<p>I still have to admit, I'm offended by your statements in which you make the "rich" (supposedly those with incomes of 100000 and up) seem lazy, ungrateful, and undeserving. I know plenty of people with that kind of income who are kind, hardworking, and who love helping other people. What is so wrong with them that you find it necessary to insult them? Well, and me I suppose.</p>
<p>I'm mainly upset by the fact that you claim rich kids get into college automatically. Actually, I've been told that as a white female from a wealthy New England town I have the WORST shot at getting into college because colleges EXPECT me to have an AMAZING talent or volunteer thing or EC or athletic endeavor. They EXPECT rich kids to go above and beyond because of their opportunity. They demand an SAT score up to 400 points less from an inner-city Hispanic, African-American, or immigrant kid and allow for much less rigor in course schedule. Meanwhile, I'm up until 2am every night with 4 AP classes and got a near-perfect SAT and have a ton of ECs and am told that most of the Ivies are out of my reach.
Ergo - rich kids are simply NOT advantaged in the admissions process like you'd think.
And $100,000/year families are hit alot harder than truly poor kids. At below-ivy-but-still-top-tier schools, these families might not get FA - but a really poor kid might get full ride. And so the middle-class kids at 100-150,000 can't afford to take 1/2 to 1/3 of their family's income to pay for college. Who is actually shouldering more of a burden?</p>
<p>Galoisien, I still don't understand what you want from this thread. You keep arguing that people who happen to be rich must be inherently over-privileged and don't deserve rewards for hard work, because 'they have an unfair push towards success.' You yourself claim that you come from an underprivileged background, so how can you claim to understand that side of the socioeconomic world? Can you really claim that rich kids have more opportunities available (college admission wise) without having experienced this life?</p>
<p>You keep ignoring the fact that there are opportunities for those want them. And yes, I have experienced both sides of socioeconomic world. The fact remains that there are always going to be rich and poor people, (unless you want to implement some sort of socialism) but that doesn't necessarily mean that rich people are the only ones with opportunity. You yourself prove that one can find opportunities available, despite background circumstances.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe you should consider the fact that you, too, are trying to self-segregate. You label all rich people blindly, and seem determined to "Eridicate [our] culture of privilege". Maybe if you took the time to really get to know these people- if you let your guard down and got over the idea that owning a used car and ipod made a person the devil incarnate- you would find excellent people.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>When I first returned to the US it was my every intention to assimilate as quickly and painlessly as possible -- I was very obedient and non-assertive, etc. It didn't work out for me, not in the least because most of the kids had already been established in their respective EC's. Eventually I learnt to be more assertive (which took two years) but not before the obvious cultural divides which everyone had to notice but no one commented upon. I find it amazing that every day at lunch the immigrant student body self-segregate (a process that occurs on both sides) until a clear chasm forms, but I'm the only one who speaks up about it. Of course, the wealthier students don't have any interest in opening up towards the lower-income or migrant students -- they're smug in their social position.</p>
<p>Now of course being currently being well-acquainted with these students I don't tell this to their face, and they're often pretty amiable and we regard each other as friends -- but it's like they're so blissfully unaware of the obvious. It's only because I can code-switch very easily between cultures that I am regarded as their peers. There is a certain inherent haughtiness that I observe among most of my AP schoolmates when they come across other students -- not actively malicious, but conveniently ignorant...</p>
<p>Self-segregation is a process that works on both sides.</p>
<p>Do not think that I am blind to my own prejudice, and it's an unconscious process that I've become very self-conscious of (that's developed partially as a reflex action due to moving back and forth all these years). For a long while I bore an unconscious knee-jerk reaction against expat students in my birth country of Singapore, because firstly I could identify with them (having once been in their sort of privileged education system) but now on the others side it seemed that they considered themselves too haughty or too worthy to interact with the local population or with local students. Of course, now I realise this is not so, although it seems so by the Invisible Hand. This is the self-segregation I speak of.</p>
<p>The self-segregation isn't <em>conscious</em>. It's not like the wealthier students snub the lower-class ones -- but the unconscious process of the Invisible Hand can be just as repressive as a conscious one.</p>
<p>
[quote]
so please explain what exactly the "culture of the privileged" is.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The culture of privilege is the attitude of blissful unawareness and ignorance borne by those who are in comfortable social positions, the type to notice a blatant divide or disparity between their privilege and those of others, and not do anything about it. How convenient it is to do a bit to rectify inequality in some faraway place but not in your hometown! It is a culture of little restraint, indulging in every material Excess, who choose to pursue the Intellect for the Material, and not the other way round.</p>
<p>Outside my school, the culture of privilege becomes more obvious and worse; in competitions it becomes apparent when the students from the magnet schools and private academies form their self-segregated groups and eschew any interaction with those schools of a different background or culture.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I was supposing if your plan's motives were to create equality by force.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That would be like Wind trying to blow off someone's Coat. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I still have to admit, I'm offended by your statements in which you make the "rich" (supposedly those with incomes of 100000 and up) seem lazy, ungrateful, and undeserving.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I did not say that .... perhaps you indulged a bit too much in Freudian projection ...</p>
<p>What I have argued is that the wealthy exert a cultural hegemony over many intellectual pursuits, forming a "thin" culture (I'm borrowing from Amartya Sen's terminology here) that creates a lot of inertia that students of other socioeconomic backgrounds (of "thick" characteristics) must bypass in order to even consider such a pursuit
It may not a conscious exertion, but it exists nonetheless.</p>
<p>It irks me (as someone who lives in a rather comfortably-well-off suburb) that someone would so callously belittle the very real plight of middle-class students, who so highly value education, to pay for college. And, on top of that, these people who have to scrape together enough money to pay get sneered at by people who actually qualify for scholarships who turn us away saying that we don't "demonstrate financial need?" I'm sorry, but the OP's pity party is not inviting in the least.</p>
<p>By the way, $100,000 per annum is not "rich," no matter what you or the government says.</p>
<p>(Also, it is not considered couth to ask why you are being treated like a second-class citizen in one breath, and then accuse us with "you Americans" in the next. Just for future reference.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm mainly upset by the fact that you claim rich kids get into college automatically. Actually, I've been told that as a white female from a wealthy New England town I have the WORST shot at getting into college because colleges EXPECT me to have an AMAZING talent or volunteer thing or EC or athletic endeavor. They EXPECT rich kids to go above and beyond because of their opportunity. They demand an SAT score up to 400 points less from an inner-city Hispanic, African-American, or immigrant kid and allow for much less rigor in course schedule. Meanwhile, I'm up until 2am every night with 4 AP classes and got a near-perfect SAT and have a ton of ECs and am told that most of the Ivies are out of my reach.
Ergo - rich kids are simply NOT advantaged in the admissions process like you'd think.
And $100,000/year families are hit alot harder than truly poor kids. At below-ivy-but-still-top-tier schools, these families might not get FA - but a really poor kid might get full ride. And so the middle-class kids at 100-150,000 can't afford to take 1/2 to 1/3 of their family's income to pay for college. Who is actually shouldering more of a burden?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What?</p>
<p><em>You</em> try living on foodstamps and being a year behind in rent. Have you ever risked suspension of many of your legal rights because you couldn't afford 370 dollars to renew your documentation? You <em>can</em> pay half your income, and still be considerably more well off. </p>
<p>OH WAIT. I forgot. You bought too many consumer goods, went on too many vacations, and indulged in too much material Excess. </p>
<p>Please, as a low-income student, I've had to burn the midnight oil nearly every night. At times I have stayed up the whole night. Never mind 4 AP's -- I've dual-enrolled at my local university for 6-8 credits each semester. Since I am actually a rather mediocre case, what's the difference between your effort and mine, not counting the privilege you've had?</p>
<p>You have both your educated parents to assist you in schoolwork, while my single mother has had to wake up at 3 am every day to support us. </p>
<p>Now, I don't want to make this a pity match, but gee, your struggles aren't unique to your class.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, it is not considered couth to ask why you are being treated like a second-class citizen in one breath, and then accuse us with "you Americans" in the next. Just for future reference.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe if I hadn't been paradoxically taught to regard myself as one and not to regard myself as one, I wouldn't have the trouble.</p>
<p>But then I suppose you are familiar with the entire process of migrant culture shock.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It irks me (as someone who lives in a rather comfortably-well-off suburb) that someone would so callously belittle the very real plight of middle-class students, who so highly value education, to pay for college. And, on top of that, these people who have to scrape together enough money to pay get sneered at by people who actually qualify for scholarships who turn us away saying that we don't "demonstrate financial need?"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What are you talking about?</p>
<p>Just the other day we had to dig into every portion of what little savings we had just to get the money to renew my documentation (just mine, and none of my family's) so I would even qualify for financial aid on time. </p>
<p>I'm not belittling them ... maybe if they didn't buy so many material goods, were more comfortable living in a smaller house ... they wouldn't be feeling the pinch?</p>
<p>I don't get you "poor people are so lucky, they get a full-ride" people. I got far from a full ride -- I'm covering many things with loans, summer income and work study. </p>
<p>Many years back when I was younger, I was middle class you know. I know the material Excesses that it indulges in; it was really hard for me and my sister to persuade my mother (who was also formerly middle class once, before the divorce seven years ago) to buy simpler foods and not to buy that many consumer products -- I know what it's like to have middle class urges (which hurts especially on a lower-income budget). So please don't act like I don't know what it's like.</p>
<p>I don't know if you have spent much time at UVA, but I've heard that the student body is the most affluent of any public university in the nation.
Be prepared.</p>
<p>"I know what it's like to have middle class urges (which hurts especially on a lower-income budget)."</p>
<p>I think this is the core of the whole thread. Envy. Of money, opportunity, stability and citizenship.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think this is the core of the whole thread. Envy. Of money, opportunity, stability and citizenship.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I forsook the first two items a long time ago. :) </p>
<p>If it hasn't occurred to you already, I am an idealist ... I am very content with my current situation, but not very content with how many of my peers have been shafted. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't quite understand the difference between the right and left libertarians. I don't defend businesses which rely on state power (e.g. oil companies, software companies, etc.) so I suppose many right-libertarians would call me a leftist or something like that. But at the same time, I do not care about culture or things of that nature which lack evidence. These sorts of things are not to be cherished or a source of prides since these are nothing you rchose. It's as if I thought I was better than others because I was born with tall genes. This is what irks me about left-libertarianism. It resorts to a reliance on feelings and culture rather than a rational analysis of the situation. By opening yourself up to a conclusion based on faith, you must logically accept any and all conclusions based on faith, even if they contradict each other.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Right libertarians support privatising them (and left libertarians prefer communalising them), so the opposition to state-anything is something shared by the entire libertarian front. </p>
<p>But if you are familiar with Rousseau, Locke, social contract theory, etc. it should become readily apparent to you that culture is everything. It creates social institutions; it creates morality; it is the essence of the social contract. </p>
<p>The market system would be nothing if there weren't cultural values shared by all behind it. People must be willing to defend and uphold it. The tyrant cannot rule against the clear majority of a culture -- he only rules by setting different cultural groups against one another to maintain his base of power, or by prohibiting their means for uniting (which is why freedoms of speech and assembly are important). </p>
<p>If 70% of society endorsed the cultural value of thievery ... then the social contract and rule of law would dissolve, no matter how hard the police would try to preserve it. That is the key to many libertarian (and the closely-related anarchists') principles -- that a social value cannot persevere against the majority of society. We can redefine the role of the police in this way, because they are supposed to enforce the social contract and act on the behalf of the majority, not keep the majority in order. The majority can in fact, police themselves. (On a related tangent, I can elaborate why despite the rule of the majority, majoritarianism is not a viable principle of any free government, and why minority rights emerge under majority rule, but I would digress from my desired point.) </p>
<p>I don't get why you think left libertarianism is based on faith -- it's the idea that humanitarian aims can be achieved through libertarianism and that the playing field can in fact be levelled with libertarian principles. But a lot of it requires looking past the market economy, which is a marvellous institution of allocative efficiency, but only where the profit motive between two parties correlates with macrosociety's utility. A lot of it in fact reanalyses market relationships to allow it to account for situations where a transaction would involve more than two parties. For instance, if a company should be incurring some negative externality against society and it is neither of the parties engaged in that transaction are willing to disengage or reimburse society for the externality, left libertarianism eschews using government intervention to "correct" the market, because it becomes too convenient, because you can correct anywhere, and you start becoming dangerously reliant on the planners who decide by how much the compensation should be charged (i.e. policymakers can easily cause deadweight loss or worse, abuse). Rather it supports an organised effort [that would be a knee-jerk reaction due to cultural institutions] among consumers, sellers and other patrons of those offending parties to apply pressure to the parties. For example, the way to implement enforce a tobacco ban would not to outlaw tobacco, because it would go underground. </p>
<p>Rather if the majority of a culture felt that tobacco use imposed such a harsh cost on society, sufficiently organised such a culture can refuse to patronise both the tobacco seller and the tobacco buyer, employ them, buy from them (any product) or sell to them, e.g. deny a tobacco shop tenancy. Both demand and supply of tobacco die out not because of government fiat, but because of cultural stigma. </p>
<p>The idea of converting systems to cultural values has only become feasible with institutions that promote rapid dissemination of information [e.g. the the internet] and where cultural values can spread quickly (witness the meme). Furthermore, existing government intervention has compelled both consumers and sellers into complacency and inhibited the perceived need to organise ... with an inferior alternative. </p>
<p>Economic and cultural institutions <em>can</em> be fostered. In order for paper money, banking and insurance to take off, they required a massive change to the existing economic mindset.</p>
<p>"If it hasn't occurred to you already, I am an idealist "</p>
<p>You can tell yourself that and perhaps you will be the only one to believe it. Idealism is a positive, optimistic mindset. Your posts bespeak anything but.</p>
<p>Too bad you were waitlisted at the University of Chicago. It would have been a very good fit. Plenty of people happy to argue these issues into the wee hours.
It may be harder to find people like that at UVA.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You can tell yourself that and perhaps you will be the only one to believe it. Idealism is a positive, optimistic mindset. Your posts bespeak anything but.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>tellement Candide! :) </p>
<p>You can be an Optimist and condemn yourself to pessimism; you can be critical yet highly optimistic.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Too bad you were waitlisted at the University of Chicago.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There's a too bad for everything ... </p>
<p>I liked UChicago a lot, but a lot of issues for me actually work out in my going to UVA [yes, this is sour grapes lol]. </p>
<p>There's always graduate school?</p>
<p>When I was your age I took full advantage of my 'disadvantages': reading was the only entertainment I could afford so I fully engaged in it (it served me very well). I also didn't have to spend a penny on my college education - it was all paid for me. Your situation might actually work to your advantage in the admission game.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's the idea that humanitarian aims can be achieved through libertarianism and that the playing field can in fact be levelled with libertarian principles.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is the exact sort of faith I was talking about when talking about with regards to left-libertarianism. Why is equality a desired outcome? Would a society with everybody living in poverty be desirable? Hardly. Would a society with large disparities in wealth yet the poorest are better off than an "equal" society be desirable? Yes.</p>
<p>That's not to say that right-libertarians don't fall victim to the same sort of follies, but I have yet to see a left-libertarian system based on first principles (something a self-proclaimed idealist like yourself seems to be severely lacking).</p>
<p>"You have both your educated parents to assist you in schoolwork, while my single mother has had to wake up at 3 am every day to support us. "</p>
<p>How many valedictorians or people in contention to get in an ivy need help on their homework from their parents? I know I didn't. It didn't happen for any of my friends. And have you considered that people with high incomes make that much because they work all the time? If both parents are educated as you say, they are probably educated to do something. I have a friend whose parents are both doctors. They couldn't pick him up after school because they didn't have time.</p>
<p>You imagine all these things are going on, but you really have no idea what actually happens.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is the exact sort of faith I was talking about when talking about with regards to left-libertarianism. Why is equality a desired outcome? Would a society with everybody living in poverty be desirable? Hardly. Would a society with large disparities in wealth yet the poorest are better off than an "equal" society be desirable? Yes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think you quite got the equality I was aiming for. </p>
<p>Think of allocative efficiency, but on a <em>really</em> <em>really</em> <em>really</em> big scale. </p>
<p>
[quote]
but I have yet to see a left-libertarian system based on first principles
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Self-interest? </p>
<p>See it this way -- if I were a firm owner I would want to help promote the education of society, because it increases the supply of educated labour, thereby reducing its cost.</p>
<p>The other thing is that antagonistic relationships aren't always conducive to my interest either.</p>
<p>For example, the paper industry in my state is so strapped for engineers that they're willing to work as an alliance to subsidise any engineering student even considering the paper industry, with each individual firm knowing that even if they don't get the benefit of employing the student directly, spillover benefits result (in a "rising tide lifts all boats" sorta way). </p>
<p>Eventually I see even envision companies being relied upon to sponsor a school voucher programme.</p>
<p>I'm not talking about equal outcomes, or just equal opportunities, but rather maximising the benefit contributed by each individual. You can see how it is allocatively inefficient it is if individuals who would otherwise be of great spillover benefit to his environment cannot contribute his benefit because others can't see that by being stingy in investing, and say, dumping funds only on students that have proven themselves, they are incurring an opportunity cost. </p>
<p>Because of the law of diminishing returns, each dollar spent on 10% of the population that already has the capacity to self-actualise its potential (educationally-speaking) yields less than say if you were to spend it as a new expense on those who have yet the financial opportunity to be afforded the capital to achieve their educational potential. </p>
<p>With increasing mechanisation, poor individuals are rather unproductive individuals, so it becomes in the self-interest of firms to find ways to increase the productivity of such individuals. </p>
<p>You're not <em>aiming</em> for equality. You are aiming for social utility. It happens that well, opening up opportunities for the rest of society is sort of mandated if you want to find new niches that will yield a large economic profit. </p>
<p>Africa is a prime example -- it has both a labour and a sales market waiting to be used. It is however currently underactualised due to instability, the lack of rule of law, the lack of educational capital, and the lack of infrastructure. </p>
<p>The firms that secure an alliance to work on security and rule of law, education and infrastructure require a large amount of capital but will enjoy large economic profits because they as entrepreneurs will initially face little competition. Well, until other firms enter of course.</p>
<p>For a left-libertarian, you are more versed in economics and entrepreneurship than other left-libertarians I know.</p>
<p>Still, I would not call allocative efficiency a form of "equality". I do believe a free and educated society will produce more equality based on human nature. However, even if it were to produce huge disparities, we would still have to accept that. Thus, equality was not the true aim, but rather justice.</p>
<p>But all of these things you regard as desirable are means, not an end. Self-interest is not a first principle. Why? Killing would be acceptable if it gave one person a benefit. If killing is good for the person killed, then it must be fine for that murderer to accept violence from any and all other people against their objection.</p>
<p>So by reading your posts galoisien, here's the impression you have made on what Left-Libertarians are all about, correct me if I'm wrong: you promote hands-free economy, similar to what a right libertarian would, but as a left-libertarian you believe that the economy should not be free reign. No, instead it should be everyone working for the betterment of everyone, and equality.</p>
<p>As far as I'm concerned, your left-libertarian views are 100% socialist views, but instead of a government forcing economic equality, you believe people should make economic equality out of the goodness of their hearts. Idealist? Your faith in such a petty dream goes beyond ideal.</p>
<p>"The culture of privilege is the attitude of blissful unawareness and ignorance borne by those who are in comfortable social positions, the type to notice a blatant divide or disparity between their privilege and those of others, and not do anything about it. How convenient it is to do a bit to rectify inequality in some faraway place but not in your hometown! It is a culture of little restraint, indulging in every material Excess, who choose to pursue the Intellect for the Material, and not the other way round."</p>
<p>Open your eyes. You have been expecting such stereotypes for so long that you actually believe that the above is the way of the privileged. You are far mistaken.</p>
<p>No...your views are quite preposterous. Please, do not rationalize being American. You are not. Your views are the antithesis of the American Dream.
Your hate for the wealthy is despicable.</p>