ressentimentGonzo wrote:I really hate that "Politics of envy" argument, it's a propaganda tool, and I like to call out bs on it.
Gonzo wrote:Griff just looks like a lord. As far as I know he's a self-made man. In fact his arguments are very common among self-made men. I really hate that "Politics of envy" argument, it's a propaganda tool, and I like to call out bs on it.
Lord_Griff wrote:I have trouble understanding why you can't extrapolate from first principles. Distill the arguments down to the minimum. Is it right to assume that because all people aren't equal (physically, mentally etc), and all ventures are not equal in their contribution to society that the distribution benefits should not be apportioned equally?
Lord_Griff wrote:Luck is coincidence falling in your favour.
I think most arguments are about the degree of inequality rather than whether there should be any at all. The concept of a real meritocracy isn't something people tend to have an issue with, but it's not something that currently exists.Lord_Griff wrote:Is it right to assume that because all people aren't equal (physically, mentally etc), and all ventures are not equal in their contribution to society that the distribution benefits should not be apportioned equally?
Lord_Griff wrote:I have trouble understanding why you can't extrapolate from first principles. Distill the arguments down to the minimum. Is it right to assume that because all people aren't equal (physically, mentally etc), and all ventures are not equal in their contribution to society that the distribution benefits should not be apportioned equally?
About which point?Lord_Griff wrote:Red Yoss: What do you mean?
beano wrote:I have issue defining what "luck" I should strip. Is Wayne Rooney et al in this luck category?
It also isn't true simply because there is only so much room at the top for the system to function as it does with the majority being fairly low paid wage labourers. In fact, the way things are now there needs to be a good number of unemployed to keep demands on working conditions and wages down.Yossarian wrote:Whilst there is some truth in this argument, that without hard work or ability they wouldn't have got anywhere, it does negate the fact that luck is a factor, and so there does become a feeling of 'well, anyone can do it if they want it enough', which simply isn't true.
...theories of privilege suggest that the privileged group views its social, cultural, and economic experiences as a norm that everyone should experience, rather than as an advantaged position that must be maintained at the expense of others. This normative assumption implicitly constrains discussions of social inequality within the dominant discourse: such explanations are limited to factors specific to disadvantaged groups — who are viewed as having failed to achieve the norm — and solutions focus on what can be done to help those groups achieve the 'normal' standards experienced by the dominant group.
When Churchill and Smith are starting to sound like progressives, there's something badly wrong.In 1909 a dangerous subversive explained the issue thus. "Roads are made, streets are made, services are improved, electric light turns night into day, water is brought from reservoirs a hundred miles off in the mountains – and all the while the landlord sits still. Every one of those improvements is effected by the labour and cost of other people and the taxpayers. To not one of those improvements does the land monopolist, as a land monopolist, contribute, and yet by every one of them the value of his land is enhanced. He renders no service to the community, he contributes nothing to the general welfare, he contributes nothing to the process from which his own enrichment is derived ... the unearned increment on the land is reaped by the land monopolist in exact proportion, not to the service, but to the disservice done."
Who was this firebrand? Winston Churchill. As Churchill, Adam Smith and many others have pointed out, those who own the land skim wealth from everyone else, without exertion or enterprise. They "levy a toll upon all other forms of wealth and every form of industry". A land value tax would recoup this toll.
Yossarian wrote:There is something in this. Many self made men convince themselves that luck had no part to play in their getting to the point they reached in life, that it was purely down to their own hard work and abilities that they've got to where they are. Whilst there is some truth in this argument, that without hard work or ability they wouldn't have got anywhere, it does negate the fact that luck is a factor, and so there does become a feeling of 'well, anyone can do it if they want it enough', which simply isn't true. Many people are screwed over by factors outside their control and despite working every bit as hard or having just as much ability as others, end up with nothing. Of course, we don't get to hear their stories.Griff just looks like a lord. As far as I know he's a self-made man. In fact his arguments are very common among self-made men. I really hate that "Politics of envy" argument, it's a propaganda tool, and I like to call out bs on it.
pantyfire wrote:One day in a office I was called into, I listened as a manager, who was about to leave, talked to a girl working there. She is a bit airy fairy and she was trying to get some careers advice off him. His advice boiled down to basically this – If you want it hard enough you can get any job/career, just DO IT! But I am afraid that is simply not true. There are lots of factors that cab hinder someone, the most obvious one of all being lack of talent or intelligence.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!