UKC

Human Rights

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 The Ice Doctor 11 Dec 2016
Do you believe you have them?

I am unsure exactly what human rights in 2016 actually mean.

A right to be filmed everywhere you go by CCTV?

A right to be born into money or not?

We all have a right to a lawyer. Ho Ho Ho

You cannot even breathe clean air in the UK (it is badly polluted, thanks to the IT guys at multinational car companies) . If you want decent water you have to pay for it, harvest it, or go to the far north to find a clean river. Water, a 'God' given right?

You pay tax, tax funds weapons of war. Our country, it defends us. Apparently. Someone highlight the percentage we spend on defence as a proportion of GDP please.

The only human right I feel I have this morning is luck, luck that I am not a Syrian.

We all have choice!

(BTW . Have a lovely week everyone)
9
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Sure life could be better and we could have more freedom, but. . . . .

Who is free to do what they want to?

Do you think the fabulously rich and powerful are happier than you and me? They don't look like it and they don't sound like it either.

Yes, I'm glad I'm not a Syrian, I'm glad I'm not an Afghan or an Iraqi or a Yemeni or South Sudanese or a Ukrainian. I'm glad I'm not a North Korean, though perhaps they are happier than we could imagine? But I doubt it. I'm glad I'm not lying in a cancer ward or a mental institution or a prison. I'm glad I'm not gullible enough to be sitting on a cold pew this morning, in a cold building, surrounded by the dead (and the dying) listening to a man in a dress talking rubbish that even he probably doesn't believe in.

You are a priveliged Human Being, given the gift of consciousness to be able to marvel at the wonders of the universe. Being a "Westener" you have been given the chance of a relatively peaceful and pain free life. You have been given an education to help you make the best of what is available to you. Basically, you have been given a life that is a better than the overwhelming majority of life that has ever existed on this planet. So rejoice in what you have, not what you don't have.

(BTW, thanks I intend to have a good week, hope you do too).
2
damhan-allaidh 11 Dec 2016
In reply to The Ice Doctor:


Military spending in the UK has decreased significantly in the past slightly-over-two decades http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS Personally, I'd realpolitik about defense spending, especially with whatever seems to be happening with Russia these days. I do tihnk the 0.7% of GDP we devote to international development should be increased and could be better spent by direct investment into infrastructure (cf. China building ports) in developing countries.

I think you highlighted an important point -our institutions of justice, democracy, health, education and ethics (wait, do we have one of those?) must be valued and looked after. They are not immutable and they are vulnerable to changing external and internal forces. Lack of engagement of with the democratic process over time (and I am not imagine some sepia-toned past utopia where everybody was a well-informed voter supporting enlightened and progressive policies) has created a vacuum and eroded the strength of the insitutions and processes put in place to protect the liberty and well-being of society.

You're right - we have a choice. We have to seek and exercise the power to make that choice - but where does one fit that in in between trying to pay the mortgage and looking after one's family...?

High J's points are important. My students are from all over the world, and nearly every day I learn from them (and feel quite ashamed of my grumbling) how to value our freedoms to and freedom from, and a whole host of other things it is so easy to take for granted.

I love the line about the gift of consciousness to marvel at the wonders of the universe. Just finished my coffee, thanks, Hugh J, going to go and do that now! (Rain is a wonder of the universe...)

In reply to damhan-allaidh:

> our institutions of justice, democracy, health, education and ethics (wait, do we have one of those?) must be valued and looked after.

That's UKC Off Belay and Pub Forums isn't it?

> High J's points are important.

Chance would be a fine thing!

> I love the line about the gift of consciousness to marvel at the wonders of the universe. Just finished my coffee, thanks, Hugh J, going to go and do that now! (Rain is a wonder of the universe...)

The Rain Song - Led Zep:

These are the seasons of emotion
And like the wind, they rise and fall
This is the wonder of devotion
I see the torch
We all must hold
This is the mystery of the quotient,
Upon us all a little rain must fall

Enjoy the rain
 Lord_ash2000 11 Dec 2016
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Depends how you look at those things.

"A right to be filmed everywhere you go by CCTV" or "A right to be protected from what low levels of crime at still left on the streets by cameras which can help catch said mugger or car thief and get justice for you."

"A right to be born into money or not" or "A right to have children whoever you are and a right to do what you want with own wealth and possessions."

Also, you might not agree with our nations defence policy (I don't either). But like you say you're glad you're not a Syrian. Because Syria wasn't strong enough to stay together and defend its self, nothing like that is going to happen in the UK, no one's going to attack the UK. Why? because we have a stable society which people support and also, we've got a pretty advanced and heavily armed army of soldiers willing to fight, kill and die to protect it for you.



 Jon Stewart 11 Dec 2016
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
> Do you believe you have them?

I don't believe they exist in any sense other than the various stuff written down by various people and agreed by some people but not others (e.g. UDHR, ECHR etc).

I haven't looked into it - haven't had cause to - but I doubt any of these rights are being violated in my case. As a more general reflection, I don't have everything I want (such is the human condition), but I do have a lot more than average in terms of a good environment to live in, freedom to do what I like, etc, and have to take a "mustn't grumble" stance on my lot. But I do really wish my boss wasn't such a f*cking bitch.
Post edited at 11:25
 Duncan Bourne 11 Dec 2016
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

I have always felt that human rights are an aspiration rather than a law of nature.
The Declaration of human rights compiled after the atrocities of the second world war puts it thus:
http://www.youthforhumanrights.org/what-are-human-rights/universal-declarat...

1. We Are All Born Free & Equal. We are all born free. We all have our own thoughts and ideas. We should all be treated in the same way.

2. Don’t Discriminate. These rights belong to everybody, whatever our differences.

3. The Right to Life. We all have the right to life, and to live in freedom and safety.

4. No Slavery. Nobody has any right to make us a slave. We cannot make anyone our slave.

5. No Torture. Nobody has any right to hurt us or to torture us.

6. You Have Rights No Matter Where You Go. I am a person just like you!

7. We’re All Equal Before the Law. The law is the same for everyone. It must treat us all fairly.

8. Your Human Rights Are Protected by Law. We can all ask for the law to help us when we are not treated fairly.

9. No Unfair Detainment. Nobody has the right to put us in prison without good reason and keep us there, or to send us away from our country.

10. The Right to Trial. If we are put on trial this should be in public. The people who try us should not let anyone tell them what to do.

11. We’re Always Innocent Till Proven Guilty. Nobody should be blamed for doing something until it is proven. When people say we did a bad thing we have the right to show it is not true.

12. The Right to Privacy. Nobody should try to harm our good name. Nobody has the right to come into our home, open our letters, or bother us or our family without a good reason.

13. Freedom to Move. We all have the right to go where we want in our own country and to travel as we wish.

14. The Right to Seek a Safe Place to Live. If we are frightened of being badly treated in our own country, we all have the right to run away to another country to be safe.

15. Right to a Nationality. We all have the right to belong to a country.

Now quite obviously many of these are not adhered to, even by governments of the countries that signed the declaration. Which is why I say that human rights are an aspiration and to some extent a privilage. A privilage of people lucky enough to be born into a stable society where the rule of law can be applied. You can have all the human rights you want but without the power or the will to enforce them then they mean nothing.
Often our human rights are reduced or taken away in the name of National security or to "protect" us. Thus human rights are balanced against the need to maintain a society made up of millions of diverse people. Which is why I believe we should always be careful when we add new laws lest we destroy the very thing that such laws are supposed to protect. Our freedoms
 Trangia 11 Dec 2016
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Abbreviated) :-

http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/edumat/hreduseries/hereandnow/Part-5/8_udhr-abbr.h...

Article 12 is probably the most difficult for Governments to adhere to when attempting to combat crime and terrorism
Post edited at 11:50
 hokkyokusei 11 Dec 2016
In reply to The Ice Doctor

> You pay tax, tax funds weapons of war. Our country, it defends us. Apparently. Someone highlight the percentage we spend on defence as a proportion of GDP please.

2%

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defence-budget-increases-for-the-first-t...


 Chambers 12 Dec 2016
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
Unless we are born to parents who are members of the capitalist class and do not need to work since they are able to live parasitically off the backs off those who must work in order to live, we are likely to spend the rest of our lives having to sell our labour power to an employer in return for a wage. That, or live on paltry 'benefits', whilst a tiny minority own and control everything that we produce for them. Without even the 'right' to a job. We live in a society in which we are trained to be consumers of rubbish and to be unquestioning proles who are happy with the pantomimical illusion of democracy. Meanwhile, our 'leaders' and their puppetmasters get the best fruits of our labour and live in idle luxury whilst we gather the crumbs from their table. There is no meaningful conversation to be had about 'rights' for as long as capitalism prevails, it seems to me.
Post edited at 20:00
5
damhan-allaidh 12 Dec 2016
In reply to Chambers:
What's the viable alternative to capitalism? And what steps need to taken to make that alternative happen? What is the optimal or most ethically or most socially desirable allocation mechanism? How do we account for human psychology and biology?
Post edited at 20:31
 Billhook 12 Dec 2016
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Thats democracy for you.
 Chambers 12 Dec 2016
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
Interesting questions, indeed. I'll try to answer them in reverse order, I think, since it seems to me that the most common objections to suggestions about how society could be better organised tend to hinge upon a conception of 'human nature' that implies that what we have now - or some variation of it - is the best-suited to what we are as individual human beings.

It's strikes me as being very apparent - based on what we know about the evolution of our species thus far - that were a sense of solidarity and an innate appreciation of what is good and what is bad, coupled with a drive toward social, co-operative behaviour in groups not an inherent quality of humans then we would never have survived and thrived and gone on to colonise the whole planet in a short (in evolutionary terms) space of time. It also seems clear to me that there is an ability in humans to adapt to different circumstances that is unparalled in the rest of the animal kingdom. For example, a child born to African parents who live in grinding poverty with few material possessions might easily be adopted into a Western family and grow up with a love of all of the things that we might associate with life in more 'developed' countries. I'd want to make a distinction between human 'nature' - the qualities that define us a species - and human behaviour, which I believe is socially-conditioned. (Stone-age man does not wake up thinking about whether or not an Egg McMuffin is a good idea!) There is, of course, much more to be said about what we might call 'human psychology and biology', but what I've written here is, I think, a clear adumbration of my position.

The optimal, or most ethically or socially desirable allocation mechanism? Let us, for the sake of argument, conflate all three and ask what is best. What is the best way of allocating resources? I'd suggest that the current allocation system concentrates wealth in the hands of a few and deprives the majority of the fruits of their labour through a simple confidence trick that is predicated upon the general acceptance of money as a universal commodity exchangeable for all other commodities. It's easy to demonstrate how this trick works to benefit the owners of capital and enslaves the impoverished. Any new society that is to supercede capitalism needs, in my opinion, to be predicated upon the production of goods and services for the benefit of all humankind and not just those who happen to own most of the wealth that capitalism has - undeniably - allowed us to produce. From my personal point of view, I think a new society needs to be resource-based rather than profit-based. A moneyless society in which we are all co-owners - or stewards - of the planet. Much to discuss there, I know!

How do we get there? Shit. I don't know. What I do know is that until there is a majority of humans who both understand how capitalism works and know that voting for new leaders won't change anything, and are prepared to stand up say 'enough of this madness' there is no hope of change. I also realise that in the fifty-odd years I've been here people have become more subdued, more easily bought off and less open to the idea of a better way of running things. It often seems that the more information that is available about how corrupt and unworkable capitalism is the more they want it to become even more horrible. For my part, I'll keep advocating what I've been advocating for four decades now, and I'll probably still advocate it until I die. Because all of the evidence I've seen in these interesting times that we live in suggests to me that...well, that brings me rather neatly to your first question. What's the viable alternative to capitalism?

So what might it be? Just as the stagnation and decline of what historians call 'classical antiquity' gave birth to feudalism, and just as the stagnation and decline of feudalism in turn gave rise to capitalism, why should not the all-too-obvious stagnation and decline of capitalism lead to something else? We are not, I think, as some 'historians' do- Fukuyama, et al. - looking at the end of history, but rather at a chance of harnessing the incredible potential abundance of wealth that capitalism has made possible but cannot possibly produce within the constraint of an economic/political system that is based on production for the profit of a few. We can feed the planet easily, but not in a money-based society. If we took control - collectively and democratically - of the machinery of wealth production and were determined to produce directly for use and the satisfaction of human needs we'd immediately rid ourselves of a whole raft of utter bollocks and be able to go off and explore the universe instead of staying here and blowing ourselves up or getting killed in wars or producing crap stuff that no-one needs or doing useless non-productive jobs just to service the need of our bosses capital.

Could it happen? I think so. Will it happen? Maybe not. Thankfully, it doesn't depend on me!

Thanks for your questions, damhan, they made me think. I hope that my answers make you think and respond according to your thoughts. Peace.
Post edited at 21:18
4
 DerwentDiluted 12 Dec 2016
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Nonsense on stilts.
damhan-allaidh 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Chambers:

THank you for that - I shall ponder it today, and get back to you.
 BnB 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Chambers:

I really enjoyed your post. Thank you. It was not so much for the solution proposed (I think you're open enough to admit that you don't have a fully formed plan) as for the questions asked. Is it not the case, however, that across the world and the vast majority of its inhabitants, that capitalism has delivered genuine improvements in living standards more than any other system? Even while generating ever greater disparities in wealth?

Could it be that, like democracy, in Churchill's words, it's the worst system, other all the alternatives?
 jkarran 13 Dec 2016
In reply to hokkyokusei:


2% of revenue which is itself 35% of GDP so give or take we spend 0.7% of GDP on 'defence'.
jk
 Duncan Bourne 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Chambers:
Best reply so far
1
 neilh 13 Dec 2016
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Travelling around the world broadens the mind about human rights in the UK.

We are ( even for those at the bottom) lucky here.

When you have been rounds slums in places like India you understand this pretty quickly.When you have seen the institutional restrictions on issues in Russia and seen the corruption, you understand this.When you go to China and experienced the state, you understand this.When you go round parts of eastern Europe and see the way the police deals with things, you get it.

We have alot to be proud of here in the UK.And yes there can always be improvements. That is part of an open society that recognises this and strives for it.
 Duncan Bourne 13 Dec 2016
In reply to BnB:

I think that it is undeniable that capitalism has given rise to a lot of benefits. However I feel that like an old operating system it no longer fits the needs of the people or the planet. I am not going to go down the communist line and like Chambers I do not have the answers. But I can see the cracks. Capitalism is based on growth and profit. Problem 1 is scarcity of resources. From materials to ways of producing energy we are using up our resources at an ever increasing rate. We could move to more renewable resources but they are less profitable and garner less interest (compared to more traditional and nuclear options). At some point there will be a crunch. Problem 2 the wealth gap and poverty. As resources get more expensive but companies still need to grow and make a profit then wages and working conditions suffer. Wages are driven down and resources are obtained from countries where people work in conditions of near slavery with little or no health and safety. This also relates to education and social services like the NHS which people deem too expensive (because we want to keep taxes low and facilitate the banks). Problem 3 the coming reduction in jobs through automation. From a cost effective point of view driverless vehicles, fully automated factories, accounting bots etc. are a good idea but leaves an increasingly redundant population. New jobs may come but it is hard to see from where. That my twopenneth anyway
 hokkyokusei 13 Dec 2016
In reply to jkarran:

> 2% of revenue which is itself 35% of GDP so give or take we spend 0.7% of GDP on 'defence'.

The article I linked to doesn't mention revenue, it says defense spending is 2% of GDP.
 jkarran 13 Dec 2016
In reply to hokkyokusei:

Sorry, my mistake.
 jonnie3430 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Chambers:

I wish that everytime people used the words "human rights," they included responsibilities too, they are hand in hand.

Your post fails the human test, also you missed the point where every society has had a hierarchical system with individuals heading them up.

When we consider the wealth disparity, we miss the point that people have more now than they have ever had in the past; knowledge, opportunities and rights (and responsibilities!)

Yes, some have more, so what? The gap gets bigger, so what? We keep making more, that is expected. The important thing is that the opportunity is there for anyone to succeed.

I don't get your discrimination of the rich, as if there are two groups, rich and poor. In reality people are at every stage in between. It's usually a matter of opinion that is up to the individual to decide how happy they are with their life. You can be rich with very little, but enough to spoil yourself for the rest of your life (keep the crackling coming and I will be a content pudgy until my early death from high cholesterol!)
 jonnie3430 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

>. New jobs may come but it is hard to see from where.

Fixing the machines. Though I would love to be a lifestyle coach;

"I was replaced by a machine, what will I do now?"

"Everything's now paid for by the state. I know some great games, let's go play!"

 Duncan Bourne 13 Dec 2016
In reply to jonnie3430:



> Fixing the machines. Though I would love to be a lifestyle coach;

> "I was replaced by a machine, what will I do now?"

> "Everything's now paid for by the state. I know some great games, let's go play!"

I think that a national wage may become a necessity.
Fixing machines and life style coach are options for the skilled and semi-skilled but it is the unskilled that may well suffer and there is a lot of people to find jobs for.
 summo 13 Dec 2016
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

The mere fact that you have the time, the energy and the means to say this without having some secret police force knocking on your door indicates life isn't so bad after all.
 elsewhere 13 Dec 2016
In reply to jonnie3430:
> I wish that everytime people used the words "human rights," they included responsibilities too, they are hand in hand.

No. If you mix up rights with responsibilities the rights are easily disregarded.
It's not a human right if you don't have it unless your local soviet or gauleiter likes your attitude to your responsibilities.

Human rights should not be subject to anybody's approval other a legal process that enshrines human rights.
Post edited at 12:30
 RX-78 13 Dec 2016
In reply to jonnie3430:

the problem with the gap getting bigger is that money is power and power corrupts. Wealthy people have undue influence in politics and their money buys them access and leverage so rules are set up to favour themselves over others undermining the foundations of a stable fair society.

The coming automation and AI age could make many redundant, society will need to change or the current system will only lead to power (currently money) concentrated in a small percentage of people with most redundant to those with power. in previous/current societies the mass of people were/are still needed to farm, build, create armies, manufacture goods etc, if these needs can be filled by 'robots' then what need for the many by the powerful? if armies are also increasingly automated then people will not be able to turn to the army for help (as currently made up of people with links to society at large). A dooms day picture but sh*t does happen.
 jonnie3430 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Is it not a responsibility to get skilled so you can contribute to your society? Is it not a responsibility to make that skill something in demand so that jobs are available? Is it not a responsibility to use free education to its max so that you can get as skilled as you need to be to return to that society support for the rights which you have been given?

I don't think we'll see this in our lifetime, if it ever comes, human nature interferes too much. It's all very culture in theory, Ian M Banks spent a lot of time imagining how it might be.
 jonnie3430 13 Dec 2016
In reply to elsewhere:

But unless some of us take responsibility, there are no rights for anyone. My take is that if you receive the rights, you need to take some of the responsibility, otherwise it doesn't work. Who would ensure that people have their rights, they aren't free or natural?
 spartacus 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Hugh J:

Have a like, I think you should be Prime minister. (Perhaps without the leather trousers)
 jonnie3430 13 Dec 2016
In reply to RX-78:

I still don't see us having the level of organisation to sort that out, unless you let the engineers take over (as you should.) Also human whim means that, even though it's rational to plant high return crops everywhere with machines, gardeners will be cracking on with their sunflowers and daisies till the end of time.

Wealth and related corruption have been about as long as humans, it's in our nature. Sometimes it's bad, then there is a reaction that makes it better, but we are usually in a happy medium, kept there by voting against the worst examples of greed.
 Duncan Bourne 13 Dec 2016
In reply to jonnie3430:
> Is it not a responsibility to get skilled so you can contribute to your society? Is it not a responsibility to make that skill something in demand so that jobs are available? Is it not a responsibility to use free education to its max so that you can get as skilled as you need to be to return to that society support for the rights which you have been given?

I think you are missing the point. There are people, a great deal, who quite simply can not develop those skills. They are unskilled, not because they never had the opportunity, not because they were not born into wealth or lack drive even (I know one person who can not read but he makes a living doing a variety of simple jobs). But because they do not have the cognitive resources to take they beyond a certain point. And if all the work up to that point is performed by machines then they are buggered. The only way you are ever going to have a society where anyone can do any job is if you genetically programme everyone to be smart

I whole agree with you stance that rights come with responsibilities. Human rights dictate that we have a responsibility to take care and look after each other. What I have issue with is that you can not steam ahead with a mechanised society without taking into account how you are going to use the remaining people. Simply saying everyone can be a life coach or rocket scientist doesn't do it.
Post edited at 13:07
 jonnie3430 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> I think you are missing the point. There are people, a great deal, who quite simply can not develop those skills. They are unskilled, not because they never had the opportunity, not because they were not born into wealth or lack drive even (I know one person who can not read but he makes a living doing a variety of simple jobs). But because they do not have the cognitive resources to take they beyond a certain point.

You may want to take that up with the government, our education system seems pointless in that case and we may as well only teach those that can learn. I don't know what you'd do with the rest? If they are unable to learn, what can they do?
 Duncan Bourne 13 Dec 2016
In reply to jonnie3430:

> You may want to take that up with the government, our education system seems pointless in that case and we may as well only teach those that can learn. I don't know what you'd do with the rest? If they are unable to learn, what can they do?

EXACTLY!! What will they DO!
If the jar isn't big enough you can only pour so much in. It is also disingenuous to say that the education system is pointless just because you can not turn everyone into an Einstein.
So. Question. If you manage to produce your perfect education system and you still find that there are some people by dint of their own innate ability who can not be brought up to speed what do you do with them?
 elsewhere 13 Dec 2016
In reply to jonnie3430:
Yes we have our responsibilities and yes that is required for a society to function.

But those are not our rights.

> My take is that if you receive the rights, you need to take some of the responsibility

For society to function yes but meeting your responsibilities is not as a qualifcation on your rights.

>Who would ensure that people have their rights, they aren't free or natural?

You have universal human rights. They're not universally respected.

They're not free but "natural" - maybe. See below for a nice example. No mention of responsibilities I know of. In fact, they're inalienable.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Post edited at 13:17
 jonnie3430 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

What do they do now? How can they survive at the moment without the ability to learn? The example you have was someone who had learnt to do several jobs, so obviously not them. How many people are being failed by our education system at the moment?
 jonnie3430 13 Dec 2016
In reply to elsewhere:

> Yes we have our responsibilities and yes that is required for a society to function.

And it is society that gives rights.

> But those are not our rights.

> For society to function yes but meeting your responsibilities is not as a qualifcation on your rights.

It is. You lose your right to freedom if you fail to act responsibility, i.e. you murder someone.

> You have universal human rights. They're not universally respected.

They are not universal. I don't respect the right for people to have religion, for example.

> They're not free but "natural" - maybe.

They are a modern construct, nothing natural about that, more unnatural.

> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Who is we? Does the rest of the world agree with this? Does the majority of the world agree with this?

1
 Jon Stewart 13 Dec 2016
In reply to jonnie3430:

> Yes, some have more, so what? The gap gets bigger, so what? We keep making more, that is expected. The important thing is that the opportunity is there for anyone to succeed.

I don't believe this is true. There are many pockets of UK society which if you are unlucky enough to be born into, you are f*cked. The false belief that we live in a meritocracy is what drives most of the bad policy that cements poor outcomes for people born into circumstances with poor access to opportunities. If we faced up to the facts about the correlations between what you're born with and where you end up, and collectively decided that that's not what we want for society (and that doesn't mean trying to implement absolute equality of wealth), then we'd have different - in my view better - policies: we'd have higher taxes and better public services.

> I don't get your discrimination of the rich, as if there are two groups, rich and poor.

I agree Chambers' view is so simplistic as to be ridiculous and pointless.

> It's usually a matter of opinion that is up to the individual to decide how happy they are with their life. You can be rich with very little, but enough to spoil yourself for the rest of your life (keep the crackling coming and I will be a content pudgy until my early death from high cholesterol!)

When you examine what makes people happy, it's got nothing to do with "choice" or deliberate efforts to be happy. Nor does it have much to do with absolute wealth - much is to do with how we compare to our peers on various scales, and some kind of natural baseline that's determined by the formation of our brains (genetics + environment = adult with pretty well-set psychological traits). The interesting question I think is how policy can maximise happiness across society: do you aim for maximum "freedom" for people to become as rich as possible, or to become more equal and for *more people* to feel *more control* over their lives? I know where my instincts tell me we should go, but the evidence is a very complicated question.

I am, however absolutely certain that the right-wing myths of meritocracy and small-state (low redistribution/high inequality) increasing perceived "freedom" and therefore wellbeing are fundamentally motivated by self-interest on the part of those who espouse this philosophy.

 Duncan Bourne 13 Dec 2016
In reply to jonnie3430:

> What do they do now? How can they survive at the moment without the ability to learn? The example you have was someone who had learnt to do several jobs, so obviously not them. How many people are being failed by our education system at the moment?

They work as gardeners, cab drivers, cleaners, litter pickers etc. etc. All jobs that are likely to vanish in the future.
Again you miss the point by equating an inability to learn to mean that you can not learn anything. Obviously people can and do learn. People with menatl health issues still learn to clean their own teeth and can still contribute where suitable jobs are provided. My example was precisely one of them. They have skills, they can learn, but only up to a given point. They can do a lot but they will never fix complex machinery, or teach. There are many others who lack basic business skills to even exploit their skills. As we stand we are a society that recognises that it is made up of poeple of differing abilities we have jobs of varying skill levels and yet even now we can not find enough jobs for everyone (and by jobs I mean jobs that deliver a wage a person or family can live on). The population stands at around 64 million and is set to rise by anotheer 10 million over the next 20 or so years (office of national statistics). Now image trying to employ all those people in a mechanised age?
You say the education system is failing. What if it continues to fail? How do you deal with a proportion of the population without the skills or abilities for the only jobs on offer?
 jonnie3430 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

So people now have less opportunity than they have ever had in the past? And a worse standard of life too?
 Jon Stewart 13 Dec 2016
In reply to jonnie3430:

Is that what I said?
 jonnie3430 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

> They work as gardeners, cab drivers, cleaners, litter pickers etc. etc. All jobs that are likely to vanish in the future.

These are not simple jobs, the standard of learning to do each of them not learnt overnight.

> Again you miss the point by equating an inability to learn to mean that you can not learn anything... My example was precisely one of them. They have skills, they can learn, but only up to a given point. They can do a lot but they will never fix complex machinery, or teach. There are many others who lack basic business skills to even exploit their skills.

I disagree, I think everyone can learn and will continue learning until they die.

As we stand we are a society that recognises that it is made up of poeple of differing abilities we have jobs of varying skill levels and yet even now we can not find enough jobs for everyone (and by jobs I mean jobs that deliver a wage a person or family can live on). The population stands at around 64 million and is set to rise by anotheer 10 million over the next 20 or so years (office of national statistics). Now image trying to employ all those people in a mechanised age?

That's an ukip argument against immigration! As I said, I look at it differently. It's isn't for people to be given a job, they should find it, one that they want.

> You say the education system is failing. What if it continues to fail? How do you deal with a proportion of the population without the skills or abilities for the only jobs on offer?

I said the education system fails if people can't learn, but I think they can. If you believe that people can't learn, then the system is failing, why i suggested you contact the government. I don't think it is.
 jonnie3430 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> There are many pockets of UK society which if you are unlucky enough to be born into, you are f*cked.

That's what this says to me, that people are now worse off than before. I disagree with the content and think they now have opportunities that haven't been there before.
 wbo 13 Dec 2016
In reply to johnnie3430 and BnB: some good discussion but ill pick you up on this..

> Yes, some have more, so what? The gap gets bigger, so what? We keep making more, that is expected. The important thing is that the opportunity is there for anyone to succeed

The problem we see in western countries is that the pie is not growing so much anymore and maybe the score for massive growth is limited. At the same time the concentration of wealth with a few (and much of that wealth can be argued as artificial) means that the bottom stay still or get worse. Trickle down economies is largely debunked, and certainly concentrating wealth so much certainly breaks it - 10 moderately wealthy 'trickle' much more than one very, very wealthy person.
Expect this gap to grow without intervension. You get a real problem if your % population thats fallen off the economies ladder gets too big. What are we going to do for example about automation if it renoves the abilities of another some millions of people to be employee?

Look at wage stagnation in the last few years - is that your future?

Re. Opportunity - i do not believe a kid in say, Hartlepool has the same opportunity as one in Royal Ascot - thats already a problem
1
 Duncan Bourne 13 Dec 2016
In reply to jonnie3430:

> These are not simple jobs, the standard of learning to do each of them not learnt overnight.

Cleaner? litter picker?

> I disagree, I think everyone can learn and will continue learning until they die.

But that is far too simple isn't it? I can teach a dog a new trick. I taught my 20 year old cat to use a new catflap. But he sort of fell down at repairing the car. Human beings are animals like any other. Do you simply not recognise that people are individuals with individual strengths and weaknesses?

> As we stand we are a society that recognises that it is made up of poeple of differing abilities we have jobs of varying skill levels and yet even now we can not find enough jobs for everyone (and by jobs I mean jobs that deliver a wage a person or family can live on). The population stands at around 64 million and is set to rise by anotheer 10 million over the next 20 or so years (office of national statistics). Now image trying to employ all those people in a mechanised age?

> That's an ukip argument against immigration! As I said, I look at it differently. It's isn't for people to be given a job, they should find it, one that they want.

That is a poor non-reply based on the fallacy of guilt by association.
You can only get what is there to obtain.

> I said the education system fails if people can't learn, but I think they can. If you believe that people can't learn, then the system is failing, why i suggested you contact the government. I don't think it is.

I assume that you recognise that people have learning disabilities? That there people who have problems with their cognitive functions?
To reiterate: I stated that increased mechanisation (as part of an overall argument) could lead to mass unemployment. You replied that they could fix the machines or become life -coaches. When I replied that people have varying abilities you replied see the government. Which rather re-enforces my point that no one is really thinking how it might pan out.
I believe (as you do) that we need better education systems, that the ones we have now are failing. I believe that a great many people can be taught new skills. But I also recognise that it is not a panacea for everyone.
Right now in the UK I can go out and find people living on the streets. Why is that? Do they like living on the street? Of course not. Nothing you have said leads me to believe that it will be any different in the future. Just because life has always got better for us privilaged folk in the west it doesn't follow that it will always do so.
 Duncan Bourne 13 Dec 2016
In reply to jonnie3430:

> That's what this says to me, that people are now worse off than before. I disagree with the content and think they now have opportunities that haven't been there before.

such as?
 jonnie3430 13 Dec 2016
In reply to wbo:

> some good discussion but ill pick you up on this..

I thought about that quite a bit and am still not happy with it, though I don't see any alternative. I don't think governments are honest enough to impose a salary cap, etc. It'd be nice if they recycled it like gates and musk, but equally I don't think people should be forced to.

> Expect this gap to grow without intervension. You get a real problem if your % population thats fallen off the economies ladder gets too big. What are we going to do for example about automation if it renoves the abilities of another some millions of people to be employee?

I don't see automation managing to do that, I don't think enough would buy in. How many would actually buy driverless cars? I'd rather take the train. Would a car be able to take me where I want? In my Toyota corolla with chains, shovel and winter tyres I reckon i can get further than an auto car will let me in my lifetime. Plus, motorbiking wouldn't be the same...

I don't see the issue with the gap as long as the base standard allows the bottom to achieve the standard. (In UK, I don't think we can dictate to the rest of the world.)

> Look at wage stagnation in the last few years - is that your future?

Hopefully not, but we have borrowed a huge amount, as a country. If I'm in debt, I scrimp and save to pay it off. (Rather not be there in the first place!)

> Re. Opportunity - i do not believe a kid in say, Hartlepool has the same opportunity as one in Royal Ascot - thats already a problem

Agreed, but that is almost impossible to fix, hence the base standard has to be good enough that the kid from Royal Ascot and from Hartlepool have the same base standard of education.

 Jon Stewart 13 Dec 2016
In reply to jonnie3430:

> That's what this says to me, that people are now worse off than before. I disagree with the content and think they now have opportunities that haven't been there before.

There isn't any comparison over time in my statement, and nor is one implied. What is implied though is that whatever policies have been in place in the recent past have not addressed inequality of opportunity and left pockets of society f*cked. I don't know what the best measure of this would be, my guess (and it is a guess!) is that when Labour poured billions into stuff to reduce child policy, this pulled things (a little bit) in the right direction and that this has slid back since 2010.

There's an interesting discussion to be had down this road - have things got better or worse, by what measure? - but I'm not really up for searching through academic reports all day. The points I made in my post were much more philosophical/political: you put across what to me sounds like a load of fallacious right-wing reasoning about meritocracy and freedom; and I said, I don't believe that that philosophy - when translated into policy - generates good outcomes for people's wellbeing.
 jonnie3430 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

I was generalising, not considering those with learning disabilities in my responses, which were general to fit on one page. My comments relate to people without learning disabilities, which I would class as a separate topic, one that generalities will easily offend.

> Cleaner? litter picker?

I've done both and recognise that experience gets the job done quicker and a higher standard than without.
 jonnie3430 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Better access to education, more support for non working parents, more chance that abusive parents will be caught, better pay, free healthcare, schooling and support for further education, more after school opportunities.

Though you could have answered that.
 jonnie3430 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> sounds like a load of fallacious right-wing reasoning about meritocracy and freedom;

http://idontgetpolitics.co.uk/right-left-wing

I looked this up and don't know if I'm right or left, a bit of both, I think. I believe in looking to future, that business's should be regulated, free health care, education and welfare support, but I also believe in freedom to succeed and that people should look after themselves. I'd like to think that I don't care about colour, sexuality or sex, people are all people. Apologies if I confused you, I think the old right and left wing, including tories and labour is a bit out of date.
 Jon Stewart 13 Dec 2016
In reply to jonnie3430:

I'm not saying that all of your views are right-wing (or left-wing for that matter). I'm saying that the underlying ideas in your post, specifically:

> When we consider the wealth disparity, we miss the point that people have more now than they have ever had in the past; knowledge, opportunities and rights (and responsibilities!)

> Yes, some have more, so what? The gap gets bigger, so what? We keep making more, that is expected. The important thing is that the opportunity is there for anyone to succeed.

come straight from Thatcherite politics and are right-wing. I've given a brief critique of these ideas and you're evidently not going to engage with that - no one's forcing you, and it's got almost nowt to do with topic after all - so have a nice day!
 jonnie3430 13 Dec 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

I'm sorry, I didn't understand some of your political references and didn't want to look them up.

Have a nice day, have you contributed to the bar joke thread?
 Jon Stewart 13 Dec 2016
In reply to jonnie3430:

> Have a nice day, have you contributed to the bar joke thread?

No, but I've contributed to the 'why I don't like xmas' thread...
 Jim Fraser 13 Dec 2016
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Do I believe that I have human rights?

Sometimes.

There is, in the UK, a some strange and enigmatic force that prohibits totalitarianism. However, the lack of a constitution allows those in power to flirt with it. This is the only country in this economically and socially most developed corner of the world that does not have a written constitution. (Unless you want to count San Marino: is that how low you want to stoop?)

Without the protection of a constitution, everyone in the UK can fall victim to the ridiculous games played by those in power. The lack of a treasured constitutional position for all of the people of this country is the fundamental reason for our perpetual position as the sick man of Europe when our history and resources mean that we should be the richest and most developed nation in the world. The only things that saved us during previous centuries are that we are reasonably good at war and we are islands. In 21st century Europe, the way ahead is peace and democracy and justice, not war and isolationism. I want peace and democracy and justice for my descendants.

The reason it stays this way is because over many generations those in power have persuaded us that because we do not have a constitution we are special. Oh we're special all right. Since June the world has had proof that we are a special needs case. Everything they want, we are throwing away.

There is a huge body of people in the UK who are ridiculously naive about the way the country is governed. They swallow the line about the lack of a constitution making us special and condemn their children to an uncertain future.

What is really the most frightening aspect of this is that we live so close to the edge that those who are capable of writing a competent constitution for the UK are nowhere to be seen in the political landscape.

1
 Duncan Bourne 13 Dec 2016
In reply to jonnie3430:

> I was generalising, not considering those with learning disabilities in my responses, which were general to fit on one page. My comments relate to people without learning disabilities, which I would class as a separate topic, one that generalities will easily offend.

I quite agree. But I see it as less one or the other but a sliding scale of abilities.

> I've done both and recognise that experience gets the job done quicker and a higher standard than without.

Indeed it does. But experience does not always overcome all obstacles. I myself have struggled with maths for nigh on 60 years and still find it difficult to visualise. I know people with worse ability. Despite teaching. Similarly a good education system will have difficulty contending with folk subject to abusive parents, lack of confidence, malnutrition, etc. I am not making excuses just saying that if you think that you can train everyone up to repair robots then you might be a little disappointed
 Duncan Bourne 13 Dec 2016
In reply to jonnie3430:

> Better access to education, more support for non working parents, more chance that abusive parents will be caught, better pay, free healthcare, schooling and support for further education, more after school opportunities.

> Though you could have answered that.

I could but wanted you to answer it.
I agree with you. These are some of the sort of things we need to look at. These are the very issues. I fear though that there is not the political will to tackle them though. These are the things which we are currently being told that we can not afford. A lot of these are things we have at the moment and yet folks stil slip through.
1
 elsewhere 13 Dec 2016
In reply to jonnie3430:
> And it is society that gives rights.

By that standard a genocide within a dictatorship that grants no rights is no crime.

> It is. You lose your right to freedom if you fail to act responsibility, i.e. you murder someone.

That's a good example of the human right to due process within a legal system.

> They are not universal. I don't respect the right for people to have religion, for example.

There's a long, ongoing and ugly history of people who don't recognise universal human rights.

> They are a modern construct, nothing natural about that, more unnatural.

Modern formulations are modern but some of the rights are so old they have Latin names or their origins are in ancient Greece.

>Does the rest of the world agree with this?

Mostly yes - see written constitutions of many countries and many international agreements such as...
Universal Declaration of Human Rights - 48 states in 1948
Helsinki Accords - 35 states in 1975
Post edited at 17:06
1
 Oliver Houston 13 Dec 2016
In reply to damhan-allaidh:

> What's the viable alternative to capitalism?

I've been pondering this recently and while I don't have an answer, I am sure about one thing. We are not actually a capitalist society, our government (and the EU/US) hand taxpayers money to farmers in the form of subsidies, therefore regulating the cost of food.

As capitalism relies on minimal government intervention, allowing markets to self-regulate, we cannot be a capitalist society when farming subsidies are in place. So maybe capitalism is actually fine, we just haven't tried it yet.
The same goes for any other form of society:
Socialism was hijacked by evil dictators.
Nationalism was hijacked by fascists.
Capitalism has been hijacked by corporate interests.

Democracy seems like a great idea, but until we can vote for someone other than "the Lizards" (ref. Douglas Adams), we don't really get a choice.
In reply to Oliver Houston:
The thing with capitalism is that it is not a philosophy, but rather a more organic system of our society. On a base level, it is the result of human's desire to possess things, to make life easier for yourself, whether that is material possession or power; even a vote can be bought. Capitalism, in some form, was still present in the USSR, Cuba or Mao's China, but perhaps not Pol Pot's Cambodia?

I can't see us getting away from it too quickly, it will take a fundamentally massive change in the human psyche of billions to form any alternative system and hopefully not one like Pol Pot's!.

Democracy is a different thing though. That is a philosophy and there are alternatives.
Post edited at 19:09
In reply to Hugh J:

> Democracy is a different thing though. That is a philosophy and there are alternatives.

Democracy is still not quite a philosophy; it's a political system. Of course, one can discuss the philosophy of democracy.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Pedant !!!
 aln 13 Dec 2016
In reply to The Ice Doctor:

>You cannot even breathe clean air in the UK (it is badly polluted,

Unless you're talking about the air we share with the rest of the planet, that's nonsense.

damhan-allaidh 14 Dec 2016
In reply to Chambers:

Sorry it took me a bit - work and that sort of thing

It’s an interesting and exceedingly difficult question, the extent to which values exist independent of human thought. Altruism seems to have both biological and psychological origins; biological origins are apparent in non-human species (any behaviour to spread those genes), but then we know so little about non-human psychology – how do we know whether or not any altruistic behaviours may be stimulated by, e.g., a need for companionship or a need for shelter or a need for help. I agree with you about altruism and human nature and how that makes us adaptable. Although while Stone Age ‘Person’  may not have woken up thinking about an Egg McMuffin, I’m sure a fair view woke up thinking that Urk had a much nicer axe than they did, and wouldn’t it be nice to have an carved spear thrower like Ugg’s. I think behaviour is innate, but we are socially conditioned to prefer or emphasise certain types of behaviour – which would influence whether Urk got over being jealous of Ugg’s stuff, made his own to keep up with Ugg, or whacked him over the head and took it. We need to think about the ways and means of which we educate and socialise ourselves in order to a better job of overriding less attractive biological behaviours (and what those might be is a whole other discussion…).


> The optimal, or most ethically or socially desirable allocation mechanism?

There /is/ much to discuss – and hopefully soon, because I think access to goods, service, perhaps even certain freedoms, well-being will be affected by the devaluing of work, continued deskilling and increased automation has. What jobs will we do when there are no jobs to be done?

> How do we get there?

I kind of hope (see our first paragraphs, although I guess I’m a little more sceptical/cynical) that our psychological and social skills can help us out. This is me being all weird and ideological, but it would be great to see society to move more towards a life of the mind and well away from a life of things. I’m not for going back to the past (antibiotics for one thing) but resurrecting, perhaps in new form, old practices of socialising, etc (fwiw, I don’t think social media, even fine forums such as UKC go even the slightest towards doing this; we need face to face interactions. I saw a documentary (ironically enough) a few years back on how television had destroyed the traditional ceilidh culture of the Highlands and Islands, and along with other processes, was eroding the social fabric.

> So what might it be? Just as the stagnation and decline of what historians call 'classical antiquity' gave birth to feudalism, and just as the stagnation and decline of feudalism in turn gave rise to capitalism, why should not the all-too-obvious stagnation and decline of capitalism lead to something else?

You are very optimistic-and I agree with the idea. I’m still cynical and pessimistic about the confounding effects of hardwired human behaviours remaining barrier to profound and positive change. All of this needs to be done at a very top level – our political class (broadly) does not have the ethics, imagination, ability, intelligence, courage or empathy to forge a new path. And society (as a whole) does not have will, ethics or imagination to compel them. I come back to needing to fundamentally change our education system as a vital first step.

> Could it happen? I think so. Will it happen? Maybe not. Thankfully, it doesn't depend on me!

But it does – it depends on all of us. But how do we do it? Just having this conversation with a colleague, feeling overwhelmed by where to start. Just doing “your own bit” isn’t really an option. Change needs an organised movement - but no one feels qualified or empowered to start that movement.

Thank you.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...