On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 19:50:18 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:19:39 +0000 (GMT), John Cartmell
wrote:


Unfortunately, in order to achieve economic success, it is necessary
to have inequality and unfairness in a multitude of areas

Why?

I understand that for one person or company to get to the top they may
believe that they have to damage the competition.

You may understand that. I don't.

That's what you appeared to be suggesting.

Certainly not. That's simply your preconceived notion that in order for
somebody to succeed they have to trample the "competition".

Please do try to read what I wrote. Read it. Read it again please and continue
reading it until such time as you actually manage to read what I wrote. I did
**not** write anything like your contrived idea.

That's good. It was you who was saying that you thought that I was
suggesting that trampling of competition was necessary for success.

I wasn't and made that completely clear.




Of course stopping anti-social activities (as long as the populace as a
whole rather than the government thinks that they are anti-social) is
reasonable.

We have an elected government. If they fail badly to do what we want then they
are out.

Eventually.


I know of no reason why the whole of society cannot be economically
successful without equality and fairness.

Because life isn't like that. We don't all have the same abilities, nor
the same motivations or indeed the same ambitions.

You are reading the words in an entirely different way than their true
meaning. No one is suggesting capping abilities.

It's the inevitable outcome of state sponsored "fairness".

Your Daily Mailness is coming out again.

What is "Daily Mailness"? Are you referring to said newspaper? I've
never read the thing.

What we collectively want to do is
done mainly through local and national government action.

Who is this "we"? I certainly don't need the government, be it
local or national to hold my hand and tell me what I "collectively"
want to do. There is very little that actually *requires* the
involvement of government for success to be achieved. If people do
want to achieve things beyond their immediate capability, most are
more than capable of figuring out who to work with to achieve it
without having it imposed from on high.


What you are
supporting is criticism designed to destroy that collective will - usually
because it conflicts with the pecuniary interests of rich parasites.

That's just emotive silliness and there are two fallacies in your
statement - firstly that a collective will is that important, and
secondly that wealth implies not having worked to achieve it.




It simply isn't realistic or productive for the state to attempt to
impose "fairness" all the way down the line. It demotivates the
achievers so that they either don't bother to achieve any more or leave,
and is cruel for those without the ability to achieve in some areas but
with ability in others.

The only people who usually complain in this way are those intent on
nefarious activities and object to the state making reasonable laws to
stop them.

That's a very jaundiced view which really doesn't stand scrutiny.

So gives some examples - real ones that you encounter or described by an
objective source. The only time I see those examples described as typical
rather than exceptional is in - well you know which tabloids produce the
reactionary fiction.

No I don't, because I don't read any of them.




Some people were demotivated when they were stopped from adding floor
sweepings to floor, returning beer spillage to the barrel, selling drugs,
operating pyramid scams, &c. Good. I like to see such people demotivated.

So do I.

You won't see me supporting demotivation of potential achievers where
their projects will be of benefit to society (as well as themslves). I've
spent much of my life finding ways to encourage motivation and success.

I'm pleased. Generally the best way in which the government can help is by
staying out of people's affairs.

Oh dear! If only the government would stay out those nice people from Tescos,
Microsoft, Sky would buy out or kill off their troublesome competitors and
really look after us with their wonderful monopolies ...

.. wouldn't they?

They have been pretty effective at achieving large or dominant market
shares despite the interference of governments.

The challenge for the competitors is to produce something better or
more attractive to the buyers of products and services. It doesn't
need government meddling to achieve that.



I do know that a society (as opposed to individuals) *cannot* become
economically successful where inequalities are too large.

I know that a "society" (whatever that is) or a civilisation is not
successful economically or culturally unless there are inequalities and
a hierarchy.

One only has to look at the history books or the animal kingdom to
figure that one out.

If you are selective in your reading you are quite correct. You are
obviously selective. You are also selective in your understanding of what
you read because cooperation for a group is by far the fundamental way
societies develop. You appear to have been quite thoroughly brainwashed.

Hardly. Society is a nebulous term. The great advances in economics and
in civilisation have been through the innovation and work of individuals,
not through collectivism.

You got very close to calling me a communist there.

Did I? Good grief.. Heaven forbid....


The ideas may come from
individuals. The advances happen when individuals agree to make changes for
the whole of their society.

Oh sure. Dream on.



Think in terms of what the great philosophers, scientists and inventors
achieved. Then look at the results of collectivism in the soviet union,
former eastern Europe....

You managed it in the end. Very nicely put and it couldn't have been bettered
by the master himself. Has nobody told you that McCarthyism is a distinctly
nasty little idea to follow?

I agree, and nobody was suggesting following it.



When Ghandi was asked what he thought of Western Civilisation is said "It
would be a good idea". Communism would be a good idea - but it doesn't exist
and has never existed. In the meantime social democracy is a whole lot better
than dictatorships and being able to vote out those who organise the framework
of your life is a damned good idea - as long as the elecorate are sufficiently
educated to appreciate that unfettered capitalism is just another means of
putting unelected dictators in control of our lives and just as unhealthy as
Stalin & co.

I'd settle just for democracy without the "social" label.

There isn't unfettered capitalism any more than communism was ever
anything meaningful. Sooner or later people find either unacceptable
and shop elsewhere. Either way, they can make up their own minds
without needing to be treated as a herd.


--

..andy