|
martle
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: 15:24:43, 11-09-2008 » |
|
the Duke of Westminster's present wealth. An anecdotal interlude: My cousin happens to be the Duke of Westminster's PA. Nice, eh? Should be on a pretty good salary, right? She isn't, actually. It's pretty good - 50-something K I think. BUT... the perks. She has a grace and favour house, well, mansion in Cheshire with five outhouses and several acres of land. She has generous holiday time. She travels the world with him. She gets to use his helicopter for free for personal use, sometimes. He buys her nice birthday presents (like, ooh, let's say that one where she and her hubby got put up in about five 5-star hotels around the Med with his private jet shuttling them in between). I don't know how one would account for these perks in terms of 'wealth' - they're hardly equivalent to share-packages, since of course they can't be cashed in. She works VERY hard. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Green. Always green.
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
|
|
« Reply #31 on: 15:26:55, 11-09-2008 » |
|
While I might agree with the abolition of property in an idealistic sense, I cannot conceive of what a society which did that would look like. I don't think it would resemble human civilization as we know it today. I also fear that many of the things which we take for granted today would simply not happen (in any recognisabe fashion).
That's for sure. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
HtoHe
|
|
« Reply #32 on: 15:29:08, 11-09-2008 » |
|
I cannot conceive of what a society which did that would look like. I don't think it would resemble human civilization as we know it today. I sincerely hope it would differ in a great many respects, IRF! I think the point is that property, being essentially a right of exclusion, is not amenable to fair distribution. I'm never going to believe that the D of W deserves thousands of times as much income as I do; and I'm fairly uncomfortable with the idea that my contribution to society is worth double that of, say, a refuse collector. And that's without touching on real obscenities like how we allow thousands to starve everyday because their needs don't, to use the wonderful economic euphemism, represent 'effective demand'. It seems to me that centuries of experience show that property society can't operate fairly. I don't suggest it should be abolished by force: merely that humanity should recognise that this system has had its day and organise consciously to replace it with one that can meet our needs. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
increpatio
|
|
« Reply #33 on: 15:37:33, 11-09-2008 » |
|
Based on those facts alone, I can count myself in the top 10% of the world's wealthiest people. And with that wealth comes a certain amount of responsibility to my brothers and sisters who are less wealthy.
You're probably more nearer the top 1% |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IgnorantRockFan
|
|
« Reply #34 on: 15:54:22, 11-09-2008 » |
|
I cannot conceive of what a society which did that would look like. I don't think it would resemble human civilization as we know it today. I sincerely hope it would differ in a great many respects, IRF! But there are many things about today's society that I like! Can we abolish property and still have a civilization where (for example) I can listen to a Proms concert on the radio every night? This would be a society where musicans wouldn't "own" their instruments, remember. They would presumably be allocated them in by some fair method involving need. What happens when it is determined that the soloist doesn't need that Stradivarius tonight?  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Allegro, ma non tanto
|
|
|
|
Kittybriton
|
|
« Reply #35 on: 16:06:00, 11-09-2008 » |
|
Based on those facts alone, I can count myself in the top 10% of the world's wealthiest people. And with that wealth comes a certain amount of responsibility to my brothers and sisters who are less wealthy.
You're probably more nearer the top 1% Agreed. I'm just not that good with numbers. (or Leviticus) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Click me -> About meor me -> my handmade storeNo, I'm not a complete idiot. I'm only a halfwit. In fact I'm actually a catfish. |
|
|
|
stuart macrae
|
|
« Reply #36 on: 16:17:14, 11-09-2008 » |
|
This would be a society where musicans wouldn't "own" their instruments, remember. They would presumably be allocated them in by some fair method involving need. What happens when it is determined that the soloist doesn't need that Stradivarius tonight? Most of the younger and less starry string soloists currently dashing round the world (or at least parts of it) don't actually use an instrument that belongs to them. The best instruments are often owned by music colleges, collectors, trusts, extremely wealthy individuals and banks (the latter two often in Japan) and are simply too expensive for all but the richest soloists to afford. The owners of the instruments are usually(?) enlightened enough to put them out on indefinite loan to a particular performer. If you look at programme booklets you'll often see a credit for the instrument and its owner (this also sometimes applies to orchestral musicians as well). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Milly Jones
|
|
« Reply #37 on: 16:23:50, 11-09-2008 » |
|
if you shared everything out equally between everyone - in 12 months time there would be rich and poor again. The sad thing is that a fool and his money are soon parted and some people are more astute than others. Human nature I'm afraid.
In my opinion you're taking a huge leap of faith to saying all of that is "just human nature". Human beings have to act in selfish ways in our present society in order to be "successful", but that isn't the same thing as saying that human beings are inherently selfish. One could equally say that without collective activity and cooperation there'd be no society in the first place and that "therefore" human beings are inherently unselfish. The truth I think is that human "nature" evolves through history in step with the evolution of society. Human nature is a dynamic process rather than a static condition. So your argument here strikes me as denying the fact of evolution and change which we see in every aspect of reality, and I can't bring myself to look at things in such a defeatist way. IRF, the fact of the matter is that in the world as a whole the poorest half of the population own less than 1% of the wealth, and the richest 1% own 40% of it. The word "selfish" never passed my lips (nor my fingers). I'm talking purely about financial acuity. I'm sorry Richard, but some people are more clever than others and as I said, a fool and his money are soon parted. I used to be an idealist just like yourself and in my heart of hearts remain so. Sadly though, I am now older and my brain tells me a different story. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
We pass this way but once. This is not a rehearsal!
|
|
|
|
IgnorantRockFan
|
|
« Reply #38 on: 16:26:41, 11-09-2008 » |
|
(In reply to Stuart)
But in our current society, somebody still owns the instrument and is in a position of power to make (hopefully enlightened) decisions about who plays it.
In a world without property, we simply have a big pile of 1000 violins. Who is given the power to decide on their disposition?
Having absolute power to decide what happens to something is de facto ownership of it. In a world without property, we can't allow one man (or group) to have that power. We must decide on the disposition of items by a fully-democratic process.
In which case, the violinist in Robbie Williams' backing band is going to get the Strad.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Allegro, ma non tanto
|
|
|
|
HtoHe
|
|
« Reply #39 on: 16:29:24, 11-09-2008 » |
|
But there are many things about today's society that I like! Can we abolish property and still have a civilization where (for example) I can listen to a Proms concert on the radio every night?
Quite an ironic example for those of us who fear the 'free market' is currently in the process of depriving us of that, IRF! This subject is, of course, enormous and I wouldn't like to get into a convoluted argument. For those of us who believe a socialist society would have to be democratically established and administered, any attempt to predict the fine details would be unwise. My view, and here I've no idea whether or not it would tally with Richard's (or Marx's or anyone else's) is that we'd have to understand what we were doing in abolishing the system so that those things that are useful could be adapted and those that are not could be replaced. Mere destructive antipathy is no more use than mere idealistic meddling and no one of us has all the answers. I just think that if, as you seem to fear, we're stuck with the property system, we're also stuck with profound unfairness. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Dough
|
|
« Reply #40 on: 16:37:03, 11-09-2008 » |
|
Has anybody mentioned the abolition of the 10% tax-rate yet? The lowest earners now pay even more of what they have in taxes (and let's not forget that since they're unable to save much, because most of what they earn is spent, they also lose a much higher percentage of their income to VAT). "To those who have shall be given...."
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Milly Jones
|
|
« Reply #41 on: 16:39:04, 11-09-2008 » |
|
I just think that if, as you seem to fear, we're stuck with the property system, we're also stuck with profound unfairness. Aint that the truth? Unfortunately, nobody said that life had to be fair and it isn't - right across the board. Financial issues, emotional issues, health issues, you name it, nothing is fair. And you're right. We are stuck with it. So we have to make the best of a bad job, look after our families in the best way we can and ideally help the weaker ones in society along the way. That's my philosophy anyway. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
We pass this way but once. This is not a rehearsal!
|
|
|
|
Morticia
|
|
« Reply #42 on: 16:43:40, 11-09-2008 » |
|
Has anybody mentioned the abolition of the 10% tax-rate yet? The lowest earners now pay even more of what they have in taxes (and let's not forget that since they're unable to save much, because most of what they earn is spent, they also lose a much higher percentage of their income to VAT). "To those who have shall be given...."
Don't even get me started, Ron  I am still incandescent with rage over that. Still I suppose if I keep my fury stoked up then it will raise my body temperature sufficiently to keep me warm. Cheaper than switching the heating on ... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
stuart macrae
|
|
« Reply #43 on: 16:59:56, 11-09-2008 » |
|
look after our families in the best way we can and ideally help the weaker ones in society along the way. That's my philosophy anyway.
And I think this sounds like a good and admirable philosophy to me, Milly. I don't want wealthier people and their families to suffer (I was in a bad mood when I made the 'pips squeak' comment  ) and I don't want them to have all their stuff taken off them either. And I have nothing but admiration for activities and acts that help the weak in society - but what is tax in the end, but an institutionalisation of this sort of help? And if the weak and poor aren't getting enough help, then who should contribute more money to help them? Everyone, based on ability to pay, is my answer. And I fear many very rich people, even generous ones, would not choose to contribute as much as is really needed from them... |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 17:01:43, 11-09-2008 by stuart macrae »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
|
|
« Reply #44 on: 17:02:15, 11-09-2008 » |
|
The word "selfish" never passed my lips (nor my fingers). I'm talking purely about financial acuity.
I'm sorry Richard, but some people are more clever than others and as I said, a fool and his money are soon parted.
I used to be an idealist just like yourself and in my heart of hearts remain so. Sadly though, I am now older and my brain tells me a different story.
What's the difference between financial acuity and selfishness? What does cleverness have to do with it? And, in the end, I don't believe that ideals have much to do with it either. One way and another, the way the world is currently going is not sustainable, and sooner or later I think the human race is going to have to make a choice between, as Rosa Luxemburg put it, socialism and barbarism. It would be better, if and when that time comes, for there to be some socialists around. That in itself is for me sufficient reason (though not the only one) for keeping those ideas alive. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
