Medic Refused Rifle Training

[spook]

 

Well, you just can't argue with that kind of misguided stupidity.

 

 

LDV's right. It's the soft touch that society has become that has allowed the parasites to emerge and even thrive.

 

Not that long ago such would not have been the case, hopefully very soon from now it will no longer be the case, but right now society provides the environment that lets the parasites survive.

[spook]

I don't know how you can claim this is the most stable form (of society) , but it would be the favoured in my opinion, it just doesn't exist at present because...

these rules and laws are not decided democratically, but by a minority elite that have their role ratified by the public.

I Don't agree. You seem to constantly confuse democracy with anarchy. Our island suffers badly from not having party politics (reaches for tin hat but it's my belief) and the public do remember when governments fail to deliver the goods.

I would rather ignore the whole topic to ask what your thoughts are about this idea of evolution. Do you think society is evolving to be more and more civilised out of a 'natural' process, for example?

 

If the underlying influences acting on social changes are by and large beneficial to society and members of society then that society tends to improve with the passage of time. The bad news is that same improvement often opens doors for people from other societies to “break in” to our society and milk it as is happening at present. That really must be stopped and the parasitic burglars sent home.

 

Stake holders? In what sense?

 

People who benefit and benefit from society.

 

A detrimental need? It's a fundamental need for those who productive life is their work should be able to undertake work that has value for them and which they can enjoy.

 

It may well be a fundamental wish, but when it becomes a fundamental need that can not be satisfied by opportunity then that's a need that must take second place to taking responsibility to be the least possible burden on those who do work and contribute to society.

 

 

And in respect of the latter, that simply an issue of the individuals own happiness, which should not be ignored or downplayed. Should a worker toil for decades in work that makes them unhappy with the consolation that they are helping support (financially) their employer? I don't think so.

 

But they don't. They “toil for decades” in order to support themselves and their families as well as they are able. They do their best to support themselves and not be reliant on skimming off the incomes of others via the tax and “benefits” system. Doing that is a GOOD thing.

 

Fundamentally, we are selfish individuals. Our most important needs are own happiness and finding purpose for ourselves. And there is no good reason for ignore that nor place the value of other needs above ours without gaining benefit ourselves.

 

We, that is the people of Western civilisation, are inclined to be altruistic rather than selfish. Look at history to see that. The trend is towards altruism, especially so in the case of the British.

But just think about what you've written. If everybody were to adopt that principle then there would be no society, there would be no “benefits” to support those in real need. It would be a dog eat dog jungle. In short it would be uncivilised and anti-social.

 

As I see it being a member of a civilised society means that everyone is a servant and at the same time a master to each other for the benefit of all.

 

That's not the case in practice due to the power relationships that exist in society. For instance, the worker has very, very little power vis-a-vis the employer. The employee is not master himself, not even his own work.

 

The employee and the employer are in a mutually supportive relationship. The worker sells his effort, the boss buys the fruits of his labour. There can not be one without the other and if you think that being self employed means you have no boss, think again. All your customers are all your boss and far less flexible than working for “The Man”.

 

Quote

Such as working in whatever way is possible in order to support oneself to the extent that one is able, and not just working in whatever way is desirable or attractive and holding out a hand if such was not possible.

 

It's rather bizarre you hold this idea of mutual support when looking at the way work functions today. Do you believe that work in today's work forms the most important social relationship that one can make or is it simply the case that in not doing so you are destroying.

 

Gainful employment is the prerequisite for everything else in a civilised society. In ours with the very wrong way that the Welfare State has gone if one person doesn't do all that they can in order to support themselves then someone else must work for less return in order to support them. Similarly profitable enterprise is essential in order for work opportunities to exist and for economies to survive.

 

Quote

Similarly it is wrong to raise the expectations of kids in terms of career choices when those choices do not align with opportunity. That serves no one, least of all the kids.

 

It would wrong to instill the idea in kids mind that in today's working world one can be happy in work and can find meaning and purpose in work, as that is very often not the case, all you need do is look at the effects of the recession on graduate students.

 

One can be happy in employment, even in a job that one doesn't like. That happiness comes from self respect and pride in knowing that one is minimising as far as one can on the burden one places on other people and doing ones best for one's family.

 

But it is another matter to ask about what society could be. What a society could be where the mutual supporting relationships are overwhleming the result of the powerful shaping how society runs.

 

We shape society just as surely as society shapes us, the only thing being that over a period of time we have the upper hand. Were it not to be so life would be very different from how it is today.

 

What has happened since the so called permissive 60's is that society has taken an unaffordable side track resulting in the soft life with few real responsibilities imposed on people and has seen the growth of what once were often referred to as Lotus Eaters.

 

It's time the changes that have taken place were rolled back and firm rules and real discipline was restored into society. People who trott out such statements as “if there's no job that I like I should not be asked to do a job that I don't like” should face a simple choice, work – or starve. They represent the core of The Undeserving Poor that we, the tax payers are holding back from being poor and it must STOP.

 

Actually it MUST stop for the simple reason that we are no longer able to afford it.

[ballaughbiker]

Agree with most of Spook's comments. The welfare state is a wonderful thing and no right minded individual would want it dismantling. Unfortunately a percentage of those who don't work, don't because they don't have to although I readily accept that many of the rest would like to work but for whatever reason can't.

 

I am involved with a project across at the moment and next door is a japanese immigrant in her 20s. We have talked many times about why she is here and why she doesn't work but spends the day playing the piano and reading etc. She is 100% bilingual, has a graduate education and *all* the social and personal skills for her to work in many well paid jobs. However, she has decided that life on the dole is good enough and does f.all. She lives in a very nice modern flat (that would cost around £750 pcm in Douglas) and dresses well getting all the free add-ons like dental treatment etc that we all have to pay for. She points out that she would have to earn towards £20k to even draw level if paying for all this out of taxed earnings so why should she be forced to accept minimum wage and "take home" less?

 

Well who can blame her for thinking like this? She could earn considerably more than minimum if she wanted to be chooses to do f.all. I'll wager that there are a good proportion of those on benefit who match this scenario. The person who finds a way of stopping this whilst at the same time fully protecting the vulnerable in society will have my respect.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I Don't agree. You seem to constantly confuse democracy with anarchy. Our island suffers badly from not having party politics (reaches for tin hat but it's my belief) and the public do remember when governments fail to deliver the goods.

My understanding of democracy is that it is people governing themselves. It's government by the people. That would have to involve people making decisions themselves on matters regarding society. The more involved in decisionmaking, the more democratic the system is. The more detached from decisionmaking, the less democratic. What is your understanding?

 

 

If the underlying influences acting on social changes are by and large beneficial to society and members of society then that society tends to improve with the passage of time.

Beneficial to whom? I am unsure what you might think is beneficial to society and whether such benefits may not be so to large sections of the populace, for example, but I don't know unless these benefits are identified.

 

People who benefit and benefit from society.

Ok. You referred to the fact that there are stakeholders now as opposed to earlier times (I don't know how early). In giving that answer, I am unsure as to what you think has changed and what the benefits are that you refer to.

 

It may well be a fundamental wish, but when it becomes a fundamental need that can not be satisfied by opportunity then that's a need that must take second place to taking responsibility to be the least possible burden on those who do work and contribute to society.

I would disagree. The matter rests on how important that need is. If the need is essential then society would need to change to realise it. In this example, it could change to make opportunities availabl

 

But they don't. They “toil for decades” in order to support themselves and their families as well as they are able. They do their best to support themselves and not be reliant on skimming off the incomes of others via the tax and “benefits” system. Doing that is a GOOD thing.

You say they don't, yet explanation agrees with what I have said. People only undertake waged work for the purpose of survival, supporting themselves and their family.

[spook]

My understanding of democracy is that it is people governing themselves. It's government by the people. That would have to involve people making decisions themselves on matters regarding society. The more involved in decisionmaking, the more democratic the system is. The more detached from decisionmaking, the less democratic. What is your understanding?

Rule making by majority decision usually realised by the election of representatives from groups based on majority decision within the group and the representatives making the rules on the same basis.

Beneficial to whom? I am unsure what you might think is beneficial to society and whether such benefits may not be so to large sections of the populace, for example, but I don't know unless these benefits are identified.

Security of and maintenance of society as a whole.

If a large section of society, large but not in the majority, do not benefit then hard luck.

If what is desired by such a group is not too objectionable to the majority then the wishes of such a majority might be accommodated. Or might not. The majority call the shots, the minority put up with it or attempt to change people's minds who are in the majority. They may or may not be successful. It works and it works well

As for stakeholders, there have been stakeholders ever since the peasants revolt (Watt Tyler and all that).

The matter rests on how important that need is. If the need is essential then society would need to change to realise it. In this example, it could change to make opportunities available.

Why should society change just to accommodate the “needs” of a minority unless the majority of people are willing to acquiesce or humour them?

Otherwise if the “need” is a thing that the majority of the people in society want then that need will be expressed.

If is not then it will not, and individuals who want what the majority do not should shut up and put up while trying to demonstrate that their need is consistent with the needs of others.

Until then they should work to support themselves irrespective if they like what they have to do or not.

People only undertake waged work for the purpose of survival, supporting themselves and their family.

Even if true, which it isn't, the problem with that is?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

 

 

We, that is the people of Western civilisation, are inclined to be altruistic rather than selfish. Look at history to see that. The trend is towards altruism, especially so in the case of the British.

But just think about what you've written. If everybody were to adopt that principle then there would be no society, there would be no “benefits” to support those in real need. It would be a dog eat dog jungle. In short it would be uncivilised and anti-social.

As individuals our personal survival come first and foremost, as does improving our lot. We place our needs and wants (and those of family) before others. Of course, you have the welfare state, you have community work, you have all sort of examples of mutual aid and what you call mutual support and this reflects our desire to help others. We are not entirely selfish.

 

The employee and the employer are in a mutually supportive relationship. The worker sells his effort, the boss buys the fruits of his labour. There can not be one without the other and if you think that being self employed means you have no boss, think again. All your customers are all your boss and far less flexible than working for “The Man”.

It's mutually supportive but it is entirely voluntary, in the sense that in today's society you either rent yourself or die (unless you have the skills, finances, and maybe savvy to be self-employed). The worker sells himself (not just his effort). There can be one without the other. And that's when you have the workers owning and running the show.

 

Gainful employment is the prerequisite for everything else in a civilised society.

No, it's not. There is no need for employment at all. Do you mean 'work', i.e. a working populace is a prerequisite?

 

In ours with the very wrong way that the Welfare State has gone if one person doesn't do all that they can in order to support themselves then someone else must work for less return in order to support them.

I agree. And it is a serious problem that this is happening.

 

Similarly profitable enterprise is essential in order for work opportunities to exist and for economies to survive.

Not at all. The Soviet Union economy was highly flawed but existed for a very long time without profit making enterprise. It's not essential.

 

 

One can be happy in employment, even in a job that one doesn't like. That happiness comes from self respect and pride in knowing that one is minimising as far as one can on the burden one places on other people and doing ones best for one's family.

I personally think that bunkum about self respect and pride coming from reducing one's burden in society. If minimising burden was such a strong incentive then suicide might be the logical choice. That would minimise the burden entirely. Maybe you do, but people do think about the extent to which they are a burden. They may think about their contribution, however.

 

I do believe there is a dishonesty that exists for any person that claims they are happy in work when they aren't doing a job they don't like. If they don't like doing something then I don't believe they will find happiness in doing it. Though they might be (overall) happy people.

 

Moreover, I find it a rather strange attitude to have in finding pride and self-respect in simply maintaining one's existence. That really should not be the case. Survival should not be considered to be an achievement. (Certainly, of course, there can be many benefits that accrue from performing work of whatever kind, waged or non-waged.)

 

It's time the changes that have taken place were rolled back and firm rules and real discipline was restored into society. People who trott out such statements as “if there's no job that I like I should not be asked to do a job that I don't like” should face a simple choice, work – or starve. They represent the core of The Undeserving Poor that we, the tax payers are holding back from being poor and it must STOP.

 

Actually it MUST stop for the simple reason that we are no longer able to afford it.

Here again, I just disagree. Our society has a system of work where people are employed, have to rent themselves, more often than not work in highly hierarchical systems, have no control over their work and receive little from their efforts. That system ought to stop. That's where the problem lies.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Rule making by majority decision usually realised by the election of representatives from groups based on majority decision within the group and the representatives making the rules on the same basis.

That's an explanation of what is called representative democracy, which isn't very democratic at all.

If democracy is to have any meaning in relation to its etymology, though not necessarily its history, then as the definition of democracy would be one that relates to popular government. Naturally, the more democratic something is the more say the people have over governance of themselves and their society.

[spook]

It's mutually supportive but it is entirely voluntary, in the sense that in today's society you either rent yourself or die (unless you have the skills, finances, and maybe savvy to be self-employed). The worker sells himself (not just his effort). There can be one without the other. And that's when you have the workers owning and running the show.

It should be a case of work if you can, or rely on charity to survive, but it isn't. People do NOT sell themselves, they sell their efforts and skills.

There is no need for employment at all. Do you mean 'work', i.e. a working populace is a prerequisite?

Yes. Some people are incapable of doing anything but drudgery, some more than that, but in a civilised society everybody should work for the benefit of the society that supports them and in which they live and society is that thing that comprises of a number of people living in a mutually supporting civilised lifestyle.

The Soviet Union economy was highly flawed but existed for a very long time without profit making enterprise. It's not essential.

The Soviet Union was a prison state. A Command economy in which the profit was the added value that a worker put into what he did was what provided the motivation because those who did not add value did not eat.

I personally think that bunkum about self respect and pride coming from reducing one's burden in society.

Then do you believe that the converse is true? That one can have self respect and pride while having other people work while you take a slice of their earnings and do nothing?

If minimising burden was such a strong incentive then suicide might be the logical choice. That would minimise the burden entirely.

Putting to one side the fact that suicide is a sin there is in most people a drive to live. Working at whatever one can in order to live while putting the least burden on other people is decent human behaviour.

Maybe you do, but people do think about the extent to which they are a burden. They may think about their contribution, however.

 

I do believe there is a dishonesty that exists for any person that claims they are happy in work when they aren't doing a job they don't like. If they don't like doing something then I don't believe they will find happiness in doing it. Though they might be (overall) happy people.

The happiness comes from the knowledge that just as much as you may not like cleaning public toilets knowing that by so doing you are being as independent as you can be.

 

Moreover, I find it a rather strange attitude to have in finding pride and self-respect in simply maintaining one's existence.

Then do you see no shame in relying on others to support you by their efforts when you could be at least minimising the drain that you are on them?

That really should not be the case. Survival should not be considered to be an achievement.

Survival from maximising ones own efforts and minimising reliance on the efforts of others certainly should be considered an achievement when the option (wrongly) exists to sit back and do nothing because one doesn't like what's on offer.

Our society has a system of work where people are employed, have to rent themselves, more often than not work in highly hierarchical systems, have no control over their work and receive little from their efforts. That system ought to stop. That's where the problem lies.

People do NOT rent themselves out, they undertake paid work for using their skills, knowledge, or just plain physical effort. What they do is a result of ability and opportunity and the return for their efforts is, or at least should be governed entirely by market forces.

If democracy is to have any meaning in relation to its etymology, though not necessarily its history, then as the definition of democracy would be one that relates to popular government. Naturally, the more democratic something is the more say the people have over governance of themselves and their society.

No. The more democratic a government is depends on the decisions reached based on the choices made by the majority. Your definition when taken just a little further towards its logical conclusion amounts to anarchy.

Anarchy is a BAD thing.

[ballaughbiker]

Anarchy is a BAD thing.

Not to an anarchist.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

It should be a case of work if you can, or rely on charity to survive, but it isn't. People do NOT sell themselves, they sell their efforts and skills.

The employed rent themselves. That is what happens when one in practice puts on price on one's head to (for example) become legally contracted to be under the authority of another and do as they ask. You are there for the purposes of producing what the employer wants but the manner in which that is done is to rent yourself out.

 

Yes. Some people are incapable of doing anything but drudgery, some more than that, but in a civilised society everybody should work for the benefit of the society that supports them and in which they live and society is that thing that comprises of a number of people living in a mutually supporting civilised lifestyle.

For the benefit of society, even to the detriment of one's own psychological health and for one own self-interest?

You seem to place the society far above the needs of the individual or discount the needs of the individual.

 

In a waged work society, any drudgery has only the compensation of the wage to make it worth doing. There MAY be an element where such work is essential and therefore the person gains kudos or respect from undertaking it, but the very reason for why they are undertaking it is determined their need for a wage. Not primarily out of any interest and not for the good of society, as we would naturally choose other forms of work.

 

You seem to imply that the system of work that exists today is THE civilised system, but what makes you think this? There may be alternative ways of living and working that are more civilised.

The Soviet Union was a prison state. A Command economy in which the profit was the added value that a worker put into what he did was what provided the motivation because those who did not add value did not eat.

Those that didn't do more than expected died? That was not the case. Have I misunderstood you?

Then do you believe that the converse is true? That one can have self respect and pride while having other people work while you take a slice of their earnings and do nothing?

I think we are talking cross-purposes a little. But one can have self-respect and pride in recognition that one is not subject to the tyrannical authority of private business. One could have self-respect and integrity from freeing oneself from this. However, in practice this is mitigated by the fact that one becomes a slave to the benefits one receives.

Though at least were someone to have a productive life outside waged work it will be something within the control of that person, which allows for more integrity and self-respect.

Survival from maximising ones own efforts and minimising reliance on the efforts of others certainly should be considered an achievement when the option (wrongly) exists to sit back and do nothing because one doesn't like what's on offer.

I don't think you appreciate, as I do, the importance of having a productive life that has personal meaning for the worker. It can only breed unhappiness and a psychological distancing from oneself when one undertakes work of no value to the worker.

You might say that the worker should think about their position in society and their input into it. But to what benefit? What benefit is there for the worker in maintaining this society? What is there about this society that forces them into possible drudgery that makes it worth maintaining?

 

No. The more democratic a government is depends on the decisions reached based on the choices made by the majority. Your definition when taken just a little further towards its logical conclusion amounts to anarchy.

Anarchy is a BAD thing.

You refer to A government. Are you under the belief that democracy must mean the create of a State or an overarching institution that governs? I think you are talking about representative democracy again.

It might be better to ask what you think democratic means.

[Evil Goblin]

The Soviet Union was a prison state. A Command economy in which the profit was the added value that a worker put into what he did was what provided the motivation because those who did not add value did not eat.

Or, as workers in the old Soviet Union often put it - they pretend to pay us and we pretend to work.