Selfsufficientish.com

boboff wrote:Well, I don't see it as wrong to believe someone has more than you and it's "not fair".

Depends what you mean, boboff. If you're born poor and boboff2 down the road is born rich because Daddy owns the land on which boboff1 lives, then I take your point. But too many people think it means that anyone with more than boboff1 is a snotty, priveleged yahoo.

Some people work hard and achieve more. Some people can't be bothered to get off their collective arse. Which is, I think, what you're actually saying.

Mike

MKG wrote:Is there a law which states that the TITULAR, rather than executive, head of a republic must be elected?

No. My preferred option (well, short of actual anarchy) is for a non-executive head of state. Actually, I don't even really mind if people really want to keep the monarchy for that (although I'd prefer to get rid of the whole concept of hereditary nobility), as long as we stop giving them tens of millions of pounds a year and redistribute their extensive land holdings. (I suspect the latter point would happen fairly naturally if we (a) stopped subsidising their vast estates through CAP subsidies, and (b) instituted a Land Value Tax.)

And I just about agree with you, Dunc. You see, you and I could live in an anarchy and be perfectly friendly and cooperative - apart from my occasional forays against your border posts. Someone would come along, though, and ruin the relationship by deliberately misunderstanding the meaning of anarchy.

Mike

Got up early that morning, caught the first train from Eltham to Charring Cross, went to Trafalgar Square, and stood behind a Sailor who, stood there," At Ease" as they say, although, I don't think he was to much at Ease according to the mutterings coming back over his shoulder. Had been there about an hour when I was joined by a young lady.
Now keep in mind I was very young Lad, who had just left an Orphanage, and whose experience with the opposite sex was on a par,to me climbing Everest, but fortunately for me Edmund Hilary did it that morning, so like all the rest of the folk, we shouted and clapped and danced around, after which we spent a most enjoyable, day in each others company and for a year or so after.

PS; Saw the Queen that day too.

And none of you have noticed that I've perfected the art of falling flat on your face without spilling your pint

I noticed, but I don't believe you.
Can you do it again and post the video on Youtube ?

I fear those days are long gone!

[quote="boboff"]Yeah you have a point.

But what I was objecting to was the fact that people CANT get what they want through hard work, they can.

Sorry , but there we diverge, because the logic of that implies that those who havent 'acheived just didn't work hard enough.That's an interesting thought,here on a thread concerning priveledge.

Indeed Jerry, and that was why I recognise that it is a good point.

However as Mike said, you have two sides to this, if you haven't "Got" are you lazy or deprived?

I think there are no definitive answers to that question, as so much other things come into it, and which ever side of the argument you choose you polarise some very well meaning and good people against that opinion.

I suppose the only thing I actually object to, in a fair society, is people resenting other people for what they have, that emotion is just so destructive.

Also we all really share the same basic view I think, Dunc idea of a non executive leader? What like a Monarch with no power?

I'd live in the Anarchy state, but fear the pigs on the farm.

I was just going to drop it, but now we're getting into the interesting stuff...

boboff wrote:However as Mike said, you have two sides to this, if you haven't "Got" are you lazy or deprived?

Something like 90% of the human race alive today will never be as well-off as I am, no matter how hard they work, simply I was lucky enough to be born in a wealthy, developed nation, with access to education and healthcare.

Sure, it did take a fair bit of hard work to get to where I am today, but it also involved a heck of a lot of luck. I was lucky to be born somewhere where I didn't die of an easily preventable medical condition before my 5th birthday. I was lucky never to have suffered malnutrition in childhood, with its life-long developmental impacts. I was lucky to have an IQ in the 95th percentile, access to a decent education, and parents who valued it. I was lucky that my cognitive "abnormalities" just happen to make me uniquely well-suited for a relatively well-paid and high-status profession that barely existed when I was born, and that the mental health issues arising from this not-entirely-unmixed blessing were relatively manageable. I could go on for quite some time in this vein... Or I could just link to the wiki pages for the Fundamental Attribution Error and the Just World Fallacy.

boboff wrote:I suppose the only thing I actually object to, in a fair society, is people resenting other people for what they have, that emotion is just so destructive.

I tend to take that view that any society in which someone can be born into either wealth or poverty is not fair. John Rawls wrote a rather extensive book on the subject (A Theory of Justice), in which he argues (quite convincingly) that that fairness requires that people's opportunities should not depend on arbitrary factors, such as the conditions of their birth, or even their innate talents and abilities. Consider schooling: I breezed through school without breaking a sweat, and passed every exam I ever sat with basically no effort whatsoever. I even won the prize for my year for German, even though I absolutely hated the subject, didn't study at all, and spent my entire time sat at the back of the class drawing. Other kids really put in a lot of hard work and study, and yet didn't do nearly as well, simply because they didn't have my innate gifts. Is that fair? Rawls would argue not, and I would have to agree.

There is also rather a lot of evidence coming in from cognitive neuroscience that people don't (and indeed can't) simply choose whether to be "lazy" or not. Behaviours are acquired through a complex interplay of genetic, developmental, and environmental factors, and it seems there is very little role for what people usually call "free will". For example, there's some very interesting evidence that things such as IQ and motivation are influenced by both birth order and family size - with later siblings from larger families being less likely to succeed academically than early siblings, or those from small families. But that's maybe a topic for another day... But if you're interested, there's a very good BBC4 documentary which touches on the subject available on iPlayer: Justice: What's A Fair Start? (The whole series seemed rather good, but I haven't watched them all yet.)

Oooh, here's a really good example... Read this article on the psychological importance of living in an environment with trees and green space:

Elderly adults tend to live longer if their homes are near a park or other green space, regardless of their social or economic status. College students do better on cognitive tests when their dorm windows view natural settings. Children with ADHD have fewer symptoms after outdoor activities in lush environments. Residents of public housing complexes report better family interactions when they live near trees. [...] Humans living in landscapes that lack trees or other natural features undergo patterns of social, psychological and physical breakdown that are strikingly similar to those observed in other animals that have been deprived of their natural habitat...

And then look at this comparison of tree numbers in rich and poor neighbourhoods, as seen in satellite imagery.

See as I alluded to earlier, all that stuff, well over my head, but jealousy is a destructive emotion.
Life is unfair.
Contentment and happiness bring wealth beyond riches.
I was thinking about this earlier, my Grandfather went to War, did and saw some pretty crap stuff, he grew up working on his Mums market Garden, came back blown up with collapsed lungs etc and picked Mazzard cherries on 20ft Ladders on the banks of the Tamar, he retired from driving a forklift at a brick works, where the house came with the wages, always came in on a Friday and gave all his wages to my Gran, then went out and grew things in his garden, sit on a chair and watch the swallows, saw up some wood. He was the funniest, most contented man I ever knew, and I loved him very much, it had nothing to do with what he had, and he worked really hard for modest returns, BUT he was a happy man. Now my Dad thinks he was a Mug, who never took a risk to better himself. I like to think that I can take a middle ground between these oposite opinions, there is a happy medium to be achieved, but the prize isn't the money, land, house, holiday, 4x4, degree, accolation, it's the contentment which is, and therefore what ever your choices, i hope you find that. You won't being bitter about some Toffs owning more land than you. As you say, thank your lucky stars you have been dealt the hand you have, and let other get on with their hands.

boboff wrote:You won't being bitter about some Toffs owning more land than you.

I'm not bitter. I'm angry about the essential injustice of the system, an injustice which affects others far more badly than it does me. There's a big difference. The land ownership thing is just an example. I don't actually want to move out to a big spread in the country - that's your dream, not mine. I could use a spare room right enough, but that'll do me...

Is it so strange, to see profound injustice and to want to challenge it, to speak out against it? I would hope not...

And I actually am pretty contented with my lot. I've done well. But it doesn't stop me from being angry for all those who haven't, as a result of disadvantages which were no fault of their own. Nor does it stop me from being angry at a social system which further extends and entrenches inequality and unfairness with every passing generation. And it especially doesn't stop me from being angry at those who make excuses for that system, and blame those whom it disadvantages for their own fate, rather than try to understand their circumstances. I've seen hard times too, and I still remember what it was like.

gregorach wrote: But it doesn't stop me from being angry for all those who haven't, as a result of disadvantages which were no fault of their own.

Yep, that makes me angry too. But let's play with that statement, Dunc ...

But it doesn't stop me from being angry at all those who have, as a result of advantages which were no fault of their own.

Devil's Advocatish, I know, but it does seem to me that demanding that advantaged people renounce their advantages voluntarily is a no-hoper. Would you have voluntarily dumbed yourself down, or would you like to live in a society in which innate intelligence is derogated?

Ah - hang on ...

Mike

EDIT: We live in a society in which it's OK to make a large fortune if you happen to have good footballing skills (or even mediocre ones). Even bigger fortunes can be made by talentless "performers" if they happen to hit on a good record producer (I don't mind so much with the talented ones). Maybe not fortunes, but certainly a lot of money can be made by young ladies merely because they have nice faces and bodies and are prepared to display their assets. People who wouldn't know a poem if one fell on them make money from being poets (as long as the rhythm is hip-hoppish). And we live in a society which throws its collective chips in the air and screams unfair because a certain section of that society gets money for nothing (and the chips are free - Sorry!)

I find society deeply hypocritical.

I find society everywhere I look.