Socialism

[Wogan May]

Yes he tends to twist things to suit himself.
Amusing at times how twisted he gets over a thread. And makes some stuff up.

It's on par with the intellectual prowess of the average corncob

I keep forgetting the name for this, it's an actual observable phenomenon in internet discussion boards. Some psychologists coined a term for it decades ago - people arguing against internalized projections of the other participants instead of the other participants.

So really he's not talking to me, he's talking to a version of me that is incapable of defending any arguments, and is somehow managing to hit on all the most uncharitable viewpoints, making him the default hero in the thread - "destroying" my arguments with infallible logic.

My god I really have missed this, haha!

 

[Newchodge]

If your whole thing is that privileged people need to be aware of poverty and work towards alleviating it, surely step 1 is talking about it?

No that is absolutely not my whole thing. Before the privileged start talking about the problems of "them" they need a much greater understanding of what those problems are. And that them and us is never a helpful way of looking at any problem.

 

[Mr D]

Then you are wrong. Poor people don't spend on education, they cannot afford to do so. They rely on the state to provide education, as is their right. Poor people do not spend on improving their quality of life, They spend on the essentials of living and, if they get a little extra money they either put it towardss paying the never-ending debt in which they find themselves, or buy themselves or, more probably, their children, a rare luxury.

Sadly the numbers attending university appears to disprove your beliefs.
As does the numbers utilising adult education.

 

[Wogan May]

Then you are wrong. Poor people don't spend on education, they cannot afford to do so. They rely on the state to provide education, as is their right. Poor people do not spend on improving their quality of life, They spend on the essentials of living and, if they get a little extra money they either put it towardss paying the never-ending debt in which they find themselves, or buy themselves or, more probably, their children, a rare luxury.

One by one:

Point: Poor people don't spend on education.
Counterpoint: Every single immigrant family who scraped together and did night classes to put themselves and their kids through school.

Point: They rely on the state to provide education, as is their right.
Counterpoint: Education is, unfortunately, a commodity - one with varying values and costs. The right to access education is not the same as the right to a guaranteed education.

Point: Poor people do not spend on improving their quality of life
Counterpoint: Demonstrably false, starting with every Black Friday stampede. South Africa has millions of people that live in shanty towns with satellite dishes so they can watch sport while the roof leaks - actual phenomenon. Any money that can make life easier to bear, is spent to that effect wherever possible.

Point: They spend on the essentials of living
Counterpoint: Thereby improving quality of life

Point: put it towardss paying the never-ending debt in which they find themselves
Counterpoint: Incurred in the pursuit of improving quality of living. Homeless (the one cohort that's given up on quality of life), far as I know, don't incur lots of debt to pay for it.

Point: more probably, their children, a rare luxury.
Counterpoint: Thereby improving quality of life.

I trust that this meets with your standards for thoroughly addressing your posts, and not just cherry-picking out-of-context quotes.

 

[Newchodge]

Point: Poor people don't spend on education.
Counterpoint: Every single immigrant family who scraped together and did night classes to put themselves and their kids through school.

In the UK immigrant families do not need to do this. You are probably unaware of this from your privileged position in, presumably, South Africa, but education to the age of 18 is free for everyone who lives in this country.

The rest of your post is equally ignorant, for example

Point: Poor people do not spend on improving their quality of life
Counterpoint: Demonstrably false, starting with every Black Friday stampede. South Africa has millions of people that live in shanty towns with satellite dishes so they can watch sport while the roof leaks - actual phenomenon. Any money that can make life easier to bear, is spent to that effect wherever possible.

Confirms my point that the poor, on the rare occasion they have some money, spend it on a luxury.

Point: put it towardss paying the never-ending debt in which they find themselves
Counterpoint: Incurred in the pursuit of improving quality of living. Homeless (the one cohort that's given up on quality of life), far as I know, don't incur lots of debt to pay for it.

You really are an over-privileged idiot.

 

[Wogan May]

Sadly the numbers attending university appears to disprove your beliefs.
As does the numbers utilising adult education.

I have a related question. Maybe I'm mis-remembering, but at some point this year there was a panicky article written about UK university graduates that weren't capable of doing basic math? A quick Google finds "Graduates ‘lack basic maths and literacy skills’" published 12th September on The Times, but I don't know the reputability of UK news sources all that well.

It was a pretty stunning read to me, given that the UK literally invented the Cambridge system, and I've always held the UK as the golden standard for formal education.

The question I'm coming to: Is that quantity of university attendees reflective of the quality of the education they're getting?

 

[Wogan May]

In the UK immigrant families do not need to do this. You are probably unaware of this from your privileged position in, presumably, South Africa, but education to the age of 18 is free for everyone who lives in this country.

I'm aware of that, as well as the fact that competing in the modern economy requires more than what the average primary and secondary schooling systems can provide. Sir Ken Robinson has made that point pretty eloquently over the last few years. Generally speaking, to get a good education in modern fields does require university-level, or at the very least extracurricular courses which may not always be free.

You really are an over-privileged idiot.

For saying that debt is incurred in the pursuit of improving quality of life? That's literally the case up and down the board. It's why people take out mortgages, finance vehicles, take on student debt, etc. Here in South Africa, we have the mashonisas (payday loan sharks) which routinely trap people in debt, but that debt is almost never incurred for wasteful reasons (like alcohol).

 

[Mr D]

I have a related question. Maybe I'm mis-remembering, but at some point this year there was a panicky article written about UK university graduates that weren't capable of doing basic math? A quick Google finds "Graduates ‘lack basic maths and literacy skills’" published 12th September on The Times, but I don't know the reputability of UK news sources all that well.

It was a pretty stunning read to me, given that the UK literally invented the Cambridge system, and I've always held the UK as the golden standard for formal education.

The question I'm coming to: Is that quantity of university attendees reflective of the quality of the education they're getting?

Its not just universities finding that youngsters with 13 years of schooling have problems with education.
Maths and English.

Employers have been complaining for years about the poor education too.

Some parents will pay for their kids to spend time with a tutor. Not just rich parents, poor parents too.
Its a good extra income for some teachers.

The quality of the education - realistically there are some things that are learnt at primary school. Kids starting secondary school with insufficient grounding in English and maths may, if they are lucky, catch up if the secondary school can devote resources to doing that or parents help with the education one way or another.

30 years ago my employer at the time used to complain about the education of new starters, how they didn't know their alphabet. Quite possible the employer is still complaining these days.

University education - the students are presumably able to read, presumably able to do whatever sums. What they cannot do to start with is write - academic writing at university isn't the same as school writing. Reference systems (there's more than one), ways of presenting information, ways of presenting papers.
Hopefully by the time they graduate 3 or more years later the students have learnt how to do what they need to pass the modules.

 

[Mr D]

For saying that debt is incurred in the pursuit of improving quality of life? That's literally the case up and down the board. It's why people take out mortgages, finance vehicles, take on student debt, etc. Here in South Africa, we have the mashonisas (payday loan sharks) which routinely trap people in debt, but that debt is almost never incurred for wasteful reasons (like alcohol).

We have loan sharks in the UK too.
Plus shops that sell goods on hire purchase to poor people at high interest - a £200 washing machine with payments adding up to £500 over 2 years.
New TV, new sofa, playstation, maybe a nice dining table - that's what the shops offer.

Plus the likes of Wonga - very high interest APR rates, borrow £500 and later have to roll it over another month and another month and soon enough borrowing £1200 and more without any actual cash benefit beyond the initial loan.

 

[Wogan May]

Its not just universities finding that youngsters with 13 years of schooling have problems with education.
Maths and English.

Employers have been complaining for years about the poor education too.

Some parents will pay for their kids to spend time with a tutor. Not just rich parents, poor parents too.
Its a good extra income for some teachers.

The quality of the education - realistically there are some things that are learnt at primary school. Kids starting secondary school with insufficient grounding in English and maths may, if they are lucky, catch up if the secondary school can devote resources to doing that or parents help with the education one way or another.

30 years ago my employer at the time used to complain about the education of new starters, how they didn't know their alphabet. Quite possible the employer is still complaining these days.

University education - the students are presumably able to read, presumably able to do whatever sums. What they cannot do to start with is write - academic writing at university isn't the same as school writing. Reference systems (there's more than one), ways of presenting information, ways of presenting papers.
Hopefully by the time they graduate 3 or more years later the students have learnt how to do what they need to pass the modules.

Honestly this is pretty crazy to me, but that might just be because I've only started paying attention to all this stuff relatively recently.

From the South African point of view, going abroad to study at US or UK-based universities is seen as the most prestigious step possible. It's just implicitly accepted that the quality of education in these countries is superior to anything in SA (which is generally true). It's really remarkable to me that this is a problem at all.

I guess it says something about the way we learn, and that this post-Industrial Revolution education platform may not be the best one to actually equip people for real life.

 

[Wogan May]

We have loan sharks in the UK too.
Plus shops that sell goods on hire purchase to poor people at high interest - a £200 washing machine with payments adding up to £500 over 2 years.

I see you mentioned Wonga - they opened up in SA many years ago, and I actually used them once or twice! Mostly to plug cashflow gaps, and after the second go I decided it wasn't worth the interest.

We've got the same set of issues here, with unscrupulous (or sometimes plain incompetent) furniture stores selling things on credit to people that haven't undergone background checks, or even understand what they're buying. Adult literacy on basic maths and contract law is low and diminishing in parts of SA.

The crazy part is - denying credit to poor people on the basis of them not being able to afford it was seen as racist (go figure) so they actually went ahead and weakened some of those laws this year. I blame this on the continued breakdown of reality that began in November 2016 when America elected a game show host President.

 

[Mr D]

The crazy part is - denying credit to poor people on the basis of them not being able to afford it was seen as racist (go figure) so they actually went ahead and weakened some of those laws this year. I blame this on the continued breakdown of reality that began in November 2016 when America elected a game show host President.

Yes they are keen on that here - requiring companies to not lend to people who cannot afford repayment. Which doesn't reduce demand for borrowing, just restricts the regulated places they can borrow from.
Driving those unable to access that credit to other places.

 

[Clinton]

Sir Ken Robinson has made that point pretty eloquently over the last few years.

His videos were largely instrumental in opening my eyes to the fact that sending our children to school is the worst thing we could possibly do to them ...and we removed all of ours to home educate them. That was the best thing we ever did!

 

[Mr D]

No that is absolutely not my whole thing. Before the privileged start talking about the problems of "them" they need a much greater understanding of what those problems are. And that them and us is never a helpful way of looking at any problem.

Perhaps those of us with experience of poverty are best placed to deal with it. As our parents / grandparents perhaps also had experience.

Presuming we stop being poor or we get into a political place to do something positive.

And accept the consequences of decisions and actions.

 

[Cobby]

My claim was that poor people and rich people are just as likely to spend money on the same things...

Can we first reach an agreement on what I'm actually saying vs what you're telling me I'm saying?

Okay, well, specificity is important, and that doesn't appear to be the point you're making. I'm only going by the posts you are making.

For instance here, in your criticism of (your conceptual idea of) socialism, you talk about how, if the wealth were "redistributed", it would return to those who had it already.

So the cash will rapidly accrue back to the people who do, and within a few years we're back to the status quo

That doesn't really back up what you're now saying. Especially when you go on to say poor people are physically different and they lack the decision making capacity of those that are wealthier:

There's also been some solid research in the humanities about how poverty literally affects people's brains (physically) and impairs the sort of long-term big-picture contextual thinking that the rest of "us" take for granted.

I mean, I'm happy to side with the good arguments against socialism, but this ain't them... :/

.

 

[Cobby]

If your whole thing is that privileged people need to be aware of poverty and work towards alleviating it, surely step 1 is talking about it?

Or should privileged people just keep quiet and "stay in their lane" (popular phrase over here), since there's no way they could ever comprehend (much less contribute) to a resolution?

Unless if we're going for this narrow definition wherein the only acceptable conversation is lamenting that rich people exist, which doesn't strike me as particularly helpful.

Absolutely! Be outraged! Offer help wherever you can; physically, financially, or even just keeping the topic in the public eye. If engaging in the last of those, always remember that the biggest contributor to poverty is structural, so it's a good idea to avoid arguments that revolve around poor folk being poor because of their choices; interesting anecdotes remain anecdotes.

Anyway, back to your animated defence of capitalism...!

 

[Cobby]

It's on par with the intellectual prowess of the average corncob

I keep forgetting the name for this, it's an actual observable phenomenon in internet discussion boards. Some psychologists coined a term for it decades ago - people arguing against internalized projections of the other participants instead of the other participants.

So really he's not talking to me, he's talking to a version of me that is incapable of defending any arguments, and is somehow managing to hit on all the most uncharitable viewpoints, making him the default hero in the thread - "destroying" my arguments with infallible logic.

My god I really have missed this, haha!

Yes, this personal attack is definitely what's going on.

 

[Cobby]

The question I'm coming to: Is that quantity of university attendees reflective of the quality of the education they're getting?

The Conservative government have been trying to strip state education and pull it into the realm of being a commodity (another structural issue for poverty). Generally speaking, university institutions are now simply businesses and for many their main focus is earning money, which includes lowering the standards of education and the entry requirements for it. Incidentally they are another symptom of our late-stage capitalism, with Vice Chancellors seeing pay packets up to 25 times the size of some lecturers'.

For saying that debt is incurred in the pursuit of improving quality of life?

It was probably more for waving away the problems of homelessness as simply "those who have given up on quality of life". I'm pretty sure you don't mean it, but you're clearly struggling to argue past your privilege.

 

[Wogan May]

It was probably more for waving away the problems of homelessness as simply "those who have given up on quality of life". I'm pretty sure you don't mean it, but you're clearly struggling to argue past your privilege.

No, that's based on talking to actual homeless people. Most of the ones I've met are either incapable or unwilling to accept responsibility for their circumstances. That's distinct from the temporarily-homeless, which is an equally tragic situation that people can and do work themselves out of.

If that sounds like a "privileged" viewpoint to you, I'd suggest you're not seeing past a rose-tinted view of reality. Life can be harsh offline sometimes.

 

[Mr D]

The Conservative government have been trying to strip state education and pull it into the realm of being a commodity (another structural issue for poverty). Generally speaking, university institutions are now simply businesses and for many their main focus is earning money, which includes lowering the standards of education and the entry requirements for it. Incidentally they are another symptom of our late-stage capitalism, with Vice Chancellors seeing pay packets up to 25 times the size of some lecturers'.



It was probably more for waving away the problems of homelessness as simply "those who have given up on quality of life". I'm pretty sure you don't mean it, but you're clearly struggling to argue past your privilege.

Think you will find it was Labour who pulled university education more into the realm of a commodity - it already was for foreign students for deades prior to the bringing in of the accounting practice known as student loans from the state for their course.
Around 17 years ago.

Are universities better now than they were prior to student loans for courses?

Not seeing how you get from earning money to lowering the standards of education - the universities are responsible only for their own teaching, not the teaching for 10, 11 or 13 years prior to the people coming to them.

When exactly did vice chancellors start getting pay packets much higher than lecturers? Are they worth it? Back when the state gave the universities money direct what was the pay of a university vice chancellor?

 

[Mr D]

No, that's based on talking to actual homeless people. Most of the ones I've met are either incapable or unwilling to accept responsibility for their circumstances. That's distinct from the temporarily-homeless, which is an equally tragic situation that people can and do work themselves out of.

If that sounds like a "privileged" viewpoint to you, I'd suggest you're not seeing past a rose-tinted view of reality. Life can be harsh offline sometimes.

Yes, wide range of problems for the long term homeless. People tend to think in terms of providing them a house or flat as if that solved dozens of problems. Rather than looking at what individuals need help with and what they don't want help with.

 

[dan19900]

Our current system works well for anyone willing to put a little bit of effort in. I've just paid 3.5k to have a kitchen installed, took 2 guys 4 days and that was the cheapest of 3 quotes. They even get to decide how much tax they pay.
Spend a year or 2 learning a trade and you make a minimum of 200 per day, not exactly Ethiopia standards is it?

 

[Wogan May]

Rather than looking at what individuals need help with and what they don't want help with.

This is the whole thing.

I spent a decent amount of time working with at-risk people, the mentally ill, and the homeless. Among other things, I've learned not to care about the opinions of people that proclaim sympathy for the homeless but wouldn't let one into their homes.

The reality is vastly more complicated. Some people are homeless because they've gone through a lot (war, violence at home, abuse, etc) and can't really function in society without help. Some are just temporarily there, having lost everything in a short space of time. I've even met a few that want to be there - people who utterly reject any sort of social order and are happy to live rough.

And some are dangerous - ex-convicts with nowhere to go after being released. These are the ones that typically end up being recruited by street gangs.

I'm 200% for programs and charities that help people re-integrate into society, and we have a few here in South Africa that do that quite well (and could do more with more help), but it's not a simple 1:1 problem. One house per homeless person is not a solution. More often than not it's a combination of training, counselling, rehabilitation and spiritual services (some people find guidance in religious contexts that helps them pull their lives together). Only then are they actually capable of being reintegrated and living a normal life.

But that first requires that they be willing to meet the rest of us half-way - to acknowledge their situation and resolve to improve it. They may not have much, but if they don't even have their self-respect, there's no amount of charity work that will truly uplift or restore them.

Anyway that's why I get so angry at people who use the plight of homeless people (always lumped into a generic bucket along with "the unfortunate") as a status play. Everyone is so deeply concerned about the homeless, but will do nothing to help them. Not even try learning more about why they end up in that situation in the first place.

 

[Mr D]

Anyway that's why I get so angry at people who use the plight of homeless people (always lumped into a generic bucket along with "the unfortunate") as a status play. Everyone is so deeply concerned about the homeless, but will do nothing to help them. Not even try learning more about why they end up in that situation in the first place.

Most of the places I've dealt with in finding a bed for the night have been 'dry' places - no alcohol allowed. Some people if its a choice between streets with a bottle and a warm bed without a bottle will choose the streets.
For a few its not a choice, dangerous to go long periods (hours) without a drink.

Lots of government effort (and charity effort) goes into treatment programs. Not everyone wants to be treated for something.
If you like to drink why would you sign up to not drink?

 

[Chris Ashdown]

Please all have a look at this BBC post and the story it tells

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-45257901

 

[Jeff FV]

Please all have a look at this BBC post and the story it tells

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-45257901

Thank you for posting that.

Can I add my support to @Chris Ashdown ’s post and urge you all to click on the link.

It will not take up much of your time but beautifully* highlights the inequality that exists in this world.

Thank you Chris for sharing.

* beautifully is not the right word, I know.

 

[Clinton]

@Jeff FV , yeah I saw that pictures some months ago.

Sorry, but inequality is not the problem. Over the last few years the narrative has pointed a finger of blame at inequality, but that's is a distraction that gets in the way of us recognising and dealing with the real problems that exist today.

I'll got further - we need to have some level of inequality in society!

Pointing a finger at inequality is distracting us from the real problems - poverty for one (though the world has made huge progress in this over recent years). Then there's political corruption and cronyism, religion (major cause of the world's problems!), the ease with which capital can move across borders (and evade taxation) ....I could come up with a list of others. Recommended reading:

Unfairness, not inequality, is the problem.
Why we should stop baying about taxing the rich more.
It's how we define inequality, stupid.

 

[Mr D]

Please all have a look at this BBC post and the story it tells

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-45257901

So which are the socialists and which are the non-socialists? Hard to see from the picture.
Not that any of them practice 'real' socialism we are told.

 

[Jeff FV]

@Jeff FV , yeah I saw that pictures some months ago.

Sorry, but inequality is not the problem.

Perhaps only a matter of semantics, but whilst inequality may not be the problem, inequality is undoubtedly a problem.

Agree that we probably do need some inequality in the world as the engine for motivation, development and growth.

Also agree that tackling inequality per se is not the way forward, rather tackle the problems you highlight as addressing those will also tackle inequality, which is a symptom.

In addition to your list of articles (all worth a read, thank you) can I also add anything by Hans Rosling - the video below is, in my opinion, worth 5 minutes of anyone’s time - an optimistic view of how life has improved for all over the last 200 years, and we continue to move in the right direction, but, as the pics in Chris’s link shows, we’re not there yet (nor probably ever will be.)

 

[Deleted member 59730]

Unfairness, not inequality, is the problem.
Why we should stop baying about taxing the rich more.
It's how we define inequality, stupid.

Doesn't help his case if he starts by miss-quoting Piketty. Its Wealth inequality which is the problem as shown in the images in the link. Income inequality is something different. If people at the bottom lack the power and position to redistribute wealth in their direction we get problems.

 

[Cobby]

Our current system works well for anyone willing to put a little bit of effort in. I've just paid 3.5k to have a kitchen installed, took 2 guys 4 days and that was the cheapest of 3 quotes. They even get to decide how much tax they pay.
Spend a year or 2 learning a trade and you make a minimum of 200 per day, not exactly Ethiopia standards is it?

Yeah! Spend a year or two learning a trade is easy, right? I mean, it's free, it takes up very little time, requires no previous education to any standard, is available for literally anyone of any gender, nationality, ethnicity, or economic background, and then once the trade is learned, setting up as a trader/business is equally easy, accessible and requires no capital outlay at all! Why even those single parents requiring benefits despite working three jobs could do that!

 

[Cobby]

No, that's based on talking to actual homeless people. Most of the ones I've met are either incapable or unwilling to accept responsibility for their circumstances. That's distinct from the temporarily-homeless, which is an equally tragic situation that people can and do work themselves out of.

If that sounds like a "privileged" viewpoint to you, I'd suggest you're not seeing past a rose-tinted view of reality. Life can be harsh offline sometimes.

We've made some progress I suppose, you've now managed to separate homeless people into two separate categories instead of just one homogenous group. However you are still categorizing them by what you perceive as their personal choices and inability to meet responsibilities; the homeless you 'pity' and the homeless who you appear to believe 'deserve it'. You judge them by what your own choices would be without consideration to their circumstances or background.

Homeless deaths have risen by a quarter in the last five years, largely as a result of the current ultra-capitalist government's policies, and were largely preventable. What exactly do you think I'm seeing with "rose tinted" glasses?

I'm sorry to keep tugging on this thread but your defence of capitalism only seems to hold up if nobody tugs on these loose threads, and when someone does your model is revealed to be relying upon blaming victims for "not being good enough at capitalism".

 

[Mr D]

Yeah! Spend a year or two learning a trade is easy, right? I mean, it's free, it takes up very little time, requires no previous education to any standard, is available for literally anyone of any gender, nationality, ethnicity, or economic background, and then once the trade is learned, setting up as a trader/business is equally easy, accessible and requires no capital outlay at all! Why even those single parents requiring benefits despite working three jobs could do that!

Glad you agree with him.

 

[Cobby]

This is the whole thing.

I spent a decent amount of time working with at-risk people, the mentally ill, and the homeless. Among other things, I've learned not to care about the opinions of people that proclaim sympathy for the homeless but wouldn't let one into their homes.

The reality is vastly more complicated. Some people are homeless because they've gone through a lot (war, violence at home, abuse, etc) and can't really function in society without help. Some are just temporarily there, having lost everything in a short space of time. I've even met a few that want to be there - people who utterly reject any sort of social order and are happy to live rough.

And some are dangerous - ex-convicts with nowhere to go after being released. These are the ones that typically end up being recruited by street gangs.

I'm 200% for programs and charities that help people re-integrate into society, and we have a few here in South Africa that do that quite well (and could do more with more help), but it's not a simple 1:1 problem. One house per homeless person is not a solution. More often than not it's a combination of training, counselling, rehabilitation and spiritual services (some people find guidance in religious contexts that helps them pull their lives together). Only then are they actually capable of being reintegrated and living a normal life.

But that first requires that they be willing to meet the rest of us half-way - to acknowledge their situation and resolve to improve it. They may not have much, but if they don't even have their self-respect, there's no amount of charity work that will truly uplift or restore them.

Anyway that's why I get so angry at people who use the plight of homeless people (always lumped into a generic bucket along with "the unfortunate") as a status play. Everyone is so deeply concerned about the homeless, but will do nothing to help them. Not even try learning more about why they end up in that situation in the first place.

How is this helpful?

In one post you've sainted yourself and dismissed all others as "not pure enough" in their intent, ignoring their arguments in favour of your own opinions and honestly I can't tell whether you're 'internet-arguing' or if it's a fundamentally different culture in homelessness between the UK and SA.

However, what is absolutely 100% self-evident, is that since we have a majority capitalist system in place, each homeless person's circumstance, be it life or death, is in some degree attributable to capitalism. That's something I don't think this particular thread of your anecdote-based defence of capitalism, will get past.

 

[Clinton]

Perhaps only a matter of semantics, but whilst inequality may not be the problem, inequality is undoubtedly a problem.

I disagree. Inequality is natural. We are not all born with equal skills, talents, looks, abilities. We are not all brought up in exactly the same environment with exactly the same life advantages / disadvantages. We are not born into families that are financially on par with each other.

So why pick on the latter (finances) and try to even things out while ignoring all the others? My disadvantage is that I don't have George Clooney's looks. Nor Ed Sheeran's musical abilities. I can't run like Usain Bolt. These hold me back and prevent me attracting the best mates or winning medals and getting a lot of respect for being the fastest man on Earth. So I dig myself out of homelessness (true!), use what natural skills I do have, work hard and buy a little property and build a little pension ... and suddenly life's been too fair to me and I need to distribute some of that wealth?

Targeting wealth, and wanting to redistribute it, is simply a manifestation of envy. We need to ensure people at the bottom have a chance to improve themselves and build their own wealth, not help them redistribute what others have worked hard to achieve, IMHO.

Distributism has its roots in religious ideology and ... it's religion(s) that's one of the biggest problems in the world today!

 

[Mr D]

I disagree. Inequality is natural. We are not all born with equal skills, talents, looks, abilities. We are not all brought up in exactly the same environment with exactly the same life advantages / disadvantages. We are not born into families that are financially on par with each other.

So why pick on the latter (finances) and try to even things out while ignoring all the others? My disadvantage is that I don't have George Clooney's looks. Nor Ed Sheeran's musical abilities. I can't run like Usain Bolt. These hold me back and prevent me attracting the best mates or winning medals and getting a lot of respect for being the fastest man on Earth. So I dig myself out of homelessness (true!), use what natural skills I do have, work hard and buy a little property and build a little pension ... and suddenly life's been too fair to me and I need to distribute some of that wealth?

Targeting wealth, and wanting to redistribute it, is simply a manifestation of envy. We need to ensure people at the bottom have a chance to improve themselves and build their own wealth, not help them redistribute what others have worked hard to achieve, IMHO.

Distributism has its roots in religious ideology and ... it's religion(s) that's one of the biggest problems in the world today!

Yes good point - envy appears to be the basis of the demand to redistribute wealth.
I'm better looking than you or George Clooney, probably won't earn as much as either of you though and can do in a couple of months what Bolt does in a couple of hours.

There are some who want equality of outcome - everyone queueing for bread, everyone getting substandard education, everyone getting similar sized housing, everyone getting poor service from the state, the state cutting benefits as it wants (sanctions) because it can etc. May even be some happy to have all that for themselves, we know there are people who want that for other people.

Not everyone wants all that - some of us want more and have the ambition to learn more, be more, provide more for our family etc.
Everyone has 24 hours in a day. How we use them is largely up to us.

 

[Inva]

In my country we had socialism and communism and it let to disaster. Leftist economics are about power, not prosperity. Take from the rich and give to the poor to secure their support (now votes). However make it impossible for them to break out of poverty, so that they always need the state. That's pretty much the idea.

Leftism leads to complacency and decadence. There was a joke around back then: "we pretend to work, they pretend to pay us".

 

[Newchodge]

it's religion(s) that's one of the biggest problems in the world today!

Good grief. One point in your post with which I agree!

 

[Noah]

Our current system works well for anyone willing to put a little bit of effort in. I've just paid 3.5k to have a kitchen installed, took 2 guys 4 days and that was the cheapest of 3 quotes. They even get to decide how much tax they pay.
Spend a year or 2 learning a trade and you make a minimum of 200 per day, not exactly Ethiopia standards is it?

You've been ripped off; the Ethiopians would have been much cheaper.

 

[Mr D]

Good grief. One point in your post with which I agree!

Humans often have religions and some will fight to your death to protect their religion.
Multiple times governments have tried stamping out religions, you tend to notice it as genocidal action. For some reason people keep religions alive while people are alive.