You're missing the entire point of the question...
What about using public money to subsidise 'elitist' opera? What about streamed education as being 'elitist'?
And "mutally-masturbatory introspective back-slapping groups of penis-compensating soulless idiots are not my scene."? C'mon, Joe. You're involved in student politics. There's no social grouping which is a better exemplar of what you say isn't your scene than the cliques which rule student unions up and down the land.
I don't actually even have an issue with private education, much less streamed education -- having attended an independent school, it'd be rather hypocritical of me. That's not to say that I wouldn't much rather the standard of teaching be improved in all schools, thus getting rid of the need to have independent/private/public schools in the first place.
I think my point is that there are several types of elite. As I said to Hilary, I am all in favour of people striving for greatness -- and in their being helped to achieve it. However, many elites seem to have as a prime agenda item the pushing-down of others, to preserve their elite status.
And what you say is certainly true of the NUS and its petty factionalism. My own experience of intra-Guild politics is much different to the careerist-centric one you're talking about. I'm certainly not denying that such people exist within that sphere, but the current downturn in student unions' profits etc. make them a lot less "sexy."
This is why I dont' understand you being a lefty - the historical record demonstrates unequivocally that left wing forms of government actively prevent any of the citizenry gaining greatness, whilst right wing ones at least encourage peopel to try - even if they fail they had the opportunity to do so in the first place. Surely your belief in this case is libertarian, like mine?
As a question, purely as an arbitary thought experiment: which would you prefer - a world where everyone had $100, or a world where everyone had $1000, except for one person, who had $1,000,000?
Obviously I'd prefer the second, because everyone is better off even if there are greater degrees of social inequality, but I'd be interested to know you opinion, and why?
Everyone is better in the second world than the first. And, of course, that one person splitting $999,000 between six billion people would hardly make any difference at all.
That said, captalism's track record is not that "a rising tide lifts all ships" -- more that "a rising tide lifts the expensive ships and drowns the poor people in dinghys, yachts and schooners."
Someone once asked George Orwell why he abondoned his socialist beliefs later in life, and he replied: "Someone asked me where I'd rather live - Sovciet Russia, or the United States. I didn't even have to think about my answer."
You can argue, and truthfully, that capitalism has some victims. However, I can argue , and truthfully, that socialism has many many more as a proportion of the population (i.e. everyone who isn't a member of the party, for starters). And that's why I'm against it, plain and simple.
For sure, in terms of luxury etc., the US wins every time. That's called "selling out."
And in terms of individual freedom, liberty, happiness, and opportunity... If I have to sell out to be happy, have freedom of speech and association, a vote which means something*, and the opportunity to better myself and my family through hard work, ingenuity, and a little bit of luck, then I'll sell out any day of the week.
And modern capitalism as an excuse for imperialism has many more flavours of victim than merely financial ones.
Well, as the options I'm being presented with are everyone being a victim, or some people maybe being victims, I know which I'll go for. Obviously I'd like to live in a world with no voctims at all, but I dont' believe that's possible. As soon as a workable solution is postulated, I'll be first in the queue. Possibly the development of nanite manufacturing and home fusion power might do it. I don't know.
*I already know what you're planning to say to this, so don't bother. You know exactly what I mean by this statement so don't try hijacking it.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
What about using public money to subsidise 'elitist' opera?
What about streamed education as being 'elitist'?
And "mutally-masturbatory introspective back-slapping groups of penis-compensating soulless idiots are not my scene."? C'mon, Joe. You're involved in student politics. There's no social grouping which is a better exemplar of what you say isn't your scene than the cliques which rule student unions up and down the land.
no subject
I think my point is that there are several types of elite. As I said to Hilary, I am all in favour of people striving for greatness -- and in their being helped to achieve it. However, many elites seem to have as a prime agenda item the pushing-down of others, to preserve their elite status.
And what you say is certainly true of the NUS and its petty factionalism. My own experience of intra-Guild politics is much different to the careerist-centric one you're talking about. I'm certainly not denying that such people exist within that sphere, but the current downturn in student unions' profits etc. make them a lot less "sexy."
no subject
As a question, purely as an arbitary thought experiment: which would you prefer - a world where everyone had $100, or a world where everyone had $1000, except for one person, who had $1,000,000?
Obviously I'd prefer the second, because everyone is better off even if there are greater degrees of social inequality, but I'd be interested to know you opinion, and why?
no subject
That said, captalism's track record is not that "a rising tide lifts all ships" -- more that "a rising tide lifts the expensive ships and drowns the poor people in dinghys, yachts and schooners."
no subject
You can argue, and truthfully, that capitalism has some victims. However, I can argue , and truthfully, that socialism has many many more as a proportion of the population (i.e. everyone who isn't a member of the party, for starters). And that's why I'm against it, plain and simple.
no subject
And modern capitalism as an excuse for imperialism has many more flavours of victim than merely financial ones.
no subject
And in terms of individual freedom, liberty, happiness, and opportunity...
If I have to sell out to be happy, have freedom of speech and association, a vote which means something*, and the opportunity to better myself and my family through hard work, ingenuity, and a little bit of luck, then I'll sell out any day of the week.
And modern capitalism as an excuse for imperialism has many more flavours of victim than merely financial ones.
Well, as the options I'm being presented with are everyone being a victim, or some people maybe being victims, I know which I'll go for. Obviously I'd like to live in a world with no voctims at all, but I dont' believe that's possible. As soon as a workable solution is postulated, I'll be first in the queue.
Possibly the development of nanite manufacturing and home fusion power might do it. I don't know.
*I already know what you're planning to say to this, so don't bother. You know exactly what I mean by this statement so don't try hijacking it.