"A culture of Entitlement"

[Atheist-Lite]

There are no write offs. War in europe is brewing again and the social scum represent the canon fodder to be sent to die for to keep us all safe. They keep a few chip marks on stone and redeem their lost worthiness whilst we get a new greater Britain with borders extending across France to the nearest civilized country Germany.

[Audley Strange]

The rich are always with us

Kind of makes socialism pointless then

Yes and no : the moral position to adopt here is one of desired universal equality where by everyone has a fair
crack of the whip so that even those at the bottom have a reasonable standard of living : anything else just
fantasy : you will never have a completely egalitarian society : even political systems which have equality
as de rigeur such as communism still have a hierarchical pyramid structure like any other : so the best
position to adopt therefore is a meritocracy that recognises inequality of capability though practices
equality of opportunity and is how liberal democracies function as pertains to individual potential

Interesting. I have one question. In a meritocracy, who decides what is of merit or value and what steps would be taken against those with no value or merit by their standards?

[Rum]

It is certainly true that many of the poorer and unemployed people here in the UK take it for granted that if they don't work they will have enough money to pay bills etc. if not to live an exactly luxurious life. Having worked with the more deprived end of society for much of my life it is accurate to say that many of the people at the very bottom don't even expect to work and have traditionally survived on benefits and see it as a way of life without even really seeing an alternative.

I don't say this judgmentally. Some are in that position through no fault of their own. Some are not of course and could do something if they made the effort. They often live impoverished lives in many many ways, not least emotionally, socially and relationship wise and they are where they are because successive governments have not done enough to get them out of the hole they are stuck in.

It is very odd though at the moment. Just as unemployment is rising and the economy is struggling so badly there is a rise in the level of judgmentalism about the poor and those who are dependent on welfare. The 'average working' person seems often to hold the view now that people on benefits are spongers and layabouts and that their situations are of their own making.

[Coito ergo sum]

Every one should contribute to the economy if they are mentally and physically capable of doing so : there

Should as in, "I think it's a good idea," or "should" as in "past of shall" expressing a mandate?

If the former, sure. I agree. Working is a good idea. However, if you're suggesting that each individual ought to have a legal obligation to "contribute to the economy," then I can't disagree with you more. If folks want to spend their time sleeping in Zucotti park or lazing on the couch, not contributing to anything, then that is their right.

should be automatic compulsory work programmes for all the unemployed so that even those who spend
a significant proportion of their lives on benefit are earning their keep no matter how so : this would

As a condition of receipt of public benefits, perhaps. As a condition of being out of work, not on your life.

then guarantee that no one is completely without a regular salary in doing absolutely nothing : now
problem appears to be that there is not the infra structure for such a programme though : would
be expensive and require regulation and moderation like running a business though that is the
practical solution to the problem nonetheless : I do not work though make use of my time by
studying : no excuse for anyone doing absolutely nothing though : that is a waste of a life

Says you. But, folks are entitled to make a different assessment, and some would think your studying is a waste of time.

[Coito ergo sum]

The rich are always with us

Kind of makes socialism pointless then

Yes and no : the moral position to adopt here is one of desired universal equality where by everyone has a fair
crack of the whip so that even those at the bottom have a reasonable standard of living : anything else just

What version of socialism promises a "reasonable" standard of living? Certainly not Marxist socialism.

[Atheist-Lite]

It is certainly true that many of the poorer and unemployed people here in the UK take it for granted that if they don't work they will have enough money to pay bills etc. if not to live an exactly luxurious life. Having worked with the more deprived end of society for much of my life it is accurate to say that many of the people at the very bottom don't even expect to work and have traditionally survived on benefits and see it as a way of life without even really seeing an alternative.

I don't say this judgmentally. Some are in that position through no fault of their own. Some are not of course and could do something if they made the effort. They often live impoverished lives in many many ways, not least emotionally, socially and relationship wise and they are where they are because successive governments have not done enough to get them out of the hole they are stuck in.

It is very odd though at the moment. Just as unemployment is rising and the economy is struggling so badly there is a rise in the level of judgmentalism about the poor and those who are dependent on welfare. The 'average working' person seems often to hold the view now that people on benefits are spongers and layabouts and that their situations are of their own making.

You read too many tabloids?

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/07/ ... d-fallacy/

[Rum]

It is certainly true that many of the poorer and unemployed people here in the UK take it for granted that if they don't work they will have enough money to pay bills etc. if not to live an exactly luxurious life. Having worked with the more deprived end of society for much of my life it is accurate to say that many of the people at the very bottom don't even expect to work and have traditionally survived on benefits and see it as a way of life without even really seeing an alternative.

I don't say this judgmentally. Some are in that position through no fault of their own. Some are not of course and could do something if they made the effort. They often live impoverished lives in many many ways, not least emotionally, socially and relationship wise and they are where they are because successive governments have not done enough to get them out of the hole they are stuck in.

It is very odd though at the moment. Just as unemployment is rising and the economy is struggling so badly there is a rise in the level of judgmentalism about the poor and those who are dependent on welfare. The 'average working' person seems often to hold the view now that people on benefits are spongers and layabouts and that their situations are of their own making.

You read too many tabloids?

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/07/ ... d-fallacy/

No I don't.

[Azathoth]

The rich are always with us

Kind of makes socialism pointless then

Yes and no : the moral position to adopt here is one of desired universal equality where by everyone has a fair
crack of the whip so that even those at the bottom have a reasonable standard of living : anything else just
fantasy : you will never have a completely egalitarian society : even political systems which have equality
as de rigeur such as communism still have a hierarchical pyramid structure like any other : so the best
position to adopt therefore is a meritocracy that recognises inequality of capability though practices
equality of opportunity and is how liberal democracies function as pertains to individual potential

Interesting. I have one question. In a meritocracy, who decides what is of merit or value and what steps would be taken against those with no value or merit by their standards?

You start by putting the mimes and the philosophers in the scorpion pit and work from there.

[Coito ergo sum]

It is certainly true that many of the poorer and unemployed people here in the UK take it for granted that if they don't work they will have enough money to pay bills etc. if not to live an exactly luxurious life. Having worked with the more deprived end of society for much of my life it is accurate to say that many of the people at the very bottom don't even expect to work and have traditionally survived on benefits and see it as a way of life without even really seeing an alternative.

I don't say this judgmentally. Some are in that position through no fault of their own. Some are not of course and could do something if they made the effort. They often live impoverished lives in many many ways, not least emotionally, socially and relationship wise and they are where they are because successive governments have not done enough to get them out of the hole they are stuck in.

It is very odd though at the moment. Just as unemployment is rising and the economy is struggling so badly there is a rise in the level of judgmentalism about the poor and those who are dependent on welfare. The 'average working' person seems often to hold the view now that people on benefits are spongers and layabouts and that their situations are of their own making.

You read too many tabloids?

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/07/ ... d-fallacy/

No I don't.

You're in the Goldilocks Zone as far as tabloid reading goes?

[Coito ergo sum]

The rich are always with us

Kind of makes socialism pointless then

Yes and no : the moral position to adopt here is one of desired universal equality where by everyone has a fair
crack of the whip so that even those at the bottom have a reasonable standard of living : anything else just
fantasy : you will never have a completely egalitarian society : even political systems which have equality
as de rigeur such as communism still have a hierarchical pyramid structure like any other : so the best
position to adopt therefore is a meritocracy that recognises inequality of capability though practices
equality of opportunity and is how liberal democracies function as pertains to individual potential

Interesting. I have one question. In a meritocracy, who decides what is of merit or value and what steps would be taken against those with no value or merit by their standards?

You start by putting the mimes and the philosophers in the scorpion pit and work from there.

As long as they're not subsidized by the taxpayer, ought they not have the right to do as they please?

Once person X is paying person Y's salary, person X claims a right to tell Y what to do. It's the same concept of a parent telling their adult offspring what to do, because "as long as you live under my roof..." -- it's really no different -- as soon as one is on the public dole, the public claims a right to dictate your behavior. Similarly, with single payer health plans -- suddenly one's eating, drinking and driving habits are all reasonable concerns of one's neighbors....

[surreptitious57]

Interesting I have one question In a meritocracy who decides what is of merit or value and what steps would be taken against those with no value or merit by their standards

There is already a general consensus on what is of merit and it is that
which benefits soceity the most : as to the other no steps would be taken
against those with no value since such a concept is alien to the very principle
of meriticracy because everyone has potential so no one is completely without it

[Coito ergo sum]

Interesting I have one question In a meritocracy who decides what is of merit or value and what steps would be taken against those with no value or merit by their standards

There is already a general consensus on what is of merit and it is that
which benefits soceity the most : as to the other no steps would be taken
against those with no value since such a concept is alien to the very principle
of meriticracy because everyone has potential so no one is completely without it

There is no such consensus.

[surreptitious57]

There is already a general consensus on what is of merit and it is that
which benefits society the most : as to the other no steps would be taken
against those with no value since such a concept is alien to the very principle
of meriticracy because everyone has potential so no one is completely without it

There is no such consensus

Ask a group of people who are the most valuable members of society and
the majority would say doctors or surgeons : now some may say police
or the armed forces but the range of options is rather limited : this
gives lie to your assertion : there is therefore consensus on this

[Audley Strange]

Interesting I have one question In a meritocracy who decides what is of merit or value and what steps would be taken against those with no value or merit by their standards

There is already a general consensus on what is of merit and it is that
which benefits soceity the most : as to the other no steps would be taken
against those with no value since such a concept is alien to the very principle
of meriticracy because everyone has potential so no one is completely without it

Well that's contradictory. If what is beneficial to society is merit and you intend to do nothing about that which is detrimental to society, you won't have a society for long.

Also the idea that everyone has potential sounds lovely, but it's not true. There are people who have serious mental and physical disabilities who spend most of their lives in pain. How does a meritocracy deal with such? Is their merit in sustaining their lives or merit in ending them? Is their merit in being those who end the lives of those or merit in perpetuating their suffering?

It seems like a very nebulous idea.

[surreptitious57]

A number of options here : you could remove all those who are of no economic benefit to
society : you could spare them and exploit them for ulterior purposes : you could try to
accommodate them the best way possible given their disadvantage : options one and
two are morally indefensible so the third has to be adopted : as to who determines
this : well ultimately that is the job of the legislature who are accountable to the
people : democracy of course is not perfect but it is the best we have got so it
may be a round for a while yet : is of course non egalitarian and hierarchical

That has less though to do with the system and more to do with human
nature however for even today with political correctness we are quite
tribalistic : until we shake off these evolutionary shackles we shall
continue to have such imperfect rule : so do not hold your breath
waiting for it to happen as it probably never will : we may have
to continue in this vein quite a while so progress may be slow