Why I support Social Darwinism
-
Social Darwinism is the philosophy of true free market capitalism. It holds that the main purpose of government is to defend the nation against foreign invasion and to protect citizens and their property from criminals. It decries the payment of benefits as inculcating an attitude of 'entitlement', and thus being conducive to idleness and stupidity. It maintains the rights of property owners. It opposes laws that regulate housing, sanitation, and health conditions, together with working conditions, maximum hours and minimum wages, as interfering with those rights. It supports the freedom of individual workers to negotiate their terms of employment, rather than have them imposed by unions. It rejects the concept of a government funded school system, which places the burden of education on the taxpayer. Simply put, parents are responsible for the literacy and numeracy of their children. Should industry require specific skills in its workforce, it must meet the cost of selecting and training individuals through scholarships and apprenticeships. It rejects the concept of government funded healthcare, again placing the responsibility upon the individual to make provision for their, and their family's, health. It encourages the characteristics of industriousness, frugality, the desire to own property, and the ability to accumulate wealth, as being beneficial both to the individual and society. Social Darwinism thus ensures the evolution of civilization towards a peaceful, industrious, society, by a form of 'natural selection'.
Bob Emmett
Bob Emmett wrote:
It holds that the main purpose of government is to defend the nation against foreign invasion and to protect citizens and their property from criminals.
How would it do that without raising taxes ? Why is education only the right of the wealthy in your world ?
Bob Emmett wrote:
It decries the payment of benefits as inculcating an attitude of 'entitlement', and thus being conducive to idleness and stupidity.
In other words, it supports the idea of the many being exploited for the benefit of the few.
Bob Emmett wrote:
It maintains the rights of property owners. It opposes laws that regulate housing, sanitation, and health conditions, together with working conditions, maximum hours and minimum wages, as interfering with those rights.
So, it does not help people who are being taken advantage of to defend themselves, and instead regards them as fodder for the system, for the benefit of the few on the top of the system.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Simply put, parents are responsible for the literacy and numeracy of their children.
So, this means that you believe that society is not benefited in any way from people being literate ? Given the other conditions you're imposing, parents obviously will have no time to teach their kids, as they will need to work long hours for little pay and come home to unsafe housing and unsanitary conditions, to eat poisonous food. It also assumes that no child should ever be given the possibility of being more successful than their parents are.
Bob Emmett wrote:
It rejects the concept of government funded healthcare, again placing the responsibility upon the individual to make provision for their, and their family's, health.
So, all forms of insurance are therefore unacceptable ?
Bob Emmett wrote:
It encourages the characteristics of industriousness, frugality, the desire to own property, and the ability to accumulate wealth, as being beneficial both to the individual and society.
Bollocks. It encourages poverty for the majority, and an entitled rich who can treat the masses any way they please.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Social Darwinism thus ensures the evolution
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
It holds that the main purpose of government is to defend the nation against foreign invasion and to protect citizens and their property from criminals.
How would it do that without raising taxes ? Why is education only the right of the wealthy in your world ?
Bob Emmett wrote:
It decries the payment of benefits as inculcating an attitude of 'entitlement', and thus being conducive to idleness and stupidity.
In other words, it supports the idea of the many being exploited for the benefit of the few.
Bob Emmett wrote:
It maintains the rights of property owners. It opposes laws that regulate housing, sanitation, and health conditions, together with working conditions, maximum hours and minimum wages, as interfering with those rights.
So, it does not help people who are being taken advantage of to defend themselves, and instead regards them as fodder for the system, for the benefit of the few on the top of the system.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Simply put, parents are responsible for the literacy and numeracy of their children.
So, this means that you believe that society is not benefited in any way from people being literate ? Given the other conditions you're imposing, parents obviously will have no time to teach their kids, as they will need to work long hours for little pay and come home to unsafe housing and unsanitary conditions, to eat poisonous food. It also assumes that no child should ever be given the possibility of being more successful than their parents are.
Bob Emmett wrote:
It rejects the concept of government funded healthcare, again placing the responsibility upon the individual to make provision for their, and their family's, health.
So, all forms of insurance are therefore unacceptable ?
Bob Emmett wrote:
It encourages the characteristics of industriousness, frugality, the desire to own property, and the ability to accumulate wealth, as being beneficial both to the individual and society.
Bollocks. It encourages poverty for the majority, and an entitled rich who can treat the masses any way they please.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Social Darwinism thus ensures the evolution
Christian Graus wrote:
How would it do that without raising taxes ?
Presumably, if government did not fund education or health, this would result in a reduced need for higher taxation levels. Thus if taxes were cut to reflect what government did commit to, this would leave peoples with more disposable income to spend in whichever way they so choose. Consequently, if you needed your children educated or you and your family to receive some health related service, then you would purchase it directly or indirectly through some insurance policy.
Christian Graus wrote:
many being exploited for the benefit of the few.
Irrespective if the system is Capitalism, Communism or other, that scenario can always exist. My concern is that irrespective of the system, sufficient resources are "ring fenced" to support those by means of a safety net.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, all forms of insurance are therefore unacceptable ?
To forbid insurance can be lumped together with forbidding pensions and forbidding people to have savings accounts. It would be very short-sighted solution with grave future results. Society should feel at ease with itself, but in a society that will be ridden with huge levels of discrimination coupled with the "I'm all right - sod the rest of you" attitude, could become a catalyst for civil unrest, and thus Society cannot be at ease with itself.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
It holds that the main purpose of government is to defend the nation against foreign invasion and to protect citizens and their property from criminals.
How would it do that without raising taxes ? Why is education only the right of the wealthy in your world ?
Bob Emmett wrote:
It decries the payment of benefits as inculcating an attitude of 'entitlement', and thus being conducive to idleness and stupidity.
In other words, it supports the idea of the many being exploited for the benefit of the few.
Bob Emmett wrote:
It maintains the rights of property owners. It opposes laws that regulate housing, sanitation, and health conditions, together with working conditions, maximum hours and minimum wages, as interfering with those rights.
So, it does not help people who are being taken advantage of to defend themselves, and instead regards them as fodder for the system, for the benefit of the few on the top of the system.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Simply put, parents are responsible for the literacy and numeracy of their children.
So, this means that you believe that society is not benefited in any way from people being literate ? Given the other conditions you're imposing, parents obviously will have no time to teach their kids, as they will need to work long hours for little pay and come home to unsafe housing and unsanitary conditions, to eat poisonous food. It also assumes that no child should ever be given the possibility of being more successful than their parents are.
Bob Emmett wrote:
It rejects the concept of government funded healthcare, again placing the responsibility upon the individual to make provision for their, and their family's, health.
So, all forms of insurance are therefore unacceptable ?
Bob Emmett wrote:
It encourages the characteristics of industriousness, frugality, the desire to own property, and the ability to accumulate wealth, as being beneficial both to the individual and society.
Bollocks. It encourages poverty for the majority, and an entitled rich who can treat the masses any way they please.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Social Darwinism thus ensures the evolution
Christian Graus wrote:
How would it do that without raising taxes ?
To defend the nation against foreign invasion and to protect citizens and their property from criminals are the two reasons for levying taxes.
Christian Graus wrote:
Why is education only the right of the wealthy in your world ?
Why do you consider education to be a right? You have the mindset of the 'entitlement' society.
Christian Graus wrote:
In other words, it supports the idea of the many being exploited for the benefit of the few.
Paying the market rate for a given skill set is not exploitation. Paying a welfare cheque is exploitation of the employed.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, it does not help people who are being taken advantage of to defend themselves, and instead regards them as fodder for the system, for the benefit of the few on the top of the system.
People are free to accept their condition or change it. Why the alternatives 'on top' and 'fodder'? Given that wages will be determined by marketable skills, there would likely be a wide range of incomes.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, this means that you believe that society is not benefited in any way from people being literate ?
Of course it is. That is why the diligent will attain it in order to improve their lot. The vast majority of society will be literate and numerate.
Christian Graus wrote:
Given the other conditions you're imposing
Conditions are imposed by the market. Attaining a marketable skill set enables the negotiation of more favourable terms of employment.
Christian Graus wrote:
parents obviously will have no time to teach their kids, as they will need to work long hours for little pay and come home to unsafe housing and unsanitary conditions, to eat poisonous food.
There is no obviously about it. Only those who, through stupidity or indolence, have to take what they are given in the employment market would be reduced to this. There is no reason why families could not set up the equivalent of a Dame School, it is only literacy and numeracy that are being taught. They could choose to accept the children of the indigent as charitable cases.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
How would it do that without raising taxes ?
Presumably, if government did not fund education or health, this would result in a reduced need for higher taxation levels. Thus if taxes were cut to reflect what government did commit to, this would leave peoples with more disposable income to spend in whichever way they so choose. Consequently, if you needed your children educated or you and your family to receive some health related service, then you would purchase it directly or indirectly through some insurance policy.
Christian Graus wrote:
many being exploited for the benefit of the few.
Irrespective if the system is Capitalism, Communism or other, that scenario can always exist. My concern is that irrespective of the system, sufficient resources are "ring fenced" to support those by means of a safety net.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, all forms of insurance are therefore unacceptable ?
To forbid insurance can be lumped together with forbidding pensions and forbidding people to have savings accounts. It would be very short-sighted solution with grave future results. Society should feel at ease with itself, but in a society that will be ridden with huge levels of discrimination coupled with the "I'm all right - sod the rest of you" attitude, could become a catalyst for civil unrest, and thus Society cannot be at ease with itself.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Irrespective if the system is Capitalism, Communism or other, that scenario can always exist.
That's not an argument to ignore it; simply means that you shouldn't strive toward banning it, but more to minimizing the negative effects.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
the "I'm all right - sod the rest of you" attitude, could become a catalyst for civil unrest
A society is a group of people living together. The attitude that you describe is unfitting for any society.
I are Troll :suss:
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Irrespective if the system is Capitalism, Communism or other, that scenario can always exist.
That's not an argument to ignore it; simply means that you shouldn't strive toward banning it, but more to minimizing the negative effects.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
the "I'm all right - sod the rest of you" attitude, could become a catalyst for civil unrest
A society is a group of people living together. The attitude that you describe is unfitting for any society.
I are Troll :suss:
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
The attitude that you describe is unfitting for any society.
The penalty of injustice, said Socrates, is not death or stripes, but the fatal necessity of becoming more and more unjust. ** ** Excerpt from ... The Pleasures of Life by Sir John Lubbock
-
Christian Graus wrote:
How would it do that without raising taxes ?
Presumably, if government did not fund education or health, this would result in a reduced need for higher taxation levels. Thus if taxes were cut to reflect what government did commit to, this would leave peoples with more disposable income to spend in whichever way they so choose. Consequently, if you needed your children educated or you and your family to receive some health related service, then you would purchase it directly or indirectly through some insurance policy.
Christian Graus wrote:
many being exploited for the benefit of the few.
Irrespective if the system is Capitalism, Communism or other, that scenario can always exist. My concern is that irrespective of the system, sufficient resources are "ring fenced" to support those by means of a safety net.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, all forms of insurance are therefore unacceptable ?
To forbid insurance can be lumped together with forbidding pensions and forbidding people to have savings accounts. It would be very short-sighted solution with grave future results. Society should feel at ease with itself, but in a society that will be ridden with huge levels of discrimination coupled with the "I'm all right - sod the rest of you" attitude, could become a catalyst for civil unrest, and thus Society cannot be at ease with itself.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Consequently, if you needed your children educated or you and your family to receive some health related service, then you would purchase it directly or indirectly through some insurance policy.
But insurance HAS to be evil. To say otherwise is hypocrisy. If your government is not allowed to run an insurance company, why can a company sell insurance for profit ?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Irrespective if the system is Capitalism, Communism or other, that scenario can always exist
True. But, the OP seems to be in favour of conditions that encourage it to exist.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
To forbid insurance can be lumped together with forbidding pensions and forbidding people to have savings accounts. It would be very short-sighted solution with grave future results.
Well, if we can have insurance, why can't there be a single insurer for basic health ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
How would it do that without raising taxes ?
To defend the nation against foreign invasion and to protect citizens and their property from criminals are the two reasons for levying taxes.
Christian Graus wrote:
Why is education only the right of the wealthy in your world ?
Why do you consider education to be a right? You have the mindset of the 'entitlement' society.
Christian Graus wrote:
In other words, it supports the idea of the many being exploited for the benefit of the few.
Paying the market rate for a given skill set is not exploitation. Paying a welfare cheque is exploitation of the employed.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, it does not help people who are being taken advantage of to defend themselves, and instead regards them as fodder for the system, for the benefit of the few on the top of the system.
People are free to accept their condition or change it. Why the alternatives 'on top' and 'fodder'? Given that wages will be determined by marketable skills, there would likely be a wide range of incomes.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, this means that you believe that society is not benefited in any way from people being literate ?
Of course it is. That is why the diligent will attain it in order to improve their lot. The vast majority of society will be literate and numerate.
Christian Graus wrote:
Given the other conditions you're imposing
Conditions are imposed by the market. Attaining a marketable skill set enables the negotiation of more favourable terms of employment.
Christian Graus wrote:
parents obviously will have no time to teach their kids, as they will need to work long hours for little pay and come home to unsafe housing and unsanitary conditions, to eat poisonous food.
There is no obviously about it. Only those who, through stupidity or indolence, have to take what they are given in the employment market would be reduced to this. There is no reason why families could not set up the equivalent of a Dame School, it is only literacy and numeracy that are being taught. They could choose to accept the children of the indigent as charitable cases.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Why do you consider education to be a right? You have the mindset of the 'entitlement' society.
No, I do not. It's a right because educated people are in a position to be all they can be. It's the most basic of opportunities for advancement, and what makes it not just an 'attitude of entitlement', is the way that educated people are simply of more value to society. Society wins when people are educated, and gets back more than it puts in.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Paying the market rate for a given skill set is not exploitation.
Rubbish. Read a book called 'The Jungle'. It's wrong in it's basic premise ( that socialism rocks ), but it's fascinating to see how little people expected of socialism to make it better than their lot in life. If people are uneducated, and doing manual labour, there is never a shortage of workers, esp in a society where education is not a right, where people remain uneducated and easily controlled by the rich. How does the market set a fair price ? It's supply and demand. Lots of people looking for work, no labour laws, no unions, they get paid just enough to survive long enough to do some work, before being replaced by someone younger and stronger.
Bob Emmett wrote:
People are free to accept their condition or change it.
Spoken like a person who would end up at the top of the heap. Yes, it's easy to say that. In reality, it's not always true. When it's barely possible to make the money to live, working long hours, with no access to education, where is the freedom to change ?
Bob Emmett wrote:
Attaining a marketable skill set enables the negotiation of more favourable terms of employment.
Except where that skill costs money to attain and people do not have it. Taking away free education is the biggest step you can take to sentencing people to a life of poverty and no options.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Only those who, through stupidity or indolence, have to take what they are given in the employment market would be reduced to this.
The problem here could well be that you know little to nothing of history and see everyone's life through the lens of the way life is today BECAUSE of things like free education.
Bob Emmett wrote
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Consequently, if you needed your children educated or you and your family to receive some health related service, then you would purchase it directly or indirectly through some insurance policy.
But insurance HAS to be evil. To say otherwise is hypocrisy. If your government is not allowed to run an insurance company, why can a company sell insurance for profit ?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Irrespective if the system is Capitalism, Communism or other, that scenario can always exist
True. But, the OP seems to be in favour of conditions that encourage it to exist.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
To forbid insurance can be lumped together with forbidding pensions and forbidding people to have savings accounts. It would be very short-sighted solution with grave future results.
Well, if we can have insurance, why can't there be a single insurer for basic health ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
But insurance HAS to be evil.
I understand what you are saying, but a question could be posed, namely, if insurance is an evil, is it a necessary evil when considering the alternative. Although the alternative is to save your pennies and your Pounds, what if the need for a medical procedure cannot be covered by what money you have saved - do you suffer - do you allow your wife/husband/children to suffer what could be a traumatic episode. Of course you should not permit such suffering so that insurance becomes a necessary evil, even if you never have need to call upon it.
Christian Graus wrote:
why can't there be a single insurer for basic health ?
In a competitive marketplace, the cost of insurance would be somewhat cheaper than from a single and only player. But when the government is the insurance provider and the provider of the service you insure for, then, irrespective of the "economies of scale" question, efficiency could be telling with higher costings that may not be relevant in a competitive marketplace. However, where there is a (statutory) single (and only) insurer and provider, you remove the probability that insurance providers would find cause to deny the treatment partly because of all-but hidden "fine print", as often happens in countries like the United States of America.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
But insurance HAS to be evil.
I understand what you are saying, but a question could be posed, namely, if insurance is an evil, is it a necessary evil when considering the alternative. Although the alternative is to save your pennies and your Pounds, what if the need for a medical procedure cannot be covered by what money you have saved - do you suffer - do you allow your wife/husband/children to suffer what could be a traumatic episode. Of course you should not permit such suffering so that insurance becomes a necessary evil, even if you never have need to call upon it.
Christian Graus wrote:
why can't there be a single insurer for basic health ?
In a competitive marketplace, the cost of insurance would be somewhat cheaper than from a single and only player. But when the government is the insurance provider and the provider of the service you insure for, then, irrespective of the "economies of scale" question, efficiency could be telling with higher costings that may not be relevant in a competitive marketplace. However, where there is a (statutory) single (and only) insurer and provider, you remove the probability that insurance providers would find cause to deny the treatment partly because of all-but hidden "fine print", as often happens in countries like the United States of America.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Although the alternative is to save your pennies and your Pounds, what if the need for a medical procedure cannot be covered by what money you have saved - do you suffer - do you allow your wife/husband/children to suffer what could be a traumatic episode. Of course you should not permit such suffering so that insurance becomes a necessary evil, even if you never have need to call upon it.
OK, so then, if insurance is OK, why is the most efficient insurance possible, evil ?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
In a competitive marketplace, the cost of insurance would be somewhat cheaper than from a single and only player.
That theory is destroyed by comparing the costs in Australia and the US. You guys pay a lot more than we do.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
However, where there is a (statutory) single (and only) insurer and provider
Well, to be fair, I favour the AU system, not the Canadian one. we have private and public hospitals, and private health cover is available as well as the state run system. As someone with a decent income I can improve my access to health care and take stress off the public system by paying my way in to the private one.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Although the alternative is to save your pennies and your Pounds, what if the need for a medical procedure cannot be covered by what money you have saved - do you suffer - do you allow your wife/husband/children to suffer what could be a traumatic episode. Of course you should not permit such suffering so that insurance becomes a necessary evil, even if you never have need to call upon it.
OK, so then, if insurance is OK, why is the most efficient insurance possible, evil ?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
In a competitive marketplace, the cost of insurance would be somewhat cheaper than from a single and only player.
That theory is destroyed by comparing the costs in Australia and the US. You guys pay a lot more than we do.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
However, where there is a (statutory) single (and only) insurer and provider
Well, to be fair, I favour the AU system, not the Canadian one. we have private and public hospitals, and private health cover is available as well as the state run system. As someone with a decent income I can improve my access to health care and take stress off the public system by paying my way in to the private one.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
why is the most efficient insurance possible, evil
Private insurance company's need to produce a profit for their shareholders. The greater the efficiency the greater the potential profits can be. And while having copious quantities of "fine print" that is incorporated within the contract, any minor deviation, or negligence or indiscretion, that you as "the customer" has that call into play such fine print. It is not unreasonable for insurance providers to have complex terms and conditions, but the failing is where you (and them) need lawyers to argue the meaning of such terms and conditions. And, of course, the lawyers for the insurance company are specialists in finding cause to not provide that for which you, the customer, thought did. But what would be reasonable is if the "fine print" was written in larger text and in plain English rather than gobbledygook that no ordinary person can hope to comprehend. Mind you, "efficient", that could be explained in other ways and not necessarily in the way above.
Christian Graus wrote:
I favour the AU system,
Yep, and I also appreciate the UK's NHS. There is private healthcare available in the UK and sometimes our NHS uses (as in purchase) such facilities as well.
Christian Graus wrote:
You guys pay a lot more than we do.
National Insurance in the UK is expensive. The monies collected from National Insurance and general taxation has, to some extent, got blurred by our Treasury. The money going into NHS maybe more or maybe less than collected from National Insurance contributions.
modified on Sunday, May 30, 2010 4:13 PM
-
Social Darwinism is the philosophy of true free market capitalism. It holds that the main purpose of government is to defend the nation against foreign invasion and to protect citizens and their property from criminals. It decries the payment of benefits as inculcating an attitude of 'entitlement', and thus being conducive to idleness and stupidity. It maintains the rights of property owners. It opposes laws that regulate housing, sanitation, and health conditions, together with working conditions, maximum hours and minimum wages, as interfering with those rights. It supports the freedom of individual workers to negotiate their terms of employment, rather than have them imposed by unions. It rejects the concept of a government funded school system, which places the burden of education on the taxpayer. Simply put, parents are responsible for the literacy and numeracy of their children. Should industry require specific skills in its workforce, it must meet the cost of selecting and training individuals through scholarships and apprenticeships. It rejects the concept of government funded healthcare, again placing the responsibility upon the individual to make provision for their, and their family's, health. It encourages the characteristics of industriousness, frugality, the desire to own property, and the ability to accumulate wealth, as being beneficial both to the individual and society. Social Darwinism thus ensures the evolution of civilization towards a peaceful, industrious, society, by a form of 'natural selection'.
Bob Emmett
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
Why do you consider education to be a right? You have the mindset of the 'entitlement' society.
No, I do not. It's a right because educated people are in a position to be all they can be. It's the most basic of opportunities for advancement, and what makes it not just an 'attitude of entitlement', is the way that educated people are simply of more value to society. Society wins when people are educated, and gets back more than it puts in.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Paying the market rate for a given skill set is not exploitation.
Rubbish. Read a book called 'The Jungle'. It's wrong in it's basic premise ( that socialism rocks ), but it's fascinating to see how little people expected of socialism to make it better than their lot in life. If people are uneducated, and doing manual labour, there is never a shortage of workers, esp in a society where education is not a right, where people remain uneducated and easily controlled by the rich. How does the market set a fair price ? It's supply and demand. Lots of people looking for work, no labour laws, no unions, they get paid just enough to survive long enough to do some work, before being replaced by someone younger and stronger.
Bob Emmett wrote:
People are free to accept their condition or change it.
Spoken like a person who would end up at the top of the heap. Yes, it's easy to say that. In reality, it's not always true. When it's barely possible to make the money to live, working long hours, with no access to education, where is the freedom to change ?
Bob Emmett wrote:
Attaining a marketable skill set enables the negotiation of more favourable terms of employment.
Except where that skill costs money to attain and people do not have it. Taking away free education is the biggest step you can take to sentencing people to a life of poverty and no options.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Only those who, through stupidity or indolence, have to take what they are given in the employment market would be reduced to this.
The problem here could well be that you know little to nothing of history and see everyone's life through the lens of the way life is today BECAUSE of things like free education.
Bob Emmett wrote
Christian Graus wrote:
It's a right because educated people are in a position to be all they can be.
But there is no right to be the best you can be, merely an aspiration on one's own part. Parents are responsible for ensuring that their children are literate and numerate. That does not mean that they have to teach the children themselves. As stated, the equivalent of a Dame School is all that is required to teach the basics. Secondary education is obtained by applying for scholarships awarded by corporations. Similarly, further and higher education are provided by apprenticeships and scholarships. Scholarships and apprenticeships are awarded on assessment of aptitude and ability. The education obtained is free at point of entry, but the successful are indentured to the corporation providing the education.
Christian Graus wrote:
If people are uneducated, and doing manual labour, there is never a shortage of workers, esp in a society where education is not a right, where people remain uneducated and easily controlled by the rich.
There will always be uneducated manual labourers, and they will always be exploited, because they are not very bright.
Christian Graus wrote:
How does the market set a fair price ? It's supply and demand.
By George, he's got it!
Christian Graus wrote:
Lots of people looking for work, no labour laws, no unions, they get paid just enough to survive long enough to do some work, before being replaced by someone younger and stronger.
Reworded slightly as: Lots of people looking for work, they get paid the market rate to do it, before being replaced by someone younger with newer credentials, and it describes IT. Not many uneducated manual labourers there.
Bob Emmett
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
Why do you consider education to be a right? You have the mindset of the 'entitlement' society.
No, I do not. It's a right because educated people are in a position to be all they can be. It's the most basic of opportunities for advancement, and what makes it not just an 'attitude of entitlement', is the way that educated people are simply of more value to society. Society wins when people are educated, and gets back more than it puts in.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Paying the market rate for a given skill set is not exploitation.
Rubbish. Read a book called 'The Jungle'. It's wrong in it's basic premise ( that socialism rocks ), but it's fascinating to see how little people expected of socialism to make it better than their lot in life. If people are uneducated, and doing manual labour, there is never a shortage of workers, esp in a society where education is not a right, where people remain uneducated and easily controlled by the rich. How does the market set a fair price ? It's supply and demand. Lots of people looking for work, no labour laws, no unions, they get paid just enough to survive long enough to do some work, before being replaced by someone younger and stronger.
Bob Emmett wrote:
People are free to accept their condition or change it.
Spoken like a person who would end up at the top of the heap. Yes, it's easy to say that. In reality, it's not always true. When it's barely possible to make the money to live, working long hours, with no access to education, where is the freedom to change ?
Bob Emmett wrote:
Attaining a marketable skill set enables the negotiation of more favourable terms of employment.
Except where that skill costs money to attain and people do not have it. Taking away free education is the biggest step you can take to sentencing people to a life of poverty and no options.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Only those who, through stupidity or indolence, have to take what they are given in the employment market would be reduced to this.
The problem here could well be that you know little to nothing of history and see everyone's life through the lens of the way life is today BECAUSE of things like free education.
Bob Emmett wrote
Christian Graus wrote:
Spoken like a person who would end up at the top of the heap.
An unwarranted assumption.
Christian Graus wrote:
Yes, it's easy to say that. In reality, it's not always true. When it's barely possible to make the money to live, working long hours, with no access to education, where is the freedom to change ?
Why are your scenarios always so Dickensian? We are not starting from the early 19th century, or even the early 20th century, we are starting from now. However, in reality, those with aspirations struggled to attain them. Those without, did not.
Christian Graus wrote:
Except where that skill costs money to attain and people do not have it. Taking away free education is the biggest step you can take to sentencing people to a life of poverty and no options.
But if you have the required aptitude and ability, you can obtain a scholarship or apprenticeship, education free at the point of entry.
Bob Emmett
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
Why do you consider education to be a right? You have the mindset of the 'entitlement' society.
No, I do not. It's a right because educated people are in a position to be all they can be. It's the most basic of opportunities for advancement, and what makes it not just an 'attitude of entitlement', is the way that educated people are simply of more value to society. Society wins when people are educated, and gets back more than it puts in.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Paying the market rate for a given skill set is not exploitation.
Rubbish. Read a book called 'The Jungle'. It's wrong in it's basic premise ( that socialism rocks ), but it's fascinating to see how little people expected of socialism to make it better than their lot in life. If people are uneducated, and doing manual labour, there is never a shortage of workers, esp in a society where education is not a right, where people remain uneducated and easily controlled by the rich. How does the market set a fair price ? It's supply and demand. Lots of people looking for work, no labour laws, no unions, they get paid just enough to survive long enough to do some work, before being replaced by someone younger and stronger.
Bob Emmett wrote:
People are free to accept their condition or change it.
Spoken like a person who would end up at the top of the heap. Yes, it's easy to say that. In reality, it's not always true. When it's barely possible to make the money to live, working long hours, with no access to education, where is the freedom to change ?
Bob Emmett wrote:
Attaining a marketable skill set enables the negotiation of more favourable terms of employment.
Except where that skill costs money to attain and people do not have it. Taking away free education is the biggest step you can take to sentencing people to a life of poverty and no options.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Only those who, through stupidity or indolence, have to take what they are given in the employment market would be reduced to this.
The problem here could well be that you know little to nothing of history and see everyone's life through the lens of the way life is today BECAUSE of things like free education.
Bob Emmett wrote
Christian Graus wrote:
The problem here could well be that you know little to nothing of history and see everyone's life through the lens of the way life is today BECAUSE of things like free education.
It could well be, but it isn't. But, having leapt the hurdles of literacy and numeracy, as most do, education is free to those with aptitude and ability.
Christian Graus wrote:
Again, this is a fantasy for all but the few who the system would favour, and they would then judge those not given that chance in the same flippant way that you are,
Why this obsession with the 'few'? Do only an elite have aspirations, ability and aptitude? An aspiration may be to be a beauty technician, a cellist, a brain surgeon, a cook, whatever.
Christian Graus wrote:
Because it is hypocrisy to say that the state cannot act to create shared risk for provision of health services, but the private sector can,
But I didn't say that it cannot, just that in a competitive free market system, it need not - and should not.
Christian Graus wrote:
You are defining a system where the gap between the top and bottom would be ever widening and would feed on itself.
As it has been all my lifetime in 'socialist' Britain.
Christian Graus wrote:
But, that's one purpose of government, to look for the interests of all of society and to make sure that a basic safety net exists that enables people to get their basic needs met and have the time and resources ( in the form of access to education, for example ), to aspire to getting further than they are from the bottom.
And yet, there is always a bottom level that is constantly sinking, relative to the rest of society.
Bob Emmett
-
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Did you have such a boring weekend that you decided to troll?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Did you have such a boring weekend that you decided to troll?
No. It is a serious response to Captain SeeVee's post. He did not respond to a request for his concept of Social Darwinism, so I posted my concept, the working of free market capitalism, to which the term was originally applied.
Bob Emmett
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Did you have such a boring weekend that you decided to troll?
No. It is a serious response to Captain SeeVee's post. He did not respond to a request for his concept of Social Darwinism, so I posted my concept, the working of free market capitalism, to which the term was originally applied.
Bob Emmett
-
Christian Graus wrote:
It's a right because educated people are in a position to be all they can be.
But there is no right to be the best you can be, merely an aspiration on one's own part. Parents are responsible for ensuring that their children are literate and numerate. That does not mean that they have to teach the children themselves. As stated, the equivalent of a Dame School is all that is required to teach the basics. Secondary education is obtained by applying for scholarships awarded by corporations. Similarly, further and higher education are provided by apprenticeships and scholarships. Scholarships and apprenticeships are awarded on assessment of aptitude and ability. The education obtained is free at point of entry, but the successful are indentured to the corporation providing the education.
Christian Graus wrote:
If people are uneducated, and doing manual labour, there is never a shortage of workers, esp in a society where education is not a right, where people remain uneducated and easily controlled by the rich.
There will always be uneducated manual labourers, and they will always be exploited, because they are not very bright.
Christian Graus wrote:
How does the market set a fair price ? It's supply and demand.
By George, he's got it!
Christian Graus wrote:
Lots of people looking for work, no labour laws, no unions, they get paid just enough to survive long enough to do some work, before being replaced by someone younger and stronger.
Reworded slightly as: Lots of people looking for work, they get paid the market rate to do it, before being replaced by someone younger with newer credentials, and it describes IT. Not many uneducated manual labourers there.
Bob Emmett
Bob Emmett wrote:
But there is no right to be the best you can be, merely an aspiration on one's own part.
It's not a question of rights, it's a question of what benefits society as a whole. It benefits society for people like the Wright Brothers and Bill Gates to be able to invent and innovate. OK, not Bill Gates. You get my point.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Parents are responsible for ensuring that their children are literate and numerate. That does not mean that they have to teach the children themselves. As stated, the equivalent of a Dame School is all that is required to teach the basics.
Well, again, you're saying that the poor cannot afford schooling, so their kids stay poor. The issue is not one of right, it's that society wins when people are educated.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Secondary education is obtained by applying for scholarships awarded by corporations. Similarly, further and higher education are provided by apprenticeships and scholarships.
So, capitalism is our friend, the companies shower us with benevolence, etc ? Why did they not do this then, before an element of socialism in government forced them to not exploit workers ?
Bob Emmett wrote:
Scholarships and apprenticeships are awarded on assessment of aptitude and ability. The education obtained is free at point of entry, but the successful are indentured to the corporation providing the education.
Ability and aptitude are not inate. They need to be nurtured. Those who cannot afford schooling will never show their ability or their aptitude,
Bob Emmett wrote:
There will always be uneducated manual labourers, and they will always be exploited, because they are not very bright.
So long as they can expect to have a roof over their head, and to be decently fed, and to not have to risk their lives at work, I have no problem with that.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Reworded slightly as: Lots of people looking for work, they get paid the market rate to do it, before being replaced by someone younger with newer credentials, and it describes IT. Not many uneducated manual labourers there.
Well, does it ? That's not my experience. I was 30 when I started and am 41 now, and my wage just keeps rising
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Spoken like a person who would end up at the top of the heap.
An unwarranted assumption.
Christian Graus wrote:
Yes, it's easy to say that. In reality, it's not always true. When it's barely possible to make the money to live, working long hours, with no access to education, where is the freedom to change ?
Why are your scenarios always so Dickensian? We are not starting from the early 19th century, or even the early 20th century, we are starting from now. However, in reality, those with aspirations struggled to attain them. Those without, did not.
Christian Graus wrote:
Except where that skill costs money to attain and people do not have it. Taking away free education is the biggest step you can take to sentencing people to a life of poverty and no options.
But if you have the required aptitude and ability, you can obtain a scholarship or apprenticeship, education free at the point of entry.
Bob Emmett
Bob Emmett wrote:
An unwarranted assumption.
I assume you are a developer, therefore educated and accustomed to making more than the average wage.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Why are your scenarios always so Dickensian? We are not starting from the early 19th century, or even the early 20th century, we are starting from now.
But, you're looking to wind back the changes in society that made it less 'Dickensian'.
Bob Emmett wrote:
However, in reality, those with aspirations struggled to attain them. Those without, did not.
I doubt many people failed to have aspirations for food and shelter.
Bob Emmett wrote:
But if you have the required aptitude and ability, you can obtain a scholarship or apprenticeship, education free at the point of entry.
Assuming such things magically exist in the absence of access to schooling.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The problem here could well be that you know little to nothing of history and see everyone's life through the lens of the way life is today BECAUSE of things like free education.
It could well be, but it isn't. But, having leapt the hurdles of literacy and numeracy, as most do, education is free to those with aptitude and ability.
Christian Graus wrote:
Again, this is a fantasy for all but the few who the system would favour, and they would then judge those not given that chance in the same flippant way that you are,
Why this obsession with the 'few'? Do only an elite have aspirations, ability and aptitude? An aspiration may be to be a beauty technician, a cellist, a brain surgeon, a cook, whatever.
Christian Graus wrote:
Because it is hypocrisy to say that the state cannot act to create shared risk for provision of health services, but the private sector can,
But I didn't say that it cannot, just that in a competitive free market system, it need not - and should not.
Christian Graus wrote:
You are defining a system where the gap between the top and bottom would be ever widening and would feed on itself.
As it has been all my lifetime in 'socialist' Britain.
Christian Graus wrote:
But, that's one purpose of government, to look for the interests of all of society and to make sure that a basic safety net exists that enables people to get their basic needs met and have the time and resources ( in the form of access to education, for example ), to aspire to getting further than they are from the bottom.
And yet, there is always a bottom level that is constantly sinking, relative to the rest of society.
Bob Emmett
Bob Emmett wrote:
Why this obsession with the 'few'?
Because the people with the most resources, without any form of government control, have the best shot at consolidating their position. The unwashed masses, most of whom you rightly say are stupid, cannot defend themselves without some form of unionisation or other gathering of resources.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Do only an elite have aspirations, ability and aptitude? An aspiration may be to be a beauty technician, a cellist, a brain surgeon, a cook, whatever.
Sure. But, even becoming a cook would be hard for a family living on the poverty line.
Bob Emmett wrote:
But I didn't say that it cannot, just that in a competitive free market system, it need not - and should not.
No reason for saying that makes any sense apart from a reasoning along the lines of 'I can take care of myself and the poor deserve to die for lack of basic health care'
Bob Emmett wrote:
As it has been all my lifetime in 'socialist' Britain.
Perhaps. Britian as I understand it is pretty screwed up, and that mostly because of too much welfare. Australia is the same. Removal of all welfare is not the answer, though.
Bob Emmett wrote:
And yet, there is always a bottom level that is constantly sinking, relative to the rest of society.
Because we give out money for free. People who are on the dole, should work for it. People who have kids and don't have a job, should not be paid for the act. These things, I agree with.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
why is the most efficient insurance possible, evil
Private insurance company's need to produce a profit for their shareholders. The greater the efficiency the greater the potential profits can be. And while having copious quantities of "fine print" that is incorporated within the contract, any minor deviation, or negligence or indiscretion, that you as "the customer" has that call into play such fine print. It is not unreasonable for insurance providers to have complex terms and conditions, but the failing is where you (and them) need lawyers to argue the meaning of such terms and conditions. And, of course, the lawyers for the insurance company are specialists in finding cause to not provide that for which you, the customer, thought did. But what would be reasonable is if the "fine print" was written in larger text and in plain English rather than gobbledygook that no ordinary person can hope to comprehend. Mind you, "efficient", that could be explained in other ways and not necessarily in the way above.
Christian Graus wrote:
I favour the AU system,
Yep, and I also appreciate the UK's NHS. There is private healthcare available in the UK and sometimes our NHS uses (as in purchase) such facilities as well.
Christian Graus wrote:
You guys pay a lot more than we do.
National Insurance in the UK is expensive. The monies collected from National Insurance and general taxation has, to some extent, got blurred by our Treasury. The money going into NHS maybe more or maybe less than collected from National Insurance contributions.
modified on Sunday, May 30, 2010 4:13 PM
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Private insurance company's need to produce a profit for their shareholders. The greater the efficiency the greater the potential profits can be.
Bollocks. You're living in a dream. Private insurers need to make a profit. A state run insurance, does not. That's the first point at which it is cheaper. The second is the point at which the risk is shared by more people, b/c everyone is in it. Every inefficiency that could exist in government, can equally exist in the business sector.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
But what would be reasonable is if the "fine print" was written in larger text and in plain English rather than gobbledygook that no ordinary person can hope to comprehend.
A private insurer does not have the interest that government has, in society being healthy. The clauses are designed to increase profit, not to meet people's needs.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.