Originally posted by AmauroteIf it is the wish of a living person to say where their possessions should go when they die, it's not a matter of dead people having rights.
Even ignoring the datum behind that view, which is that dead people have more legal rights than the living,
When they are alive the property is theirs, when they die it becomes someone elses.
It dosen't enter a limbo land.
Originally posted by bbi2Yes in essence what I have proposed in communism. I fond most of the people who have a problem with communism generally either don't understand it or take the worst example of something that calls itself communism (Stalinism).
this sounds like communism to me.
you can live under this system if u like... Russia, China....
Good luck to you.
I could say to you go live in some poor African capitalist country. Would this prove anything? Would it prove that capitalism doesn't always produce countries as rich as America and England?
What is your problem with everyone working towards equality, in schools, hospitals, and living conditions?
Ok china isn't ideal but it is like saying look how communism ruined Poland this is what people have said to me before comparing Poland with the UK but go back 100 years and the UK was better off go back 500 years and the UK was better off. It can be hard to see all the factors.
Would you be happy to live in china if it were a capitalist country and had been for the last 50 years? I think the answer would be no, no you would be happier to stay in (Berlin or the England I can't tell)
As for Russia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Soviet_Union
Originally posted by AmauroteI don;t think it's entirely fair to say that social mobility is impossible in the UK. My dad was a farmer (still is - in Scotland). I grew up in proverty. I went on; I have two university degrees and work as a post-doc research scientist and part-time lecturer in New Zealand. I've travelled to Russia (for a month), Japan (3 months, as part of my work), and for the first time in my life (at 26) I had a real hoiday and went to Melbourne for 2 weeks. I've worked my a$$ off for this. Social mobility IS possible, without inheritance (although, one day, when I have kids, they'll be middle class - I'm stuck as a working class schmuck for the rest of my days!), without any outside help (my parents couldn't help me through uni) if you want to be something (like me - a scientist) bad enough....
Since social mobility in the UK (and, incidentally, the US) has been static for nearly twenty years, I think that the probability is quite the opposite. I know plenty of hard-working people who find it impossible to afford even the first step onto the housing ladder until entering their thirties, and equally I once worked for a family of hardware vendors wh ...[text shortened]... ur current indifference to inequality of opportunity is a scandalous waste of social resources.
Originally posted by techsouthwhat a load of crap.
You think life is unfair when opportunities aren't equal? I would be terrified to enter a society that tried to make opportunities equal. Of course there would have to be a super powerful state (and hence super powerful politicians) to enforce the equality. The Soviet Union murdered around 50 million for just such a dream.
Send your kid to college? ...[text shortened]... bad, poor kids can't afford them, so you can't provide them either. What an insane vision.
The soviets did not 'murder 50 million for equality'. They murdered 50 million (the popn would be 200 million (estimated) more had Stalin never taken power) for the glorification ofJoseph Stalin. Because he was a paranoid little screw. Nothing more, nothing less. Go out to a school and take a class.
Sending people to school doesn't mean that it is unfair to anyone. You get what you work for. That's a rule that can work in any system, socialism, capatilism or communism. The difference between those systems is the emphasis we place upon those who do the menial, yet necessary, tasks in society, and the way we treat the needy. Here is a social experiment for you: don't put your bins out for a month and see how much you value bin-men when your family get sick.
Originally posted by Will EverittYour ideas are very impractical. There is much about human nature you have not yet come to terms with.
Yes in essence what I have proposed in communism. I fond most of the people who have a problem with communism generally either don't understand it or take the worst example of something that calls itself communism (Stalinism).
I could say to you go live in some poor African capitalist country. Would this prove anything? Would it prove that capitalis ...[text shortened]... nd I can't tell)
As for Russia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Soviet_Union
Would you agree with ... 1. Sharing land and giving everyone an equal share and 2. Printing money and giving all and equal amount ?
What you are suggesting is the equivalent to 1 and 2 above. And its not going to work in any society.
A successfull society is based on a very simple principle - for every receipt of income, the working population should on average produce an equivalent amount of goods or services. Income must approx be equal to production.
Think about that and ask yourself what kind of confusion is likely to take place if you simply take from the wealthy and give to the poor. Also you speak of communism as if you dont understand why it failed so miserably all over the world.
Originally posted by Rajk999"1. Sharing land and giving everyone an equal share"
Your ideas are very impractical. There is much about human nature you have not yet come to terms with.
Would you agree with ... 1. Sharing land and giving everyone an equal share and 2. Printing money and giving all and equal amount ?
What you are suggesting is the equivalent to 1 and 2 above. And its not going to work in any society.
A successfull ...[text shortened]... you speak of communism as if you dont understand why it failed so miserably all over the world.
In practise there are going to be people who don't want to be farmers so no I don't think everyone should get an area of land without proper planning, this would just be inefficient but however I think a centrally planned farming system could be more efficient then just whoever owns land grows what they want. I don't think you can claim that farming today is efficient enough to meet the needs of the world.
"A successfull society is based on a very simple principle - for every receipt of income, the working population should on average produce an equivalent amount of goods or services."
What about the people who can't produce goods or services? What about children? Ok some will be provided for by there parents but what about the poorest group who can't afford the same education. What about the orphans your "successfull society" demands they need to provide "goods or services" it’s this kind of situation in some LEDCs that produce poor children that need to sell themselves. I am saying in the society that I think of these people are looked after by the many who can work. They are given what they need, be it education a stay in a hospital or food with nothing expected back apart from if at a latter date if they can work they do.
I think there are things in life that should be free to whoever needs them and it is the job of those who can provide them to provide them. I think it is more important that these things are given to whoever needs them then you get one more plasma flat screen TV or a third car or plastic surgery.
Originally posted by Will EverittYou need to read carefully .. I said 'working population' and that excludes children, seniors, and other groups that cannot work.
"1. Sharing land and giving everyone an equal share"
In practise there are going to be people who don't want to be farmers so no I don't think everyone should get an area of land without proper planning, this would just be inefficient but however I think a centrally planned farming system could be more efficient then just whoever owns land grows what t ...[text shortened]... them then you get one more plasma flat screen TV or a third car or plastic surgery.
I agree that certain things like medical care and education up to say age 15 (maybe later) should be free to all.
Most of your ideas have already been tried without success. You have the benefit of history on your side so try to understand why communism failed. Or are you proposing something different. If so please elaborate.
1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999Well in a way I am proposing something different. Russia in 1917 was in a bad way communism improved upon that admittedly with problems and it was far from ideal for many reasons that aren't the communist theories fault for example a war with Germany. Also for communism to work properly there needs to be almost complete open trade though out the largest area possible and with the cold war the opposite happened. If we transformed into a communist country and kept it a pure Marxist form then I think great things could happen we could get much closer to equality.
You need to read carefully .. I said 'working population' and that excludes children, seniors, and other groups that cannot work.
I agree that certain things like medical care and education up to say age 15 (maybe later) should be free to all.
Most of your ideas have already been tried without success. You have the benefit of history on your side so ...[text shortened]... stand why communism failed. Or are you proposing something different. If so please elaborate.
You could compare it with a round the world flight in Russia 1917 they would have failed but now it can be done. In an aspect it would be a different thing there are so many variables that are different even if the aims are the same.
"I agree that certain things like medical care and education up to say age 15 (maybe later) should be free to all."
When you say this do you mean that there should be public schools and private or just public? Same question with healthcare. I think everyone has a right to the best quality that can be given regardless of economic background of there parents.
[EDIT] You said "Income must approx be equal to production." and I agree I just think it needs more equal distribution.
Originally posted by Will EverittInteresting.. nothing is ever the fault of the theory, after all a theory is based on a number of assumptioms, and theeory holds as long as the assumptions hold. Unfortunately in real life they do not. Communism belongs in a textbook and has no place where there are humans.
Well in a way I am proposing something different. Russia in 1917 was in a bad way communism improved upon that admittedly with problems and it was far from ideal for many reasons that aren't the communist theories fault for example a war with Germany. Also for communism to work properly there needs to be almost complete open trade though out the largest ...[text shortened]... approx be equal to production." and I agree I just think it needs more equal distribution.
Anyway, You still have not said anything new that has not already been attempted without success. You cant have anything workable that starts off with :
1. I want complete opentrade with everybody
2. Youall do exactly as I say
3. There is no war
Most western countries have a combination of public and private schools and public and private health care. You cant say everybody get the same identical care and education. Thats just simply impossible.
Originally posted by VargUK low in social mobility league, says charity
What you say about no social mobility in the last 20 years is rubbish
Matthew Taylor, education correspondent
Monday April 25, 2005
Children born to poor families in Britain are less likely to fulfil their potential than in other developed countries, according to a report published today.
Researchers at the London School of Economics found that Britain appeared to have one of the worst records for social mobility in the developed world.
They also concluded that Britons were less likely to break free of their backgrounds than in the past.
Sir Peter Lampl, chairman of the Sutton Trust, an education charity which sponsored the study, described the findings as "truly shocking".
"This is a damning picture and there simply isn't enough urgency to try and do something about it," he said.
"The results show that social mobility in Britain is much lower than in other advanced countries and that it is declining."
The report focused on how education affected the life chances of British children compared with those in other countries. It put the UK and the US at the bottom of a social mobility league table of eight European and North American countries, with Norway at the top followed by Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Germany and Canada.
It concluded that wealth was more clearly linked to educational attainment in the UK than in the other countries, with children from poor backgrounds trapped in the worst schools and less likely to continue their studies.
According to the report, just 3% of pupils in the best state schools were entitled to free school meals, compared with a national average of 17%, leading the researchers to conclude that "academic selection had been replaced by social selection".
The study also found that the rapid expansion of higher education during the late 80s and 90s had not benefited the worst off. During that time the proportion of people from the poorest 20% of society getting a degree rose from 6% to 9%, but for the wealthiest 20% it rose from 20% to 47%.
"The expansion of higher education since the late 1980s has so far disproportionately benefited those from more affluent families," the report said.
"Family income in the childhood years does make a genuine difference to educational outcomes. Income inequality has risen at the same time as the gap between the educational attainments of the richest and poorest has grown."
The prospects of poor children in the US were similar to those in Britain, the report said, although social mobility there was "static" while in the UK it was declining.
Sir Peter said it was time for the government to take radical measures to tackle the problem and warned that election pledges to increase parental choice over children's schools would not help to reduce the class divide.
"Who is exercising choice?" he said. "It's pretty obvious. There is a lot of rhetoric by the politicians about school choice but making it practically available to everybody just isn't happening."
The report said more action was needed to help children from poor backgrounds, with the very young targeted first.
"From early ages, including prior to school entry, Britain needs to adopt a strategy to equalise opportunities," it said.
Sir Peter said the government needed to widen the education provision for pre-school children to a level similar to that in Scandinavia and called for the best state schools and elite universities to do more to attract a wider range of applicants.
He said students aged 16 and over should be given financial help to encourage them to stay on at school or college and called for more school buses to help children in poor areas travel to the best schools.
"There are practical things that can be done and it is imperative that we take real steps to address this shocking situation," he said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1469361,00.html
Originally posted by Rajk999"1. I want complete opentrade with everybody"
Interesting.. nothing is ever the fault of the theory, after all a theory is based on a number of assumptioms, and theeory holds as long as the assumptions hold. Unfortunately in real life they do not. Communism belongs in a textbook and has no place where there are humans.
Anyway, You still have not said anything new that has not already been attempted w ...[text shortened]... You cant say everybody get the same identical care and education. Thats just simply impossible.
This might not be possible from the start but say a communist party got elected with a large majority in England. We would have a lot of countries that would be up for trading with us, not all but a large proportion.
"2. Youall do exactly as I say"
No that wouldn't work at all we would need people to want to. What would need to happen is for some of the more powerful countries to independently have communism successfully establish itself and offer support for any and all other countries that would do the same. The countries see the advantages and join. After a period of time a strong set of nations have set up and with more time more countries see the advantages and join up in the end all or most countries have decided to join and the free trade is open to all.
"3. There is no war"
I really hope one day this becomes true it is a lot harder to prevent war then it is to start one and I don't see in the immediate future that this will happen.
I think with only public schools of the highest quality would produce a fairer system. I wanted to know if you approved of private and public. I don't mean identical treatment just the best possible and equal. As for the buildings that are currently private they should be converted into public.
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaSo you're okay with a living person having a say over what happens to something that won't belong to him in a future state when he's dead? In that case, how about if a poor person has a say over the money that will belong to him in a hypothetical future when he's rich? But no, I hear you say, that would be preposterous.
If it is the wish of a living person to say where their possessions should go when they die, it's not a matter of dead people having rights.
When they are alive the property is theirs, when they die it becomes someone elses.
It dosen't enter a limbo land.
The fact is that the state acts as a guarantor for the transmission of inheritance in much the same way as any other aspect of financial law. The whole thing is state-regulated by custom and precedent, which is why you have ultimogeniture in one place, promogeniture in another, entail in another and partible inheritance in yet another. It isn't alien to the state - it's part of its routine operation of upward distribution and capital concentration.
Originally posted by scottishinnzOf course the Soviets didn't murder for equality. They required a totalitarian state for equality, and that totalitarian state, to solidify power murdered millions. People like you supported it because it sounded good on paper. But you can't get around the fact, equality of means requires an all-powerful state.
what a load of crap.
The soviets did not 'murder 50 million for equality'. They murdered 50 million (the popn would be 200 million (estimated) more had Stalin never taken power) for the glorification ofJoseph Stalin. Because he was a paranoid little screw. Nothing more, nothing less. Go out to a school and take a class.
Sending people to schoo ...[text shortened]... put your bins out for a month and see how much you value bin-men when your family get sick.
Also, sending someone to school is unfair to someone. If my parents sacrifice save for 18 years and send me to Harvard, that is unfair to some other kid whose parents blew the same amount of money for lifestyle items and didn't have anything when it was time for that kid to go to college. This is unfair to that other kid. Any of us can think of some unfair advantages we've had, but we can look around and find someone whose had unfair advantages over us. Of course a good socialist would require my parents to cough up half of what they saved and give it to the other family who didn't save. After all, they are in need, right? Wouldn't want to give me an unfair edge.
Originally posted by techsouthTo do with you and your education you should be allowed to go to the school free of charge. Your parents shouldn't have to pay. You compare yourself to someone with parents who have the same income but different expenses to try and prove it is unfair. What about a single mother who just could not afford to send her children? She isn't squandering money away chances are she has less luxuries then you and works harder (paid less) then either of your parents.
Of course the Soviets didn't murder for equality. They required a totalitarian state for equality, and that totalitarian state, to solidify power murdered millions. People like you supported it because it sounded good on paper. But you can't get around the fact, equality of means requires an all-powerful state.
Also, sending someone to school is unfa ...[text shortened]... idn't save. After all, they are in need, right? Wouldn't want to give me an unfair edge.
Originally posted by Will EverittHey, I'm not overlooking the single mom who works harder than I can imagine. The trouble is it's hard to make laws that distinguish levels of need.
To do with you and your education you should be allowed to go to the school free of charge. Your parents shouldn't have to pay. You compare yourself to someone with parents who have the same income but different expenses to try and prove it is unfair. What about a single mother who just could not afford to send her children? She isn't squandering money ...[text shortened]... s are she has less luxuries then you and works harder (paid less) then either of your parents.
You've got one family whose parents go from job to job putting in a half hearted effort. Another family's parents may work as hard as they can to attain the same income. From the perspective of government, there's no difference (I know some are already conjurering up a whole new level of red tape to try to distinguish the two).
I should be allowed to go to school for free? Of course someone should pay my living expenses too. Just how many consectutive semesters of Ds and Fs would it require before the government decides the money is better spent elsewhere? Or would we give everyone four years of government support just so we can avoid making such decisions?
Also, Harvard is a private school. Your telling me that we should make it illegal for me to form a school of any kind and charge people to attend? You're willing to place that restriction on freedom all because you cling to some failed idea of utopia?
Some may argue that the government should pay for people to go to Harvard even though it is a private school. That's a good idea. I'll have an easy life starting my own school that teaches pizza eating and football watching. Just draw in a few students and the government is paying for my pathetic life. But the government can just step in and make up rules for what private schools they support and what they don't. There's a little more power on our way to totalitarianism.