From: tyadav@athena.mit.edu (T.Y.)
Subject: Re: = Opportunity etc.
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 19:40:30 GMT

=======================================================================
Cross posting to alt.individualism for more thoughts, cross examination
=======================================================================
>The thread started out on the Indian constitution and then on the role
>of individuals in society.  The latter leads to the role of society
>when dealing with the individual.  The thread is labelled "= [Equal]
>Opportunity etc." 

 mvij@ocf.berkeley.edu (Manish Vij) writes:
>
>We already have established causes to the problems in the most abject
>neighborhoods of, say, Ron Hira's D.C., or Oakland right next to my
>university.  Much research has been done on the effects of living in
>low-income neighborhoods, with poor education, poor health care,
>a high crime rate.  It is called a cycle of poverty for very good
>reasons.
>You may argue for a subtler interpretation: why, you may ask, does
>an individual in Oakland deal drugs?  It must be some deficiency
>at the individual level. 
>     

 Doesn't the cycle of poverty argument go something like this:
 Poor nghbrhd => Poor schools => Poor education => Poor jobs => Poor nghbrhd

 drugs/crime etc. ?

 Anyway, I disagree with this as the cause. Because, education is not a product
 of schools. School do catalyse education. But, education is not teaching.
 Education is learning. Poor schools do not mean poor education. And poor
 qualifications do not mean poor jobs. I have many friends who are just
 high school grads from "really poor schools" - as they put it. But they
 are in great jobs. One of them started as part time worker loading fertilizer
 docks. He learnt on the job. Worked hard. Moved across jobs. Got promoted.
 Today he is senior plant manager for the site. Another guy is working at
 Merck (MPMD, Philly) - started as janitor!! Educated himself on the job. 
 Today he is in the top management ranks - with many MIT trained grads working
 for him, as he put it to me in the summer of 1991. And he is not a political
 manipulator king of guy. He is one of the finest scientific minds I have met.
 He deserves his success.
 It certainly would help us introspect on the question: What is education?
 What is being educated?

 Anyway, this is secondary to the whole issue here. Lets go further.

>Extending this argument to raising kids is invalid because it's a
>different situation.  In the socioeconomic arena, the issue is whether
>to lend a helping hand to those who are not different from the rest.
>In the home, when you propose that parents limit freedom for those
>who are not different from the rest, you're suddenly limiting freedom
>rather than increasing it.
>------------x------------------ 
>Again, personal stylistic freedom is a different issue from socioeconomic
>policy.

 Lets think again, :), Freedom: what is it?
 Parenting is very similar to socioeconomic policy. The roles just get
 reversed/separated. In parenting the "what is freedom" is different for
 the child and the parents. Parents don't want to limit freedom - they just
 think it to be different. Parents do want growth, except that they sometimes
 have a prejudiced/misinformed view of freedom/growth. They lend a helping
 hand to the kid - alas, a helping hand that many times, cripples the growth 
 of the child.

 Something very similar happens in these socioeconomic policies. The govt
 or the altruists define their own sense of freedom. And in the name of
 extending freedom they, mistakenly, cripple the "hoped to be beneficiary."

 We haven't, yet, grappled with the basic question: what is freedom? And that
 brings us to the next point:

> My views, like yours, are consistent in
>that we're both for increasing individual freedom; however, it appears
>that you don't see anti-poverty measures as liberating, which I
>confess baffles me. 

 Thats true: I don't see anti-poverty measures as liberating.

 Because, I think an individual doesn't need to be liberated
 from himself/herself.

 Because, I think freedom means - freedom to experience joy AND pain of life.
 Frustrations, failures, suffering, struggle is as much a part of
 healthy/happy life for an individual as is tranquility, success,
 excellence, exaltation.

 An individual should always left to his/her own, for who is anyone to
 deny the satisfaction that failure/success gives. I, and everyone else,
 should be left to experience pain thats results from negligence/incompetence.
 Yes, we should have constitutional rights and govt should provide
 protection of constitutional rights; But that is where it should stop. 

 Furthermore, all these so called anti-poverty measures have an expense.
 It is unfair to tax an individual's income to fund an arbitrary definition
 of anti-poverty measure. If some think their definition to be right - they
 have the freedom to practice charity, don't they???? 
 The govt protection of rights can be funded with sales/consumption tax.

 I agree that "furthering freedom" is in constitutional spirit and is great
 for the individual. But: [1] Don't further freedom by restraining the 
 freedom of the successful/rich. [2] Don't further freedom by being unjust to
 others. [3] Be sure that you are "really furthering freedom."

 Critique/comments?

T.Y.
----
tyadav@athena.mit.edu