• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ill-gotten and legitimate gains...Where normatively do we draw the line?

Of the various resources people may have, which are fitting to use to avail themselves/their kids?

  • Total voters
    8
Xelor said:
Red:
All three. It's just that the tools for effecting "the good" vary.
  • Society as a whole and major segments of it --> Laws and public policy can be effective at orchestrating/balancing "the good" -- in this thread's context, "the good" being equitable distributions of opportunity -- on these two levels.
  • Individuals --> Laws and public policy are less effective at orchestrating/balancing "the good" -- in this thread's context, "the good" being equitable distributions of opportunity -- on this level because it's inevitable that an individual "here and there" will be adversely affected to the extent that "adversely affected" means "so and so" didn't get exactly what s/he wanted.
Click to expand...
I do not believe that the good of society lies in equitable distribution of opportunity by the state, based on the subgroups inferred by this discussion.
You will end up with laws that differentiate between members of society based on their sex, religion, or race, rather than their actions. All cultures have had such laws; most try to move away from them, and for good reason.

I too have little patience for complaints, but for the harm that would be done by blindly humoring them, not someone wishing for a better life.
I doubt we will come to agreement, but it was nice to see a civil discussion in here for once.
 
Xelor said:
Red:
As an outcome, no, but I expect folks to strive earnestly and consistently to achieve it. And I expect increasingly closer-to-perfect outcomes with each subsequent attempt.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I've been telling one of my grandkids, "practice makes perfect," as he's been moaning at the piano for the past hour or so. His grandma is teaching him and his sister, and his sister keeps laughing at him while he practices. She's no help. He sings well enough, but he's at that moment when his voice is cracking, sour notes. Grandma taught him sing each melody note he plays on the piano. It is a bit funny. He'll get over it. His love for music is more important to him than a bit of humiliation from his sister. And no doubt, he'll get her back. :) It is what siblings do.
 
Xelor said:
FWIW,

  • The "old man," Rick Caruso, is the chairman of the board of trustee, not the CEO. His job is as a real estate developer and investor.
  • The girl and Mr. Caruso's daughter have long been friends.
  • AFAIK, Mr. Caruso wasn't on the boat at the time.
  • It's astounding to me that Lori Loughlin undertook the approach she did to get her kid admitted to USC. If my kid was besties with a school's trustee, I'd tell my kid to ask his/her friend's father about gaining admittance..suggesting something like asking the man/woman if s/he would mind putting in a good word to the admissions committee, maybe by writing a recommendation letter or something. What I wouldn't do is make some sort of "on the DL" payment as part of a "side door" or "backdoor" scheme.
Click to expand...

My imagination was having fun. Lori just kicked her career in the can.
 
HK.227 said:
I do not believe that the good of society lies in equitable distribution of opportunity by the state, based on the subgroups inferred by this discussion.
You will end up with laws that differentiate between members of society based on their sex, religion, or race, rather than their actions. All cultures have had such laws; most try to move away from them, and for good reason.

I too have little patience for complaints, but for the harm that would be done by blindly humoring them, not someone wishing for a better life.
I doubt we will come to agreement, but it was nice to see a civil discussion in here for once.
Click to expand...

Red:
That may be.


Blue:
Yes, I agree.

It's not hard to be civil when discussants present their thoughts clearly and absent "crazy" leaps of reasoning and inference, or worse, without portfolio.
 
Last edited:
OldFatGuy said:
My imagination was having fun. Lori just kicked her career in the can.
Click to expand...

Red:
By the standards that apply to most people and careers, she probably did. But she's an entertainer, and there's no telling whether she can mount a PR campaign that results her obtaining "forgiveness" enough to "save" her career. Her and that other celebrity woman's conduct is sui generis as offenses go, so we'll just have to see.
 
Waddy said:
Use whatever legal advantages you can to help your kids. May or may not make a difference in the end.

Smart people are getting a lot smarter, and dumb people are getting a little bit smarter, but the gap is widening. Overall, IQ test results are creeping up, even at the low end. But young people no longer marry right out of high school (at least not the smart ones) but wait until careers are established. Then the smart, successful people search out other smart successful people. And breed one or two VERY smart kids. And these kids have ALL the advantages you talk about. They will be part of the elite ruling class. As are their parents.
Click to expand...


Red:
LOL!

I'm going to have use that line someday.
 
Xelor said:
Red:
By the standards that apply to most people and careers, she probably did. But she's an entertainer, and there's no telling whether she can mount a PR campaign that results her obtaining "forgiveness" enough to "save" her career. Her and that other celebrity woman's conduct is sui generis as offenses go, so we'll just have to see.
Click to expand...

I think first the courts will be making career decisions for them. It's not like they committed murders. Just a bit of find the pea under one of the nutshells without the pea. :)
 
OldFatGuy said:
I think first the courts will be making career decisions for them. It's not like they committed murders. Just a bit of find the pea under one of the nutshells without the pea. :)
Click to expand...

I'd be surprised if the parents get jail time. Sure, what they did is morally reprehensible, but aside from the charitable contribution deductions some of them may have taken, negligibly criminal. Indeed, but for their coordinating their chicanery via the mails, their actions likely wouldn't even be considered illegal.

The coaches, school administrators, Singer and the other organizers of the conspiracy will, I think, surely get jail time.
 
Xelor said:
Who doesn't use the advantages they've developed for their own and their family members benefit? I dare say everyone uses whatever resources they've obtained to help themselves and their family, especially their kids, thrive. I wouldn't expect people to do otherwise.

Of the various resources people have, which should they use, provided it's lawful to do so, to avail their kids?
  • Education/Intellect --> Should parents (or close friends and relatives) not avail their educations to abet their kids academic success? For example, but not limited to:
    • Proofread their kid's papers and offer correction ideas regarding form, content or structure
    • Teach their kid "tips and tricks" for how to study or how to perform certain operations more efficiently (E.g., perhaps how to do complicated arithmetic as fast as a calculator)
It's neither the kid's nor parents' fault that the parent has a wealth of education they can share with their kids to help their kids thrive. Of course, the parent shouldn't do the kid's homework and projects, but is there something foul about the parent "opening doors" by using their education to help their kids perform better and get an edge in comparison to their classmates?
​

  • Professional/Social Position --> Should parents (or close friends and relatives) not avail their social, career and professional associations to abet their kids success? For example, but not limited to:
    • Use the fact that they work at, say, a research lab to undertake a "super duper" science project that other kids can't because they lack the contacts needed to obtain an opportunity do it
    • Give their kid an "inside track" to an internship or summer job with the parent's or an associate's employer (self-employed parents doing so seems to me a different matter)
    • Share with their kids, perhaps for a history paper, "this or that" otherwise unknown details about moment in history because the parent was part of it, thus allowing the kid to cite the parent as a source
    • Take a job with a university/college so their kid can enroll there
    • Ask an influential friend to "put in a good word"
  • Financial Wealth --> Should parents not avail their financial wealth to their kid's benefit? For example, but not limited to:
    • Hire private tutors and/or counselors
    • Donate generously to a school
    • Send their kid to a private school having an outstanding track record
If financial wealth is among the resources at one's disposal, is it any less fitting a resource to use than the others one can bring to bear?

People have different resources and it's normal to use them to one's advantage. Doing so is what capitalism is a all about. It's at the core of competition. Yet when the resource someone has at their disposal others take umbrage. Money is a resource just as are land, labor, intellect, and associations. Isn't one a fool not to lawfully use it to one's advantage?

Think about the "Varsity Blues" case. Even though "everyone's" in a furor over the parent's use of their money, their crimes have nothing to do with money. One needn't be wealthy to commit mail fraud.​

Some key questions then are:

  • So where and how do we draw the line and stop/attenuate the exploitation of privilege? Should we even bother trying to do so?
  • And what kinds of privilege do we forbear and what kinds do we not?
  • Do we content ourselves with public excoriation?
  • Do we expressly criminalize private sector corruption, making it unlawful to be reprobate? Do we lower the bar of personal probity or raise it? How do we handle appearances of ethical impropriety in both the public and private sectors?
Click to expand...

Couldn't really vote in your poll but I found it very thought provoking because you are right, everyone does this to some degree. Just for opposite ends of the spectrum we have the current college admissions thing and then we have the other end of the spectrum where people lie and cheat and game the public assistance systems in order to make their lives better or their kids lives better. And, no, I didn't mean to imply that everyone on government assistance is a lie and a cheat but there are many who do scam the system for their benefit or their kids benefit. I don't really know where to draw the line but we do have laws and maybe that is where the line is. If you break the law in the college admissions thing then that is wrong and if your break the law by receiving public assistance or extra public assistance when you don't really qualify for it then that is wrong. And of course all kinds of people cheat on their taxes to get more back or pay less, from the super wealthy to people lying to get more earned income credit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom