Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
so what you're saying, loquitor, is that because you took on debt to go to law school that therefore the american class system and all its ramifications are hunky dory? so poorer folk who find themselves in a legal conflict *deserve* lower-quality representation because you took on debt to go to law school?
and do you really think that legal representation is like meat or shoes?
i dont get it.
your argument could be turned another way: the debt accumulated to get through the american university system is coercive and one of the indices of that coercion is your acquiescence to the structure of inequality the system produces...because that debt forced you to make choices and those choices have shaped your view and so in that sense your outlook is basically a consequence of having endured the coercion that educational debt exerts on all who take it on after the fun of university is over. at the same time, because your experience is your experience, you naturalize the elements that forced your hand at critical moments--and so now you see the class structure as neutral, have a moralizing interpretation of your own trajectory (which is symmetrical with the neutralization of the class structure as political question)--with the result that you see your own services as a consumer option. like meat. or shoes.
so someone who is not you could read off from your narrative a set of reasons why the way educational debt produces consent for the existing political order--in which case, the political issue might end up being the system that relies on that debt...
|
Take out the reward and 99% of the people who are 'top' will not work as hard as they do and be no longer 'top', of course the top would have to be redefined.
There is a reason soviet era doctors sucked so badly.
Debt is not the prime motivator, debt is just a function of starting from scratch. I personally am 800 thousand dollars in debt, but thats a good thing its available. Banks took a risk with me being successful, I took a risk taking the loans, the system built a new office and let me hire new people. Jobs are created, a service to the community is rendered and all works out provided I can deliver what I said I could.
I really love my job over all, I enjoy it, I don't mind going to work, its a great thing. If I had to do it all over again, and you told me from your socialist chair that I would no longer be well compensated, could not have been my own boss, and would be working 'for the people' I would not have spent 7 extra years of my life working my ass off, putting off having a family, stressing myself out, and pushing myself to be the best of the best in my field.
I have a very good friend in lawschool right now, last time I saw him it looked like he dropped 15 lbs (and he was too thin to start with) and had acne induced from stress (common side effect of stress, I got it myself in school). Hes pushing himself and putting up with a lot of crap to be a good lawyer when hes done, you have no right to his labor when hes done.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tisonlyi
Matt Ridley.
The son and heir of a Viscount, adulterer of science to justify and glorify much of the destruction that Thatcher wrought upon my country and a member of the board for 14 years of a company that has just been nationalised, SOCIALISM! *gasp!*, because it's management was so ludicrously inept that the contagion of runs on UK banks that his mismanagement caused (he was singled out by a parliamentary committee) could well have brought down the entire financial apparatus of the country should the strangely absent "invisible hand" have been allowed to do it's work unchecked.
Matt @ Northern Rock
The Northern Rock Debacle (bail-outs of US$60-80bn according to the Bank of England chairman, roughly a US$6000 bill for every British family)
What he knows of genetics is debatable, but what he knows of economics and morality certainly aren't.
The work of that man should be utilized to it's fullest potential in the lavatories across every nation that it is now available. |
He doesn't agree with you so hes an idiot.
Thats great, you sir are a true scholar and have much to teach us.
I don't agree with Richard Dawkins (and if you read his work you would know that he does reference Ridley a number of times and not in a negative way, the worst he said is he thinks Ridley stresses the disease fighting angle of 'why sex' too strongly) politically but only on his conclusions of the data not the data itself.
Please, you are obliviously out of your depth here scientifically and are trying to play politics with science. This is more about how science affects our politics
