So while I've been talking about all the ideological positions, there is a massive question of politics that's going to sneak in here, and has already been commented upon by a couple of my regular commentators.
Without going too far down the PCE/Moldbugian path of all politics being inherently corrupt, let's ask a simple question as an illustration
Why do progressives support the massively inept public school system which does as much as anything else we can think of (all other factors combined?) to ensure that the urban poor stay urban poor?
A progressive's analysis.
1. The poor are indeed harmed
2. The teachers are a member of the progressive coalition, and in the Monks class. To act would damage the teachers.
3. The people suggesting to do something else are enemies of most of our efforts to help the poor
4. They are suggesting we use markets which at best don't solve problems fast, and which we don't trust, and which will result in some instances of even worse education.
5. We're responsible for public education in the first place, and to back out would massively switch a historical position.
6. So long as it's a public system, it remains a collective action problem, where we progressives have the advantage.