No Fault Evictions

[Jacob]

To an extent but there has always been the ‘alpha male’ leading the troupe and benefitting from the efforts of the rest of the apes.

And often getting sacrificed at the end of term. Not unlike our own Prime Ministers.
You should read David Graeber "The Dawn of Everything" - it casts a completely different light on the basic common assumptions about earlier communities and ways of life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Graeber

 

[Jacob]

.... It may seem unfair but unless we live in a truly communist society where everyone is paid the same, then socialism is not going to deliver equality. Life doesn't work like that except in the minds of left wing ideologists.

Nonsense. Straw-man argument. Simplistic equality is not the issue, nor fairness, nor left wing ideology.

 

[Fergie 307]

To an extent but there has always been the ‘alpha male’ leading the troupe and benefitting from the efforts of the rest of the apes.

Just as you find in any animal society, and we are really no different when it comes down to it.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

For all that you throw out tired old clichés, such as "the politics of envy" or "socialism is fine until you run out of other people's money", can you point me to a post where Jacob is whinging about his own situation, or asking for handouts? Like many socialists, I think he simply believes that there should
A) Be a safety net for those less fortunate and
B Be less inequality, which has been burgeoning in the last decade or so.

All talk of meritocracy is fine, except that it doesn't really mean what you think it does, if anything. The "cracy" part means power, while the "merit" part is highly subjective. I've no doubt that most people would agree that those who work hard should be rewarded, but maybe it could be a more linear relationship, rather than the massively exponential one that seems to exist. As I asked a while back, does Jeff Bezoz work 2,000 harder than your average Joe? Somebody responded that the opening was there, and anyone could have started Amazon, but obviously not everyone could, or who'd be the customer base.
I'm not after any of your money, by the way, but I do think the current system is totally skewed in favour of the haves, to the detriment of the have nots.

It often pays to look up the definition of words:

Meritocracy - political, social, or economic system in which individuals are assigned to positions of power, influence, or reward solely on the basis of their abilities and achievements and not on the basis of their social, cultural, or economic background or irrelevant personal

This seems a very sensible way of allocating position - accepting the relationship between money and merit could be more linear.

That hard work and effort may be poorly rewarded by comparison to others working less hard is not an injustice - it reflects scarcity and impact of some skills. Decisions made by bankers and business owners may seriously affect many, those hardworking often only a few or none.

That the "haves" with a good education afforded by successful parents tend to dominate positions of merit partly reflects the benefits of a privileged education and upbringing in an environment which provides them with many of the skills required.

The solution to "haves" bias is not to deny them the advantages they have, but improve the opportunities available to those who may have the talent but limited money.

An Eton/Harrow education for all is not an affordable solution. Selection needs to endow the talented but less fortunate of birth with the skills and encouragement to succeed. A bring back the grammar schools argument - not dumb down everybody in pursuit of fairness and equality.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Rubbish.
Evolution gave us the ability and the means to cooperate and work together.
Basic survival meant we should work as a pack and human achievement has always been down to the power of massive support and mutual cooperation.
The competition driving evolution is not with each other, it's with the external environment and another lot animals altogether; was sabre tooth tigers and mammoths, now is microbes, bacteria and virusses.
Language itself has evolved to enable us to cooperate very efficiently.
I guess things could be different in Cornwall!

The animal kingdom (particularly mammals) has numerous examples of species living in groups, co-operating in hunting, division of work etc. Yet they also form hierarchies with dominant structures and defer to one another.

There may be a genetic reason why it also makes sense to co-operate in many activities (food, child care, defence) yet compete in others - eg: reproduction to optimise the genetic inheritance.

Homo-sapiens share 90%++ genetic material with other mammals. That we seem to have retained the competitive gene may be unsurprising - and may be a benefit in our longer term survival as a species.

 

[Jacob]

The animal kingdom (particularly mammals) has numerous examples of species living in groups, co-operating in hunting, division of work etc. Yet they also form hierarchies with dominant structures and defer to one another.

There may be a genetic reason why it also makes sense to co-operate in many activities (food, child care, defence) yet compete in others - eg: reproduction to optimise the genetic inheritance.

Homo-sapiens share 90%++ genetic material with other mammals. That we seem to have retained the competitive gene may be unsurprising - and may be a benefit in our longer term survival as a species.

In general pack animals like us are not competitive within the pack. That is the whole point of being a pack animal. The competition is outside the pack - against the environment and other animals.

 

[John Brown]

It often pays to look up the definition of words:

Meritocracy - political, social, or economic system in which individuals are assigned to positions of power, influence, or reward solely on the basis of their abilities and achievements and not on the basis of their social, cultural, or economic background or irrelevant personal

This seems a very sensible way of allocating position - accepting the relationship between money and merit could be more linear.

That hard work and effort may be poorly rewarded by comparison to others working less hard is not an injustice - it reflects scarcity and impact of some skills. Decisions made by bankers and business owners may seriously affect many, those hardworking often only a few or none.

That the "haves" with a good education afforded by successful parents tend to dominate positions of merit partly reflects the benefits of a privileged education and upbringing in an environment which provides them with many of the skills required.

The solution to "haves" bias is not to deny them the advantages they have, but improve the opportunities available to those who may have the talent but limited money.

An Eton/Harrow education for all is not an affordable solution. Selection needs to endow the talented but less fortunate of birth with the skills and encouragement to succeed. A bring back the grammar schools argument - not dumb down everybody in pursuit of fairness and equality.

Thanks Terry, I'm well aware of the meaning of the word.

 

[Fergie 307]

In general pack animals like us are not competitive within the pack. That is the whole point of being a pack animal. The competition is outside the pack - against the environment and other animals.

I think the point is that within the pack there are leaders and followers, there certainly isn't equality.

 

[Jacob]

It often pays to look up the definition of words:

Meritocracy - political, social, or economic system in which individuals are assigned to positions of power, influence, or reward solely on the basis of their abilities and achievements and not on the basis of their social, cultural, or economic background or irrelevant personal

If you have the money you can buy your way in without having any talent or ability at all. That is the whole point of private education and is a great weakness in a democratic society.

This seems a very sensible way of allocating position - ......

It might be if there was a level playing field with equal opportunities.

 

[Jacob]

I think the point is that within the pack there are leaders and followers, there certainly isn't equality.

Of course there isn't "equality" as they all have different capabilities; there are changing roles but basically all working for the benefit of all in the pack.
Tory policy (dog eat dog) would wreck a wolf pack!

 

[Fergie 307]

If you have the money you can buy your way in without having any talent or ability at all. That is the whole point of private education and is a great weakness in a democratic society.

It might be if there was a level playing field with equal opportunities.

Which brings me back to Attlee who, unless I'm much mistaken, you would have liked to be barred from public office for being a privately educated posh boy. Rather shows the silliness of your argument.
There is no more logic in saying that someone privately educated must be bad in some way, than there would be in saying that someone with a state education is necessarily good.
Just ideological nonsense.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Of course there isn't "equality" as they all have different capabilities; there are changing roles but basically all working for the benefit of all in the pack.
Tory policy (dog eat dog) would wreck a wolf pack!

Within a pack/group animals compete with each other for dominance. Once settled, conflict within the pack tends to be sporadic as an individual chooses to challenge the status quo.

Pack animals don't generally have a legal process, may not understand concepts of democracy, or have a written constitution, but their behaviours both individually and collectively have evolved to maximise the chances of pack survival.

Dog eat dog happens in politics irrespective of party - internal conflict prevails with inadequate leadership - the leader of the pack simply isn't u to the task. Tory party - no consensus ultimately spawned Reform. Left/centre squabbles in the past rendered Labour unelectable.

In the animal kingdom dominance (including reproduction) is usually established physically - a clear genetic benefit to the future survival of the species. It is less clear that talents in maximising incomes, economic growth, etc has quite the same beneficial impact on our genetic legacy.

One may even create an argument that the future of humanity is seriously compromised by our attachment to non-violent democratic processes and modern medical science which dilutes rather than improves the genetic health of humanity.

 

[Jacob]

....

One may even create an argument that the future of humanity is seriously compromised by our attachment to non-violent democratic processes and modern medical science which dilutes rather than improves the genetic health of humanity.

The Nazis thought along the same lines. Funny how consistent right wing thought stays, over the generations!
Eugenics isn't fashionable any longer BTW.

 

[Fergie 307]

You know Jacob I'm really surprised you didn't do better in your election bid.
You have just the attitude for the job.
Rather than answer a question just take the debate away in some random direction by twisting someone's words so that you can then deliver some cheap insult over something they didn't actually say in the first place.
Pathetic really.

 

[Billy_wizz]

The outcome really depends upon your mindset, people who end up with a great deal of wealth tend to be those whose biggest motivator in life is money, more money and even more money but for those who are more inquisitive and hands on that enjoy making and designing wealth will elude you because you may desire more money but you enjoy other things more and do not dedicate your life to be a slave to money. I personally place knowledge above wealth, I find more motivation in learning and making than thinking about making excess money to have that lifestyle that I know I would hate.

To be fair I read a piece on Richard Branson and at a point that he was already at never needs to work again wealthy he made a business deal that if it had gone wrong the only thing he would of been left with was his parents house that he bought for them (think it might of been the house he grew up in but not certain!) how many here could honestly say that they would be willing to take that risk?

 

[paulrbarnard]

The Nazis thought along the same lines. Funny how consistent right wing thought stays, over the generations!
Eugenics isn't fashionable any longer BTW.

There is a big difference in understanding how a genetic tendency is propagated or eliminated through natural, or unnatural, selection than attempts to implement eugenics.
Once again you resort to a straw man argument

 

[Billy_wizz]

Perhaps it is a moral question - "How much is enough ?" Some folk don't seem to have that switch in their head, that tells them, that past a certain point they are just being greedy.

Generally those that have made themselves rich are driven by money and there is no such thing as enough some are so busy constantly making more that they don't even enjoy it!

 

[Billy_wizz]

In general pack animals like us are not competitive within the pack. That is the whole point of being a pack animal. The competition is outside the pack - against the environment and other animals.

In a large number of primate groups competition within the group is rife and only stops when there is a direct threat from outside the group!

 

[Spectric]

how many here could honestly say that they would be willing to take that risk

Probably none of us because we like making and doing rather than chasing the last pound and being willing to risk everything for it, I suppose being very wealthy is really nothing more than an addiction for money.

 

[Fergie 307]

There is a big difference in understanding how a genetic tendency is propagated or eliminated through natural, or unnatural, selection than attempts to implement eugenics.
Once again you resort to a straw man argument

Indeed, perhaps Jacob should take the advice he is keen to give others and Google it, I'm sure the Guardian will have something about eugenics!
Once he has familiarised himself with what it actually means, then he might have the good grace to come back and apologise for suggesting that Terry's post had anything to do with it.
I won't hold my breath.