Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by guylhem | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

guylhem

"Rich people shouldn't segregate themselves from the poor people in their communities"

Says who? On which authority?

What if poor people want to segregate themselves?

Live and let live. Individual freedom is more important than society considerations

View on HN

Me. But with no authority. My individual opportunities are far greater if I'm part of a society that ensures equal opportunity for all. Much like how having a large population of immunized individuals far outweighs an individuals rights to not receive immunizations, living in a population where no one is allowed to attend an inferior school improves my own life opportunity. Educated people live longer, healthier and more peaceful and productive lives -- I would personally benefit in a scenario where everyone in my community was educated fairly.

There is no way that poor people demand to live in slums. The self-segragation idea is insulting and couldn't be supported by even an uninformed hypothesis.

You end up in, essentially, an philosophical debate over what issues are most important - don't go there. Such debates cannot be resolved (in the same way that the halting problem cannot be resolved) because they rest on fundamental disagrements about axioms of morality.

You're saying that the issue of "who's segregating from whom?" is unsolvable? Probably. It's also irrelevant.

Looking purely at the effects of segregation should answer if it's a good idea. For an individual it's possible to benefit from segregation but as a group we're worse-off. Arbitrarily picking out second-class citizens and lowering their opportunities is a short-sighted idea even if in the near term that means that more resources can be used to advance your own interests. It doesn't matter if people are choosing to be disenfranchised, it matters that we're all hurt by it -- suicide is roundly discouraged for the same reasons.

Most of Europe has created a society based on this principle, that our society is better for all of us if we accept that a minimum standard of health care and education is essentially available to all. It isn't without its problems, but by and large it works well, and creates decent social mobility.

> Live and let live. Individual freedom is more important than society considerations.

Not if that leads to going back to serfs and kings.

Statistically inescapable cycles of poverty are freedom?

"Live and let drown" might be a more appropriate description that "live and let live."

Most people who live in society disagree with you. Are you a hermit?

>Individual freedom is more important than society considerations

This is dealing with the public school system. It's inherently a society consideration.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com