(10-17-2015, 02:54 PM)Donald Dank Wrote: What's wrong with that? Aspiration and greed are arguably the main drivers of human advancement.
I don't think i said there was anything wrong with it, DD.
Prancer claimed something about a race to the bottom and I was merely highlighting that the exact opposite is the case. There was no moral judgement in what I said.
Were I to offer one i'd say that greed and aspiration are indeed great drivers of human advancement. But they can't be unbridled and people would perhaps be happier learning to augment their grass is greener attitude with a modicum of content.
(10-17-2015, 03:02 PM)2NaFish Wrote: I don't think i said there was anything wrong with it, DD.
Prancer claimed something about a race to the bottom and I was merely highlighting that the exact opposite is the case. There was no moral judgement in what I said.
Were I to offer one i'd say that greed and aspiration are indeed great drivers of human advancement. But they can't be unbridled and people would perhaps be happier learning to augment their grass is greener attitude with a modicum of content.
Fair enough, I got the impression from your post that this attitude was wrong. You'd be right in saying that it's what Prancer describes and is the other side of the coin to what he was saying about the other attitude. For what it's worth I think he does have a point there, it's not that these people explicitly want to bring others down to the standards of the lowest but that is the logical conclusion of their ideology and political statements.
I don't agree that it's a case of 'grass is greener' and that these people aren't content, more a belief that they have it within their power to improve their standing and it is not the responsibility of the state to manage the ambitions of it's people.
My own position on this, I'd probably have failed an entrance exam aged 11. I wasn't dumb but I didn't care for revision at any age despite quite enjoying tests. If our system had dedicated more resources to grammar schools during my time in education would the comprehensive that I attended have provided me with a worse school experience than I had under the current system? I really don't know the answer to that, I wonder if it would've limited my prospects further or perhaps given me more motivation to succeed amongst a lower tier of students. You could probably argue it either way, I'm not against the principle of grammar or academy schools but I think there's a risk of deciding an individuals capabilites at such a young age and the restrictions that'll place on them.
Personally, I think we need to scrap comprehensives, bring in middle schools until the age of 16 and then move people on to technical and vocational school/colleges and make it mandatory until 18.
10-17-2015, 03:56 PM (Edited 10-17-2015, 03:59 PM by 2NaFez.)
(10-17-2015, 03:43 PM)Donald Dank Wrote: I don't agree that it's a case of 'grass is greener' and that these people aren't content, more a belief that they have it within their power to improve their standing and it is not the responsibility of the state to manage the ambitions of it's people.
(10-17-2015, 03:56 PM)2NaFish Wrote: I think that's you projecting.
I think folk want an iphone 6.
Maybe it is, but I don't agree with you saying that greed and ambition/aspiration must be restricted. They can produce positive or negative results, perhaps we just disagree if it's society's job to restrict/protect people from themselves and the good or bad decisions they make.
10-17-2015, 04:07 PM (Edited 10-17-2015, 04:11 PM by 2NaFez.)
Greed is a concept, not a person. You're twisting my words if you think i said people need to be restricted.
Greed and aspiration exist, and i'd like to see them co-exist alongside other concepts. Left unbridled greed is all consuming; as is the nature of greed. Therefore it must be restricted.
As for aspiration, it is a means to an end. It is a way of realizing potential and achieving self contentment. And it's a way of getting money to get stuff to allow you to lead a comfortable life. Unbridled it leaves people with no chance of enjoying the life they work so hard for. It's a useless tool unless it's working towards something. Therefore it cannot remain unbridled and it must co-exist with other principles, for to leave it unchecked is to be consumed by it.
(10-17-2015, 04:07 PM)2NaFish Wrote: Greed is a concept, not a person. You're twisting my words if you think i said people need to be restricted.
Greed and aspiration exist, and i'd like to see them co-exist alongside other concepts. Left unbridled greed is all consuming; as is the nature of greed. Therefore it must be restricted.
I don't think I am -
(10-17-2015, 03:02 PM)2NaFish Wrote: There was no moral judgement in what I said.
Were I to offer one i'd say that greed and aspiration are indeed great drivers of human advancement. But they can't be unbridled and people would perhaps be happier learning to augment their grass is greener attitude with a modicum of content.
Sure, greed is a concept and yes it can be all consuming but it's up to individuals to figure that out. Some people can learn that from observation, others from experience but I think very few people would be capable of learning it by being told their pursuits are detrimental and should be reigned in.
You've said I'm twisting your words to suggest people need to be restricted, but what I'm reading is that you think people should just inherently know when the actions they are engaged in are detrimental and restrict them? I don't think that is the case and it's impossible to be that reflective while engaged in the pursuit of something, so I can only see what you're saying as suggesting that outside influence must determine what level of greed is acceptable.
e- On your edit, aspiration is not a means to an end. Humans are capable of very broad aspirations and they are something that gives life direction, some people might have aspirations far greater than even they can see as being achievable but it gives their life some kind of bearing and influences everyday decisions. Of course you can enjoy where you are whilst still realising you're very far away from where you want to be. You seem to be saying that small achievable goals are the purpose of aspiration, whereas I'd suggest it's a much more broad and uncharted search of fulfilment.
We're getting very abstract here and I've kinda forgotten what the point was but I'm happy to keep this discussion going. Â
It's quite telling that you think the only way to influence people is to restrict them. People can have every option open to them but be influenced to not do x, y or z. It's not my bag, but libertarian paternalism covers that fairly well.
You admit that "greed can be all consuming" - but that's wrong. It can only be all consuming. That is inherent to the nature of greed; it must have other factors to mitigate it. Promoting contentment with ones lot (to a degree), for example, doesn't in any way restrict people from choosing to be totally greedy if they wish to be. But it might mean that people are actually happy.
I still say you're twisting my words, as, once again, greed is not a person, so therefore to say that greed should be mitigated is not in any way to say a person should be restricted. It can mean that, but it's to twist my words to say i actually said or even implied that.
(we're all big boys here, i enjoy an abstract dick measuring contest as much as the next #thfam member )
(10-17-2015, 04:30 PM)2NaFish Wrote: It's quite telling that you think the only way to influence people is to restrict them. People can have every option open to them but be influenced to not do x, y or z. It's not my bag, but libertarian paternalism covers that fairly well.
You admit that "greed can be all consuming" - but that's wrong. It can only be all consuming. That is inherent to the nature of greed; it must have other factors to mitigate it. Promoting contentment with ones lot (to a degree), for example, doesn't in any way restrict people from choosing to be totally greedy if they wish to be. But it might mean that people are actually happy.
I still say you're twisting my words, as, once again, greed is not a person, so therefore to say that greed should be mitigated is not in any way to say a person should be restricted. It can mean that, but it's to twist my words to say i actually said or even implied that.
(we're all big boys here, i enjoy an abstract dick measuring contest as much as the next #thfam member )
No, I'm saying that people should be left to their own devices on these kind of things. I haven't once said the only way to influence people is to restrict them and have been arguing the exact opposite of that for the length of this discussion. I had a quick read on libertarian paternalism and don't really see how it relates to the points you've made, the idea that humans care capable of irrationality is something we both appear to agree on.
You keep saying 'greed is not a person' and I don't see how that relates to anything I've said or is even an intelligible response to my initial remark.
10-17-2015, 05:06 PM (Edited 10-17-2015, 05:07 PM by 2NaFez.)
(10-17-2015, 04:59 PM)Donald Dank Wrote: No, I'm saying that people should be left to their own devices on these kind of things. I haven't once said the only way to influence people is to restrict them and have been arguing the exact opposite of that for the length of this discussion. I had a quick read on libertarian paternalism and don't really see how it relates to the points you've made, the idea that humans care capable of irrationality is something we both appear to agree on.
You keep saying 'greed is not a person' and I don't see how that relates to anything I've said or is even an intelligible response to my initial remark.
I said greed should not remain unbridled
You said 'you want to restrict people'.
I said that greed is not a person.
That's how it relates. Greed can be mitigated without restricting people. People don't exist in a vaccum, so no one can ever be left to their own devices. That's impossible.
You haven't said that the only way to influence people is to restrict, true, but it's the only option you've put forward as to how any sort of change is brought about.
(10-17-2015, 05:17 PM)TheMaganator2.0 Wrote: How can you mitigate greed without restricting people?
Libertarian paternalism.
Not my bag, but if you want to have your ideal that people shouldn't be restricted then there are ways of giving people total freedom and still 'nudging' their choices.