![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
green-man-2010.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsI remember that when Thatcher was in power she said
" anyone who finds himself over the age of 25 and travelling by bus must consider himself a failure."
Well, let's just say that she was not wild about public transport annd the country is still in a mess as a result. But what is it going to mean for the rest of us if everyone "succeeds"? Seriously, do you ever stop to think how London would cope if everyone - I mean EVERYONE decided to come to work in a car? or even buy a car? Think we could cope? Roads are bursting at the seams as it is.
Back in the 60s, Labour governments had a dream of boosting the number of kids who went to university. they did - shame that there were not enough jobs for people with graduate honours and so many people with degrees in their pockets ended up stacking supermarket shelves.
So, I ask myself, what should a government, or even a society be aiming for? I think it is true that although there was a moral case being made for abolishing slavery back in the days of Queen Victoria, it was really economics that knocked it on the head.
Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' more or less grabbed the slaveowners by the throat and said "look, mechanisation is cheaper than slavery. Get machines and drop the slaves or lose out" - so the slaveowners did.
For me, the fact that America can elect a black man into the Whitehouse is a sign that something I call 'progress' is actually happening. But for so many Americans, there is no job in the White House, no job anywhere. A more equal society, with more people actually working, and earning a wage that allows them than do more than just live hand to mouth would seem to be a sensible benchmark.
I don't know that we all need to own cars - it makes more sense to commute, providing that public transport is cheap and affordable. Maybe Thatcher should be considered a failure in so far as she never fixed this to happen - ecologically it makes more sense to have more urban busses, more 'park and ride' schemes in city centres and more tube networks in places like London, Liverpool and Manchester.
And, if a society needs to have its bins emptied and its streets cleaned, it should pay those willing to do these essential services. What we don't need in society are people who end up in prison for fraud and other reasons. People who end up in prisons, unable to make any valid contribution to society should be considered failures - and countries that are forced to lock more and more of it's citizens away each year should ask themselves why they (as societies) are failing to incentivise their workforce.
The other question is 'what can we do to make sure more young people succeed?'
To me, university and college are not the only answer. we need to make spaces and make use of the talents of people more suited to working in trades through apprenticeships. And yes, we need to see to it that the bins are emptied too.
A failed state, somewhere where this does not happen , is best exemplified by places like Somalia, and a failed state is not just a tragedy to itself, but to the rest of the world as well. most of the piracy that happens off the east coast of Africa and is spreading slowly into the Indian Ocean is due to the fact that Somalia cannot fix itself and neither can the international community come up with a plan to help the region.
Again, what do we do to put things right? can we, or is it something that people have to do for themselves. i would suggest that nobody really pulls themselves up by their own bootstraps entirely - they make use of the lifelines they see hanging within reach. So getting lines within reach of most people and allowing them to pull themselves up seems to be what we should be aiming to do- whether it's helping kids off of drugs or getting a stable democratic system going in an impoverished and bandit ridden country.
But, that's my own take. what is yours?
" anyone who finds himself over the age of 25 and travelling by bus must consider himself a failure."
Well, let's just say that she was not wild about public transport annd the country is still in a mess as a result. But what is it going to mean for the rest of us if everyone "succeeds"? Seriously, do you ever stop to think how London would cope if everyone - I mean EVERYONE decided to come to work in a car? or even buy a car? Think we could cope? Roads are bursting at the seams as it is.
Back in the 60s, Labour governments had a dream of boosting the number of kids who went to university. they did - shame that there were not enough jobs for people with graduate honours and so many people with degrees in their pockets ended up stacking supermarket shelves.
So, I ask myself, what should a government, or even a society be aiming for? I think it is true that although there was a moral case being made for abolishing slavery back in the days of Queen Victoria, it was really economics that knocked it on the head.
Adam Smith's 'invisible hand' more or less grabbed the slaveowners by the throat and said "look, mechanisation is cheaper than slavery. Get machines and drop the slaves or lose out" - so the slaveowners did.
For me, the fact that America can elect a black man into the Whitehouse is a sign that something I call 'progress' is actually happening. But for so many Americans, there is no job in the White House, no job anywhere. A more equal society, with more people actually working, and earning a wage that allows them than do more than just live hand to mouth would seem to be a sensible benchmark.
I don't know that we all need to own cars - it makes more sense to commute, providing that public transport is cheap and affordable. Maybe Thatcher should be considered a failure in so far as she never fixed this to happen - ecologically it makes more sense to have more urban busses, more 'park and ride' schemes in city centres and more tube networks in places like London, Liverpool and Manchester.
And, if a society needs to have its bins emptied and its streets cleaned, it should pay those willing to do these essential services. What we don't need in society are people who end up in prison for fraud and other reasons. People who end up in prisons, unable to make any valid contribution to society should be considered failures - and countries that are forced to lock more and more of it's citizens away each year should ask themselves why they (as societies) are failing to incentivise their workforce.
The other question is 'what can we do to make sure more young people succeed?'
To me, university and college are not the only answer. we need to make spaces and make use of the talents of people more suited to working in trades through apprenticeships. And yes, we need to see to it that the bins are emptied too.
A failed state, somewhere where this does not happen , is best exemplified by places like Somalia, and a failed state is not just a tragedy to itself, but to the rest of the world as well. most of the piracy that happens off the east coast of Africa and is spreading slowly into the Indian Ocean is due to the fact that Somalia cannot fix itself and neither can the international community come up with a plan to help the region.
Again, what do we do to put things right? can we, or is it something that people have to do for themselves. i would suggest that nobody really pulls themselves up by their own bootstraps entirely - they make use of the lifelines they see hanging within reach. So getting lines within reach of most people and allowing them to pull themselves up seems to be what we should be aiming to do- whether it's helping kids off of drugs or getting a stable democratic system going in an impoverished and bandit ridden country.
But, that's my own take. what is yours?
(no subject)
Date: 1/12/10 21:19 (UTC)Ancient Rome versus Ancient Britons?
Who won and who had the best system of government?
The people who went up against the maori in 'Germs, Guns and Steel- I forget the Island they were on - were a bunch f guys with stone age weapons against another bunch similarly armed. they were on their own turf. And yet the Maori, acting under the unified leadership of a designated commander and his leiutenants, had an overwhelming victory.
I have never come across a government leading to national ruin - only very bad governments, weak governments and a government going up against a much stronger military of economic power doing that.
Every team , be it a baseball, soccer or ladies hockey team has a captain - someone who calls the shots and decides team strategy. Nobody has ever found it easier to play and win by letting everyone do their own thing.
(no subject)
Date: 2/12/10 00:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/12/10 00:24 (UTC)Even so, it is better to sleep indoors than out in the cold and rain.
i won't deny that government - the idea of forming a set of rules and trying to enforce them , is hard work. i won't deny that some rules have fallen apart quicker then others, but a governmnet is not society. when a society feels the need to make a change , it elects a new leader or it amends the way it operates.
This is not a failure of the democratic system as such - it is democracy in action.
Another thing to remember is that governmental failure causes total and absolute chaos, wherea when a government is doing how it oufghta be, nobody gives it a second thought. watch the traffic flow through a city sometime. Note how everyone drives on the smae side, stops on red, goes on green - all this is the government setting it all up.
Think what would happen if the lights all faied at once, and the lines dissappeared. suppose nobody was sure which was the 'correct 'side to be driving on.
Governments ought to set up things so that everyone can get along, get where they want to be without getting in other people's way. it is not always achieved, but it is how things oughta be, not just a wild , milling mass of of everyone getting in everyone else's way.
(no subject)
Date: 2/12/10 11:49 (UTC)Only because people rely on it too much and can't handle life without it anymore. This is a failure of human nature.
By social agreement. Government is not required.
(no subject)
Date: 2/12/10 13:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/12/10 19:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/12/10 21:54 (UTC)Britain is big enough that when railways began to operate, noon in London was not noon in Cardiff, and a national time keeping system was required. hence we run on GMT in Britain , not local noon time for any given town.
At some point in history ( not sure when) governments became neccessary. People without one of them eithr got swallowed up by conquering empires or quietly dissappeared.
like you said , the problem in Somalia is too many small governments - basically , one man and his warband against another guy with different ideas and a warband of his own.In effect, this is no national government what ever.
so, a government has to be a certain size to be effective- too big or too small is not gonna work. however, governments per se do not ' set people up to fail'. Only bad ones do that. There are just far too many of them about though.
(no subject)
Date: 2/12/10 01:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/12/10 02:14 (UTC)That totally means government is the problem.
Wait, what?
(no subject)
Date: 2/12/10 12:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/12/10 13:04 (UTC)