I don't know if anyone has posted this before, but I found it entertaining.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... nlaws.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2011/04/beware_the_inlaws.html)
QuoteBeware the In-Laws
Was it a mistake for Kate to have a baby in this family?
By Christopher Hitchens|Posted Monday, July 22, 2013, at 5:12 PM
Back in 2011, Christopher Hitchens tried to warn Kate Middleton away from the dreary dutifulness of life in the royal family. But now not only are they married, Kate and Prince William have a son. Mistake? Hitchens' article is reprinted below.
A hereditary monarch, observed Thomas Paine, is as absurd a proposition as a hereditary doctor or mathematician. But try pointing this out when everybody is seemingly moist with excitement about the cake plans and gown schemes of the constitutional absurdity's designated mother-to-be. You don't seem to be uttering common sense. You sound like a Scrooge. I suppose this must be the monarchical "magic" of which we hear so much: By some mystic alchemy, the breeding imperatives for a dynasty become the stuff of romance, even "fairy tale." The usually contemptuous words fairy tale were certainly coldly accurate about the romance quotient of the last two major royal couplings, which brought the vapid disco-princesses Diana and Sarah (I decline to call her "Fergie") within range of demolishing the entire mystique. And, even if the current match looks a lot more wholesome and genuine, its principal function is still to restore a patina of glamour that has been all but irretrievably lost.
Advertisement
The British monarchy doesn't depend entirely on glamour, as the long, long reign of Queen Elizabeth II continues to demonstrate. Her unflinching dutifulness and reliability have conferred something beyond charm upon the institution, associating it with stoicism and a certain integrity. Republicanism is infinitely more widespread than it was when she was first crowned, but it's very rare indeed to hear the Sovereign Lady herself being criticized, and even most anti-royalists hasten to express themselves admiringly where she is concerned.
I am not sure how deserved this immunity really is. The queen took two major decisions quite early in her reign, neither of which was forced upon her. She refused to allow her younger sister Margaret to marry the man she loved and had chosen, and she let her authoritarian husband have charge of the education of her eldest son. The first decision was taken to appease the most conservative leaders of the Church of England (a church of which she is, absurdly, the head), who could not approve the marriage of Margaret to a divorced man. The second was taken for reasons less clear.
The harvest was equally gruesome in both cases: Princess Margaret later married and divorced a man she did not love and then had years to waste as the model of the bone-idle, cigarette-holdered, gin-sipping socialite, surrounded with third-rate gossips and charmers and as unhappy as the day was long. (She also produced some extra royal children, for whom something to do had to be found.) Prince Charles, subjected to a regime of fierce paternal harangues and penitential cold-shower boarding schools, withdrew into himself, was eventually talked into a calamitous marriage with someone he didn't love or respect, and is now the morose, balding, New Age crank and licensed busybody that we flinch from today. He has also apparently found belated contentment with the former wife of a brother-officer.
Together, Margaret and Charles set the tone for the dowdy, feckless, can't-stay-married shower of titled descendants with whose names, let alone doings, it is near-impossible to keep up. There are so many of them! And things always have to be found for them to do.
For Prince William at least it was decided on the day of his birth what he should do: Find a presentable wife, father a male heir (and preferably a male "spare" as well), and keep the show on the road. By yet another exercise of that notorious "magic," it is now doubly and triply important that he does this simple thing right, because only his supposed charisma can save the country from what monarchists dread and republicans ought to hope for: King Charles III. (Monarchy, you see, is a hereditary disease that can only be cured by fresh outbreaks of itself.) An even longer life for the present queen is generally hoped for: failing that a palace maneuver that skips a generation and saves the British from a man who—like the fruit of the medlar—went rotten before he turned ripe.
Convinced republican that I am, and foe of the prince who talks to plants and wants to be crowned "head of all faiths" as well as the etiolated Church of England, I find myself pierced by a pang of sympathy. Not much of a life, is it, growing old and stale with no real job except waiting for the news of Mummy's death? Some British people claim actually to "love" their rather dumpy Hanoverian ruling house. This love takes the macabre form of demanding a regular human sacrifice whereby unexceptional people are condemned to lead wholly artificial and strained existences, and then punished or humiliated when they crack up.
The last few weeks brought tidings of the latest grotesqueries involving Prince Andrew, Charles' brother. If I haven't forgotten anything, he had just recovered from tidings involving overwarm relations with the Qaddafi clan when his ex-wife was found to have scrounged a loan from a wealthy American friend whose record, alas, was disfigured by a conviction for sexual relations with the underage. The loan would have defrayed part of the unending wasteful expenditure that is required to keep the Ferguson girl staggering between scandals and sponsorships. I mean, the whole thing is just so painfully and absolutely vulgar. And, among the queen's many children and grandchildren, not by any means exceptional behavior either ....
This is why I laughed so loud when the Old Guard began snickering about the pedigree of young Ms. Middleton. Her parents, it appeared, were not quite out of the top drawer. The mother had been an air hostess or something with an unfashionable airline, and the family had been overheard using lethally wrong expressions, such as serviette for napkin, settee for sofa, and—I can barely bring myself to type the shameful letters—toilet for lavatory. Ah, so that's what constitutes vulgarity! People who would never dare risk a public criticism of the royal family, even in its daytime-soap incarnation, prefer to take a surreptitious revenge on a young woman of modest background. For shame.
Myself, I wish her well and also wish I could whisper to her: If you really love him, honey, get him out of there, and yourself, too. Many of us don't want or need another sacrificial lamb to water the dried bones and veins of a dessicated system. Do yourself a favor and save what you can: Leave the throne to the awful next incumbent that the hereditary principle has mandated for it.
Hitch tells it like it is. :lol:
thanks for sharing. did I mention? fuck the royalty!
I was hoping this article would reappear. I like that line "Monarchy, you see, is a hereditary disease that can only be cured by fresh outbreaks of itself"
Lol. Good one.
The media obsession with the British royal family here in the States always irritates and amazes me. I don't get it. Everything about American history is a rejection of the idea of hereditary authority, yet so many people here just eat this shit up.
It baffles me, too, Seabear. I do not give two shits about the royal inbreds and the royal brats that they spawn every few years. It is an archaic system that is long overdue for extinction, a dinosaur hobbling around on three legs waiting to die. So Kate has popped out a kid. So what? He is doomed to a miserable existence doing the bidding of previous generations of royalty, catering to their whims, obeying their decisions, marrying not whom HE wants, but whomever it is decided will make a good enough wife to produce yet more royal male heirs. The only thing I'm glad about is that William and Harry got their mother's looks instead of their father's, and maybe that will be passed on and future royals won't look so frumpy and gloomy.
Quote from: "Seabear"The media obsession with the British royal family here in the States always irritates and amazes me. I don't get it. Everything about American history is a rejection of the idea of hereditary authority, yet so many people here just eat this shit up.
What if I told you not all American's immigrated here during the American revolution, or that even the majority of American's supported the rebels (they were the minority, most people didn't care or supported the crown)?
I'd say so what. The revolutionists won. fuck the royalty! long live the republic!
[youtube:10os1hpy]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4v9Da5DpYo[/youtube:10os1hpy]
oh and let us salute our comrades in france. we couldn't have made the king our bitch without you!
[youtube:2h3vd0l3]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K1q9Ntcr5g[/youtube:2h3vd0l3]
Now THAT is how a national anthem should sound (to completely sidetrack).
Germany's "Das Deutschlandlied" is great too, and I think Austria's was another of my favourite... so regal and pompous. I wish we had something more akin to those, but it is what it is.
And let's be completely honest... if the king had wanted to steam roll America, the British could have done it before France got involved. (Another sidetrack) I don't get why France get's such a bad rap... they have been complete powerhouses up until WW2, and even then they only got steam-rolled because Belgium was a little bitch and let Germany walk right around the border and behind enemy lines. I also remember the English getting their asses handed to em' in WW2, but no one talks about how bad they have been in war.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Now THAT is how a national anthem should sound (to completely sidetrack).
Germany's "Das Deutschlandlied" is great too, and I think Austria's was another of my favourite... so regal and pompous. I wish we had something more akin to those, but it is what it is.
And let's be completely honest... if the king had wanted to steam roll America, the British could have done it before France got involved. (Another sidetrack) I don't get why France get's such a bad rap... they have been complete powerhouses up until WW2, and even then they only got steam-rolled because Belgium was a little bitch and let Germany walk right around the border and behind enemy lines. I also remember the English getting their asses handed to em' in WW2, but no one talks about how bad they have been in war.
In the history of wars in Europe, France has actually been on the winning side more than any other nation, or at least so I'm told.
I disagree that the British (not the English) "got their asses handed to them" in WWII. In fact, we halted and slowed the German and Japanese advances on several fronts years before the Americans got involved, FYI (N. Africa, Burma, Channel).
But I'm not getting into dick waving contests. I'm a republican, but republicanism is very unpopular in Britain at the moment.
I also find American patriotism quite funny. It's definitely a source of strength in some respects, but I wholeheartedly agree with Renan when he says that patriotism towards the nation is thanks more to what people forget than to what they remember.
Quote from: "Shiranu"What if I told you not all Americans immigrated here during the American revolution
No excuses. Half of my family are fairly recent immigrants (3 generations). Get with the program. :P
The first post is spot on in my opinion. Solitary
Quote from: "Shiranu"Quote from: "Seabear"The media obsession with the British royal family here in the States always irritates and amazes me. I don't get it. Everything about American history is a rejection of the idea of hereditary authority, yet so many people here just eat this shit up.
What if I told you not all American's immigrated here during the American revolution, or that even the majority of American's supported the rebels (they were the minority, most people didn't care or supported the crown)?
Again, you miss the point. It makes no difference when you came here or where you came from. You know, we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and all that shit. Our entire country is founded upon, among other things, the rejection of the idea of hereditary royalty. WTF have Royals done to benefit society? Other than providing video fodder for "inside hollywood" and other simpering celebrity-worship television programs.
[youtube:11b4xxii]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU2tCNUqxCY[/youtube:11b4xxii]
QuoteI disagree that the British (not the English) "got their asses handed to them" in WWII. In fact, we halted and slowed the German and Japanese advances on several fronts years before the Americans got involved, FYI (N. Africa, Burma, Channel).
I guess so. Compared to everyone else yall did hold your own.
QuoteAgain, you miss the point. It makes no difference when you came here or where you came from. You know, we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and all that shit. Our entire country is founded upon, among other things, the rejection of the idea of hereditary royalty.
Unless, you know... that's not part of your history...
QuoteI disagree that the British (not the English) "got their asses handed to them" in WWII. In fact, we halted and slowed the German and Japanese advances on several fronts years before the Americans got involved, FYI (N. Africa, Burma, Channel).
I guess so. Compared to everyone else yall did hold your own.
QuoteAgain, you miss the point. It makes no difference when you came here or where you came from. You know, we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and all that shit. Our entire country is founded upon, among other things, the rejection of the idea of hereditary royalty.
Unless, you know... that's not part of your history... for as long as my family have lived here in the U.S., money + power = you are a greater man than your fellow compatriots.
The Burgerking should also step down, so he can be replaced by a democraticly elected Burgerpresident.
Quote from: "Jutter"The Burgerking should also step down, so he can be replaced by a democratically elected Burgerpresident.
:rollin:
I'm soooo tempted right now to 'shop burgers into Liberty Leading the People or change The Rights of Man into a menu or make the Tennis Court oath into a Baconator unveiling.
Liberty, equality, value meals! :-D
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"I'd say so what. The revolutionists won. fuck the royalty! long live the republic!
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"we couldn't have made the king our bitch without you!
and I'd say grow up and stop being so divisive over a war which happened more than 200 years ago.
Quote from: "Shiranu"I also remember the English getting their asses handed to em' in WW2, but no one talks about how bad they have been in war.
You remember it do you?
Funny, historians seem to think of it a bit differently. We were outnumbered and outgunned for the majority of the war, after entering the war to protect the lives of innocents on the continent despite knowing that we were fighting foreign powers far larger than us. Decisive battles were won against far stronger opponents. We survived the war and liberated Europe along with our allies, so please do explain how we "got our asses handed to us".
We also defeated the French, who by your own admission were a potent military power at the time, and had the largest empire in recorded history. Whether or not you agree with the politics, it is undeniable that the British have had impressive military victories in their history, among some defeats, just like most nations actually.
Of course, not to mention that in recent, highly questionable wars our submissive politicians have forced our troops to follow you into, a less than surgical approach to fighting a hidden enemy sometimes results in our troops getting killed by your military. The fact that having the biggest guns doesn't make your military impressive alone is demonstrated by the fact that wars are still being fought and lost against farmers with cheap chinese AK-47s.
So, if we could all make our points about the royal family without the absolutely ridiculous dick-waving over killing people the best and without simply saying "fuck this and fuck that and fuck you" and not actually contributing to any kind of discussion, that would be great. If not, maybe the royal family should stick around at least for your generation so you can learn some basic human conduct off of them while you so vehemently disagree with their presence in a country which you've probably never even been to let alone have a stake in.
If everyone in the thread just goes "fuck the royals" and "fuck the republicans" alternately we might as well just be back in the school playground.
Quote from: "SilentFutility"Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"I'd say so what. The revolutionists won. fuck the royalty! long live the republic!
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"we couldn't have made the king our bitch without you!
and I'd say grow up and stop being so divisive over a war which happened more than 200 years ago.
for the record my animosity is toward the idea of royalty, not the british. Think of it like how you can say "fuck Bush" and not mean "fuck america"
Royalty is an ancient tradition that needs to be abolished, just like dynasties need to. They both are based on being born in the right family makes you better than the common man and gives you political clout and power over the masses for your own satisfactions. :roll: Solitary
Quoteand I'd say grow up and stop being so divisive over a war which happened more than 200 years ago.
Statements like this convince me that most Americans have no sense of history, and no sense of connection to the past. Two-hundred years is NOT a long time. In many other countries, children learn of historical events going back 500 years or more. There are
breweries older than the USA! Yet you make it seem like the Revolutionary War happened in the Stone Age or something. Americans are newcomers on the historical scene.
QuoteWe also defeated the French, who by your own admission were a potent military power at the time, and had the largest empire in recorded history. Whether or not you agree with the politics, it is undeniable that the British have had impressive military victories in their history, among some defeats, just like most nations actually.
That was the point I was making; the French aren't any different than the English... they have won, they have lost. But the war they get mocked for losing (WW2) was because the Belgium allowed Germany to walk right past their defensive lines. That is Belgium that needs to get the pussy reputation, not France.
Quote from: "Shiranu"But the war they get mocked for losing (WW2) was because the Belgium allowed Germany to walk right past their defensive lines. That is Belgium that needs to get the pussy reputation, not France.
"allowed"
(//http://www.wingsdailynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Dr.-Evil-2.jpg)
Quote from: "Hydra009"Quote from: "Shiranu"But the war they get mocked for losing (WW2) was because the Belgium allowed Germany to walk right past their defensive lines. That is Belgium that needs to get the pussy reputation, not France.
"allowed"
[ Image (//http://www.wingsdailynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Dr.-Evil-2.jpg) ]
They refused to put an army on the border because they were afraid it would "upset" the Germans. That is allowing them to walk straight through. France offered to let the (I frogot what the battle line was called) go all the way to the coast, but Belgium refused to let them guard it. As such, it left a gaping hole in the border that the German's exploited and flank the French.
That said, I don't think Belgium could have held their own against Germany, but they could of slowed them down long enough for the Brits and French to move troops to guard their flank.
Quote from: "Shiranu"That said, I don't think Belgium could have held their own against Germany, but they could of slowed them down long enough for the Brits and French to move troops to guard their flank.
Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Yanno, the Netherlands didn't do so hot in that offensive, either. They surrendered in less time than it takes to watch the Harry Potter films. Belgium at least held out a couple weeks before completely collapsing.
Quote from: "ApostateLois"Quoteand I'd say grow up and stop being so divisive over a war which happened more than 200 years ago.
Statements like this convince me that most Americans have no sense of history, and no sense of connection to the past. Two-hundred years is NOT a long time. In many other countries, children learn of historical events going back 500 years or more. There are breweries older than the USA! Yet you make it seem like the Revolutionary War happened in the Stone Age or something. Americans are newcomers on the historical scene.
I'm not American.
My point was not to ignore history, my point was that hating someone because they come from a country that you were at war with over two hundred years ago is senseless and if anything it implies ignorance of history as you're likely too ignorant to realise that the world has moved on in the last 200+ years and you haven't learned the lessons from tragic events in history like most others have managed to.
Why does saying that I don't think you should seek to divide people and hate them because of historical events imply that I'm ignorant of any history that came before them?
Just to be sure we're clear, you do know I do not hate the British, correct?
I hate royalty and I don't care what country it's in, or how symbolic it is.
The British people are okay by me.
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"The British people are okay by me.
... but not Simon Cowell, right? He's a tosser.... :axe
Quote from: "Youssuf Ramadan"Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"The British people are okay by me.
... but not Simon Cowell, right? He's a tosser.... :axe
:lol: yeah he's an asshole. but then so's rush limbaugh, who's an american.
To be totally fair, I consider the concept of "born into a wealthy family" just as ridiculous as the concept of royalty. If you really want to believe all men are created equal, you should at least be opposed to a society where some babies have a daddy worth a billion dollars and all the benefits belonging to it as well.
But then, that's exactly the American Dream, I guess.
Quote from: "Plu"To be totally fair, I consider the concept of "born into a wealthy family" just as ridiculous as the concept of royalty. If you really want to believe all men are created equal, you should at least be opposed to a society where some babies have a daddy worth a billion dollars and all the benefits belonging to it as well.
But then, that's exactly the American Dream, I guess.
All we did was replace "royalty" with "$$$"... which in reality, is the same thing.
And the "All men are created equal" is the biggest farce in human history... we may all be flesh, bone and sinew, but tell me there isn't a difference between the 70 IQ person and the 160 IQ person, or the fellow born into a $500,000 a year income family and a $5,000 a year income family, please. And the guys who came up with that were slave owners who didn't let women out of the kitchen... political suicide as it may have been to do otherwise, that doesn't show alot of conviction in your beliefs.
Does that justify treating people who are "lesser" in whatever category in a negative way? Absolutely not. But to say they were born with equal privileges, capabilities or opportunities is completely contradictory to reality. I realize people who, simply because they were born in a different bracket than me, will be basically handed opportunities that will never be available to me. Likewise there are people who will never have even a 5th of the opportunity I do. We simply were not born as equals.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Quote from: "Plu"To be totally fair, I consider the concept of "born into a wealthy family" just as ridiculous as the concept of royalty. If you really want to believe all men are created equal, you should at least be opposed to a society where some babies have a daddy worth a billion dollars and all the benefits belonging to it as well.
But then, that's exactly the American Dream, I guess.
Oh yes, definitely agreed. But there is something different with 'royalty' about official titles, 'being entitled' to some things by birth etc and they are different than filthy rich people, though they started that way. Plu, read the story please. I want to hear what you think. :rollin: One of my favourites.
I'll see if I can get my hands on a copy of it.
People are also fascinated by Honey BooBoo. Need I say more? :rolleyes:
I'm with y'all on the rich. I'm for a fair egalitarian society. if thats impossible, I'm for mitigating the issues as much as is possible.
as to famous people, I think we all have people we admire because of their accomplishments. nothing wrong with that.
the issue is when it goes too far. putting them on a pedestal or giving them special treatment or taking advice from them that they are not qualified to give.
for instance I like Doc Watson. (RIP). if when he was alive had tried to give me advice on not taking vaccines I'd have laughed in his face. he's no doctor. nor do I think he was the greatest human ever. he was just a guy like you or me, who just happens to have played the guitar very well and sang beautifully on his folk songs. I admire him for that. and I'd like to learn some of his style.
So there's a distinction between royalty and rich kids who did not earn it, and folks who have earned money and prestige by what they've accomplished. but as I say even then there's limits. they still don't need to be put on pedestals above the rest of us or get special treatment.
I think peasants have always been fascinated by royalty - due to royalty determining how everyone's life goes. :shock: To exhibit too much fascination towards royalty only proves one's peasant status.
and for me? No thanks. I might be the peasant - but I'm not going to willingly admit it.
:rollin:
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"Just to be sure we're clear, you do know I do not hate the British, correct?
I hate royalty and I don't care what country it's in, or how symbolic it is.
The British people are okay by me.
Yeah I get it now, but I wasn't convinced by your analogy, in any case, it's not worth splitting hairs over if the sentiment was not meant to be hateful. I know you're not a bigot anyway.
Quote from: "Plu"To be totally fair, I consider the concept of "born into a wealthy family" just as ridiculous as the concept of royalty. If you really want to believe all men are created equal, you should at least be opposed to a society where some babies have a daddy worth a billion dollars and all the benefits belonging to it as well.
But then, that's exactly the American Dream, I guess.
On the other hand, is it right to prevent people from giving their wealth and possessions to their children, or indeed anyone? It is, after all, theirs to do what they want with after they share a portion of it through taxation.
in a fair world when people die their stuff would go to who needs it most. all children would have the same access to education, food, housing, etc.
in the real world thats not gonna happen. just like people will continue to let their kids die because some stupid actress thinks vaccines are bad, and people named Windsor will get free money from the british that they did not earn.
life can be depressing.
[youtube:3c7ugt7k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJUhlRoBL8M[/youtube:3c7ugt7k]
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"in a fair world when people die their stuff would go to who needs it most. all children would have the same access to education, food, housing, etc.
That's called "communism" (with a small "c"). The only problem with it is that you need only 1 greedy person to turn it into a dictatorship like "Communism" (with a big "C").
Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"in a fair world when people die their stuff would go to who needs it most. all children would have the same access to education, food, housing, etc.
That's called "communism" (with a small "c"). The only problem with it is that you need only 1 greedy person to turn it into a dictatorship like "Communism" (with a big "C").
yeah I'm a communist at heart. I realize it doesn't work, and in the real world leads to very bad results, but if it did work as intended or we could find a way to make it work, I'd be all for it.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Does anyone know a story from the great Ursula Le Guin called "The Royals of Hegn"? (Changing Planes) Please find it and read it, I promise you won't regret it at all. It's a short one too.
You can read it here (//http://readr.ru/ursula-leguin-the-royals-of-hegn.html), if you don't mind all the typos. Classic Le Guin.
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"in a fair world when people die their stuff would go to who needs it most. all children would have the same access to education, food, housing, etc.
That's called "communism" (with a small "c"). The only problem with it is that you need only 1 greedy person to turn it into a dictatorship like "Communism" (with a big "C").
yeah I'm a communist at heart. I realize it doesn't work, and in the real world leads to very bad results, but if it did work as intended or we could find a way to make it work, I'd be all for it.
it's contrary to human nature
yeah I know. that sucks, but it is what it is.
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"in a fair world when people die their stuff would go to who needs it most. all children would have the same access to education, food, housing, etc.
Is it fair though? That's only fair if everyone else who recieves a share in the wealth has pulled their weight equally and worked just as hard.
If I spend several years of my life doing a tough degree, then get a good job that also involves working quite hard and do not live extravagantly and rack up lots of debts buying expensive new cars on finance that I cannot afford etc., instead saving my hard-earned cash and investing it wisely, having already paid lots of tax on my earnings from working hard, why can I not do what I want with what is left over? Is that actually fair? I know what you're saying, "only to people who need it most", not all, but *some* people who are in difficult financial situations or are less wealthy than average have completely brought it upon themselves. If I work hard my whole life, doing education which quite frankly is right on the limit of what I'm capable of and is as a result quite stressful, then working hard at a difficult job my whole life, why does someone who spent most of their life doing hardly anything deserve my earnings over my own children, especially as a huge proportion of my earnings will have already been redistributed, along with again a significant proportion of the rest of my earnings that I spent also being taxed?
I completely get what you're saying, all children should be born equal, and I also understand that you are not naive enough to think that this is completely, 100% possible in the real world, but it is important to remember that not all parents are equal. I feel extremely sorry for children born to shitty, waste of life loser parents who pop out loads of kids without even giving it a second thought, and I think society should do everything it can to help them, but I absolutely do not feel sorry for the parents.
well in my fantasy world people would work for the benifit of mankind, not their own gain. I make good music not for prestige and money but to add to culture. a doctor works to save lives, not to make money.
now I realize I'm dreaming and it ain't gonna happen. humans are basically selfish, which is why capitalism works better than communism. it works best because it makes everybody doing things for their own selfish gain benefit others anyway.
then the government comes along to play referee to keep crookedness to a minimum and help those who fall between the cracks.
its the best we can hope for. at least tax the rich enough to make sure poor people can get healthcare, food, shelter and that a good education is accessible to all.
a kind of mixing of socialism and capitalism.
A lot of people think that any move away from today's rampant capitalism would immediately mean queuing 3 days for a cabbage, usually the same people who, in the next breath, moan like buggery because they've lost their job as the company has outsourced it to Eastern Europe to make bigger profits while paying a quarter of the wages and none of the benefits. It's a spectrum. We're leaning too far towards the business-is-everything model right now. It is difficult to see how the trend will be reversed unless politicians and businesses start thinking in terms of people and planet rather than short term profit. And now with 'multinationals', many companies have no allegiance to anyone other than their shareholders. Plus.. the idea of a government servicing the needs of its people is pretty much the definition of 'communism' than the US has used since the middle of the last century. Can't see things changing any time soon.
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"then the government comes along to play referee to keep crookedness to a minimum and help those who fall between the cracks.
Actually governments, like individuals, that hang around too much money for too long get corrupted. Now the government is there to play referee and make sure the crooks don't steal too much from each other, and that those who fall between the cracks stay there.
That's why at least in theory we have a system where people can vote, out bad guys, and division of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches and a press who is supposed to act as a watchdog of democracy.
Of course when the press is more interested in talking about royal babies and Justin Bieber, and people are more interested in watching honey boo-boo, We're getting what we deserve. Or should I say idiots are and the rest of us are being drug along with them.
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"well in my fantasy world people would work for the benifit of mankind, not their own gain. I make good music not for prestige and money but to add to culture. a doctor works to save lives, not to make money.
now I realize I'm dreaming and it ain't gonna happen. humans are basically selfish, which is why capitalism works better than communism. it works best because it makes everybody doing things for their own selfish gain benefit others anyway.
then the government comes along to play referee to keep crookedness to a minimum and help those who fall between the cracks.
its the best we can hope for. at least tax the rich enough to make sure poor people can get healthcare, food, shelter and that a good education is accessible to all.
a kind of mixing of socialism and capitalism.
In my opinion Germany does a good job of striking the balance at the moment.
You also do play music because you enjoy it though. Ultimately, a lot of jobs really aren't that fun, and there has to be something in it for the person doing it, even if you go back to before there was a centrally organised society and people were subsistence farmers, ploughing fields and tending crops all day with no equipment probably isn't that enjoyable but you had to do it to get food.
I think eventually shitty jobs will get handed off to robots, freeing people to more fulfilling lives. at least I hope so.
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"I think eventually shitty jobs will get handed off to robots, freeing people to more fulfilling lives. at least I hope so.
The unemployment rate is going to be staggering when that happens.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"I think eventually shitty jobs will get handed off to robots, freeing people to more fulfilling lives. at least I hope so.
The unemployment rate is going to be staggering when that happens.
my hope is that at some point robots will make communism feasible.