*** forewarning, this is pretty gross***
'Don't be absurd, that would never happen'
There is an arguement by the American religious right, that if you allow gay marriage, the next step will be polygamy, beastiality and goodness knows what else. This is based on the idea that if you're not allowed to choose what marriage is set against a predefined standard, then the only standard you have is whatever people want it to be. If there is no reason why marriage should be between and man and a woman, then why should is be between a couple and not two men and a woman, or three women and a man? Does it even need to be a lifetime commitment? If there is no reason why it should be between a man and a woman why does it have to be between two humans? After all, if you're a bigot for saying it cannot be between two men, because you think that is wrong, does that mean that you're a bigot if you think that it cannot be between three women and a man, because you think that is wrong. Essentially if popular opinion changes, you have no arguement against changing marriage with it. Regardless of what you think of gay marriage it is an interesting arguement.
I can see the logic in the argument but if I'm honest I would have thought any such societal changes would take a very long time. Far longer than my lifetime for example. I never thought I'd see someone arguing for marriage between animals and humans in my life. Then I read this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20523950
Amazingly there is someone in Germany who is happy to represent an organisation that thinks of animals as... well let me just quote him:
"We see animals as partners and not as a means of gratification. We
don't force them to do anything. Animals are much easier to understand
than women,"
Yep, there is an organisation that is arguing the animals make better partners than women. Take a minute to finish throwing up. But the sad thing is, that this is how a process starts. I have codified the way social values change as follows:
-practice A is seen as disgusting
-practice A has someone who is willing to go on record to say it is good, almost everyone is repulsed
-practice A has someone who is willing to go on record the next time it is discussed, but this time there is less -shock and horror, more just disgust
-practice A becomes old news, society recognises that there are people who think it is good, even though -they strongly disagree, it is quite disgusting
-people begin being open about supporting practice A, and the people who talk to them find that 'they are just normal people', because of course, if you can hold a conversation with someone and they can be polite, whatever they do in their spare time can't be that bad can it? (because of course all people who carry out bad practices walk around with horns on their head and a spiked tail)
-people decide that since they are 'just normal people' it is just prejudice and misunderstanding that causes people to think the person is disgusting (mixing up whether a person or their practice is bad)
-those who are against practice A are bad, because they are narrow minded and prejudice
In just 9 easy steps a practice has gone from being seen as disgusting, to those who oppose it being seen as awful. I thought the process would take around 80 years, but it appears that it can probably be done in 30. What does this say about the future? I don't know, but I can't help but feel sorry the Labradors of 2042....
Friday, 14 December 2012
Friday, 7 December 2012
Civilisation is broken, and a man can't fix it.
There seems to be an odd novel way of applying 'equality' in such fashion to actually disadvantage those whom you are supposedly trying to help. This seems to be what has happened in particular with reference to women in the last 40 years.
Let me put it this way as an illustation.
1. To be equal you must be treated the same. (we're not talking about positive discrimination here)
Yes? If you say yes move on to question 2.
2. Does the fact that men and women are inherently different affect your conclusion?
No? Move on to conclusion.
Conclusion
There should be no men and women's races in the Olympics because that discrimination; you are treating people differently because of their gender.
No to me, the conclusion seems absurd. I mean, it could be done, if that is what people wanted, but it is clear that actually by treating men and women the same, what you would do is disadvantage women. Whereas treating them as inherently different, actually makes things more fair.
Now if this applies with the Olympics which, lets face it has little to do with how society treats you and is based very much, simply on what someone can do, what does such a suggestion automatically become negative when it is applied in other everyday situations?
The difficulty is, I believe that by treating men and women the same, what actually happens is that women and men get entered into the same race. They get judged by one measure. That of a man. What society seems reluctant to do however, is realise that a man judged by the measure of a woman, will always fail, and a woman judged by the measure of a man will fail too. It is like having the same test to evaluate tractors and super sports cars, the fact is they are different and so using one meaure for both will actually pick the best of neither. The obvious solution is to treat tractors as tractors and sports cars as sports cars, that is, to treat them differently.
The disadvantage this provides to women in our society is subtle at first but increasingly obvious when you think about it. I have friends who, when they were in University, talked to other girls and came to the conclusion that British girls (they weren't British themselves) pretend to be 'modern women' who are happy to have casual sex, but really wanted to have a relationship, get married and settle down. It isn't a surprise. Men are happy to have more casual sexual relationships generally, so if women and men are the same, women must be expected to want the same things and behave in the same way. If they don't, then they just have to act like it, it would appear.
The biggest change appears to come from childbirth and work however. The fact that there are not 50/50 splits on boards of management is seen as something aweful. This means there must be discrimination in the work place. After all women are the same as men, therefore there should statistically be the same number of women on boards as men. What people don't really want to recognise is that actually there are at least 3 explanations for this:
1) women are incompetant
2) women are discriminated against by their male superiors
3) women have different priorities than men
Two of those are ruled out immediately because it suggests women are different to men, leaving the only answer to be that women are the subject of discrimination. Reality speaks otherwise however. The truth more than any of the other answers is really (3). The reason women don't make it to the top, is because they have other interests. Men make it to the top because they cannot give birth to children and they are happy pursue career over their work. Women often do not have the same priorities. Of course they can do, and those who do often succeed very well in their choosen pursuit, but in reality women don't just want a career they want a family. It isn't a bad thing, it is actually very good. But of course to recognise that recognises that men and women are different, and means that we judge women as women, rather than jugdge them as men.
If you think this is all imagined then you're probably out of touch. I know women who have a great deal of success in their choosen professions. Professions we would consider quite 'high flying'. On the one hand one was told by another woman that she had put her career before having children and now she regrets is and therefore if they wanted to have children they should just to it. While another person I know was told by another woman that if they went part time 'they would never be taken seriously as a [professional]'. Two successful women being told by their superiors two conflicting things. In the first case we see someone who bought into what they were told and regreted it, and another who appears to want to make sure that everyone else is judged in the same way she was. After all if the second example was someone who was happy surely they could have equally said, 'I didn't go part time and my career really benefited from it' which is informative and applies little pressure, rather than phrasing it as an obligation. It is hardly a surprise that this would happen however, if you pretend men and women are the same, you expect then to act the same, to want the same and to prioritise the same. In the first example someone bought into that and now regrets it, you can't help but wonder from the way the second phrased what they said, whether deep down, they feel the same, and so want others to have to make the same sacrifices they did. After all if someone really wants to put their career first, you don't have to scare them into doing it, they will do it by choice, because that is what they would choose left to their own devices.
Sadly, I don't think women are left to do what they want however. In a world where everyone must be equal in reality that means everyone must act like men and be judged as men. The real inequality that does exist however is that society no longer gives credit to the things women generally want to do, but are (as seen above) pursuaded not to do. Someone once asked 'what women can do that men can't... but don't tell me childbirth'. This I believe demonstrates where women really are discriminated against. We have made something that the vast majority of women would like to do, can do, and that men never can, and probably never will be able to do derisory. People who read this will think I'm being patronising to women just for bringing it up, and yet that is our very problem. We have made something that is wonderful, something that should be celebrated, something that should be given credit like holding a top job... almost worthless. Why? Because we judge women by the standard of being a man. This is the real discrimination. While we think 'anyone' can have a child (which they can't, only women can) which means it is not an acomplishment. Well lets face reality almost anyone can have a job, the difference is doing it well, and that applies the same to childrearing.
The fact that we judge women as men is already having repercussions in society. Our birth rate is below 2 children per couple. That means our society is dying out. That means that our NHS can't cope, neither can our pension system and pretty much most other social security systems, because they are all based on a health normal birth rate, which we don't have, because we tell all our women that if they don't act like men then they are wasting their lives. Left in this position the UK and actually Europe as a whole is going to potentially collapse.
We come to an ironic finally then. Our civilsation is broken, men cannot fix it. Pretty much only women can, and in order to do so what needs to happen is for women to ignore the plight for 'equality', being treated 'as men' and being told what they say they should want if 'they are to be taken seriously', and rather take claim of their differences and tell society that they will be valued for that difference and not because they can, when pressured, adopt the values of men to the sacrifice of whatever their own maybe. In short women will be equal, when we as a society (male and female) are brave enough acknowledge men and women are different.
Let me put it this way as an illustation.
1. To be equal you must be treated the same. (we're not talking about positive discrimination here)
Yes? If you say yes move on to question 2.
2. Does the fact that men and women are inherently different affect your conclusion?
No? Move on to conclusion.
Conclusion
There should be no men and women's races in the Olympics because that discrimination; you are treating people differently because of their gender.
No to me, the conclusion seems absurd. I mean, it could be done, if that is what people wanted, but it is clear that actually by treating men and women the same, what you would do is disadvantage women. Whereas treating them as inherently different, actually makes things more fair.
Now if this applies with the Olympics which, lets face it has little to do with how society treats you and is based very much, simply on what someone can do, what does such a suggestion automatically become negative when it is applied in other everyday situations?
The difficulty is, I believe that by treating men and women the same, what actually happens is that women and men get entered into the same race. They get judged by one measure. That of a man. What society seems reluctant to do however, is realise that a man judged by the measure of a woman, will always fail, and a woman judged by the measure of a man will fail too. It is like having the same test to evaluate tractors and super sports cars, the fact is they are different and so using one meaure for both will actually pick the best of neither. The obvious solution is to treat tractors as tractors and sports cars as sports cars, that is, to treat them differently.
The disadvantage this provides to women in our society is subtle at first but increasingly obvious when you think about it. I have friends who, when they were in University, talked to other girls and came to the conclusion that British girls (they weren't British themselves) pretend to be 'modern women' who are happy to have casual sex, but really wanted to have a relationship, get married and settle down. It isn't a surprise. Men are happy to have more casual sexual relationships generally, so if women and men are the same, women must be expected to want the same things and behave in the same way. If they don't, then they just have to act like it, it would appear.
The biggest change appears to come from childbirth and work however. The fact that there are not 50/50 splits on boards of management is seen as something aweful. This means there must be discrimination in the work place. After all women are the same as men, therefore there should statistically be the same number of women on boards as men. What people don't really want to recognise is that actually there are at least 3 explanations for this:
1) women are incompetant
2) women are discriminated against by their male superiors
3) women have different priorities than men
Two of those are ruled out immediately because it suggests women are different to men, leaving the only answer to be that women are the subject of discrimination. Reality speaks otherwise however. The truth more than any of the other answers is really (3). The reason women don't make it to the top, is because they have other interests. Men make it to the top because they cannot give birth to children and they are happy pursue career over their work. Women often do not have the same priorities. Of course they can do, and those who do often succeed very well in their choosen pursuit, but in reality women don't just want a career they want a family. It isn't a bad thing, it is actually very good. But of course to recognise that recognises that men and women are different, and means that we judge women as women, rather than jugdge them as men.
If you think this is all imagined then you're probably out of touch. I know women who have a great deal of success in their choosen professions. Professions we would consider quite 'high flying'. On the one hand one was told by another woman that she had put her career before having children and now she regrets is and therefore if they wanted to have children they should just to it. While another person I know was told by another woman that if they went part time 'they would never be taken seriously as a [professional]'. Two successful women being told by their superiors two conflicting things. In the first case we see someone who bought into what they were told and regreted it, and another who appears to want to make sure that everyone else is judged in the same way she was. After all if the second example was someone who was happy surely they could have equally said, 'I didn't go part time and my career really benefited from it' which is informative and applies little pressure, rather than phrasing it as an obligation. It is hardly a surprise that this would happen however, if you pretend men and women are the same, you expect then to act the same, to want the same and to prioritise the same. In the first example someone bought into that and now regrets it, you can't help but wonder from the way the second phrased what they said, whether deep down, they feel the same, and so want others to have to make the same sacrifices they did. After all if someone really wants to put their career first, you don't have to scare them into doing it, they will do it by choice, because that is what they would choose left to their own devices.
Sadly, I don't think women are left to do what they want however. In a world where everyone must be equal in reality that means everyone must act like men and be judged as men. The real inequality that does exist however is that society no longer gives credit to the things women generally want to do, but are (as seen above) pursuaded not to do. Someone once asked 'what women can do that men can't... but don't tell me childbirth'. This I believe demonstrates where women really are discriminated against. We have made something that the vast majority of women would like to do, can do, and that men never can, and probably never will be able to do derisory. People who read this will think I'm being patronising to women just for bringing it up, and yet that is our very problem. We have made something that is wonderful, something that should be celebrated, something that should be given credit like holding a top job... almost worthless. Why? Because we judge women by the standard of being a man. This is the real discrimination. While we think 'anyone' can have a child (which they can't, only women can) which means it is not an acomplishment. Well lets face reality almost anyone can have a job, the difference is doing it well, and that applies the same to childrearing.
The fact that we judge women as men is already having repercussions in society. Our birth rate is below 2 children per couple. That means our society is dying out. That means that our NHS can't cope, neither can our pension system and pretty much most other social security systems, because they are all based on a health normal birth rate, which we don't have, because we tell all our women that if they don't act like men then they are wasting their lives. Left in this position the UK and actually Europe as a whole is going to potentially collapse.
We come to an ironic finally then. Our civilsation is broken, men cannot fix it. Pretty much only women can, and in order to do so what needs to happen is for women to ignore the plight for 'equality', being treated 'as men' and being told what they say they should want if 'they are to be taken seriously', and rather take claim of their differences and tell society that they will be valued for that difference and not because they can, when pressured, adopt the values of men to the sacrifice of whatever their own maybe. In short women will be equal, when we as a society (male and female) are brave enough acknowledge men and women are different.
Wednesday, 21 November 2012
Rowan Williams should star in a Sit-Com
It is a rather sad day for the Church of England when its Archbishop doesn't actually understand the religion he is supposedly leading. In fact the lack of understanding would actually be very amusing, almost sit-com like if it was not for the fact that it is a real life official Church of a developed nation.
Sky reports that he has said:
"We have, to put it very bluntly, a lot of explaining to do,"
"Whatever the motivation for voting yesterday (Tuesday), whatever the theological principle on which people acted and spoke, the fact remains that a great deal of this discussion is not intelligible to our wider society.
"Worse than that, it seems as if we are wilfully blind to some of the trends and priorities of that wider society. We have some explaining to do, we have as a result of yesterday undoubtedly lost a measure of credibility in our society."
(http://news.sky.com/story/1014291/archbishop-church-lost-credibility-over-vote )
I don't think that it is particularly unfaithful to the sentiments of what he said to paraphrase as follows:
1. "You've made a serious mistake!"
2. "You've voted on the basis of Christian principle that people unfamilar with the Bible don't understand."
3. "Worse than that, you're deliberately not following the trends and priorities of people outside of the church"
4. "As a result people outside the church don't think the church is doing things right"
A few observations...
People who care about Christianity would know about the Bible, if they don't know about the Bible, they probably don't care what goes on in church. Even if they do know about the Bible and care about what happens in church, they are inevitably going to be unconvinced by the way the church goers manage their life, after all if they saw value in it, they would be in the church not outside of it.
Those who are in the church, ie the ones that actually care what the Church/the Bible has to say, voted in the manner they did. They are also the ones most likely to understand the reason behind the decision.
'The church doesn't follow the values of wider society'. Well of course not. This is a most obvious statement of fact. The Church is completely counter cultural. It always has been. If socity says "it is a dog eat dog world" the church says 'love your neighbour'. If the world says 'nice guys finish last' the church says 'the meek shall inherit the earth'. If the world says 'don't get mad get even' the church says 'forgive us as we forgive others'. Most of the concepts of the church run completely contrary to wider society in general. Which is presumably why the Bible says "be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." (KJV).
It is with considerable shock that a Bishop would chastise the church of England for not acting like society. After all if the church acted like society what would the point of the church be? You don't need an organisation to show people to act the way they do anyway. The idea of the church is to attract people, not by their similarity, but rather by their contrast. To show that seeking revenge, being constantly drunk, taking drugs, cheating on your partner, having an unstable marriage, or being constantly self-seeking isn't the best way to go one doesn't do so oneself. If one does, what one will demonstrate is that this is the norm. Rather by avoiding those things one demonstrates that there is a different alternative way of doing things that is better in some way. To put it another way, if you want people to by Honda instead of Ford, you don't make a replica of the Ford (they already have one) you make something which is in someway better.
Society as a whole doesn't understand the reason why women aren't allowed to lead in a church. That is true. Society as a whole also doesn't understand how humbling yourself can mean you are exalted, how putting others first you can excel or how loving your enemy can make you happier and improve both your situations. It also doesn't understand how women and men can only be truely free and equal when they are accepted as of equal value, but still different, rather than pretending we're exactly the same, and hindering both. Society will never understand either... until they SEE it. And that is the very purpose for which the church is there.
Sky reports that he has said:
"We have, to put it very bluntly, a lot of explaining to do,"
"Whatever the motivation for voting yesterday (Tuesday), whatever the theological principle on which people acted and spoke, the fact remains that a great deal of this discussion is not intelligible to our wider society.
"Worse than that, it seems as if we are wilfully blind to some of the trends and priorities of that wider society. We have some explaining to do, we have as a result of yesterday undoubtedly lost a measure of credibility in our society."
(http://news.sky.com/story/1014291/archbishop-church-lost-credibility-over-vote )
I don't think that it is particularly unfaithful to the sentiments of what he said to paraphrase as follows:
1. "You've made a serious mistake!"
2. "You've voted on the basis of Christian principle that people unfamilar with the Bible don't understand."
3. "Worse than that, you're deliberately not following the trends and priorities of people outside of the church"
4. "As a result people outside the church don't think the church is doing things right"
A few observations...
People who care about Christianity would know about the Bible, if they don't know about the Bible, they probably don't care what goes on in church. Even if they do know about the Bible and care about what happens in church, they are inevitably going to be unconvinced by the way the church goers manage their life, after all if they saw value in it, they would be in the church not outside of it.
Those who are in the church, ie the ones that actually care what the Church/the Bible has to say, voted in the manner they did. They are also the ones most likely to understand the reason behind the decision.
'The church doesn't follow the values of wider society'. Well of course not. This is a most obvious statement of fact. The Church is completely counter cultural. It always has been. If socity says "it is a dog eat dog world" the church says 'love your neighbour'. If the world says 'nice guys finish last' the church says 'the meek shall inherit the earth'. If the world says 'don't get mad get even' the church says 'forgive us as we forgive others'. Most of the concepts of the church run completely contrary to wider society in general. Which is presumably why the Bible says "be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." (KJV).
It is with considerable shock that a Bishop would chastise the church of England for not acting like society. After all if the church acted like society what would the point of the church be? You don't need an organisation to show people to act the way they do anyway. The idea of the church is to attract people, not by their similarity, but rather by their contrast. To show that seeking revenge, being constantly drunk, taking drugs, cheating on your partner, having an unstable marriage, or being constantly self-seeking isn't the best way to go one doesn't do so oneself. If one does, what one will demonstrate is that this is the norm. Rather by avoiding those things one demonstrates that there is a different alternative way of doing things that is better in some way. To put it another way, if you want people to by Honda instead of Ford, you don't make a replica of the Ford (they already have one) you make something which is in someway better.
Society as a whole doesn't understand the reason why women aren't allowed to lead in a church. That is true. Society as a whole also doesn't understand how humbling yourself can mean you are exalted, how putting others first you can excel or how loving your enemy can make you happier and improve both your situations. It also doesn't understand how women and men can only be truely free and equal when they are accepted as of equal value, but still different, rather than pretending we're exactly the same, and hindering both. Society will never understand either... until they SEE it. And that is the very purpose for which the church is there.
Thursday, 16 August 2012
How to remove freedom of speech in two easy steps
Here you go, the quickest post ever:
How to remove freedom of speech in a Western Democracy in two easy steps:
1. Out law hate speech;
2. Categorise any disagreement with a section of society as hate speech towards that class of people.
There you go, easiest thing in the world. You see step one is easy because everyone hates hate speech. That is understandable. Hate stirs up strife and potential violence and all sorts of nasty things that pretty much everyone thinks of as bad.
Step two is all the more cunning. Basically one just has to associate their views so strongly with themselves so as to basically make that view a part of their character.
Eg. I have OCD, that means I'm obsessive about hygine. It isn't my fault, I remember having it for as long as I have memory. It is just a normal part of my personality. Some people say it is strange but that is just because it is different to what they are used to. It just means I like things clean and I can't stand the idea of bins only being taken out once a fortnight...
Therefore anyone who thinks the bins be taken out once a fortnight, is an OCD hater, and therefore must be convicted of a hate crime. They are just using their claim of cost savings to cover up their clear hatred for people who have OCD. They are trying to oppress people with OCD because we NEED a clean environment, therefore any of these OCD bigots should be arrested for their prejudice and brought before the courts.
An opinion is an opinion, if someone disagrees with it, then they disagree with it. Sure there are some dangerous opinions out there. But isn't it just as dangerous to start moderating what opinions people are allowed to have? Take the following example:
a) 'asians are bad people' is clearly racist;
b) 'high levels of immigration is damaging to the economic and social coherency of a country' some would call that racist, others would call it an observation of the impact of a particular policy;
c) 'so called 'houour killings' are abhorent and should be condemed throughout society' many would agree with that statement, but in the context that the majority of what is considered 'honour killings' have been performed by British Muslims, some could call that racist too.
The difficulty is, when you start drawing lines in the grey areas what you end up doing is moderating who and what you can criticise. I'm not sure how wise that is, because if there is someone deciding what you can criticise and what you can't that isn't free speech, that is the total opposite.
I'm still against anything that advocates the use of violence in pursuit of a cause (outside the Queen's peace), but one must be very careful with any legislation that puts into the hands of officials the job of moderating what an acceptable opinion is. The fact is people with lunatic opinions are quite good at repelling people from their cause because.... well they have lunatic opinions, which means the only causes that would really be effected are those in grey areas, that is areas of debate where people don't agree with what is the right opinion/course of action, in other words, the exact circumstances where discussion is needed.
How to remove freedom of speech in a Western Democracy in two easy steps:
1. Out law hate speech;
2. Categorise any disagreement with a section of society as hate speech towards that class of people.
There you go, easiest thing in the world. You see step one is easy because everyone hates hate speech. That is understandable. Hate stirs up strife and potential violence and all sorts of nasty things that pretty much everyone thinks of as bad.
Step two is all the more cunning. Basically one just has to associate their views so strongly with themselves so as to basically make that view a part of their character.
Eg. I have OCD, that means I'm obsessive about hygine. It isn't my fault, I remember having it for as long as I have memory. It is just a normal part of my personality. Some people say it is strange but that is just because it is different to what they are used to. It just means I like things clean and I can't stand the idea of bins only being taken out once a fortnight...
Therefore anyone who thinks the bins be taken out once a fortnight, is an OCD hater, and therefore must be convicted of a hate crime. They are just using their claim of cost savings to cover up their clear hatred for people who have OCD. They are trying to oppress people with OCD because we NEED a clean environment, therefore any of these OCD bigots should be arrested for their prejudice and brought before the courts.
An opinion is an opinion, if someone disagrees with it, then they disagree with it. Sure there are some dangerous opinions out there. But isn't it just as dangerous to start moderating what opinions people are allowed to have? Take the following example:
a) 'asians are bad people' is clearly racist;
b) 'high levels of immigration is damaging to the economic and social coherency of a country' some would call that racist, others would call it an observation of the impact of a particular policy;
c) 'so called 'houour killings' are abhorent and should be condemed throughout society' many would agree with that statement, but in the context that the majority of what is considered 'honour killings' have been performed by British Muslims, some could call that racist too.
The difficulty is, when you start drawing lines in the grey areas what you end up doing is moderating who and what you can criticise. I'm not sure how wise that is, because if there is someone deciding what you can criticise and what you can't that isn't free speech, that is the total opposite.
I'm still against anything that advocates the use of violence in pursuit of a cause (outside the Queen's peace), but one must be very careful with any legislation that puts into the hands of officials the job of moderating what an acceptable opinion is. The fact is people with lunatic opinions are quite good at repelling people from their cause because.... well they have lunatic opinions, which means the only causes that would really be effected are those in grey areas, that is areas of debate where people don't agree with what is the right opinion/course of action, in other words, the exact circumstances where discussion is needed.
Monday, 18 June 2012
Why I just can't work myself up to giving a crap about 'equality'
Right, first things first, before everyone goes metal, I'll qualify what sort of 'equality' I'm talking about: economic equality. What? You're still irate, I guess you'll just have to read on then.
I was reading an article today about how several organisations had criticised a move by the government to redefine 'poverty' to include such things as drug addiction, family break down and debt. This was slammed because apparently is would lead to stigmatisation of the poor and it would "undermine the idea that relative poverty matters". News flash, relative poverty doesn't matter. Not in of itself.
I went on holiday not long ago and I went to a beautiful country with turquoise waters and I quickly realised that I was surrounded by rich yanks. Most people didn't have cars, they got around by yacht and the women all had diamonds on their fingers the size of the gravel on most peoples' drives. So if we want to use relative poverty, I was poor, but that would be ridiculous because I had a nice place to stay, drove around and could afford to eat. I had everything I needed and more, so I wasn't poor.
Likewise if I went to an isolated island where there was a very severe famine and I had plenty of gold and precious gems, while the rest of the people had none, the fact that I was 'rich' would be meaningless because there would be nothing to eat and everyone would be starving. The fact that by comparison I had more than everyone else, wouldn't make the smallest difference, because no one had enough to eat, even the 'rich'.
So in every way this fascination with how 'equal' people are is pointless. If equality is what you're after that is easy, get everyone to take all their belongings and chuck them into the sea. We'll all die pretty soon after but there will be perfect equality.
If you're thinking that this is an exercise in reductio ad absurdum, you're wrong. This actually happens in practise. Technically there are less poor people today than there were a could of years ago. How can this be, I hear you ask, we're in a recession. Well the technical definition of poverty is to be living on less than 60% of the average wage. Since the average wage has gone down, the number of people below 60% has decreased. Logically then a reduction in the number of people living in poverty is a good thing, and yet all that has happened in reality is that the standard of living has got worse for everyone. You know the way you measure poverty is a steaming pile of manure when life gets worse for everyone and yet that logs on your scale as a success.
That is the problem with 'equality' you can't make everyone better, you can try, but you won't succeed, but you can make everyone worse. I had a discussion the other day with a chap who was wondering whether banning private schools was worth it because children who go to them come out with better grades and since it costs money to go there that is unfair because not everyone can go. Well, private schools have exams just like everyone else, they just get the children to do better then them, close them down and sure you'll have a more equal society, because the children who would have gone to private school will go to state school and statistically they will do worse. So you'll have a more equal, but worse educated society. Hardly a winning scenario.
Surely it is better for everyone to do better and have a better standard of living regardless of whether that entails some people inevitably getting a slightly bigger share of it than others. The alternative is we all get a more equal share of something worse.
This leads me on to my next beef with this endless idolising of 'equality'. I don't want everyone to be equal. Oh I know very unfashionable thing to say but its is true. Why? Simple we're not the same. My sister earns far more money than I do. Probably a multiples of what I earn in fact. This does not bother me in the slightest. For a start she is older than me, which means she is more experienced and is thus higher in her job. But even with that aside, she spent her school years working... HARD for all of them. In contrast I faffed around for most of my school years constantly ignoring requests to do my homework and putting in just enough effort to cruise by. Of course, since then I've been introduced to the real world and I work hard. But if I could do as little as I have done for most of my life and then earn a sum of money that is 'equal' or even near equal to my sister then this world would be a seriously unfair place. It would be unjust it would be inequitable... not because we were treated differently, but because we weren't.
With this in mind why is it a big deal if people earn more than others. So they should, there will always be lazy people (like I was) in the world and so there should always be people with less money than those who work hard, or extremely hard. This way we have the freedom and liberty to pick our own lifestyles. We can work little and have lots of time, we can work hard and have some time or we can work very hard and have very little time, all with a corresponding amount of money that comes with it and at no point any equality of income.
Without doubt everyman (or woman) who puts their hand to the plough and works a solid week should be able to afford what they need to live and bring up a family, but that has absolutely nothing to do with how equal their pay is to everyone elses, what that is to do with is how much it costs to pay a mortgage, a gas bill, a food bill, a petrol bill etc. It has to do with the cost of living, it has nothing to do with what percentage of the top 10%'s wage they earn or anyone elses for that matter. This is why I've got no problem with the minimum wage. If someone works, they deserve to be paid for it and the deserve to be paid enough to have a life. What people don't deserve to do is look at how much someone else gets paid, who is in completely different circumstances as them, have made completely different life choices to them and have chosen completely different paths to them, and then decide that actually they should be earning the same amount.
Because when we do that we really, REALLY need to learn that sometimes equality just doesn't treat people equally.
I was reading an article today about how several organisations had criticised a move by the government to redefine 'poverty' to include such things as drug addiction, family break down and debt. This was slammed because apparently is would lead to stigmatisation of the poor and it would "undermine the idea that relative poverty matters". News flash, relative poverty doesn't matter. Not in of itself.
I went on holiday not long ago and I went to a beautiful country with turquoise waters and I quickly realised that I was surrounded by rich yanks. Most people didn't have cars, they got around by yacht and the women all had diamonds on their fingers the size of the gravel on most peoples' drives. So if we want to use relative poverty, I was poor, but that would be ridiculous because I had a nice place to stay, drove around and could afford to eat. I had everything I needed and more, so I wasn't poor.
Likewise if I went to an isolated island where there was a very severe famine and I had plenty of gold and precious gems, while the rest of the people had none, the fact that I was 'rich' would be meaningless because there would be nothing to eat and everyone would be starving. The fact that by comparison I had more than everyone else, wouldn't make the smallest difference, because no one had enough to eat, even the 'rich'.
So in every way this fascination with how 'equal' people are is pointless. If equality is what you're after that is easy, get everyone to take all their belongings and chuck them into the sea. We'll all die pretty soon after but there will be perfect equality.
If you're thinking that this is an exercise in reductio ad absurdum, you're wrong. This actually happens in practise. Technically there are less poor people today than there were a could of years ago. How can this be, I hear you ask, we're in a recession. Well the technical definition of poverty is to be living on less than 60% of the average wage. Since the average wage has gone down, the number of people below 60% has decreased. Logically then a reduction in the number of people living in poverty is a good thing, and yet all that has happened in reality is that the standard of living has got worse for everyone. You know the way you measure poverty is a steaming pile of manure when life gets worse for everyone and yet that logs on your scale as a success.
That is the problem with 'equality' you can't make everyone better, you can try, but you won't succeed, but you can make everyone worse. I had a discussion the other day with a chap who was wondering whether banning private schools was worth it because children who go to them come out with better grades and since it costs money to go there that is unfair because not everyone can go. Well, private schools have exams just like everyone else, they just get the children to do better then them, close them down and sure you'll have a more equal society, because the children who would have gone to private school will go to state school and statistically they will do worse. So you'll have a more equal, but worse educated society. Hardly a winning scenario.
Surely it is better for everyone to do better and have a better standard of living regardless of whether that entails some people inevitably getting a slightly bigger share of it than others. The alternative is we all get a more equal share of something worse.
This leads me on to my next beef with this endless idolising of 'equality'. I don't want everyone to be equal. Oh I know very unfashionable thing to say but its is true. Why? Simple we're not the same. My sister earns far more money than I do. Probably a multiples of what I earn in fact. This does not bother me in the slightest. For a start she is older than me, which means she is more experienced and is thus higher in her job. But even with that aside, she spent her school years working... HARD for all of them. In contrast I faffed around for most of my school years constantly ignoring requests to do my homework and putting in just enough effort to cruise by. Of course, since then I've been introduced to the real world and I work hard. But if I could do as little as I have done for most of my life and then earn a sum of money that is 'equal' or even near equal to my sister then this world would be a seriously unfair place. It would be unjust it would be inequitable... not because we were treated differently, but because we weren't.
With this in mind why is it a big deal if people earn more than others. So they should, there will always be lazy people (like I was) in the world and so there should always be people with less money than those who work hard, or extremely hard. This way we have the freedom and liberty to pick our own lifestyles. We can work little and have lots of time, we can work hard and have some time or we can work very hard and have very little time, all with a corresponding amount of money that comes with it and at no point any equality of income.
Without doubt everyman (or woman) who puts their hand to the plough and works a solid week should be able to afford what they need to live and bring up a family, but that has absolutely nothing to do with how equal their pay is to everyone elses, what that is to do with is how much it costs to pay a mortgage, a gas bill, a food bill, a petrol bill etc. It has to do with the cost of living, it has nothing to do with what percentage of the top 10%'s wage they earn or anyone elses for that matter. This is why I've got no problem with the minimum wage. If someone works, they deserve to be paid for it and the deserve to be paid enough to have a life. What people don't deserve to do is look at how much someone else gets paid, who is in completely different circumstances as them, have made completely different life choices to them and have chosen completely different paths to them, and then decide that actually they should be earning the same amount.
Because when we do that we really, REALLY need to learn that sometimes equality just doesn't treat people equally.
Wednesday, 23 May 2012
Like a dog without a bone...
I don't know about you, but I have my own financial adviser, therapists, student loan bankers, in-house medical specialists, career advisers, child care volunteers, business consultants and educators. It is a highly effective support and advisory network but best of all I get is all free!
This may sound all very surprising but it is part of a deal I was given (I didn't even negotiate it) when I was born. I joined something called a 'family'.
At the moment, there are a lot of people suffering from economic woes and understandably so. There are a lot of people who think they have the answer to the aforementioned woes too. Usually it falls into one of two brands 'austerity' or 'growth' (for growth public borrowing). But I've got an new engine for growth. More people can sign up to the same thing I did when I was young, a 'family'.
Amazingly the burden this would lift off the state would be extraordinary. I mean think about it. Everyone could have far greater support than they do now, saving them from relying on the public purse, maintaining the standard of living while reducing everyones costs.
How do I know that this would work? Well interestingly these groups have already been rolled out across Asia and are doing a great job there of internalising problems and expanding access to various skill sets. For example, say there is a 'family' of 5 people. Statistically at least one of them is likely to be unemployed. On their own they couldn't afford to retrain, for example. However, the other 4 are likely to be employed and so if they can share their money in such a way so that the fifth retains and starts work then eventually the fifth person will return to productivity and be become a net contributor to the 'family'.
Well so far no different from the state, right? Wrong. There are additional advantages of using the 'family' paradigm. For example, where as the state doesn't know you or me personally, the 'family' will, so they will be in a reasonably good position to judge whether the training is of value or whether it is just a scam to get more money off them. This is something that would be very difficult for the state to do, but due to the small nature of these 'families' they are aware of what the course is like and whether it suits the person taking it. Amazing huh!
There is another plus too! When payment has been made and the member of the 'family' has retrained, the other members of the family often don't even demand direct repayment! How incredible is that, so it turns out that person will not be sullied by huge amounts of debt, constantly creeping up due to interest when they are just starting off in their new and (usually) not highly paid work!
The benefits just keep coming too, because fraud is reduced as the 'family' members are usually fully aware of whether their members are working or not, it makes it incredibly difficult to claim money for being unemployed or injured if they are if fact lying.
Wow, no wonder Asian economies are so efficient! What may surprise you more is that such 'families' are in fact already in use in some places in the UK, but have become over the 40 years far less popular. Individuals appear to only see the benefits of independence from 'families' despite the fact that this provides far less support and costs the tax payer way more.
Most worryingly, most politicians, instead of championing the cause of 'families' and promoting them in schools, educating those who could be future members seem very reticent in doing so. They are usually far more in favour of expanding the state instead, despite its inability to regulate fraud, its higher costs and inability to provide full support and personalised guidance.
There seems to be a belief among many politicians that if one supports the 'family paradigm' it is somehow saying that non-members are inferior or that they are selfish because they are not willing to spend more on the vastly less efficient state spending.
This is a shame, because countries don't waste time thinking that non-'family' members will feel inferior, their culture just keeps families together in the first place. I just wish we'd follow suit, rather than thinking the best way to help a dog who has lost his bone is to take the bones off all the other dogs to make sure he doesn't feel bad.
This may sound all very surprising but it is part of a deal I was given (I didn't even negotiate it) when I was born. I joined something called a 'family'.
At the moment, there are a lot of people suffering from economic woes and understandably so. There are a lot of people who think they have the answer to the aforementioned woes too. Usually it falls into one of two brands 'austerity' or 'growth' (for growth public borrowing). But I've got an new engine for growth. More people can sign up to the same thing I did when I was young, a 'family'.
Amazingly the burden this would lift off the state would be extraordinary. I mean think about it. Everyone could have far greater support than they do now, saving them from relying on the public purse, maintaining the standard of living while reducing everyones costs.
How do I know that this would work? Well interestingly these groups have already been rolled out across Asia and are doing a great job there of internalising problems and expanding access to various skill sets. For example, say there is a 'family' of 5 people. Statistically at least one of them is likely to be unemployed. On their own they couldn't afford to retrain, for example. However, the other 4 are likely to be employed and so if they can share their money in such a way so that the fifth retains and starts work then eventually the fifth person will return to productivity and be become a net contributor to the 'family'.
Well so far no different from the state, right? Wrong. There are additional advantages of using the 'family' paradigm. For example, where as the state doesn't know you or me personally, the 'family' will, so they will be in a reasonably good position to judge whether the training is of value or whether it is just a scam to get more money off them. This is something that would be very difficult for the state to do, but due to the small nature of these 'families' they are aware of what the course is like and whether it suits the person taking it. Amazing huh!
There is another plus too! When payment has been made and the member of the 'family' has retrained, the other members of the family often don't even demand direct repayment! How incredible is that, so it turns out that person will not be sullied by huge amounts of debt, constantly creeping up due to interest when they are just starting off in their new and (usually) not highly paid work!
The benefits just keep coming too, because fraud is reduced as the 'family' members are usually fully aware of whether their members are working or not, it makes it incredibly difficult to claim money for being unemployed or injured if they are if fact lying.
Wow, no wonder Asian economies are so efficient! What may surprise you more is that such 'families' are in fact already in use in some places in the UK, but have become over the 40 years far less popular. Individuals appear to only see the benefits of independence from 'families' despite the fact that this provides far less support and costs the tax payer way more.
Most worryingly, most politicians, instead of championing the cause of 'families' and promoting them in schools, educating those who could be future members seem very reticent in doing so. They are usually far more in favour of expanding the state instead, despite its inability to regulate fraud, its higher costs and inability to provide full support and personalised guidance.
There seems to be a belief among many politicians that if one supports the 'family paradigm' it is somehow saying that non-members are inferior or that they are selfish because they are not willing to spend more on the vastly less efficient state spending.
This is a shame, because countries don't waste time thinking that non-'family' members will feel inferior, their culture just keeps families together in the first place. I just wish we'd follow suit, rather than thinking the best way to help a dog who has lost his bone is to take the bones off all the other dogs to make sure he doesn't feel bad.
Monday, 23 April 2012
Very liberal... just like a dictatorship...
Is it just me, or is the left and the far right starting to look like the same team?
For those who don't know, the far right is meant to be authoritarian, believe in strong state control and often characterised as intolerant towards minorities of race/religion etc.
The liberal left is meant to be about minimal intervention from the state and providing freedom to everyone to as much as they want within the limits of what will affect those around them (ie, you're not allowed to shoot someone, because they interferes with their life etc)
Generally everyone hates the far right for obvious reasons, while the liberal left is 'cool' because they are usually for legalising drugs, reduced sentences for criminals and for all round telling people that whatever lifestyle you go for just fine and dandy.
The flaws with both are simple:
Far right: see Nazi Germany
Liberal: it doesn't take long to realise that most people's behaviour has a cost for someone else, ie, you take drugs and you'll end up being treated by the NHS... which is paid for by me or your neighbour or whoever else didn't want to have to pay for it.
Anyway I'm not actually on my point yet, which is, as I said at the start, that actually these days the liberal left is starting to look like the same team as the far right. Maybe they don't play in quite the same way, but their tools and practises are starting to have an uncanny similarity.
I'll take a few examples that are going on around the world right now:
Sweden & Germany:
Sweden is usually portrayed by many people as a liberal paradise. They have high investment in rehabilitation and relatively 'pleasant' prisons. What they now also have, is a total ban on home schooling your own children. Not only this but the government controls the curriculum for any non-state schools. What difference does this make? I hear you ask. Well ignoring for a moment the fact that on average home schooled children tend to get far better grades and be more involved in the community, the problem can be summed up in one sentence: the government has legal control of what every human in the country (excluding immigrants) must be taught at a young age, that is when they are most impressionable.
The scope for indoctrination is staggering. Anyone who says anything that the government considers untoward can the act as a flag to have their parents investigated. The Nazis were known for encouraging children to report their own parents if they said anything in the home against the Nazi regime, amazingly this could easily have a similar effect. Just set the curriculum on whatever you want, get people to discuss it and chances are they'll say what they've been taught by their parents. The fact that it was also adopted in Germany isn't encouraging. Last year some parents pulled their children out of a sex education class, they were fined €2,340. How liberal is that? You don't even have the liberty to educate your own children on 'family matters'.
United States, New York:
Recently in New York they have made it so that churches cannot use state school premises for a place to worship on a Sunday. Never mind the fact that this brings in money for state education (ironically something that liberals in America always complain is underfunded and inadequate), never mind the schools aren't used on Sunday so essentially it is efficient use of resources (something that American liberals also claim to care about) they've decided that churches can't use state premises because... it suggests that the government supports Christianity.
Once again irony knocks considering the pledge of allegiance often recited in schools states "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God" and that the money which they hand over in order to pay for the hire of the premises states "in God we Trust". The fact is, hiring out a hall constitutes an endorsement, according to New York state. Presumably those who hire out a wedding premises endorse the match and the couples choice. Does the state favour pilates over yoga if it rents out a community hall to a pilates class? Does the state endorse Tae Kwon Do over Karate if it rents a hall to a Tae Kwon Do team? Or maybe one could go further and say that is an endorsement of Korea's right to use violent defence (Tae Kwon Do is Korean) over and above China's?
The list could go on forever, it is just retarded to think that venue hire actively endorses an activity just because it allow it to go on. Don't get me wrong, there may be a time when a venue is expected to refuse to allow someone to use its premises but that is when they are actively against, it, not passively indifferent.
So this example isn't illiberal, it is just absurd.
The United Kingdom
For the UK I'm going to pick one that is topical. Gay marriage. Now as I said before a liberal in theory wants people to be able to do what they want without affecting others. At the moment Gay people are able to get a civil partnership that provides every legal right of marriage. If you're heterosexual you can't have a civil partnership if you're homosexual you can't have 'marriage', but essentially they provide exactly the same rights and benefits. Those who have the one are legally treated the same as those who have the other, no exceptions. In theory those who have a civil partnership don't have a religious aspect to their service, but in reality any gay couple are free to find someone who is considered to have religious standing in the community to add a 'religious' aspect to their special day.
So from a liberal point of view people can have what they want and no one can impose their desires upon another. Arguably there is an equilibrium where each party can do as they wish without being able to force their version of events upon another.
But liberals are seeking to ensure that gay people can legally have a marriage, something that I'm sure lots of liberals would think is a great idea. But in the UK there is an act called the Equality Act which means if you do something for one person, you have to do it for another and you cannot refuse on specific grounds. One of these involves sexuality. While this may make sense in a work case scenario, that means all of sudden not only will the change allow gay people to marry, it will also mean that anyone (vicar/minister etc) whose consciences tell them they shouldn't be performing such ceremonies will not be allowed to follow their conscience or even redirect them to someone else, and will be fined large sums of money if they do, and potentially imprisoned if they don't pay up. In short you can't just endorse what you want to endorse, you have endorse what the state tells you to too. How liberal is that?
So to summarise modern liberalism is all about laid back freedom. Allowing people to make their own choices and live their lives in anyway they wish to as long as it doesn't interfere with other peoples' rights to do the same.... that is unless they think they could explain something better/educate their child better than the state, unless they want to hire a venue that the state owns, or follow the convictions of their conscience on the life-styles they choose to endorse. If you want to do any of those things then chances are liberals are not so laid back, not so freedom loving and actually far more the 'drag you before the courts and fine you thousands of £/€/$' types. And if you don't pay up, you're going to jail.
An easy way to get around this of course, is just do whatever the state wants and don't disagree with any of their values or stances or try to express/teach anything different or abstain from behaviour you wish to avoid... a bit like what the far right expects of people. See simple!
For those who don't know, the far right is meant to be authoritarian, believe in strong state control and often characterised as intolerant towards minorities of race/religion etc.
The liberal left is meant to be about minimal intervention from the state and providing freedom to everyone to as much as they want within the limits of what will affect those around them (ie, you're not allowed to shoot someone, because they interferes with their life etc)
Generally everyone hates the far right for obvious reasons, while the liberal left is 'cool' because they are usually for legalising drugs, reduced sentences for criminals and for all round telling people that whatever lifestyle you go for just fine and dandy.
The flaws with both are simple:
Far right: see Nazi Germany
Liberal: it doesn't take long to realise that most people's behaviour has a cost for someone else, ie, you take drugs and you'll end up being treated by the NHS... which is paid for by me or your neighbour or whoever else didn't want to have to pay for it.
Anyway I'm not actually on my point yet, which is, as I said at the start, that actually these days the liberal left is starting to look like the same team as the far right. Maybe they don't play in quite the same way, but their tools and practises are starting to have an uncanny similarity.
I'll take a few examples that are going on around the world right now:
Sweden & Germany:
Sweden is usually portrayed by many people as a liberal paradise. They have high investment in rehabilitation and relatively 'pleasant' prisons. What they now also have, is a total ban on home schooling your own children. Not only this but the government controls the curriculum for any non-state schools. What difference does this make? I hear you ask. Well ignoring for a moment the fact that on average home schooled children tend to get far better grades and be more involved in the community, the problem can be summed up in one sentence: the government has legal control of what every human in the country (excluding immigrants) must be taught at a young age, that is when they are most impressionable.
The scope for indoctrination is staggering. Anyone who says anything that the government considers untoward can the act as a flag to have their parents investigated. The Nazis were known for encouraging children to report their own parents if they said anything in the home against the Nazi regime, amazingly this could easily have a similar effect. Just set the curriculum on whatever you want, get people to discuss it and chances are they'll say what they've been taught by their parents. The fact that it was also adopted in Germany isn't encouraging. Last year some parents pulled their children out of a sex education class, they were fined €2,340. How liberal is that? You don't even have the liberty to educate your own children on 'family matters'.
United States, New York:
Recently in New York they have made it so that churches cannot use state school premises for a place to worship on a Sunday. Never mind the fact that this brings in money for state education (ironically something that liberals in America always complain is underfunded and inadequate), never mind the schools aren't used on Sunday so essentially it is efficient use of resources (something that American liberals also claim to care about) they've decided that churches can't use state premises because... it suggests that the government supports Christianity.
Once again irony knocks considering the pledge of allegiance often recited in schools states "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God" and that the money which they hand over in order to pay for the hire of the premises states "in God we Trust". The fact is, hiring out a hall constitutes an endorsement, according to New York state. Presumably those who hire out a wedding premises endorse the match and the couples choice. Does the state favour pilates over yoga if it rents out a community hall to a pilates class? Does the state endorse Tae Kwon Do over Karate if it rents a hall to a Tae Kwon Do team? Or maybe one could go further and say that is an endorsement of Korea's right to use violent defence (Tae Kwon Do is Korean) over and above China's?
The list could go on forever, it is just retarded to think that venue hire actively endorses an activity just because it allow it to go on. Don't get me wrong, there may be a time when a venue is expected to refuse to allow someone to use its premises but that is when they are actively against, it, not passively indifferent.
So this example isn't illiberal, it is just absurd.
The United Kingdom
For the UK I'm going to pick one that is topical. Gay marriage. Now as I said before a liberal in theory wants people to be able to do what they want without affecting others. At the moment Gay people are able to get a civil partnership that provides every legal right of marriage. If you're heterosexual you can't have a civil partnership if you're homosexual you can't have 'marriage', but essentially they provide exactly the same rights and benefits. Those who have the one are legally treated the same as those who have the other, no exceptions. In theory those who have a civil partnership don't have a religious aspect to their service, but in reality any gay couple are free to find someone who is considered to have religious standing in the community to add a 'religious' aspect to their special day.
So from a liberal point of view people can have what they want and no one can impose their desires upon another. Arguably there is an equilibrium where each party can do as they wish without being able to force their version of events upon another.
But liberals are seeking to ensure that gay people can legally have a marriage, something that I'm sure lots of liberals would think is a great idea. But in the UK there is an act called the Equality Act which means if you do something for one person, you have to do it for another and you cannot refuse on specific grounds. One of these involves sexuality. While this may make sense in a work case scenario, that means all of sudden not only will the change allow gay people to marry, it will also mean that anyone (vicar/minister etc) whose consciences tell them they shouldn't be performing such ceremonies will not be allowed to follow their conscience or even redirect them to someone else, and will be fined large sums of money if they do, and potentially imprisoned if they don't pay up. In short you can't just endorse what you want to endorse, you have endorse what the state tells you to too. How liberal is that?
So to summarise modern liberalism is all about laid back freedom. Allowing people to make their own choices and live their lives in anyway they wish to as long as it doesn't interfere with other peoples' rights to do the same.... that is unless they think they could explain something better/educate their child better than the state, unless they want to hire a venue that the state owns, or follow the convictions of their conscience on the life-styles they choose to endorse. If you want to do any of those things then chances are liberals are not so laid back, not so freedom loving and actually far more the 'drag you before the courts and fine you thousands of £/€/$' types. And if you don't pay up, you're going to jail.
An easy way to get around this of course, is just do whatever the state wants and don't disagree with any of their values or stances or try to express/teach anything different or abstain from behaviour you wish to avoid... a bit like what the far right expects of people. See simple!
Wednesday, 4 April 2012
Don't going giving out reasonable advice..... it is too dangerous
It really worries me sometimes when, as moronic as governments can be, the public as a whole acts in a manner that is even worse.
Recently a govenrment minister told people that they should probably be keep in mind the potential of a (petrol) tanker drivers' strike and as a result keep a reasonable amount of fuel in their tanks. No need to queue, but if you get the chance, pop some fuel in and maybe keep a bit in a jerry can.
What resulted was a reasonably sizable amount of queuing while flustered drivers drained the fuel station's forecourts dry. Petrol stations actually run out of fuel despite there being no shortage whatsoever.
Now this idiocy wasn't too much of a surprise, but what was, was the result. After this panic, after the British public demonstrated that they had no greater ability to mashall their powers of reason and emotion than a herd of edgy wilderbeast, the blame was laid at the feet of... the government.... for 'causing panic'.
Perhaps I was brought up in an odd area, but if someone says 'you probably want to take reasonable precautions to avoid 'X'' and then people act in a completely different way and over react then the fault lies at the door of the person who was acting unreasonably. Yet that isn't what happened. Apparently now, it is not only the government's job to give advice, but also to account for the fact that some people are totally unable to keep a sense of perspective or use an ounce of logic and will hear something completely different to what you actually said.
How can anyone work in conditions where you ask someone to behave reasonably, they don't and then it is your fault. If you think like that the goverment isn't our government, but rather our parents, and when they try to act like our parents they will always fail, because:
a) they aren't our parents;
b) they can't take the place of our parents because they don't know us/care like parents;
c) we're meant to hold them to account, not the other way around;
d) we're meant to be adults.
Perhaps a new strategy would be, when people totally disregard what someone says and acts irrationally, instead of blaming the person who gave them reletively reasonable advice, we admit to ourselves that some people will always act in a ridiculous way and the people who need to change their behaviour.... is them. Just a thought. Is that too irrational?
Recently a govenrment minister told people that they should probably be keep in mind the potential of a (petrol) tanker drivers' strike and as a result keep a reasonable amount of fuel in their tanks. No need to queue, but if you get the chance, pop some fuel in and maybe keep a bit in a jerry can.
What resulted was a reasonably sizable amount of queuing while flustered drivers drained the fuel station's forecourts dry. Petrol stations actually run out of fuel despite there being no shortage whatsoever.
Now this idiocy wasn't too much of a surprise, but what was, was the result. After this panic, after the British public demonstrated that they had no greater ability to mashall their powers of reason and emotion than a herd of edgy wilderbeast, the blame was laid at the feet of... the government.... for 'causing panic'.
Perhaps I was brought up in an odd area, but if someone says 'you probably want to take reasonable precautions to avoid 'X'' and then people act in a completely different way and over react then the fault lies at the door of the person who was acting unreasonably. Yet that isn't what happened. Apparently now, it is not only the government's job to give advice, but also to account for the fact that some people are totally unable to keep a sense of perspective or use an ounce of logic and will hear something completely different to what you actually said.
How can anyone work in conditions where you ask someone to behave reasonably, they don't and then it is your fault. If you think like that the goverment isn't our government, but rather our parents, and when they try to act like our parents they will always fail, because:
a) they aren't our parents;
b) they can't take the place of our parents because they don't know us/care like parents;
c) we're meant to hold them to account, not the other way around;
d) we're meant to be adults.
Perhaps a new strategy would be, when people totally disregard what someone says and acts irrationally, instead of blaming the person who gave them reletively reasonable advice, we admit to ourselves that some people will always act in a ridiculous way and the people who need to change their behaviour.... is them. Just a thought. Is that too irrational?
Saturday, 28 January 2012
Bishops, I'm glad you're helping the poor, but you're doing it the wrong way
We have a disturbed view of the poor. This is a statment with which most people would probably agree to a greater or lesser extent, but probably not for the reasons that I'm about to put forward.
My rant starts with an article I read that said that the UK was the worst country for social mobility, citing that those who are from poorer background are less likely to do well than their European counterparts. But I have a problem with that. What has that got to do with social mobility? If the people who are born to poor backgrounds work hard and never go anywhere then there is a problem, but if they are lazy and don't go anywhere then that is how things should work, isn't it? Or are the lazy to be promoted above others?
So far, so harsh. Now I'm not saying we forget social mobility, it is very important, I just recommend a different measurement, how about we take those who are from poor backgrounds, who get AAA (or ABB etc) at A-level (unlike me) and then ask where they end up. That way what we're asking is 'what happens to those from a poor background who are competant and work hard?' If the answer is still 'they don't suceed', then we've got problems!
Unfortunately this lack of understanding goes even into the Church. The Bishops in the House of Lords recently defeated a bill that would cap the amount people could get from benefits. I'm sure they thought that this was a win for Christian charity, sadly I'm not so sure. This is based on what I would call 'rights' verses 'grace'. When someone can be given over £26,000 in benefits, they are unlikely to work. Who would? Work is hard, tiring and often boring. It requires dedication, persistence and the ability to concentrate on the tidious and the repetitive... why would someone do that if they can get far more doing nothing? And remember the average wage is £26,000 BEFORE TAX, which means someone being given £26,000 in benefits is getting a net sum. To get £26,000 net a working individual would have to earn around £35,000!
Meanwhile to pay for such benefits we need to borrow until our country is in serious debt and tax people who have earned money giving them even less of an incentive to do so. That makes no sense, unless you want to try to force the system to collapse.
Anyway that isn't my main point. I'm not in the take all the money off the poor and let them rot camp. Far from it. What I want to point out is this:
Lets say you're in trouble, you can't pay your rent and you don't want to be thrown out of your home. You tell me about your troubles and I say to you, well I'll pay your rent for the next two months while you look for a job. Two months goes and you find a job, would you pretend that you haven't and keep taking money off me?
No, of course you wouldn't. Why? Because you would feel terrible that you're ripping off your friend who was there for you when you needed it and because sooner or later I'd find out and then you'd lose the type of friend everyone needs around.
But this is basically what government benefits allow people to do everyday. When a friend gives you money it is an act of grace, recieved with thanks. But when a benefit is given to you by the government, it is a 'right' that you ought to demand. Why not after all? You are entitled to it!
But really both scenarios are the same, when a benefit is handed to someone, it is not government money, it is money that has been taken off someone who earned it. It did not come from a bottomless pit that people think of the government as being, it came from a man or woman, who worked hard, then had their due wages taken off them by HMRC and then given to someone who hadn't worked for it.
I've been told of people who have told the government that they need a house because their girlfriend argues with their mother.... when they don't. And who have stayed in a hostle two nights a week so that they are classified as homeless to get a house sooner, even though there was no reason for them to say there, they just wanted to be shifted up the list. This was because it was their 'right' that they were entitled to. But no one would lie to their friend in such a way, despite the fact it is the same thing.
Further each time that money is taken off people and then given to another there is an army of civil servants who are required to do the taking. They need to take the money, process it, analyse who to give it to, get it to them, and chase up those who don't pay or claim when they shouldn't. All of that costs money which is also taken off the person who works. That isn't efficient.
So what is the answer? Do I think we should let the poor suffer? No of course not. But we can't 'nationalise' our poverty relief. It just leads to people treating the government as an infinite source of cash, it leads to people cheating the system, and plenty of money being syphoned off in the process. Oh, all the while giving every working person less of the money they earn.
What we need to do it organise our giving ourselves. Cut back benefits, cut back tax. We'll all have more money and when we get it we need to give it away. How much? Well is you're earning the average £26,000 per year and over night you stopped having to pay tax, you could afford to give away £3,700 per year to charities. Now I know that the government is important for certain things, defence for example, or the NHS, but those don't account for the £700,000,000,000 (£700Bn) the government spends!
Think of what could be acomplished if we only spent the bare minimum on the government, say £150Bn (the cost of Defence and the NHS and a bit more) and then spent the rest on charities and each other instead?
You know your friends so they aren't going to rip you off like they would the government and if a charity is wasting money on unecessary things then you can just give it to a more efficient one... so you don't have to pay for arts grants of £50,000 for something useless.
Our fellow man would be a lot better off as long as we were generous. We can do that, right?
My rant starts with an article I read that said that the UK was the worst country for social mobility, citing that those who are from poorer background are less likely to do well than their European counterparts. But I have a problem with that. What has that got to do with social mobility? If the people who are born to poor backgrounds work hard and never go anywhere then there is a problem, but if they are lazy and don't go anywhere then that is how things should work, isn't it? Or are the lazy to be promoted above others?
So far, so harsh. Now I'm not saying we forget social mobility, it is very important, I just recommend a different measurement, how about we take those who are from poor backgrounds, who get AAA (or ABB etc) at A-level (unlike me) and then ask where they end up. That way what we're asking is 'what happens to those from a poor background who are competant and work hard?' If the answer is still 'they don't suceed', then we've got problems!
Unfortunately this lack of understanding goes even into the Church. The Bishops in the House of Lords recently defeated a bill that would cap the amount people could get from benefits. I'm sure they thought that this was a win for Christian charity, sadly I'm not so sure. This is based on what I would call 'rights' verses 'grace'. When someone can be given over £26,000 in benefits, they are unlikely to work. Who would? Work is hard, tiring and often boring. It requires dedication, persistence and the ability to concentrate on the tidious and the repetitive... why would someone do that if they can get far more doing nothing? And remember the average wage is £26,000 BEFORE TAX, which means someone being given £26,000 in benefits is getting a net sum. To get £26,000 net a working individual would have to earn around £35,000!
Meanwhile to pay for such benefits we need to borrow until our country is in serious debt and tax people who have earned money giving them even less of an incentive to do so. That makes no sense, unless you want to try to force the system to collapse.
Anyway that isn't my main point. I'm not in the take all the money off the poor and let them rot camp. Far from it. What I want to point out is this:
Lets say you're in trouble, you can't pay your rent and you don't want to be thrown out of your home. You tell me about your troubles and I say to you, well I'll pay your rent for the next two months while you look for a job. Two months goes and you find a job, would you pretend that you haven't and keep taking money off me?
No, of course you wouldn't. Why? Because you would feel terrible that you're ripping off your friend who was there for you when you needed it and because sooner or later I'd find out and then you'd lose the type of friend everyone needs around.
But this is basically what government benefits allow people to do everyday. When a friend gives you money it is an act of grace, recieved with thanks. But when a benefit is given to you by the government, it is a 'right' that you ought to demand. Why not after all? You are entitled to it!
But really both scenarios are the same, when a benefit is handed to someone, it is not government money, it is money that has been taken off someone who earned it. It did not come from a bottomless pit that people think of the government as being, it came from a man or woman, who worked hard, then had their due wages taken off them by HMRC and then given to someone who hadn't worked for it.
I've been told of people who have told the government that they need a house because their girlfriend argues with their mother.... when they don't. And who have stayed in a hostle two nights a week so that they are classified as homeless to get a house sooner, even though there was no reason for them to say there, they just wanted to be shifted up the list. This was because it was their 'right' that they were entitled to. But no one would lie to their friend in such a way, despite the fact it is the same thing.
Further each time that money is taken off people and then given to another there is an army of civil servants who are required to do the taking. They need to take the money, process it, analyse who to give it to, get it to them, and chase up those who don't pay or claim when they shouldn't. All of that costs money which is also taken off the person who works. That isn't efficient.
So what is the answer? Do I think we should let the poor suffer? No of course not. But we can't 'nationalise' our poverty relief. It just leads to people treating the government as an infinite source of cash, it leads to people cheating the system, and plenty of money being syphoned off in the process. Oh, all the while giving every working person less of the money they earn.
What we need to do it organise our giving ourselves. Cut back benefits, cut back tax. We'll all have more money and when we get it we need to give it away. How much? Well is you're earning the average £26,000 per year and over night you stopped having to pay tax, you could afford to give away £3,700 per year to charities. Now I know that the government is important for certain things, defence for example, or the NHS, but those don't account for the £700,000,000,000 (£700Bn) the government spends!
Think of what could be acomplished if we only spent the bare minimum on the government, say £150Bn (the cost of Defence and the NHS and a bit more) and then spent the rest on charities and each other instead?
You know your friends so they aren't going to rip you off like they would the government and if a charity is wasting money on unecessary things then you can just give it to a more efficient one... so you don't have to pay for arts grants of £50,000 for something useless.
Our fellow man would be a lot better off as long as we were generous. We can do that, right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
