Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2014 12:15:48 GMT
Thanks for putting me right on the reason for the amendment, by the way. Interesting, but again, I expect none of us would interpret the original intention as being in order to put a weapon like that into the hands of a frail little girl. No indeed. It's strange how the US political system is fixated on issues that don't really seem to have much importance in the UK, i.e. guns and abortion. It's a shame that there isn't a major political party anywhere that defends the freedoms of citizens against the self-interest of the state. People think the West is a capitalist free market economy but it really isn't. For most middle class people in work, about 70% of their income goes to the state, which is hardly capitalist IMO. Western countries are borrowing so much that future generations will spend their whole lives working to pay interest on debts incurred by the current generation. Governments are incapable of living within their means because people will never vote to give up an entitlement they have been granted in the past. Voting to get spending under control would be truly socialist, because it would mean sacrificing your short term self interest for the benefit of others, but instead we get hysterical nonsense about the evils of the bedroom tax and whatnot and the current omni shambles of a government pretending they have imposed austerity when public spending is still going up faster than inflation. |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Sept 1, 2014 13:24:44 GMT
it would mean sacrificing your short term self interest for the benefit of others In an inverse corollary, Obama has had enormous issues getting Medicare approved for all simply because no-one will vote for a small additional cost for the benefit of the whole country. |
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on Sept 1, 2014 13:36:21 GMT
Thanks for putting me right on the reason for the amendment, by the way. Interesting, but again, I expect none of us would interpret the original intention as being in order to put a weapon like that into the hands of a frail little girl. No indeed. It's strange how the US political system is fixated on issues that don't really seem to have much importance in the UK, i.e. guns and abortion. It's a shame that there isn't a major political party anywhere that defends the freedoms of citizens against the self-interest of the state. People think the West is a capitalist free market economy but it really isn't. For most middle class people in work, about 70% of their income goes to the state, which is hardly capitalist IMO. Western countries are borrowing so much that future generations will spend their whole lives working to pay interest on debts incurred by the current generation. Governments are incapable of living within their means because people will never vote to give up an entitlement they have been granted in the past. Voting to get spending under control would be truly socialist, because it would mean sacrificing your short term self interest for the benefit of others, but instead we get hysterical nonsense about the evils of the bedroom tax and whatnot and the current omni shambles of a government pretending they have imposed austerity when public spending is still going up faster than inflation. This is the wrong way to look at it . because you end up with the public/private dichotomy that plagues all current debate . We are a country of 63m people .As a country we are capable of generating a set level gdp every year . The question is how should that money be distributed , cause despite all the bollocks about earned wealth , the simple fact is without the rest of us not one single person could make any money . We are all each dependent upon the rest . Now it makes no sense to say the state should cut back , when 1% of this country have the same wealth as the bottom 55% . its the same pie !!!! Money is just a means of circulating goods to sustain life , its all about the distribution . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2014 17:21:27 GMT
No indeed. It's strange how the US political system is fixated on issues that don't really seem to have much importance in the UK, i.e. guns and abortion. It's a shame that there isn't a major political party anywhere that defends the freedoms of citizens against the self-interest of the state. People think the West is a capitalist free market economy but it really isn't. For most middle class people in work, about 70% of their income goes to the state, which is hardly capitalist IMO. Western countries are borrowing so much that future generations will spend their whole lives working to pay interest on debts incurred by the current generation. Governments are incapable of living within their means because people will never vote to give up an entitlement they have been granted in the past. Voting to get spending under control would be truly socialist, because it would mean sacrificing your short term self interest for the benefit of others, but instead we get hysterical nonsense about the evils of the bedroom tax and whatnot and the current omni shambles of a government pretending they have imposed austerity when public spending is still going up faster than inflation. This is the wrong way to look at it . because you end up with the public/private dichotomy that plagues all current debate . We are a country of 63m people .As a country we are capable of generating a set level gdp every year . The question is how should that money be distributed , cause despite all the bollocks about earned wealth , the simple fact is without the rest of us not one single person could make any money . We are all each dependent upon the rest . Now it makes no sense to say the state should cut back , when 1% of this country have the same wealth as the bottom 55% . its the same pie !!!! Money is just a means of circulating goods to sustain life , its all about the distribution . No, I don't agree (surprise!). In the long-term, a socialist / communist system does not generate a fraction of the GDP that a capitalist system does. The only regimes in human history that have lifted the masses out of poverty are capitalist and in the last century or two the only ones that have led to poverty and mass starvation are communist / national socialist. It is difficult for a socialist or marxist to try and hold the high moral ground on this argument, history is against you IMO. You could read John Rawls' Theory of Justice and think about what fairness is really about. For me it's about equality of opportunity and not equality of outcome. |
|
|
|
Post by dvh on Sept 1, 2014 17:32:43 GMT
This is the wrong way to look at it . because you end up with the public/private dichotomy that plagues all current debate . We are a country of 63m people .As a country we are capable of generating a set level gdp every year . The question is how should that money be distributed , cause despite all the bollocks about earned wealth , the simple fact is without the rest of us not one single person could make any money . We are all each dependent upon the rest . Now it makes no sense to say the state should cut back , when 1% of this country have the same wealth as the bottom 55% . its the same pie !!!! Money is just a means of circulating goods to sustain life , its all about the distribution . No, I don't agree (surprise!). In the long-term, a socialist / communist system does not generate a fraction of the GDP that a capitalist system does. The only regimes in human history that have lifted the masses out of poverty are capitalist and in the last century or two the only ones that have led to poverty and mass starvation are communist / national socialist. It is difficult for a socialist or marxist to try and hold the high moral ground on this argument, history is against you IMO. You could read John Rawls' Theory of Justice and think about what fairness is really about. For me it's about equality of opportunity and not equality of outcome. Indeed. But how can equality of opportunity be guaranteed in the very (and increasingly) unequal society in which we live? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2014 17:43:44 GMT
No, I don't agree (surprise!). In the long-term, a socialist / communist system does not generate a fraction of the GDP that a capitalist system does. The only regimes in human history that have lifted the masses out of poverty are capitalist and in the last century or two the only ones that have led to poverty and mass starvation are communist / national socialist. It is difficult for a socialist or marxist to try and hold the high moral ground on this argument, history is against you IMO. You could read John Rawls' Theory of Justice and think about what fairness is really about. For me it's about equality of opportunity and not equality of outcome. Indeed. But how can equality of opportunity be guaranteed in the very (and increasingly) unequal society in which we live? That's the challenge, to encourage equality of opportunity without resorting to class war is not easy. Cutting the size of the state by about 50% would be my first step. |
|
|
|
Post by dvh on Sept 2, 2014 7:10:19 GMT
Indeed. But how can equality of opportunity be guaranteed in the very (and increasingly) unequal society in which we live? That's the challenge, to encourage equality of opportunity without resorting to class war is not easy. Cutting the size of the state by about 50% would be my first step. How would that encourage equality of opportunity (leaving aside the question of whether it would be a Good Thing per se)? |
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on Sept 2, 2014 8:43:03 GMT
Firstly , capitalisms are not the same .There is a significant difference between Sweden and Uk , for instance
Secondly, I didn’t mention any form of socialism , so to use this to argue against me is somewhat illegitimate .
Thirdly , equality of opportunity is a meaningless concept . It is in fact bollocks and can have no meaningful empirical application .
It is now the case and it as always been the case [ except a brief period between 1950 and 1965 when the economy switched from industrial to service and there was a massive growth in middle class employment , which is not being deskilled to save money ] that the single most important determinate of your wealth and income is the identity of the vagina you emerge from at birth .
Social mobility is a myth , cause for people to go up ,people must come down and that just don’t happen .
Additionally , opportunities are restricted , there are only so many places at the top , so it matters not if you have the capabilities , only so many can play for the top team . Additionally , we live in somewhat of unfair world so the ability to kick a football can mean you are paid 1000x more than someone with the ability to transplant a heart .
And precisely what is equality of opportunity – we don’t all have access to the same parents , education , money , resources . The chances of being a high court judge if you are born in Oldham are none existent . When does this equality of opportunity kick in.
Additionally , in order for there to be equality of opportunity , you have to take away certain privileges from certain people , otherwise there is no equality of opportunity . Just how do you go about doing that ?
The fact is societies are unfair , there are very few meritocratic institutions or organisations and people get where they get not through talent per se , but by effectively utilising all the resources available to them , be it , money , power, connections , nepotism , charm , good lucks and anything else they have available . And good luck to them . But the fact is anyone can only make something of themselves because of the collective .The whole is bigger than the individual . All these people who say they will piss of if taxes go up , well they can bloody well bugger off and i can guarantee they were be thousands of equally talented people waiting to take their place .
There is an African concept of unbuntu , which roughly means I am me because of all of you .It is a recognition that the collective is more important than the individual but it is necessary to let individuals flourish .
In a world which is unfair , the level of inequality of resources matters and should be minimised .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2014 9:03:04 GMT
Firstly , capitalisms are not the same .There is a significant difference between Sweden and Uk , for instance Secondly, I didn’t mention any form of socialism , so to use this to argue against me is somewhat illegitimate . Thirdly , equality of opportunity is a meaningless concept . It is in fact bollocks and can have no meaningful empirical application . It is now the case and it as always been the case [ except a brief period between 1950 and 1965 when the economy switched from industrial to service and there was a massive growth in middle class employment , which is not being deskilled to save money ] that the single most important determinate of your wealth and income is the identity of the vagina you emerge from at birth . Social mobility is a myth , cause for people to go up ,people must come down and that just don’t happen . Additionally , opportunities are restricted , there are only so many places at the top , so it matters not if you have the capabilities , only so many can play for the top team . Additionally , we live in somewhat of unfair world so the ability to kick a football can mean you are paid 1000x more than someone with the ability to transplant a heart . And precisely what is equality of opportunity – we don’t all have access to the same parents , education , money , resources . The chances of being a high court judge if you are born in Oldham are none existent . When does this equality of opportunity kick in. Additionally , in order for there to be equality of opportunity , you have to take away certain privileges from certain people , otherwise there is no equality of opportunity . Just how do you go about doing that ? The fact is societies are unfair , there are very few meritocratic institutions or organisations and people get where they get not through talent per se , but by effectively utilising all the resources available to them , be it , money , power, connections , nepotism , charm , good lucks and anything else they have available . And good luck to them . But the fact is anyone can only make something of themselves because of the collective .The whole is bigger than the individual . All these people who say they will piss of if taxes go up , well they can bloody well bugger off and i can guarantee they were be thousands of equally talented people waiting to take their place . There is an African concept of unbuntu , which roughly means I am me because of all of you .It is a recognition that the collective is more important than the individual but it is necessary to let individuals flourish . In a world which is unfair , the level of inequality of resources matters and should be minimised . I agree with a lot of what you've written, apart from the notion that equality of opportunity is a meaningless concept. I think I understand what it means although granted it's not easy to bring about. Comprehensive education has been one attempt to edge us closer but has not been the answer, the system has failed the majority of students and things continue to get worse not better. I don't think tinkering at the edges will make any difference. Britain has been on a steady glidepath of decline since we bankrupted ourselves fighting Hitler in WW2. That's why I think we need to significantly reduce the size of the state in the UK and remove the biggest vested interested in the country. Too much government and overly centralised government has so many pernicious effects in the long term that it destroys freedom and distorts society. It's also bankrupted the country, which in the end will exacerbate inequality. |
|
|
|
Post by dvh on Sept 2, 2014 9:06:48 GMT
[ except a brief period between 1950 and 1965 when the economy switched from industrial to service and there was a massive growth in middle class employment , which is not being deskilled to save money ] Without wishing to be pedantic, presumably 'which is not being deskilled' should read 'which is now being deskilled'? |
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on Sept 2, 2014 9:37:03 GMT
it is alas , beyond my powers of comprehension to conceive how your solution would have any efficacy whatsoever .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2014 9:50:17 GMT
I would require a long post to explain why I think it would help encourage social mobility, individual freedom and greater equality of opportunity, which I don't have the time for just now, but please don't write it off just because you don't understand the argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on Sept 2, 2014 10:02:54 GMT
Ia that cause you gotta go away and think about it ?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2014 12:00:57 GMT
Ia that cause you gotta go away and think about it ? Given that I'm trying to explain a complex (and counter-intuitive) theory to someone who hasn't come across it before, I can't do it in one sentence while I'm at work. I do have an O level, A level, degree and post-graduate qualification in economics, so maybe you could give me the benefit of the doubt that I'm not an idiot?  What is your background in Marxist theory? |
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on Sept 2, 2014 12:07:57 GMT
I have a degree in economics from a russell group university back when it was very hard for working class boys from Oldham to get to polytechnic never mind a proper uni  By the way i am far more impressed by what people write as opposed to what they have accumulated and a degree in economics is normally a barrier to talking about it , abstract bullshit mathamatics , reduction of human beings to idiots in pursuit of selfish economic interests , it is largely bullshit . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2014 12:28:16 GMT
I have a degree in economics from a russell group university back when it was very hard for working class boys from Oldham to get to polytechnic never mind a proper uni By the way i am far more impressed by what people write as opposed to what they have accumulated and a degree in economics is normally a barrier to talking about it , abstract bullshit mathamatics , reduction of human beings to idiots in pursuit of selfish economic interests , it is largely bullshit . So how come you don't understand that a large state is a barrier to equality of opportunity? |
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on Sept 2, 2014 12:30:15 GMT
I have a degree in economics from a russell group university back when it was very hard for working class boys from Oldham to get to polytechnic never mind a proper uni By the way i am far more impressed by what people write as opposed to what they have accumulated and a degree in economics is normally a barrier to talking about it , abstract bullshit mathamatics , reduction of human beings to idiots in pursuit of selfish economic interests , it is largely bullshit . So how come you don't understand that a large state is a barrier to equality of opportunity? Because I am correct and you are wrong . Although I dont know why you are wrong as you have yet to elucidate your position . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2014 12:38:58 GMT
So how come you don't understand that a large state is a barrier to equality of opportunity? Because I am correct and you are wrong . Although I dont know why you are wrong as you have yet to elucidate your position . I was trying to establish if you understood the basics, and as with anything you don't agree with it is relegated to "bullshit". It doesn't really encourage me to write a lengthy post only for you to discount the whole thing as nonsense! As I said, I don't have time to teach you the theory right now, and if you already know it, what would be the point? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2014 12:44:31 GMT
As this is my thread, I have requested it be locked.
I was interested in opinions about guns and nine years olds but find politicking tedious in the extreme and of no interest whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
Post by danielquinn on Sept 2, 2014 12:48:51 GMT
That is a cop out and slightly patronising to not only me but the rest of TAS .
I spend my entire day explaining complex legal arguments to clients who range from articulate to poorly educated.A client last week was unable to convert August to the 8 month of the year !!! . At no time - if they dont understand me - do i blame them .
My A'level lecturer always used to say , if you cant explain it to your granny , then you dont understand it .
Dave Brailsford , attributed much of the success of British cycling to moving away from cut and paste thinkers to first principle thinkers . It is an essential ingredient of a first principle thinker to explain their position simply .
Finally , if i was to simply say bullshit to your posts without reason , justification or arguement , them it would of course be rhetoric . Rhetoric loses on forums .
|
|
