Birth Lottery and social justice

laoch na mona · 23-05-2013 03:47PM

mariaalice wrote: »

My positions is that human nature is essentially selfish and we will alway think me and mine first.

that is debatable, it is not that we are selfish but that capitalism makes us selfish before capital exist humans worked together for our mutual benefit and without a capitalist system we would return to co-operating with each other for the good of each other

just another view on human nature

Doctor Strange · 23-05-2013 03:53PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

There was no consequentialist end to my post, although I don't believe the benefits of privileged education and a similarly enriched environment need much elaboration.

I am merely observing that material privilege is a legally enshrined birthright in this... Republic.

I believe in a greater level of wealth redistribution, yes.

And tell me, how do most communist countries end up?

23-05-2013 03:57PM

laoch na mona wrote: »

that is debatable, it is not that we are selfish but that capitalism makes us selfish before capital exist humans worked together for our mutual benefit and without a capitalist system we would return to co-operating with each other for the good of each other

just another view on human nature

Do you really believe that...before farming we lived in an earthly paradise where we existed in Harmony with each other?.

I would be very much to the left in my thinking but I am also realistic.

Cody Pomeray · 23-05-2013 03:57PM

mariaalice wrote: »

My positions is that human nature is essentially selfish and we will alway think me and mine first.

Possibly, yes.

But that ignores the benefits that social justice causes to fall on wealth-owners: law and order, a skilled workforce capable of enhancing private wealth, and a healthy population, among others.

Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »

And tell me, how do most communist countries end up?

Terribly, why?

You do know the difference between advocating more income redistribution and advocating Communism... right?

WilyCoyote · 23-05-2013 04:03PM

A great concept but totally unworkable. A Utopic world where everyone is successful? Nah. Cannot happen. Just the other side of the coin where everyone is a loser. The least loser is the winner. Life is life - whether it's the Outback, Rainforest, Mayfair or Manhatten. You've got to make the most of it. In lower socio-economic families, emphasis on education/improving the lot of later generations is not the driving force. Parental control or lack of, has a very important role in this. But if the parents have a laissez faire attitude, the kids will generally inherit this. Social individualism has been tried and the results were not good. So, if this is the best we can come up with and you wish to up your social status, you've got to get your finger out and go for it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGikhmjTSZI

23-05-2013 04:11PM

Irish people are lucky to be in a position where merit actually counts.. A fair chance at free education with no corruption. A dream for most in the world.

I was middle class and could have gotten medicine if I deserved it. Successful society imo.

Cody Pomeray · 23-05-2013 04:17PM

Tetris Smith wrote: »

Nonsense, people generally operate through self interest regardless of economics or politics.

Right, and income redistribution and 'social justice' can be in the best interests of asset owners.

They don't want anarchy, crime, political instability, disease, or an uneducated workforce. Therefore they make a wise economic decision and say "we will extend a certain amount of social justice in return for social harmony".

swimming in a sea · 23-05-2013 04:21PM

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I don't really see it like that. A baby born in a slum today is 'luckier', in my opinion, than one born in a palace 500 years ago.

I can't agree with that, they're probably better off in the sense that they're less likely to die of a now curable disease. But power and privilege of any time is better than been born in the slums.

Your own self-worth can't be helped much by a mmr jab and a social cheque

returnNull · 23-05-2013 04:40PM

Tetris Smith wrote: »

The paradigm of Self worth is made up by the ego. Without ego you intrinsically accept yourself. You are content. You don't need to measure yourself in comparison to your peers to feel good.

**HEAD EXPLODES**

Doctor Strange · 23-05-2013 04:43PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Terribly, why?

You do know the difference between advocating more income redistribution and advocating Communism... right?

So what do you want? People on a high wage in general earn it (Arguably here, politicians do deserve a cutback, as do certain higher ups in banks and other failed/failing companies). If a CEO is earning a huge wage, it's because of the huge pressure and time consumption of such a job. Indeed, most jobs here are proportionally valued. To suggest that we "redistribute", which really means more work for less money, is ridiculous, and a totally unfeasible utopian idea.

JoeB- · 23-05-2013 04:45PM

Utopias are basically logically impossible and can't exist.

That applies to Heaven as described in the bible. It cannot exist as described, unless God brainwashes people into being happy.

It also applies to the Star Trek universe, where there's no money (no need apparently), little or no disease, no drug abuse and a global system of politics with no terrorism. The benefits that would accrue to a cheater or a criminal in such a society would be so huge that it'd be certain that some would lie and cheat. Hence no utopia.

I have heard long term unemployed people stating that they consider it demeaning to work, and that they intend that their children never work,... instead they want their children to remain on the dole for life. What to do about this?

Cody Pomeray · 23-05-2013 04:46PM

Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »

So what do you want?

More income redistribution.

To suggest that we "redistribute", which really means more work for less money, is ridiculous, and a totally unfeasible utopian idea.

No, it means doing the same work for less money.

It's a pretty basic concept. Are you opposed to taxation?

laoch na mona · 23-05-2013 04:47PM

mariaalice wrote: »

Do you really believe that...before farming we lived in an earthly paradise where we existed in Harmony with each other?.

I would be very much to the left in my thinking but I am also realistic.

no i believe that people will work together for the common good nothing to do with farming.
you are not anymore realistic them mean you have just accepted the status que

allibastor · 23-05-2013 04:47PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Right, there is definitely a nature as well as a nurture influence over life prospects. No doubt about that.

That doesn't mean we completely ignore those nurture aspects; attempts at correcting for nurture advantages in children is well within our capability.

but the problem is that most times people need both nature and nuture. does anyone watch made in Chelsea, have you seen the moron whos family own the Jaffa cake company. He is rich beyond belief, yet has no interaction with his parents. He has, to my knowladge, done nothing with his life beyond having mad parties and so on.

Look at Alan Sugar, Bill Cullen. born poor, in areas where education was not really valued, they are rich beyond most of us now, well not big bill anymore.

A lot of the time people will get out what they put in, no more. I know people who are from disadvantaged areas who have families that dont really care much about education, but the individuales push themselves to acheive, and do acheive.

Doctor Strange · 23-05-2013 04:50PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

More income redistribution.

No, it means doing the same work for less money.

It's a pretty basic concept. Are you opposed to taxation?

No, I support people paying a fair level of tax.

So where will we start with this "redistribution". I think frontline staff. I mean, it's the same work for less money, so they won't mind.

laoch na mona · 23-05-2013 04:51PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Irish people are lucky to be in a position where merit actually counts.. A fair chance at free education with no corruption. A dream for most in the world.

I was middle class and could have gotten medicine if I deserved it. Successful society imo.

if you were working class you would have a different view

Cody Pomeray · 23-05-2013 04:51PM

allibastor wrote: »

but the problem is that most times people need both nature and nuture.

I know. I'm not denying that.

The fact that nature can limit someone's life prospects is true. Sometimes there is nothing we can do about that. Lets leave that aside, since it is agreed.

It still remains that nurture can also limit someone's life prospects. "Nurture inequality" is something we can try to address.

allibastor · 23-05-2013 04:54PM

laoch na mona wrote: »

you ignore the vast amount of people who work hard just to be able to stay poor. education is learned so your brain lottery idea is flawed. many can not afford to better there position in life because life gets in the way. people lose out through no fault of their own

this is why we need to stop supporting the myth that meritocracy exists in any significant form

My Brain idea is not flawed. Have you ever heard of a guy called william sidis? He was by most accounts the smartest person to have lived, but he chose not to do anything with his life and died poor enough. He was well educated. he took a job as a typist which he was able to do within a few hours so he could enjoy his day.

There are many people who are not born smart, but push themselves, both beyond thier capacity, and beyond their social station. Just being born into wealth does not always mean you will fare better. many people are born into good families, with money and a strong work ethic and still do nothing with it.
Other people are born to poor families with no work ethic and try and better themselves. it goes down to your brain and how you use what you have and apply it in the most effective way.

Doctor Strange · 23-05-2013 04:56PM

laoch na mona wrote: »

if you were working class you would have a different view

Hi, working class here, and studying science in a NUI college. The education system here is incredibly fair, imo, bar the points system. There should be a more overall approach to 3rd level entry, but that's a different topic.

steddyeddy · 23-05-2013 05:00PM

OP I am from a very working class area and through hard work and scholarships have rose to become a research scientist. I worked very hard in life and I still havent completely got to where I want to be in life if I'm honest. I dont believe in sending a fixed number from each social class to college to be honest. Anyone can make it if they're intelligent and work hard.I

Unfortunatly we have a two tier system where we can't be sure that them hardest working and most intelligent are getting to college. We have a different education system for them better off in this country unfortunately. Deis schools and fee paying schools both have the same problem. One tells its pupils they are working class and them working class don't aspire to college and fee paying schools tell their pupils they are middle class and should aspire to college.

As I say I got by because of scholarships and hard work some peolle do falsely have and idea that their birth entitles them to college over another person irregardless of respective intelligent and this needs to change. Eqaulize the schools and let them intelligent get through irrespective off class. This has happened in Finland and literacy rates between them rich and poor have near equalised.

Cody Pomeray · 23-05-2013 05:00PM

Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »

No, I support people paying a fair level of tax.

Well then you support income redistribution... that's what taxation is. Income is appropriated and distributed to other causes for what society, through democracy, has determined to be 'the common good'.

So where will we start with this "redistribution"

The appropriation of more income through wage cuts or taxation increases. Stricter rules for the appropriation of the assets of those who damage society. There are many possibilities.

steddyeddy · 23-05-2013 05:06PM

I don't believe in income redistribution as that is akin to private schools in that it affords unearned benifits to different groups in society.

Cody Pomeray · 23-05-2013 05:08PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't believe in income redistribution as that is akin to private schools in that it affords unearned benifits to different groups in society.

So you don't believe in unearned benefits?

Cancel the state.

St.Spodo · 23-05-2013 05:14PM

Tetris Smith wrote: »

Ok so either you believe the government should provide private school standard for all or that people aren't allowed to spend their own money how try wish.

If the government provides adequate education for you how can you legitamately complain. Why be concerned about how other people spend their money. You have everything at your disposal to achieve. If you don't its your own faults

I believe that everyone should be given the same standard of second level education in order to ensure that as a society we benefit kids who are hard-working and intelligent, not kids who have rich parents. Dress it up any way you want, being born into a family where you can get a better standard of education gives you an unfair advantage. It's not unreasonable to wish that all young people are given the same opportunities and the deserving among them capitalise on the opportunities. The private/public school dichotomy is where the tiering of society starts.

steddyeddy · 23-05-2013 05:15PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

So you don't believe in unearned benefits?

Cancel the state.

I belive in badic welfare for those who really needs it.

Cody Pomeray · 23-05-2013 05:16PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

I belive in badic welfare for those who really needs it.

So you do believe in unearned benefits to specific groups in society? Well, which is it? A minute ago, you were basing your opposition to income redistribution on unearned benefits to specific groups in society.

steddyeddy · 23-05-2013 05:21PM

St.Spodo wrote: »

I believe that everyone should be given the same standard of second level education in order to ensure that as a society we benefit kids who are hard-working and intelligent, not kids who have rich parents. Dress it up any way you want, being born into a family where you can get a better standard of education gives you an unfair advantage. It's not unreasonable to wish that all young people are given the same opportunities and the deserving among them capitalise on the opportunities. The private/public school dichotomy is where the tiering of society starts.

Bingo. I was supervising a lab involving radio active isotopes and using them to ascertain atomic structure of biogenic materials. One kid from a school than rhymes with glenball abbey was chewing the radioactive tracing materials. Yet we have schools Ireland which have and ethos of pushing middle class kids into education regardless and convince working class they don't aspire to education.

steddyeddy · 23-05-2013 05:23PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

So you do believe in unearned benefits to specific groups in society? Well, which is it? A minute ago, you were basing your opposition to income redistribution on unearned benefits to specific groups in society.

Unearned advantages in education which increase the number of variables and defeat the purpose of a standardised test.

TheLastMohican · 23-05-2013 05:24PM

St.Spodo wrote: »

I believe that everyone should be given the same standard of second level education in order to ensure that as a society we benefit kids who are hard-working and intelligent, not kids who have rich parents. Dress it up any way you want, being born into a family where you can get a better standard of education gives you an unfair advantage. It's not unreasonable to wish that all young people are given the same opportunities and the deserving among them capitalise on the opportunities. The private/public school dichotomy is where the tiering of society starts.

There are some parents and a lot of kids that do not see this as a prerequisite for a decent adult life. Also democratic principles come into play.

"I believe that everyone should be given the same chance to achieve a good standard of second level education in order to ensure that as a society we benefit kids who are hard-working and intelligent, not kids who have rich parents" would be more fitting in a democracy.

steddyeddy · 23-05-2013 05:29PM

TheLastMohican wrote: »

There are some parents and a lot of kids that do not see this as a prerequisite for a decent adult life. Also democratic principles come into play.

"I believe that everyone should be given the same chance to achieve a good standard of second level education in order to ensure that as a society we benefit kids who are hard-working and intelligent, not kids who have rich parents" would be more fitting in a democracy.

Parents shouldnt have them right to choose that their kid gets and educational advantage over another kid. Not when their choice defeats them purpose of a standardised test. A crazy idea would involved them kids actually earning a better education via scholarship.

Birth Lottery and social justice

Comments