Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Should the Talented Thrive? Watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Socialists hate the idea of the privileged rich dominating society, and they'd like to see talented ppl from all backgrounds thrive.

    Shouldn't they be vehemently opposed to this idea too?

    Aren't they supposed to despise the fact that luck (such as inheriting riches or being born talented) gives some people an unfair leg-up in life and usually leads to them being more fulfilled?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eat)
    No, they shouldn't thrive. This is one of the many reasons why communism is the way forward.
    You're wrong. Communism is ideal but just not for humans. We don't work like robots. We aren't all the same.

    Mao has a quote about how he would paint the blank canvas of China communist. In theory yes this would work, but no country is a blank canvas and therefore you're going to have to paint over other colours making the colours mix and not turn out right.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eat)
    You'll get a lot of ditzy types in this thread who'll preach the virtues of "hard work and dedication" in developing talent and/or wealth and social status, or whatever. These people ignore the fact that free will doesn't exist and capacity for hard work = environmental + genetic.
    Wrong. I used to be quite a good musician when I was younger, however because I wasn't fussed about my future at the time I neglected it and as a result I can now only just remember which key is which on a piano. My friend, who always wanted to be in a band, kept it up and now regularly does gigs at local clubs. So your skills as an adult will depend not just on genes and environment, but also on the choices you made as a child.

    Edit - why does this post deserve a negative rating when it's a valid point?
    • Offline

      13
      (Original post by TheRevolution)
      Socialists hate the idea of the privileged rich dominating society, and they'd like to see talented ppl from all backgrounds thrive.

      Shouldn't they be vehemently opposed to this idea too?

      Aren't they supposed to despise the fact that luck (such as inheriting riches or being born talented) gives some people an unfair leg-up in life and usually leads to them being more fulfilled?
      Socialists are generally motivated by the idea that everyone should have their needs met and their potentials supported. If a system allows some to gain privileged advantage in those things while others are excluded then socialists quite rightly oppose that system. Did you read a book defending socialism or just, you know, listen to your dad?
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by TheRevolution)
      Socialists hate the idea of the privileged rich dominating society, and they'd like to see talented ppl from all backgrounds thrive.

      Shouldn't they be vehemently opposed to this idea too?

      Aren't they supposed to despise the fact that luck (such as inheriting riches or being born talented) gives some people an unfair leg-up in life and usually leads to them being more fulfilled?

      You're looking at it from an odd view point. The point is that everybody should have the opportunity to reach their full potential, both for their own benefit and the benefit of society in general. We all gain when a skilled scientist is given the help he needs to discover a fantastic new invention, or a great medical mind becomes a doctor, or even if a talented young footballer becomes an accomplished professional player.

      If an extremely bright but underpriviledged kid is unable to fulfil his dream of being a doctor because he can't get into a competitive medical school because his school has failed him in assisting him in getting all As a A-level, then we all suffer as a result.

      I guess you could call this a modern socio-economic application of Aristotle's teleological principle.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by py0alb)
      We all gain when a skilled scientist is given the help he needs to discover a fantastic new invention, or a great medical mind becomes a doctor, or even if a talented young footballer becomes an accomplished professional player.
      Tell me, how do I, a girl, completely uninterested in football, and with parents not in the sporting industry, even remotely connected benefit from the highlighted part?

      Communism and socialism just mean you lose your freedoms. It's freedom to the right and equality to the left. I prefer freedom. Minimal state interference economically.

      In Politics the lefties always go on about how corrupt America is (we study America) yet I think they forget North Korea and China and Russia are quite a bit more corrupt than that!!
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Summergirl.x)
      Tell me, how do I, a girl, completely uninterested in football, and with parents not in the sporting industry, even remotely connected benefit from the highlighted part?

      Communism and socialism just mean you lose your freedoms. It's freedom to the right and equality to the left. I prefer freedom. Minimal state interference economically.

      In Politics the lefties always go on about how corrupt America is (we study America) yet I think they forget North Korea and China and Russia are quite a bit more corrupt than that!!

      Well you personally may not benefit, but many, many people are interested in football and would receive great pleasure from watching him play: maximising utility for the greatest number. It's pretty basic consequential moral philosophy.

      Seeing as you brought up "freedoms": what do you think of the government impinging upon my freedom to mow you down with my car because I dislike the colour you're wearing? I would expect you think its terrible that they take away my freedom like that? Bear with me, I have a point: one person's "freedom" is another person's loss of freedom. Freedom is a zero sum game. If we had no government at all, life would simply be a case of "might is right". Hence the reason we appoint a government in the first place: to decide whose freedoms take priority in any given circumstance.

      To talk of "freedom" vs "equality" as if they are on a sliding scale is ridiculous. The "freedom" you are talking about is merely the freedom of the rich to exploit the poor without fear of retribution. Hardly a particular just notion of freedom is it now?
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by py0alb)
      Well you personally may not benefit, but many, many people are interested in football and would receive great pleasure from watching him play: maximising utility for the greatest number. It's pretty basic consequential moral philosophy.

      Seeing as you brought up "freedoms": what do you think of the government impinging upon my freedom to mow you down with my car because I dislike the colour you're wearing? I would expect you think its terrible that they take away my freedom like that? Bear with me, I have a point: one person's "freedom" is another person's loss of freedom. Freedom is a zero sum game. If we had no government at all, life would simply be a case of "might is right". Hence the reason we appoint a government in the first place: to decide whose freedoms take priority in any given circumstance.

      To talk of "freedom" vs "equality" as if they are on a sliding scale is ridiculous. The "freedom" you are talking about is merely the freedom of the rich to exploit the poor without fear of retribution. Hardly a particular just notion of freedom is it now?
      Then we don't all benefit Not everyone enjoys watching football..

      Sorry I don't really understand your running someone over metaphor, lol, explain please?

      I never said no government!! Wow I'm no anarchist! Just economically, I believe in free markets and equality of opportunity and the right to "thrive". But crime and punishment is a different matter!

      Actually you can either believe equality is a level playing field and freedom is freedom from power, abuse and inequality or you can believe that equality is opportunity and freedom is the chance to achieve or fail. Just different opinions on the meaning on the words.
      • Offline

        13
        (Original post by Summergirl.x)
        ...
        Communism and socialism just mean you lose your freedoms. It's freedom to the right and equality to the left. I prefer freedom. Minimal state interference economically...
        Freedom to starve isn't a very useful freedom whereas freedom to enjoy the satisfaction of your needs is. You see? It's all about how you use the term 'freedom'. The right tend to present 'freedom' negatively, that is to say freedom 'from' rather than the left's interest in freedom 'to'. Nevertheless, the kind of 'freedom' the right applaud, that associated with private property and capitalism, is very much at the expense of the liberty of the many who are in fact alienated from their access and use of the earth and its resources. To this extent, your 'freedom' is built upon law-enforced interference.
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Summergirl.x)
        Then we don't all benefit Not everyone enjoys watching football..

        Sorry I don't really understand your running someone over metaphor, lol, explain please?

        I never said no government!! Wow I'm no anarchist! Just economically, I believe in free markets and equality of opportunity and the right to "thrive". But crime and punishment is a different matter!

        Actually you can either believe equality is a level playing field and freedom is freedom from power, abuse and inequality or you can believe that equality is opportunity and freedom is the chance to achieve or fail. Just different opinions on the meaning on the words.

        Well society's overall utility only goes up when the man who gets the job is the best man for the job, rather than the man who paid to get the job, if you understand me. That idea is really at the heart of the socialist concept. Everybody should have the opportunity to fulfill their own potential, regardless of how much money they have, not because we're soppy do-gooders, but because its a very sound moral philosophy and, if correctly applied, makes everyone's lives better in the long run.

        I think the two sentences you said at the end were the same thing. A "level playing field" is the same thing as "equality of opportunity" is it not?
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Oswy)
        Freedom to starve isn't a very useful freedom whereas freedom to enjoy the satisfaction of your needs is. You see? It's all about how you use the term 'freedom'. The right tend to present 'freedom' negatively, that is to say freedom 'from' rather than the left's interest in freedom 'to'. Nevertheless, the kind of 'freedom' the right applaud, that associated with private property and capitalism, is very much at the expense of the liberty of the many who are in fact alienated from their access and use of the earth and its resources. To this extent, your 'freedom' is built upon law-enforced interference.
        You keep making me out to sound like I'm some sort of neo-Nazi, :') which is ridiculous. Freedom to starve, you put it rather negatively. It's not actually that simple.

        Here's another metaphor. Answer truthfully:

        You're painting three rooms. You hire three men to do it.

        The first man works really hard and gets the job done well and in 4 hours.
        The second man works really hard and gets the job done well but in 6 hours.
        The third man can't be bothered to do the work well, just slowly paints for 6 hours. The job isn't done well.

        The first man should rightly get more money the third man, don't you agree? He should also get more than the second man. But the third man gets the least.

        I can't actually remember the exact metaphor but I'm sure that works :')

        It's absurd that someone can't have the right to private property!!!! If there is no incentive for someone who has to work really hard to get to a high up job - a doctor, a lawyer, etc - and DON'T you dare say they don't - then no one is going to do the work to get there because they are going to get the same treatment as the person who doesn't work.
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by py0alb)
        Everybody should have the opportunity to fulfill their own potential, regardless of how much money they have
        That's what I'm arguing!!! Equality of opportunity.! You start with the same education, and its your own choice whether you want to get to the top or not. But you should also allow everyone to get to the top and not have tons of your money taxed off you!!
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Summergirl.x)
        That's what I'm arguing!!! Equality of opportunity.! You start with the same education, and its your own choice whether you want to get to the top or not. But you should also allow everyone to get to the top and not have tons of your money taxed off you!!
        Why would taxation = not being able to get to the top? Paying a rate of tax proportionate with what you are able to afford should not stop anyone fulfilling their potential.
        Offline

        1
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by TheRevolution)
        Socialists hate the idea of the privileged rich dominating society, and they'd like to see talented ppl from all backgrounds thrive.

        Shouldn't they be vehemently opposed to this idea too?

        Aren't they supposed to despise the fact that luck (such as inheriting riches or being born talented) gives some people an unfair leg-up in life and usually leads to them being more fulfilled?
        You confuse equality of opportunity for equality of endowment. No socialist is stating that we should all have identical personalities and equal abilities and skills. We are merely trying to create a society where such personal differences do not provide people with power over other individuals and where each new generation has equal opportunities regardless of their parents' success.

        Anyone who suggests that commies wants everyone to be mindless clones of each other possesses fundamental misunderstanding of the ideology.

        (Original post by Summergirl.x)
        Mao has a quote about how he would paint the blank canvas of China communist. In theory yes this would work, but no country is a blank canvas and therefore you're going to have to paint over other colours making the colours mix and not turn out right.
        Mao was an authoritarian socialist. We believe that society (which is far from being a blank canvas) should paint itself.

        (Original post by Summergirl.x)
        It's freedom to the right and equality to the left.
        Oh dear.
        Offline

        12
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by AnarchistNutter)
        You confuse equality of opportunity for equality of endowment. No socialist is stating that we should all have identical personalities and equal abilities and skills. We are merely trying to create a society where such personal differences do not provide people with power over other individuals and where each new generation has equal opportunities regardless of their parents' success.

        Anyone who suggests that commies wants everyone to be mindless clones of each other possesses fundamental misunderstanding of the ideology.



        Mao was an authoritarian socialist. We believe that society (which is far from being a blank canvas) should paint itself.
        Then explain to me how leadership arose in the first place? Lets face it, some people are born to lead and some are born to be lead. But sometimes the people who do lead manipulate the people who follow, thereby causing a cycle of corruption and exploitation. You will not remove exploitation from humanity, it is one of our natural imperfections to exploit anothers weakness for our own gain...
        Offline

        19
        ReputationRep:
        Depends how you define "talented". The world could easily do without all the X-Factor wannabe singers, yet some people see some vain hope in trying nonetheless.

        Also, the woman on the "Triumph" advert next to the little box I'm typing in has a nice set of fun bags.
        • Offline

          13
          (Original post by Summergirl.x)
          You keep making me out to sound like I'm some sort of neo-Nazi...
          But I didn't accuse you of being a neo-Nazi :confused:

          I'm explaining to you that an abstract reference to 'freedom' is pretty vacuous. And, yes, private property is the forced alienation of the many by the few of access to nature and its potentials and is actually anti-liberty.
          Offline

          1
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Ocassus)
          Then explain to me how leadership arose in the first place? Lets face it, some people are born to lead and some are born to be lead. But sometimes the people who do lead manipulate the people who follow, thereby causing a cycle of corruption and exploitation. You will not remove exploitation from humanity, it is one of our natural imperfections to exploit anothers weakness for our own gain...
          Where did I ever mention anything about leadership in my post? You are putting words in my mouth, sir. In any case, just because hierarchy has existed in the past (largely due to the increasing availability of resources and thus the potential for individuals to "capitalise" upon newly found wealth) does not mean it cannot be abolished by instiling principles of liberty, equality (social equality, not equality of endowment, silly right-wingers) and solidarity (mutual aid and co-operation). Thus the abolition of hierarchy is a group effort. Exploitation is removed not because humanity are perfect but because each individual realises that in a society where they may dominate and exploit others, others may have the liberty to dominate and exploit them. Thus they realise that to provide for themselves, they must co-operate with groups and individuals in society.
          Offline

          4
          ReputationRep:
          The privileged rich aren't the talented Sure, there's an overlap, but having money and connections doesn't mean you are talented, only that you can make more of your potential, even if it is lower that that of others.
          Offline

          19
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Arbolus)
          So your skills as an adult will depend not just on genes and environment, but also on the choices you made as a child.

          Edit - why does this post deserve a negative rating when it's a valid point?
          Because some feel that choices made as a child will also be heavily based on genes and environment too. Especially as you're more likely to go off instinct/environment, as opposed to logical 'over-riding' thoughts as an adult. So your argument could well be in favour of the guy you quoted.
         
         
         
      • See more of what you like on The Student Room

        You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

      • Poll
        Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
        Useful resources
      • See more of what you like on The Student Room

        You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

      • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

        Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

        Quick reply
        Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.