attractive.

I can see war being less likely if everyone had a stake and a risk in it but the problem here is that the current war de jour - Iraq - was initially popular enough with the populace anyway, and started by a regime that won a majority election (okay, the first one is debateable, but the second one he won and that was after the war was started).

You could also say that mandatory military service creates an armed and trained populace who will find it easier to rebel if they ever need to. But that's a little dubious, I think.

It's much more interesting around here these days; where once every debate quickly turned into bullshit 'liberal' v 'conservative' talking points, every debate now turns into market v socialism, which is a lot more interesting, more relevant and closer to political reality.

Capitalism allows people to find their natural level within society - the excellent will excel, the average will plod along and the useless will fail.

I have to say I think this is an absurd statement. Quite apart from the extent to which people are or are not controlled by their inherent characteristics (I maintain that people can change, change themselves, and improve themselves), there is the fact that for this to be true, capitalism needs to be extensively augmented, or else it destabilises itself. The first generation that adopts capitalism might begin equal; the second will not.

 

[CptStern]

So you point to inadequacies in the state funded system that people with money quite rightly compensate for in order to justify yet more state control?

ummm once again you're putting words in my mouth ..I said nothing of the sort ..my comments were clearly focused on your notion that everyone has the same opportunity; you're purposefully tip toeing around what you said by putting words in my mouth ...most likely because you recognise how utterly generalized and rediculous your statement was ..a bigger man would have owned up to it and rectified the mistake ..you just ignore it

That's a bit of a non-starter if you ask me.
What is your argument exactly, that we should prevent the wealthy from paying for services that are superior in quality to the state-funded alternatives, despite the fact that they would be paying more for those than the poor anyway and not even using them?

ya that would be the crazy interpretation of what I said, mostly because you pulled it out of the thin air ..not once did I say what they should or shouldnt do ..you just assumed ..again you're putting words in my mouth. You're quite good at avoiding your own generalizations by redirecting the statements by giving them meaning that was never intended ..but I see all through that ...again you said EVERYONE has the same opportunity ..I said BOLLOCKS and you reply by jumping into another unrelated tangent

 

[Sulkdodds]

[are you saying] that we should prevent the wealthy from paying for services that are superior in quality to the state-funded alternatives?

Absolutely. When said 'services' are fundamental to the creation of a level playing field (equality of opportunity) where people really can excel or fail by their own merits, it is absolutely unacceptable that they are not provided equally to everyone. It is wrong that people with rich parents should get a head start at the expense of people with poor parents.

'At the expense' is important because with, say, private schooling, we are not merely talking about the freedom of the rich to give their children a better chance - because that better chance actually detracts from the chances of others. It is the law of the market; for there to be a winner there must be a loser. Rich people may pass on their fortune to their young; fine, we might say, but must poor people pass on their lack of fortune? We cannot allow a better option when the very existence of the better option - private schooling, for example - causes the other option to be 'the worse'.

That is not about bringing everybody down to the lowest level, but bringing the levels together - because the highest level pushes the lowest lower. It may not even be about bringing them together 'in the middle' because the very nature of things like private schooling mean they concentrate the higher level and create artificial scarcity. They monopolise the higher level. The higher level becomes inaccessable, available only to a disprorportionately small amount of people. This is as true with (say) the situation of medical insurance in the US as it is with private schooling in the UK.

Note that I don't really believe social policies such as benefits to the poor really matter that much here.

Surely the most significant way in which coming from a poor background limits one's future is in limiting one's educational possibilities. In Brighton where I live until very recently the upper middle-class monopolised the good schools by moving into the (expensive) houses in the catchment area. Meanwhile, the school which provided a real beacon for the impoverished neighbourhood in which it stood was closed down. Turned into offices, I think.

And note that it's not just a matter of 'the poor being limited'. Capitalism does not just make things harder for the disadvantaged; it makes things easier for the advantaged. The difference between a 'good' school and a 'bad' school - that is usually in this country a school with affluent patrons and a school with poor patrons - is that in the bad school, one must really excel to get out with good results; in the good school, one must merely be competent. The system of capitalism helps out its middle class by ensuring that even those of them who are perfectly mundane, perfectly small-minded, may gain a good position in society by learning by rote, by being in the right place and memorising a lot of figures. Without meaning to diminish the genuine ability of these people - though in my experience they are generally awful - is part of the function of the medical profession, of accountancy, of dentistry, many other things: if you are in the right place you might float like hot air into a comfortable life.

The extent to which professional classes operate a closed shop is also extremely alarming, but I don't have the stats with me right now.

In any case, both of these are part of the wider way in which the reality of capitalism gives the lie to the somewhat idealistic idea that the cream rises to the top and the dregs stay rightly at the bottom.

That assertion, among other things, is an invitation to a false complacency; it is the modern Providence.

 

[repiV]

It's true to say that socialism is based on equality of outcomes. That is, in fact, the whole point of it. It is probably also true to say that capitalism as a deliberate ideology is based on equality of opportunity - on freedom, and thus self-determination. Whether it achieves this is arguable, and in fact I would say capitalism possesses the strange trait of debalancing itself. If its aim is to give all an equal chance in life it very quickly conspires to defeat its own goals. My view is that a mixed economy is the way to mitigate this while retaining the advantages that the system confers.

I specified 'capitalism as a deliberate ideology' above because we have to make a distinction: where socialism is a system concieved originally to make society better, perhaps mistakenly, capitalism is one that emerges organically and whose main driving factor is initially greed and self-interest only. It is only since its emergence that ideological justifications for it have been sought, or even its precepts turned into an ideology and adopted to all walks of life (hi Thatcher!).

I think that using the military is a tool of social levelling is a bad idea. Yes, recruiters deliberately target people down the social spectrum and the military is deliberately made attractive to people who are unlikely to otherwise get a job. But in the absence of actual conscription I think it's silly to say 'the poor are sent to war'. It was true in Vietnam. It is not true now. I'm never reluctant to argue that capitalism, pupporting to offer freedom or choice, forces people down certain routes for quite arbitrary reasons - but not being in America I have no idea the extent to which the military is "the only viable option". That's certainly not true here, though the armed forces do their best to make themselves attractive.

I can see war being less likely if everyone had a stake and a risk in it but the problem here is that the current war de jour - Iraq - was initially popular enough with the populace anyway, and started by a regime that won a majority election (okay, the first one is debateable, but the second one he won and that was after the war was started).

You could also say that mandatory military service creates an armed and trained populace who will find it easier to rebel if they ever need to. But that's a little dubious, I think.

It's much more interesting around here these days; where once every debate quickly turned into bullshit 'liberal' v 'conservative' talking points, every debate now turns into market v socialism, which is a lot more interesting, more relevant and closer to political reality.

Of course there are plenty of uncontrollable variables within a capitalist environment, you have to bear in mind that the market economy is about lack of control. So anything could happen. Individuals and individual groups make things happen. The only way to force a desired result is for a powerful government to intervene, and a government that is strong enough to give you everything you want is also strong enough to take everything you have.
It's been said that leadership is the art of making things possible, and management is the art of making things happen. Capitalist governments are leaders, and socialist governments are managers. I don't want my life managed.

I have to say I think this is an absurd statement. Quite apart from the extent to which people are or are not controlled by their inherent characteristics (I maintain that people can change, change themselves, and improve themselves), there is the fact that for this to be true, capitalism needs to be extensively augmented, or else it destabilises itself. The first generation that adopts capitalism might begin equal; the second will not.

I wasn't referring to people's inherent characteristics alone. Of course people can change and improve, and capitalism rewards people for doing that.
Some successful people are talented and magic happens when they touch things. Others aren't particularly, but they work bloody hard and make a good life for themselves anyway. Of course things are easier for some than others, but if you want something enough, you'll get at least part of the way there.
Of course, the ultra-successful are both of these things.
Socialism just drags everyone down to the lowest possible level - it's more about envy and jealousy than anything else, and it doesn't make anybody better off.

 

[repiV]

ummm once again you're putting words in my mouth ..I said nothing of the sort ..my comments were clearly focused on your notion that everyone has the same opportunity; you're purposefully tip toeing around what you said by putting words in my mouth ...most likely because you recognise how utterly generalized and rediculous your statement was ..a bigger man would have owned up to it and rectified the mistake ..you just ignore it

I didn't say "everyone has the same opportunity". Obviously market forces give better opportunities to people that can afford them, but that's just bloody life. Tough shit. It didn't stop Richard Branson becoming a billionaire after leaving school at 14. I don't have any sympathy for people with one excuse after another for why they suck. If you want it, make it happen.

ya that would be the crazy interpretation of what I said, mostly because you pulled it out of the thin air ..not once did I say what they should or shouldnt do ..you just assumed ..again you're putting words in my mouth. You're quite good at avoiding your own generalizations by redirecting the statements by giving them meaning that was never intended ..but I see all through that ...again you said EVERYONE has the same opportunity ..I said BOLLOCKS and you reply by jumping into another unrelated tangent

So what is your point?
"Oh no, it's teh unfair!!!111"
So what do you propose to do about it? The irony is this inequality exists because the state-funded services are inadequate. Not a good argument for socialism.

 

[repiV]

Absolutely. When said 'services' are fundamental to the creation of a level playing field (equality of opportunity) where people really can excel or fail by their own merits, it is absolutely unacceptable that they are not provided equally to everyone. It is wrong that people with rich parents should get a head start at the expense of people with poor parents.

'At the expense' is important because with, say, private schooling, we are not merely talking about the freedom of the rich to give their children a better chance - because that better chance actually detracts from the chances of others. It is the law of the market; for there to be a winner there must be a loser. Rich people may pass on their fortune to their young; fine, we might say, but must poor people pass on their lack of fortune? We cannot allow a better option when the very existence of the better option - private schooling, for example - causes the other option to be 'the worse'.

Sorry, I can't agree. You can't force people to accept an inferior education because others don't have access to it, despite the fact that they are paying a lot of money for the state education they will never receive.
The only rational solution is to improve state education so that private schooling isn't necessary. Bring back grammar schools, instead of this one-size-fits-all bollocks that leaves everyone with a bad education just so that they can be seen to be "fair".

That is not about bringing everybody down to the lowest level, but bringing the levels together - because the highest level pushes the lowest lower. It may not even be about bringing them together 'in the middle' because the very nature of things like private schooling mean they concentrate the higher level and create artificial scarcity. They monopolise the higher level. The higher level becomes inaccessable, available only to a disprorportionately small amount of people. This is as true with (say) the situation of medical insurance in the US as it is with private schooling in the UK.

Note that I don't really believe social policies such as benefits to the poor really matter that much here.

Surely the most significant way in which coming from a poor background limits one's future is in limiting one's educational possibilities. In Brighton where I live until very recently the upper middle-class monopolised the good schools by moving into the (expensive) houses in the catchment area. Meanwhile, the school which provided a real beacon for the impoverished neighbourhood in which it stood was closed down. Turned into offices, I think.

And note that it's not just a matter of 'the poor being limited'. Capitalism does not just make things harder for the disadvantaged; it makes things easier for the advantaged. The difference between a 'good' school and a 'bad' school - that is usually in this country a school with affluent patrons and a school with poor patrons - is that in the bad school, one must really excel to get out with good results; in the good school, one must merely be competent. The system of capitalism helps out its middle class by ensuring that even those of them who are perfectly mundane, perfectly small-minded, may gain a good position in society by learning by rote, by being in the right place and memorising a lot of figures. Without meaning to diminish the genuine ability of these people - though in my experience they are generally awful - is part of the function of the medical profession, of accountancy, of dentistry, many other things: if you are in the right place you might float like hot air into a comfortable life.

The extent to which professional classes operate a closed shop is also extremely alarming, but I don't have the stats with me right now.

In any case, both of these are part of the wider way in which the reality of capitalism gives the lie to the somewhat idealistic idea that the cream rises to the top and the dregs stay rightly at the bottom.

That assertion, among other things, is an invitation to a false complacency; it is the modern Providence.

You can't just ban people from seeking education outside of the state provision, that's absurd. The fact that people do so merely highlights how poor the state system is. Bring back grammar schools and there wouldn't even be an issue.
Granted, capitalism may allow the incompetent to rise slightly higher than their natural level, but the cream will always rise to the top. By virtue of being the cream, they will demolish all obstacles in the path to their goal. But no matter how rich you are, you won't hold down a good job if you aren't any good at it.
In sales it doesn't matter for shit what accent you have or where you come from (well it does, but it depends on what you're selling - some companies look out for people who are rough around the edges, a bit cockney etc. because it's the right image for their product). If you're good, you'll be rich and have freedom of the job market. If you're bad, you won't last a week. Doesn't matter how privileged you are.

 

[CptStern]

I didn't say "everyone has the same opportunity". Obviously market forces give better opportunities to people that can afford them, but that's just bloody life. Tough shit. It didn't stop Richard Branson becoming a billionaire after leaving school at 14. I don't have any sympathy for people with one excuse after another for why they suck. If you want it, make it happen.

yes because not haing $40,000 a year for medical school is an excuse ...I guess you only have yourself to blame when you cant send your kids to that exclusive preschool, or that private school in france or a private tutor or worse yet because of your non-affluence you'll have no choice but to live in a part of the city that will GUARENTEE your kids will grow up with crime/poverty/social ills ..but why blame the rich for what you dont have? ..chin up and MAKE it happen ..cant afford $700 a week? get another job ..or send your kids to one of those cheap preschools that are more baby sitting than educational and hope for the best ..but for gods sakes dont blame the rich, blame yourself for not working 3 jobs just so your kids could go to a $700/wk preschool ..only trouble is that they'll be emotionally stunted as a result of never seeing their father who's too busy working 3 jobs

and no money doesnt just afford better opportunities ..if offers opportunities PERIOD ..no one would ever argue that Bush became president through his own merits ..I mean he's a failure as a business man and is as dumb as a post ..without daddy's influence/money GW would be pushing burgers like every other man on the street with his same level of intelligence


tell me, still live with your parents? do you won your own house? these are all impedements to your child's/family's future ..you will never no matter how many overtime hours you put in make enough money to compete with those in the top tier ..your kids will NEVER have those opportunities

and branson isnt a good example ..richard branson is a business man ..he wouldnt have been as successful had he taken up medicine or law

So what is your point?
"Oh no, it's teh unfair!!!111"
So what do you propose to do about it?

yes take the mature route: "so what you gonna do about it! durrr" that's your answer to my statements? you continually avoid issues by either putting words into your opponents mouths or acting the part of the asshole with a chip on his shoulder

..fancy education isnt the be all and end all of child development ..after all I'd rather my kids not sound like you after the graduate: all theory no practicallity, good luck coping with the real world

The irony is this inequality exists because the state-funded services are inadequate. Not a good argument for socialism.

yes probably because we spend an inordinate amount of money on stupid things like imperialism and not enough on things that actually make a real world difference like proper education for everyone

 

[Gunner]

I'm surprised no one mentioned Israel in this thread yet. They have mandatory military service because they need it. Does the USA need it?

 

[repiV]

yes because not haing $40,000 a year for medical school is an excuse ...I guess you only have yourself to blame when you cant send your kids to that exclusive preschool, or that private school in france or a private tutor or worse yet because of your non-affluence you'll have no choice but to live in a part of the city that wqill GUARENTEE your kids will grow up with crime/poverty/social ills ..but why blame the rich for what you dont have dont have ..chin up and MAKE it happen ..cant afford $700 a week? get another job ..or send your kids to one of those cheap preschools that are more baby sitting than educational

If they can't get a scholarship for medical school and can't afford it then I guess they'll have to choose a different profession until they can get in, won't they?
Just because they can't in this instance follow their dream doesn't mean they can't lead a fulfilling life. Most people don't get to follow their dreams, me included. That's just life.

tell me, still live with your parents? do you won your own house? these are all impedements to your child's/family's future ..you will never no matter how many overtime hours you put in make enough money to compete with those in the top tier ..your kids will NEVER have those opportunities

Then get a better job or start your own business?
In my line of work, you get paid for how good you are, not how many hours you work. And you don't need any qualifications either.

and branson isnt a good example ..richard branson is a business man ..he wouldnt have been as successful had he taken up medicine or law

No shit. So why don't more people become businessmen?
Am I supposed to slit my wrists because people can't always get paid the money they want for the work they want to do?

yes take the mature route: "so what you gonna do about it! durrr" that's your answer to my statements? you continually avoid issues by either putting words into your opponents mouths or acting the part of the asshole with a chip on his shoulder

If you don't have a solution, then your feelings on the matter are totally irrelevant.

..fancy education isnt the be all and end all of child development ..after all I'd rather my kids not sound like you after the graduate: all theory no practicallity, good luck coping with the real world

You're right, it isn't.
All theory no practicality? Bullshit. I didn't go to university, I even missed three years of high school. I was in such dire poverty we used to take it in turns to eat crappy food from a single bowl, and lived in a horrendously bad council estate. Didn't stop me going where I want to go, because I don't take the easy route and blame it all on "the man".
Don't talk to me about realism.
Also, if I'm all theory and no practicality, why did I pick a career that is all practicality and no theory? Where if you stop to think about what you're doing, you're told to get the **** on with it and make some money.

yes probably because we spend an inordinate amount of money on stupid things like imperialism and not enough on things that actually make a real world difference like proper education for everyone

So why are you arguing for more state control, when evidently the state is the most incompetent and inefficient method of accomplishing anything?
If you want good education for everyone, then schools should be privately operated (with the freedom of choice that comes with having so many options) and the government should provide means-tested funding and scholarships for education.

 

[Sidewinder]

lol stern thinks med school is the only way of being successful.
my dad makes 130k a year with basic High School education,so spare us with that socialism crap,if you want something here in the states you can make it,you just have to give a %120.

 

[No Limit]

Maybe that's because the military offers some of the best opportunities for those without specialist talents available?
Market forces would skew the figures in favour of people on low incomes, as an engineer will make far more money in the private sector than they would in the military. Joe Average will get a superb opportunity to learn and develop in the military that won't be available to them anywhere else. It's a no brainer, really. Certainly noone is being "sent" to the military or forced in. People join because it's attractive.
Why would it be common for people with a bright future in investment banking, law or something like that to join the military? The payscale on offer is far below that available in the higher end of the private sector. If military wages were double what they are now, things would be very different.
Also, the vast majority of people who have been in the military are very glad to have done it and very proud of what they have done. So your humanitarian slant doesn't fly.

I can't believe you just said most people in the military are republicans. Where the hell do people get this bullshit from? The political split around the military is the same as in other sectors. Don't believe me then you can look it up, I don't have time to do your homework for you.

You just said that the military is very attractive for people living on low income, then why in the hell did you attack me earlier for saying the exact same thing? Yes, there are exceptions, but for the most part people that join the military come from a poor background. This is the whole point you got so pissy about earlier and that point is that the poor are fighting our wars. If rich people made up a large part of the military the way we went into wars would be totally different.