A Solution for the Disadvantaged
- Thread starter countrygrl
- Start date
- Status
This sounds like a great place for all the Fortune 500 CEOs who took government handouts.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
I think you guys should quit trying to make everyone equal and come to the realistic conclusion that people aren't equal. Talents and abilities vary so wildly within humans that trying to make them equal is a stupid idea. You cannot retrain or re-educate everyone for them to all to demand equality. Any attemps past, present, and future will or has ended up in massive failure results in the suffering or deaths of many.
A modest proposal made more sense.
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
Everytime I get on the train to London I see this monstrosity :
Spoiler :
it actually looks worse in real life.
The architect responsible for that should be tried for crimes against humanity.
Luckymoose
The World is Mine
That man is a saint how dare you!
I'll take that bet. What odds you got?
While that may be technically true, it is not at all true that the people on the bottom have the least native ability and that the people on the top have the most native ability.
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
Nor should the spread between top and bottom be so extreme.
Giorgio A. Tsoukalos
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
This I don't agree with. The spread between the top and bottom is just that extreme.
But generally it is that way whether through societal weeding or through genetics. If you actually do a study of the A students in class versus the failing students. I can guarantee you that in general 30 years down the line, the A students will have a much better average.
Any attempts at equality of results or equality of opportunity are bound to fail sooner or later, humans will naturally stratify as they've always done. And really people say that the two are different things, but realistically those two are the same things. To maintain equality of opportunity in the long run, you need equality of results. Otherwise opportunity won't be so equal in a short amount of time. So this "absolute equality of opportunity but no absolute equality of results" is basically BS, once you take reality into account.
Society needs to tailor individuals to their talents(if they have any that would be beneficial or at least no harmful to society) instead of holding some people back just so other people can catch up and be on the same footing.
If person A is simply not as smart as person B, it is stupid to hold person A back just so person B can catch up.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,374
I'm so glad I decided to quit being angry at staggering ignorance of the past. Now it becomes pure fun. Funniest proposal I've seen on CFC this year. And most of the comments so far are true, even the apparent contradictory ones. In spirit it's a descendant of the english poor laws. It's capitalist. It's communist. It's also fascist. Everyone is scared of the unproductive ones. Hell, even many anarchists have been! 
Countrygrl, why don't you try to dig up the minutes from the International Recreation Congresses? Back in the 1930s people were just as scared of those damn "unproductive" individuals and bent on reforming them as you seem to be today. The second congress, in Berlin, 1936, even managed to bring together representatives from communist, fascist and "other" countries in a remarkable display of cooperation for that era - all for the "betterment" of their citizenry, of course. To quote Rudolf Hess: "the judicious organization of workers' leisure time is an essential condition not only for social peace within countries but also for political peace between nations". They also managed to come up, even then, with far better ideas than yours. Fascists and communists became very adept at organizing leisure for their citizenry. So did the good social-democratic capitalists - welfare is a cheaper go at the same problem (and the congresses were an american idea). All governments benefit from stability, do they not? And what's more dangerous unstable than unregulated marginals? But don't forget the unregulated leisure of the other ones, the workers with a job! Oh, wait, those have definitely been domesticated, in their role as "consumers".
Countrygrl, why don't you try to dig up the minutes from the International Recreation Congresses? Back in the 1930s people were just as scared of those damn "unproductive" individuals and bent on reforming them as you seem to be today. The second congress, in Berlin, 1936, even managed to bring together representatives from communist, fascist and "other" countries in a remarkable display of cooperation for that era - all for the "betterment" of their citizenry, of course. To quote Rudolf Hess: "the judicious organization of workers' leisure time is an essential condition not only for social peace within countries but also for political peace between nations". They also managed to come up, even then, with far better ideas than yours. Fascists and communists became very adept at organizing leisure for their citizenry. So did the good social-democratic capitalists - welfare is a cheaper go at the same problem (and the congresses were an american idea). All governments benefit from stability, do they not? And what's more dangerous unstable than unregulated marginals? But don't forget the unregulated leisure of the other ones, the workers with a job! Oh, wait, those have definitely been domesticated, in their role as "consumers".
civver_764
Deity
There's your problem. No one's trying to control what you spend your money on. Just because they're 'disadvantaged' doesn't make them less human than you.
Behind The Mask
King
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2010
- Messages
- 776
I agree.
This is indeed the Final Solution.
This is indeed the Final Solution.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
No, but I think if someone else is giving you money and you didn't earn it, the person giving it has the right to say what you can and can't do with it.
BuckeyeJim
King
Do we not already control what people spend their money on when it comes to social welfare?
@ The OP - While there are some interesting points and considerations brought up, the restriction of freedom of movement is absolutely disturbing to me. So isn't the control of media. I'm naturally distrustful of government, and would not trust any reports coming out of these "re-education camps." I don't think it is moral, or ethical, to attach stipulations to an individuals right to move about. People can't see their friends? People must be stripped from their families? You are really going to make people choose between basic needs being provided for and leaving their friends and loved ones? What is to prevent a situation where 20 people are living in a home, just to preserve their families and relationships?
Tarquelne
Follower of Tytalus
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2001
- Messages
- 3,718
Awesome idea. Super-expensive, directed toward those needing government assistance: This is the best way to drain money from affluent "blue" areas into the retrograde "red" areas I've seen in quite awhile.
It combines the best of condescending and counter-productive social policies with super-business-friendly gov. business deals. (The opportunities for kickbacks, corruption, abuse of power... it boggles the mind.)
There's nothing that might warm the contemporary movement conservative heart more other than making Iraq an outright colony, and dumb liberals might *like* this plan.
It combines the best of condescending and counter-productive social policies with super-business-friendly gov. business deals. (The opportunities for kickbacks, corruption, abuse of power... it boggles the mind.)
There's nothing that might warm the contemporary movement conservative heart more other than making Iraq an outright colony, and dumb liberals might *like* this plan.
- Status
Similar threads
