It is foolhardy to attempt it in any era. Human nature just doesn't allow for it, people have been, are, and always will be greedy. If everyone was truly neutral it would work, but that's just not how we function.
Tories whose dads are well off.
- Thread starter Vespasian777
- Start date
It is foolhardy to attempt it in any era. Human nature just doesn't allow for it, people have been, are, and always will be greedy. If everyone was truly neutral it would work, but that's just not how we function.
As opposed to sponging off the state..
I'd be interested to see the evidence which shows that human nature is this way, as we are social creatures with the ability to learn & adapt to different environments.
This should be pretty obvious when you look at the vastly different values which people possess across the globe (group A = kill homosexuals & burn witches, Group B = Encourage equality & no longer believe in witches).
You are falling foul to fundamental attribution error, you over-value personality related explanations & are disregarding the clear environmental impact of human behavioural patterns.
As from everything in our current behavioural science indicates that we propagate behaviour which is rewarded in society.
If co-operation & altruism was rewarded you would see a different society.
In our current society, self interest & greed are rewarded - this is why people are greedy.
Yes, but how to you go about changing such societal views if pretty much all economies are now linked to that view?
Also, doesn't reward in itself imply gaining something, so being in possession of more than possibly someone else (be it money, happiness, free time, etc)?
I normally find myself agreeing/aligning with the conservative party's way of thinking, therefore I guess you could class me as a Tory.
I guess my parents are relatively well off, in that they both earn far over the average salary and own a pretty nice big house as well as another outright that - when occupied by tenants - helps support their income nicely. They own a two cars but none of the more "prestigious" marques. The difference is that although I know very well they could afford them, but it's the fact that they aren't the sort of people who buy expensive things that has made them relatively "well off" like they are now. Worked hard, not lived outside their means, and now have a great lifestyle with absolutely zero worries for the future because they didn't **** around with their money when they were young.
They are also firmly in the "middle class" bracket when it comes to the way they think, say and do things, so relatively well off and have that middle class attitude - what most people would class stereotypical Tories I think.
I guess my parents are relatively well off, in that they both earn far over the average salary and own a pretty nice big house as well as another outright that - when occupied by tenants - helps support their income nicely. They own a two cars but none of the more "prestigious" marques. The difference is that although I know very well they could afford them, but it's the fact that they aren't the sort of people who buy expensive things that has made them relatively "well off" like they are now. Worked hard, not lived outside their means, and now have a great lifestyle with absolutely zero worries for the future because they didn't **** around with their money when they were young.
They are also firmly in the "middle class" bracket when it comes to the way they think, say and do things, so relatively well off and have that middle class attitude - what most people would class stereotypical Tories I think.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
OK I mean standard of living then. People queing up for hours for a loaf of bread and no one owning TVs or anything.
It's the typical defence for all the failed communist states, "they weren't doing it right". I'm sure the leaders of those countries would have said that they were.
If you believe in communism and you keep seeing it being an abject failure you only have two options..
a) Accept that communism whilst sounding nice, is ultimately unworkable
b) Say that communism has ever been done 'properly' or would be different if your version of it was implemented.
Sadly too many people opt for B.
Communism will never work because itis fundementally at odds with human behaviour. It doesn't matter how much automation you have.
Before economies existed, we were social and tribal, with a leader/alpha member, who got dibs on food, women, shelter, etc.
Other animals still do this now. The urge to be 'better' is instinctual and a big part of how humans have progressed in general.
Somebody always want to be in charge, and there is always someone wanting to usurp them.
Reward can be anything, from verbal rewards, self of self worth, personal achievement, progress, the innate desire for mastery we all posses, purpose, artistic rewards, recognition, respect & admiration.
Doing well in a field will still yield rewards, just not materialistic ones - but the playing field will be levelled significantly more (as in that system at least everybody would get an equal chance to succeed - along with aspirations being slightly higher than obtaining objects to prove self worth).
It's a slow cultural change which requires time (generations), humanity will do it over many many years, I'm confident it will - just conservative ideology (which opposes change) holds this back, this is my main reason for hating it.
It's anti-progress.
Isn't there a theory that says long term happiness is defined by the person rather than external forces? Or to put it another way you will be as happy as you allow yourself to be.
A negative event will reduce happiness for a period of time and a positive event will raise it but after a few months you will return to your level. Obviously assuming the basics for life are provided.
As such if the government want to increase happiness they should ensure that those basics are reliably provided for life and with no realistic possibility of disruption.
So house, food, warmth, job. I'd add another basic though which is hope. Humans have always striven to improve their (or their families) lot in life so opportunity for improvement should always be there.
I don't want to offend anyone (we are animals after all) but has anyone noticed how much happier a dog is with a ball it found itself rather than a ball it is given?
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 3,177
that is elegant and simple.
OP: dont forget the poor people who read the sun and are told Labour is evil.
See the point I made below, communism does not = reducing standard of living.
It's a typical defence because the workers never had common ownership of the means of production (pretty significant part of actual communism).
While I'm sure writing that we have two options makes life easier to get through, sadly this is a class fallacy of false choices.
It's not an A or B choice.
C) The person writing A & B could recognise that Communism has been a tool historically to use the anger of the proletarians against the bourgeois to put individuals in complete authority, removing one power-base & replacing it with another.
I bet you haven't even considered such concepts as libertarian communism or anarcho-communism?.
Evidence please.
I'm not even in favour of communism (I'd prefer a Technocracy), but I grow tired of correction people who have strong opinions about something they don't understand.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
You just have to study pretty much any mammal on the planet.
Being ultimately selfish (as we are) doesn't mean you go an live in isolation, hoard things you don't need and just genrally be a grump sod. Sharing some things and being social is mutally beneficial and is being driven man's desire to better himself.
The easiest way to explain our selfishness is like this. Would you be more upset if your child was killed or you saw a news report about another child you didn't know that had been killed?
The only way communism would work is if people had the kind of mentality that created the same grief for any child in the society dying as if it was your own as that would show we truely cared about society the same way we do about ourselves/family.
Actions speak louder than words, and I have only experienced Labour's incompetency prior to the current government (I didn't live hear during the 80s Tory nightmare). This is why I have negative views on Labour, nothing to do with media wotsits as I don't bother with newspapers.
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 553
- Location
- Bora Bora
I agree. Our animal traits are slowly being curtailed. We need a bit less dog eat dog, and a bit more human helps human. From the top, down.
My parents have been watching that series on the 70's on the BBC, they came to England in 72 and it was a trip down memory lane for them. The number one thing that was apparent watching that was that Britian was a poor country back then! (small p)
It was only when the Tories came in by 79 that we became a rich country. The Unions were running the country into the ground and all the pay rises was cauing massive inflation
We possess something which animals do not, the ability to alter & control our environment - on a physical level & a values level.
I like share some values with conservatives, my main point of contention is the method - I also want to stop the never ending wave of "chav-scum" or the crime, violence, rape & child molestation that goes on in our society.
Just I appreciate that this kind of behaviour has a cause, which according to the current scientific view is mostly influenced by environment.
If we punish the "****less" with a lower standard of living, we only exasperate the problem further - as they are only like that due to lacking the advantages most of us received (or didn't in some cases here, but those are in a minority who succeed despite the disadvantages).
I still have yet to see evidence that we are ultimately selfish - but even if we were, if society reward altruism, would it not be in the individuals best interests (and still selfish) to be altruistic?.
Funny you should mention this, empathy is something which has already developed significantly over time.
From the early ages of man it was considered to be at the "significant other level" - which included close family.
After our society evolved it moved onto "close social groups, friends extended family".
The next stage is tribal links - then nationhood, following onto religious identity, or even ethical values.
Look at the emotional reaction some have to the suffering of others on the other side of the globe (I'm emotionally blunted so not me personally) - but in some cases you have people doing extraordinary things to ease the suffering of our fellow human beings.
Humanity's empathy has evolved already & will/should continue to.
Well, it wouldn't have to be at that level - but I agree, people genuinely giving a **** another others would be a good start.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2010
- Posts
- 16,513
- Location
- Swimming in a lake
Yeah, (kind of).
It's related to the study done by Clark et al. (2006). There's actually a few more names on the paper, but I like to shorten it to et al xD - saves me having to remember loads.
Basically, you have a 'baseline' of happiness. For most things you'll bounce back. So divorce, unemployment (if you're female), getting married, having a kid etc...
Basically these boost your happiness levels for a certain period of time. There are however a few things that you don't bounce back from. Men in particular, if fired, if they remain unemployed, they won't bounce back to their original levels of happiness. Women will. Which suggests interesting things when you're considering labour market policy. Interestingly, you'll never be as happy as after the first time you're married, even if you do it again. There's quite a few of these interesting quirks that the studies have shown...
Going on this theory, then yes, basically the government should try to make sure you have a higher baseline of happiness. How the achieve that is kind of where the challenge comes in though.
Other studies (I can't quite remember the names), have shown that there are quite a few things that can effect your general happiness - so stuff that you could perceive as your 'base level'. Wealth is one of them, but generally speaking, it's not the most important. Health matters, perhaps more than anything else, but interestingly also, other people's perceptions of how happy you are also matter. So your peer's judgement of how happy you are will tend to effect how happy you actually are.
For wealth, it is true, that richer people are generally happier than poorer ones, but you can't systematically say, all rich people are happier than all poor people. It just doesn't work like that.
The human race are actually pretty good at bouncing back from stuff though.
I guess a final interesting study, was done on a bunch of Nuns in Milwaukee. They took a measurement of the nuns happiness levels, when they were young, and found that when they looked back at it 50 years on, almost all the nuns who had come across happier in the survey lived longer. Suggesting that if you are happier you live longer. There is a question of cause and effect, but this kind of makes sense. If you're happier you're less likely to be stressed, which has various health implications...
kd