I am not sanguine about it, I just want to make sure that the idea that all schools are beds of roses today does not take hold because I've seen first hand that this is not the case. And if that can happen in a wealthy part of a wealthy country it can happen just about everywhere. In the meantime I've done what I could to offset the difference and am still working hard to make sure my kids get all of the chances in life that they deserve. But detours can and do happen, you won't be able to fix it by head-on confrontation so you have to fix it through other means, which usually translate into spending time and money.

First off: thanks for sharing how you experience your protective instincts. I can feel your love for your kid

With that said --

Wha... your and my reads are so different... I hear that as: One lived in the real world that most normal unchosen people experience, and the other had means to avoid said world?

"Abuse" feels strong, bc putting the select (usually wealthy) kids in the safest place and not choosing responsibility/stake in remediating the larger shared experience, that feels like the larger "condemnation to abuse" to me.

I'm a pretty hardcore collectivist though, and I understand that's not everyone's value system *shrug*

yes. one should raise one's kids in only the toughest most unrelenting environment. arctic tundra, perhaps, or federal prison. anything else is unfair and abusive to others.

You've strawmanned me. I'm saying that choosing the "best" places and not stewarding the shared spaces is a form of neglect of shared public goods, public goods that otherwise lead to a strong society that a kid might someday inherit. Some ppl don't just choose the best school, because they think it's best for their individual family unit. Neglect is multi-scalar -- something can be neglect at one level, and care at another. Different families value different scales of concern in their family life

North Americans (esp Americans) tend to not see it that way. Collectivist cultures kinda assume it's a no-brainer, in my experience. Your attempt at painting this as "obvious" and worthy of satirising, that feels kinda misdirected

fair point. the true society self-organizes at each level to cooperate with itself. they avoid tragic outcomes by noticing the coordination traps that lead to them, and then not doing that.

i disagree that one must be subject to the rotten institutions in order to care about or fix them. but this is a disagreement of method, not of result.

i agree that seeking only the "best" can be a status-treadmill coordination trap. i turn away from this as well.

i have a strong distaste when "cooperation" is imposed from without. it is unstable. (does your collectivism rely on shared goals and reflective understanding? or is it enforced by artificially raising the cost of defection?)

agreed that i responded not quite to your comment as written. apologies.