Public Schools - Indoctrination Centers

[PLC1]

It's not about me, other than it caught my attention. Where those words used in texts and teaching instructions when you taught? What grades did you teach?

Fourth.
and no, I don't recall those words in particular, no.

I don't recall uniformity or social injustice being bandied about in the classroom, either.

 

[PLC1]

This is from wiki;

A socially just society is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, understands and values human rights, and recognizes the dignity of every human being.[1][2] Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a A socially just society is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, understands and values human rights, and recognizes the di

This is from wiki;

A socially just society is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, understands and values human rights, and recognizes the dignity of every human being.[1][2] Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution.

Sounds more like the road to serfdom than equality.

The first part of your response is quite different from the second:

A socially just society is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, understands and values human rights, and recognizes the dignity of every human being.[1][2] Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality

which sounds a lot like "One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Now, I do recall reciting those words on a regular basis.

As for the rest:

involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution.

now we're talking about equality of economic outcomes, not of opportunity. Those aren't values to be taught in the schools, no.

at least, not in the US.

Do you think the schools where you are are teaching children that everyone should have the same income, the same property? If so, then no wonder you think the schools are indoctrinating children in the wrong sorts of ideology.

I think our school board would have heard from the parents had we taught such a thing.

 

[PLC1]

You only seem to be able to recognize "ideological dogma" in the opinions of others but not your own. Your aversion to ideological principle comes from adherence to your own dogmatic ideology - Pragmatism.


As defined and used by the Left, yes... 100% against it. The phrase "Social Justice" had to be created because calling it what it is, legalized slavery, doesn't poll well. As for "diversity", that applies to everything except thought when it comes to the Left - Sure they want people to be different in immaterial ways, looks, faith, color, sex, etc. just so long as everyone conforms to the same ideology.

Are you against ideological principle?

Only when it has been shown not to work in the real world.

Pragmatism, by my definition at least (practicality, what really works in the real world) is the diametric opposite of ideology.

Social justice "as defined by the Left" must have to do with the second part of Cruella's definition. When I hear the phrase "social justice", I think "equal under the law, no one gets special privileges," not "let's redistribute wealth so we're all equally poor."

Which definition are schools using where you are?

 

[GenSeneca]

Pragmatism, by my definition at least (practicality, what really works in the real world) is the diametric opposite of ideology.

It is an ideology...

Pragmatism sees no fundamental difference between practical and theoretical reason, nor any ontological difference between facts and values. Both facts and values have cognitive content: knowledge is what we should believe; values are hypotheses about what is good in action. Pragmatist ethics is broadly humanist because it sees no ultimate test of morality beyond what matters for us as humans. Good values are those for which we have good reasons, viz. the Good Reasons approach.​

...​

The Good Reasons approach is a meta-ethical theory that ethical conduct is justified if the actor has good reasons for that conduct. The Good Reasons approach is not opposed to ethical theory per se, but is antithetical to wholesale justifications of morality and stresses that our moral conduct requires no further ontological or other fundament beyond concrete justifications.​

​

Political ideologies have two dimensions:

1. Goals: how society should work
2. Methods: the most appropriate ways to achieve the ideal arrangement.

How do you differentiate between the "practical" and the "ideological"?
Did you teach students to use the same method?

When I hear the phrase "social justice", I think "equal under the law, no one gets special privileges," not "let's redistribute wealth so we're all equally poor."

Clearly you think it will only make us all "equally poor" if done "ideologically" (Marx & Engels) but not if we do it "pragmatically" (Dewey & Peirce). You do support the forced redistribution of wealth - and - consider the redistribution of wealth to be a justifiable use of government force.

It is a contradiction to claim a desire for equality "under the law, no one gets special privileges" while simultaneously supporting the forced redistribution of wealth.

 

[PLC1]

It is an ideology...

Pragmatism sees no fundamental difference between practical and theoretical reason, nor any ontological difference between facts and values. Both facts and values have cognitive content: knowledge is what we should believe; values are hypotheses about what is good in action. Pragmatist ethics is broadly humanist because it sees no ultimate test of morality beyond what matters for us as humans. Good values are those for which we have good reasons, viz. the Good Reasons approach.​

...​

The Good Reasons approach is a meta-ethical theory that ethical conduct is justified if the actor has good reasons for that conduct. The Good Reasons approach is not opposed to ethical theory per se, but is antithetical to wholesale justifications of morality and stresses that our moral conduct requires no further ontological or other fundament beyond concrete justifications.​

​

Political ideologies have two dimensions:

1. Goals: how society should work
2. Methods: the most appropriate ways to achieve the ideal arrangement.

How do you differentiate between the "practical" and the "ideological"?
Did you teach students to use the same method?

Clearly you think it will only make us all "equally poor" if done "ideologically" (Marx & Engels) but not if we do it "pragmatically" (Dewey & Peirce). You do support the forced redistribution of wealth - and - consider the redistribution of wealth to be a justifiable use of government force.

It is a contradiction to claim a desire for equality "under the law, no one gets special privileges" while simultaneously supporting the forced redistribution of wealth.

I suppose I'll have to quit using the term "pragmatism" and substitute "practicality". That's what I mean by the word: What works in the real world.

I think your definition of "forced redistribution of wealth" could use some work as well, but, then, we've been over that before, haven't we?

 

[GenSeneca]

I suppose I'll have to quit using the term "pragmatism" and substitute "practicality". That's what I mean by the word: What works in the real world.

And that no longer makes it ideological?

An ideology is a set of ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology is a comprehensive vision, a way of looking at things as in several philosophical tendencies, or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society.​

​

Ideologies are systems of abstract thought applied to public matters and thus make this concept central to politics. Implicitly every political or economic tendency entails an ideology whether or not it is propounded as an explicit system of thought.​

​

If I were to tell you that I wasn't a Capitalist, that I was a "Practicalist" who cared only about 'what works in the real world', and that I wasn't ideological at all, what would you say to help me see the truth?

I think your definition of "forced redistribution of wealth" could use some work as well, but, then, we've been over that before, haven't we?

No please, explain to me how to more precisely convey the concept of: Using the law, rather than a gun, to take money away from one individual - without compensation - and then hand that money over to a different individual - who did not earn it and does not deserve it.

The 'forced redistribution of wealth' sums all that up pretty nicely but I'm open to suggestions.

 

[PLC1]

And that no longer makes it ideological?

An ideology is a set of ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology is a comprehensive vision, a way of looking at things as in several philosophical tendencies, or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society.​

​

Ideologies are systems of abstract thought applied to public matters and thus make this concept central to politics. Implicitly every political or economic tendency entails an ideology whether or not it is propounded as an explicit system of thought.​

​

If I were to tell you that I wasn't a Capitalist, that I was a "Practicalist" who cared only about 'what works in the real world', and that I wasn't ideological at all, what would you say to help me see the truth?

No, because capitalism is what works in the real world, and it isn't an ideology but an economic system. Anyway, there is no such word as "practicalist."

No please, explain to me how to more precisely convey the concept of: Using the law, rather than a gun, to take money away from one individual - without compensation - and then hand that money over to a different individual - who did not earn it and does not deserve it.

The 'forced redistribution of wealth' sums all that up pretty nicely but I'm open to suggestions.

It's called taxation with representation.

but, we've already been over this one, too.

 

[Dr.Who]

When I hear the phrase "social justice", I think "equal under the law, no one gets special privileges,"

Then you ARE opposed to progressive taxes?

 

[PLC1]

Then you ARE opposed to progressive taxes?

Not if everyone is subject to the same progressive taxes. That's equal under the law.

I'd be in favor of treating all income from any source the same when it comes to taxation. Would you?

 

[Dr.Who]

Not if everyone is subject to the same progressive taxes. That's equal under the law.

I'd be in favor of treating all income from any source the same when it comes to taxation. Would you?

After the civil war laws were written that everyone was subject to equally - it just so happned that the only ones who were not allowed to vote under the laws were blacks. It is not enough that the people are subject to the same laws. The intent of the law must also not be to treat people differently. A truly fair law when it comes to income tax would be that each person pays the same percent with no deductions or exemptions for any reason. If we must have income tax laws then at first glance I think income from all sources must be treated the same. Why should the gov decide that investment must be encouraged more than labor? If the tax rate were small enough then we would not even complain about poor people paying income tax. I suggest that everyone poor or rich could afford 3% income tax, 5% sales tax, and enumerated fees on the real estate bill for services rendered. The economy would be so much more prosperous that the gov would take in more than now. Poverty would be lower as would unwed mothers, and people who do not save for retirement or health needs. With the increased revenue to gov, decreased social problems, and greater prosperity we could do more to solve social problems than can do now.

Lets revisit the notion that progressive taxes subject everyone to the same laws equally.

What would happen if we paid people progressively? People who work more would be paid progressively more so doctors who tend to work a lot of hours would be paid even more than they are today. Drafted them progressively? People who are out of work have more time to spare so they can serve their country for longer stints. Feed people progressively? People who order more food at mcdonalds can pay three times as much for only twice as much food so a happy meal costs three dollars but a value meal costs ten. People who get better grades should REALLy get better grades so an F is an F but a D is a B and and a C is an A+++ and a ...

I am not coming up with good example so if anyone can think of better ones please post.

 

[PLC1]

After the civil war laws were written that everyone was subject to equally - it just so happned that the only ones who were not allowed to vote under the laws were blacks. It is not enough that the people are subject to the same laws. The intent of the law must also not be to treat people differently. A truly fair law when it comes to income tax would be that each person pays the same percent with no deductions or exemptions for any reason. If we must have income tax laws then at first glance I think income from all sources must be treated the same. Why should the gov decide that investment must be encouraged more than labor? If the tax rate were small enough then we would not even complain about poor people paying income tax. I suggest that everyone poor or rich could afford 3% income tax, 5% sales tax, and enumerated fees on the real estate bill for services rendered. The economy would be so much more prosperous that the gov would take in more than now. Poverty would be lower as would unwed mothers, and people who do not save for retirement or health needs. With the increased revenue to gov, decreased social problems, and greater prosperity we could do more to solve social problems than can do now.

.

That sort of a tax system would certainly be fair. The government would have to be scaled back a bit, but then, it has to be scaled back anyway.

I'm not sure what the "enumerated fees on the real estate bill for services rendered" would be, but a flat tax that is the same for all income regardless of source would certainly be more fair than what we have now, and 3% should be affordable for anyone, even with a 5% sales tax.

You make a good point about investment being encouraged more than labor.

I'm not sure I understand the rest of your post.

 

[dogtowner]

This is from wiki;

A socially just society is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, understands and values human rights, and recognizes the dignity of every human being.[1][2] Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution.

Sounds more like the road to serfdom than equality.

hmmm ok
equal rights is the law of the land and is protected and enforced by.our justice dydtem is it not ?
if it is then there seems to be no point in some special diffrrent justice.

it seems to me that your source is calling for unequal protection under the law. being conservative I have a problem with that.
in fact I find it to be a common liberal given.

this is one way teaching can be viewed as liberally bissed
.
id prefer the education system stick to the facts and jold parants accountable for the rest

 

[Dr.Who]

That sort of a tax system would certainly be fair. The government would have to be scaled back a bit, but then, it has to be scaled back anyway.

I'm not sure what the "enumerated fees on the real estate bill for services rendered" would be, but a flat tax that is the same for all income regardless of source would certainly be more fair than what we have now, and 3% should be affordable for anyone, even with a 5% sales tax.

You make a good point about investment being encouraged more than labor.

I'm not sure I understand the rest of your post.

An example of an enumerated fee on a real estate tax bill might be: "#15 garbage removal: All enrolled property owners need to include $375 for their share of waste services."

A very good rule of taxation is that if you tax something you make it more rare. Taxes on cigarettes for example are enacted specifically to make smoking rare. When the gov taxes labor at about 32% and taxes investments at about 15% it is encouraging investment but also discouraging working. For those who have enough money there is no doubt why they choose to work less and to invest more which is exactly why buffet pays less as a percentage than his very well off secretary.

But backing up and looking from outside we can see that the tax on labor discourages labor, the tax on investment discourages investment, the tax on liquor discourages buying booze, same for cigarettes, candy, corn, gasoline, and in short all products or services that are taxed. Taxes are in fact a huge drag on the entire economy and with no taxes at all the economy would operate at its most efficient. We do need to fund gov and there will have to be some drag on the economy but we must aim to make the drag as small as possible so that prosperity can be shared by all.

 

[Dr.Who]

hmmm ok
equal rights is the law of the land and is protected and enforced by.our justice dydtem is it not ?
if it is then there seems to be no point in some special diffrrent justice.

it seems to me that your source is calling for unequal protection under the law. being conservative I have a problem with that.
in fact I find it to be a common liberal given.

this is one way teaching can be viewed as liberally bissed
.
id prefer the education system stick to the facts and jold parants accountable for the rest

Exactly! If the justice system is doing its jobs then there is no need for a gov system of social justice. If the justice system is not doing its job then the solution is to fix the justice system not waste more money creating new systems that won't work.

 

[PLC1]

An example of an enumerated fee on a real estate tax bill might be: "#15 garbage removal: All enrolled property owners need to include $375 for their share of waste services."

A very good rule of taxation is that if you tax something you make it more rare. Taxes on cigarettes for example are enacted specifically to make smoking rare. When the gov taxes labor at about 32% and taxes investments at about 15% it is encouraging investment but also discouraging working. For those who have enough money there is no doubt why they choose to work less and to invest more which is exactly why buffet pays less as a percentage than his very well off secretary.

But backing up and looking from outside we can see that the tax on labor discourages labor, the tax on investment discourages investment, the tax on liquor discourages buying booze, same for cigarettes, candy, corn, gasoline, and in short all products or services that are taxed. Taxes are in fact a huge drag on the entire economy and with no taxes at all the economy would operate at its most efficient. We do need to fund gov and there will have to be some drag on the economy but we must aim to make the drag as small as possible so that prosperity can be shared by all.

such a system sounds like a good idea to me. I'd add gas taxes, but only to be used to build and maintain highways and bridges.
Your real estate tax sounds to me like a local tax, not too different from local property taxes we have now.

and let's tax things we want to discourage. We don't want to discourage earning income.

In my case, I'm retired and in the 28% bracket. Were I to go back to work, I'd have to pay 28% to the feds, 9% to the state, 10% in SS taxes that I'm not eligible for, and another 3% for Medicare, for a grand total of 50% going to one tax or another. How's that for discouraging people from earning more income?