 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Ok, it might not be "fair" that all children are not given the same
> opportunities,
I think the whole "unequal opportunities" thing is confusing. It *used* to
be that kids didn't get equal opportunities. (E.g., in the USA, the black
kids were prevented from going to the same schools as the white kids by
law.) Now people have equal opportunities, and the complaint is actually
that it's unfair that everyone who succeeds has to *work* at it.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> did not noticably affect ordinary people,
Well, unless you were in a third-world country relying on freon refrigeration.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tag povrayorg> wrote:
> I was reading a newspaper article written by a British teacher whose
> opinion is that private schools in the UK should be banned. When all the
> wordy argumentation is distilled down to its very basics, it comes down
> to be, basically, "it's unfair that some children are getting a better
> education solely because their parents happen to be rich; this kind of
> elitist snobbery is completely inappropriate to the modern world we are
> living in".
>
> This got me thinking: *Why* shouldn't at least some children get a better
> education, if their parents can afford it? What's so wrong with that?
>
> The complaint would make sense if *all* children could be given a much
> higher level of education if the private vs. public schooling system was
> dismantled and replaced with a public-schooling-only system. However, given
> that children in private schools form a very small minority, and the reason
> why they get a better education is because these private schools have better
> funding (because the rich parents are funding them), banning the private
> schools is not going to increase the funding of public schools in any
> significant way. (In other words, even if the funding/student which now
> goes to private schools was distributed among public schools, the overall
> funding/student in public schools would not increase significantly.)
>
> So basically what this teacher wants is to deny a better education from
> these children and force them to go to public schools which have lower
> funding for the sole reason that it's more "fair", basically forcing *all*
> children to the same lower level of education, insted of having at least
> *some* of them in better schools.
>
> Given that a significant majority of children who go to private schools
> end up going to Universities and becoming university-level professionals
> (such as teachers, doctors, surgeons, etc.), deliberately dumbing down
> their basic education just for the sake of "fairness" feels completely
> counter-productive.
>
> Ok, it might not be "fair" that all children are not given the same
> opportunities, but do you really want to lower the overall education level
> of your entire country just in the name of "fairness"?
>
> --
> - Warp
I agree with warp.
When you take from the haves and give to the have nots without regard to the
effort of acquisition then both die.
Free money is not free. Somebody had to work for it.
I have what I have because I did what it took to have it. Why should my hard
work now become a sin in the eyes of the world? It sounds like socialism is
becoming the new irrational religion based on the myth that everyone should be
equal.
In the US in the past we understood the starting point was all the same but what
you got after that was up to you. As of late our government keeps listening to
the myths of socialism.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29-12-2009 20:16, m1j wrote:
[snipped warp text]
>
>
> I agree with warp.
> When you take from the haves and give to the have nots without regard to the
> effort of acquisition then both die.
American?
> Free money is not free. Somebody had to work for it.
Yes I think so
> I have what I have because I did what it took to have it. Why should my hard
> work now become a sin in the eyes of the world?
Quite confident now
> It sounds like socialism is
> becoming the new irrational religion based on the myth that everyone should be
> equal.
Definitely American
> In the US in the past we
Yes \o/ I knew it.
> understood the starting point was all the same but what
> you got after that was up to you. As of late our government keeps listening to
> the myths of socialism.
Don't get me wrong, some of my best friends are Americans. ;)
It is just that your contribution is so full of typical right wing US
propaganda terminology. You may have a point but the way you phrase it
makes it hard for me to follow. It is just like talking to a Scotsman
and don't hear a word because he has such an interesting accent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Don't get me wrong, some of my best friends are Americans. ;)
> It is just that your contribution is so full of typical right wing US
> propaganda terminology. You may have a point but the way you phrase it
> makes it hard for me to follow. It is just like talking to a Scotsman
> and don't hear a word because he has such an interesting accent.
Personally I think socialism (meaning that private property and private
enterpreneurship is banned, and everything is controlled by the government
and, in an ideal/utopistic situation, the government shares all capital
equally with all citizens) might be an enticing ideology because it's "fair"
(after all, it's unfair that some people can live in multi-million dollar
mansions, own one expensive sports car for every day of the week, and travel
regularly to the Bahamas in their own private jet, while so many people
are living in cardboard boxes on the streets). However, from a pragmatic
point of view socialism just doesn't work. It causes progress stagnation,
which ends up lessening everybody's quality of life in the long run.
Capitalism endorses competition. People will strive for bettering their
own lives (to get rich, famous or otherwise in a better position in life).
While this sounds (and somewhat is) a sign of greed, in the grand scale of
things it's actually greed that benefits the society as a whole: By bettering
his own life, this person is pushing forward progress, indirectly bettering
everyone's life in average.
Someone might want to get rich and famous by making a beneficial invention
or developing something useful in order to sell it for millions. If he
succeeds, he gets filthy rich (which was his goal), but as a side effect
the overall quality of the society got increased because now there's a new
invention which makes everyone's life easier.
Socialism, on the other hand, deters innovation and progress. There's
nothing personal to be gained by making new inventions or bettering your
own quality of life. You can't sell your invention to others for money
because the government owns whatever you make. So why bother? There's nothing
to be gained, and everything to be lost: All your hard work will be
"hijacked" by the government and you get nothing.
What people want is unreasonable. Basically they want to eat the cake and
keep it too: They want all the benefits of innovation and progress which
comes from competitive capitalism, but without the competitive capitalism,
so that everyone owns the same amount. This just doesn't work.
It's not a coincidence that the best technological innovations are created
in capitalist countries which endorse free commerce and private ownership and
entrepreneurship.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29-12-2009 21:46, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Don't get me wrong, some of my best friends are Americans. ;)
>> It is just that your contribution is so full of typical right wing US
>> propaganda terminology. You may have a point but the way you phrase it
>> makes it hard for me to follow. It is just like talking to a Scotsman
>> and don't hear a word because he has such an interesting accent.
>
> Personally I think socialism (meaning that private property and private
> enterpreneurship is banned, and everything is controlled by the government
> and, in an ideal/utopistic situation, the government shares all capital
> equally with all citizens) might be an enticing ideology because it's "fair"
> (after all, it's unfair that some people can live in multi-million dollar
> mansions, own one expensive sports car for every day of the week, and travel
> regularly to the Bahamas in their own private jet, while so many people
> are living in cardboard boxes on the streets). However, from a pragmatic
> point of view socialism just doesn't work. It causes progress stagnation,
> which ends up lessening everybody's quality of life in the long run.
>
> Capitalism endorses competition. People will strive for bettering their
> own lives (to get rich, famous or otherwise in a better position in life).
> While this sounds (and somewhat is) a sign of greed, in the grand scale of
> things it's actually greed that benefits the society as a whole: By bettering
> his own life, this person is pushing forward progress, indirectly bettering
> everyone's life in average.
>
> Someone might want to get rich and famous by making a beneficial invention
> or developing something useful in order to sell it for millions. If he
> succeeds, he gets filthy rich (which was his goal), but as a side effect
> the overall quality of the society got increased because now there's a new
> invention which makes everyone's life easier.
>
> Socialism, on the other hand, deters innovation and progress. There's
> nothing personal to be gained by making new inventions or bettering your
> own quality of life. You can't sell your invention to others for money
> because the government owns whatever you make. So why bother? There's nothing
> to be gained, and everything to be lost: All your hard work will be
> "hijacked" by the government and you get nothing.
>
> What people want is unreasonable. Basically they want to eat the cake and
> keep it too: They want all the benefits of innovation and progress which
> comes from competitive capitalism, but without the competitive capitalism,
> so that everyone owns the same amount. This just doesn't work.
>
> It's not a coincidence that the best technological innovations are created
> in capitalist countries which endorse free commerce and private ownership and
> entrepreneurship.
>
In general I agree with you, as would almost anybody in the first world.
A few remarks: you mention "best technological innovations" this (and
some of your other statements) imply that innovation is or can be good.
This is an assumption not shared by everybody everywhere*.
Second, socialism (in the standard sense, not the one used by m1j) does
not work because, as you said, it goes against human nature. OTOH pure
capitalism does not work either. Although sometimes somebody gets rich
by doing something beneficial, in most cases the easiest and fastest way
to get rich is finding a way to make money in a way that somebody else
pays the bill. Either in money or in reduced lifetime or in a broader
sense the environment. You need to have rules to weed out the parasites
without killing the good entrepreneurs. Anybody remembers the money crisis?
Slightly related: we have a discussion here on raising the retirement
age to 67. For jobs that require physical labour it should stay at 65.
Which raises the question which jobs are the hardest. A couple of lists
circulate and most people are convinced that they should be on that
list. A labour organisation proposed to simply use a monetary cut off.
Everybody earning less than a certain amount should be able to retire at
65 because most of those jobs are below that. What does it say about a
society when there is a negative correlation between working hard and
income?
* There is that parable of a man sitting under a tree that catches just
enough to feed himself and family. A man comes by and says: why are you
lying under that tree. You could be cathing more fish and make money.
man under tree: why would I want that?
other man: so you can buy a bigger boat and catch more fish
man under tree: why would I want that?
other man: in a few years you get still a bigger boat and make even more
money.
man under tree: why would I want that?
other man: Then after a couple of years you would be so rich that you
would not have to work again and sit the the whole day under a tree
man under tree: ...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> What does it say about a society when there is a negative correlation between
working hard and
> income?
Work smarter, not harder?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
m1j wrote:
>
> I agree with warp.
> When you take from the haves and give to the have nots without regard to the
> effort of acquisition then both die.
Who said anything about having no regard for the effort?
> Free money is not free. Somebody had to work for it.
You are right, it isn't free and someone did work for it.
> I have what I have because I did what it took to have it.
And had all of the benefits of modern society, that provided the chance
for you to survive infancy, have the chance at a good education,
possibly attend university at a decreased rate. Then you expended some
effort doing what? Building an entire industry from scratch, or more
likely building on top of what someone else had done before.
> Why should my hard
> work now become a sin in the eyes of the world? It sounds like socialism is
> becoming the new irrational religion based on the myth that everyone should be
> equal.
Opinion, and absurd.
> In the US in the past we understood the starting point was all the same but what
> you got after that was up to you. As of late our government keeps listening to
> the myths of socialism.
>
>
Why do people from the USA want to shout about socialism?
Really, what is the difference between 'socialist' health care and the
USA medicare/medicaid programs? Between socialist police and city run
police? Or city run water/trash/sewer. Or a city/state paid fire
department. Or taxes to pay for the interstate, the internet, TV.
Give up all of those, all of the benefits of modern society, and build
an industry from scratch against a monopoly without the help of
government tax breaks or enforced rules of capitalism. Then, as a fellow
American, I will listen to the anti-socialist rants without giggling.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-12-2009 1:01, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> What does it say about a society when there is a negative correlation
>> between working hard and income?
>
>
> Work smarter, not harder?
>
Does that apply that everybody has that choice?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> On 30-12-2009 1:01, Darren New wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> What does it say about a society when there is a negative correlation
>>> between working hard and income?
>>
>>
>> Work smarter, not harder?
>>
>
> Does that apply that everybody has that choice?
I suppose only the smart people. Then we're back where we started.
As an aside, that was a joke, not a serious suggestion.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
