I agree.
Expecting teenagers to decide on a career path would make more sense if their education up to that point was good and redpilling. For example, kids are intentionally not taught political philosophy, which can affect most career choices. The kids aren’t trained to understand the difference between voluntaryism and coercion, so they are susceptible to getting seduced into a coercive world view.
A girl might say, “I want to help poor people, so I want to be a social worker.” The most effective way to help the poor, and the most honorable in the eyes of God, would be to gain in-demand skills that other people voluntarily compensate her for (ie making honest money in a free market) and then voluntarily use her own earned money to help the poor. This is a difficult thing to pull off. It’s easier for the girl to get recognition as a helper of the poor by becoming a social worker, but then she really isn’t doing much to help. She’s just part of the bureaucratic class that coerces everyone else. And they redistribute “charity” in inefficient ways, subsidizing bad behavior instead of also providing good counsel like voluntary philanthropists would be able to do. She went into college debt to major in social work and the course work was a joke because pushing papers and attending meetings isn’t difficult and doesn’t add utility to society, so she has little useful skills. Then she becomes a bureaucrat and expects the accompanying social approval. She receives that approval from other people who don’t understand political philosophy, but for some reason the most honorable and impressive young men aren’t impressed with her. She tries to rationalize, “He just hates poor people.”
I agree.
Expecting teenagers to decide on a career path would make more sense if their education up to that point was good and redpilling. For example, kids are intentionally not taught political philosophy, which can affect most career choices. The kids aren’t trained to understand the difference between voluntaryism and coercion, so they are susceptible to getting seduced into a coercive world view.
A girl might say, “I want to help poor people, so I want to be a social worker.” The most effective way to help the poor, and the most honorable in the eyes of God, would be to gain in-demand skills that other people voluntarily compensate her for (ie making honest money in a free market) and then voluntarily use her own earned money to help the poor. This is a difficult thing to pull off. It’s easier for the girl to get recognition as a helper of the poor by becoming a social worker, but then she really isn’t doing much to help. She’s just part of the bureaucratic class that coerces everyone else. And they redistribute “charity” in inefficient ways, subsidizing bad behavior instead of also providing good council like voluntary philanthropists would be able to do. She went into college debt to major in social work and the course work was a joke because pushing papers and attending meetings isn’t difficult and doesn’t add utility to society, so she has little useful skills. Then she becomes a bureaucrat and expects the accompanying social approval. She receives that approval from other people who don’t understand political philosophy, but for some reason the most honorable and impressive young men aren’t impressed with her. She tries to rationalize, “He just hates poor people.”
I agree.
Expecting teenagers to decide on a career path would make more sense if their education up to that point was good and redpilling. For example, kids are intentionally not taught political philosophy, which can affect most career choices. The kids aren’t trained to understand the difference between voluntaryism and coercion, so they are susceptible to getting seduced into a coercive world view.
A girl might say, “I want to help poor people, so I want to be a social worker/“. The most effective way to help the poor, and the most honorable in the eyes of God, would be to gain in-demand skills that other people voluntarily compensate her for (ie making honest money in a free market) and then voluntarily use her own earned money to help the poor. This is a difficult thing to pull off. It’s easier for the girl to get recognition as a helper of the poor by becoming a social worker, but then she really isn’t doing much to help. She’s just part of the bureaucratic class that coerces everyone else. And they redistribute “charity” in inefficient ways, subsidizing bad behavior instead of also providing good council like voluntary philanthropists would be able to do. She went into college debt to major in social work and the course work was a joke because pushing papers and attending meetings isn’t difficult and doesn’t add utility to society, so she has little useful skills. Then she becomes a bureaucrat and expects the accompanying social approval. She receives that approval from other people who don’t understand political philosophy, but some how the most honorable and impressive young men aren’t impressed with her. She tries to rationalize, “He just hates poor people.”