Genes account for half of differences in social mobility - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All sociological topics not appropriate or suited to other areas of the board.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14837068
mikema63 wrote:It is dangerous, in my opinion, to assume the problem that prevents people from agreeing with you is their lack of intelligence.


That's not at all what I'm saying. It is a fact that most people do not understand their world, but I don't think that's because they're not smart enough to understand it. It's only because they don't have the time or the resources to fully explore all the systems and institutions that comprise it. The world isn't beyond someone with an IQ of 100 but it will take that person considerably more time and effort to gain the necessary comprehension than someone with an IQ of 130. For a person of average intelligence knowledge acquisition is work, while for the intellectually gifted it's far less taxing and much more enjoyable so those people are always going to be much better informed.

My point is simply that if the average person really understood how the world works then the world would work very differently than it currently does.
#14837076
The first part just changes it from thinking everyone would agree with you if they were more intelligent to everyone would agree with you if they were less ignorant and REALLY knew how the world works. Which isn't any better. :hmm:

My point is simply that if the average person really understood how the world works then the world would work very differently than it currently does.


Perhaps, or perhaps human nature would result in people exploiting how the world worked or maybe they come to a different understanding socially than you expect. It's not like intelligent thoughtful people throughout history haven't believed some rather outrageous things.
#14837113
mikema63 wrote:The first part just changes it from thinking everyone would agree with you if they were more intelligent to everyone would agree with you if they were less ignorant and REALLY knew how the world works. Which isn't any better. :hmm:


No it doesn't, all I've said is that the current system runs counter to the interests of the average person and the only reason it's allowed to continue is that people accept it out of ignorance. They don't understand how unfair it is and they're not aware of the alternatives.

It has nothing to do with agreeing with me, it's pretty obvious that if the average person was substantially more intelligent and educated then society would converge on a much more equitable arrangement because the level of general ignorance that allows for this system just wouldn't exist.

There may be social systems that are far superior to anything I can think of, but it's certain that whatever a more intelligent and educated society would converge on it won't be this or anything remotely resembling this.


mikema63 wrote:Perhaps, or perhaps human nature would result in people exploiting how the world worked or maybe they come to a different understanding socially than you expect. It's not like intelligent thoughtful people throughout history haven't believed some rather outrageous things.


The intellectual elites have always exploited the general ignorance of the average people and there has always been a rough convergence in every age across the world on how best to do that. For a long time it was the theocratic god-king system and these days it's state capitalism, but contrary to what a lot of managerial class liberals would like to believe this isn't the end of history. We still have a long way to go before we begin to approach anything close to fair and reasonable, and it's fairly obvious that the next stage in our progression toward fair and reasonable is something in the way of social democracy.
#14837240
Socialism is loser cult for dumbies. In no way would a society where everybody is a mensa level genius be socialist.


Of course you are wrong. What is fun is that you really don't know why.

Socialism is loser cult for dumbies


Actually the evidence disagrees with you. Many of the happiest nations in the world are more socialist than we in the US are. Please note though that if we did away with all of our "socialist" programs, like Medicare, Social Security, unemployment insurance and state subsidized schools, this country would be a miserable place to live.

In no way would a society where everybody is a mensa level genius be socialist.


This is true. But a large number of them would be. Go ahead. Ask me how I know. 8)
#14837276
Drlee wrote:Actually the evidence disagrees with you. Many of the happiest nations in the world are more socialist than we in the US are. Please note though that if we did away with all of our "socialist" programs, like Medicare, Social Security, unemployment insurance and state subsidized schools, this country would be a miserable place to live.


Keynes was not a socialist. State conscription of consumers is not socialism, if it were then the Kingdom of Prussia was socialist, fascism is socialism and the US gov is socialist. Sorry but socialism is a goofy religion set up to enslave everyone to the state and not just for national security purposes but just for the stupid sake of it because of a particular belief system with particular goofy beliefs.

The value of a government filtered offering is as variable as any civilian offering. State pensions generally offer a very poor return compared with private pensions for example. National Healthcare tends to be cheaper because the government can stamp down on the wages of health practitioners the way a civilian organisation can't but tend to be lower quality particularly in terms of waiting times.

Prices adjust anyway so for example single payer healthcare doesn't narrow the gap between rich and poor because if a poor person knows someone else is paying for his healthcare then he doesn't factor that into his pay demand for his work and he is happy with less. If the rich person knows he must pay a great deal of tax, he will demand and get more money to cover that extra expense.

A simplified example of price adjustment: Say healthcare costs $5k per person per annum for an average provision. In a fully private healthcare system a janitor will expect to get $15k because he knows he must pay $5k for his health and he needs $10k for his other needs, the computer programmer on the other hand expects to get $50k because of the value of his work. On switching to a fully government filtered provision on the single payer model now the janitor only needs $10k so his wage demand will tend to drift to that level while the programmer wants an extra $5k to cover the extra tax he must pay towards the janitor's health provision... In real terms the janitor is still taking $15k and the programmer is still taking $50k only it now looks like the janitor is getting $10k and the programmer is getting $55k.

There is no material benefit for civilians in government filtered provision over non-government or private provision, such things exist for the benefit of the government as way to ensure dependence and loyalty amongst their subjects.

The "both sides" meme is a creation […]

There is no evidence whatsoever that the IDF and I[…]

Voting for this guy again would be a very banan[…]

The US government does not care about the ongoing […]