I Believe...

I knew you'd say that.

I'm also enough of a realist to know that in big business it'd never
happen. It's a startup, and small firm thing, and probably always will
be.

 

Here's my last contribution to this (not because I'm throwing a rattle,
but because I've got a garage floor to paint, and a Sunday paper to
read).

I'm much more bothered about Prince William's inherited power than his
inherited wealth. That power is the social construct that I was on
about. The wealth is a direct result of having that power. I don't see
why he should be King, just by an accident of birth. And, of course, I
don't see why we should be ruled by someone we didn't elect.

 

snip

Why not just tax the poor, that way we middle classes are protected
from those nasty working class oiks with their horrible accents and
bad taste in clothing? We could call ourselves the national
socialists, or something like that...
--
O
1 Black, shortly to undergo extensive surgery.
1 Red, undergoing lightweight surgery. -----
1 Blue, for Power-Ranger baiting. | o |
Numbers ... | o |
Stuff ... | ooo |
Life ... -----

 

[banning inheritance]

sounds rather like communism or some other dream like equitable state of
affairs. Won't happen.

Oh so there'd be no one called Cane around then - perhaps that would be
an improvement ;-)

I understand the point you're making but I do think the overall lack of
an incentive to provide for your family or friends after your death
would make for a very odd society. The lack of an incentive would
depress so many fields of endeavour that there would be little progress.
Just think the Gixer Thou would probably never be invented in such a
scenario and your firm would probably not exist and you'd not be living
in a nice flat in Cheltenham. Perhaps North Korea is a better system
after all?

 

Why? IMO we are not all born equal. Some people are born smarter than other
people; some people have a natural aptitude for singing, others don't; most
people come with two arms and two legs but a few a born with bits missing;
some people are born into money whilst others do or do not acquire it. Some
inherit goodly chunks of money whilst others don't. So what? Would you have
us all battered about by the state until we're all nicely average just to
satisfy your own political control-freakery?

I read a sci-fi story once wherein everyone had to wear various forms of
artificial handicap to make sure that they were all 'equal'. Like fuzzy
glasses for people with perfect vision; chimes in the ear for people with
good hearing; weights for slim people; that sort of thing. The stuff of
nightmares (wish I could remember the title).

Your comments remind of that.

Why would you wish to prevent individuals from accumulating wealth? I can't
use the word 'disproportionate' because to me that doesn't make any sense...
disproportionate to what exactly?

If I run a business then who are you to take my profits away from me? What
would you do, set an upper limit on how much profit I can make before
everything else must be ceded to the state? A thoroughly unreasonable
suggestion if ever there was one.

ZK

 

Indeed. I always wondered why the Krypton Factor TV show had a handicap
system for its assault course but not for the rest of the show. I actually
wrote in and asked that surely the more stupid contestants should be given
easier questions. No reply was forthcoming.

 

Sad... but true.

 

Well where's the fun in that?

Does the Monarch have any *real* power? When was the last time a Monarch
actually executed power of any sort?

Isn't the Monarchy simply a figurehead these days?

 

wrote

Al Fayed still ain't British.

 

Champ wrote...

Battersea ***s Home has much to answer for.

 

You're right. They were rubbish.

Let's have their heads off, then, as they don't do anything.

Yes, a figurehead of lots of stuff I despise - like servility, and
social hierarchy, and bowing and scraping, and all that shit.

 

He didn't. You made yourself post that; the fear others might think
those were your true beliefs caused it.

 

BR had a very good reputation with its YOPS/YTS programs.

A very high proportion of former YTS starters are still working within
the railway, many in high or very high positions (a couple of Directors
were BR YTS).

I suspect they worked because the railway *had* a paternalistic and old
fashioned approach to recruitment, apprenticeships [1] and career
development [2].


[1] Incidentally one of Connex's first acts in 1997 was to stop the
apprentice schemes, in 1993 we were desperately short of skilled fitters.

[2] I can't believe I've used /that/ phrase.

 

Sounds nothing like communism. Communism is, broadly speaking, control
of the means of production to ensure that current production meets
current consumption. With regard to social cohesion and worth, without
skimming the cream for the gain of private individuals.

The utopian lie that was the soviet system and the propaganda myth that
has become our consciousness of the communist (Stalinist) ideal should
not be confused with the Marxist critique of [capitalist] economic theory
and the ideology that died in 1924.

As to Champ's theory that starting from a level playing field with
regards to opportunity by debarring inherited wealth is, frankly, tosh.
The problem regarding inheritance is not so much the inherited wealth in
monetary terms but inherited power. Unfortunately there is rarely one
without the other.

Restrict the control that capital has on society and you've addressed
both issues. But who controls the controllers?

Paul, It already has happened. Unfortunately in reverse.

 

I have no real problem with the monarchy, let it be, it's a distraction.

A distraction for the 'left' as it ensures attentions are off target. We
should be aiming for the real monarchy, those who control the movement of
wealth, the price and worth of labour (small L).

It's a useful distraction for the 'right' as it gives both focus and acts
as a smokescreen for their activities. (As does the church). Or put
less conspiratorially the Establishment love it for the 'Calpol' of the
masses it is.

 

Probably just as well he did.

"over the heads of babes..."

 

But this is Champ; no one would have assumed he really thought the poor
were lazy. Or at least no one who posts/lurks for more than about 2
days.

 

Differences in opportunity are just facts of life IMO. Me? I'd rather that
than have ever more faffing with our lives by some centralised beaurocracy.
Sure I wasn't born with the same financial advantages as the offspring of
Lord & Lady Muck (assuming they haven't yet spunked the family fortune that
is), but I couldn't care less really, that's their good fortune, my
challenge is to get on and make the best of what I've got (as suits me
IYSWIM). When my own folks pop their clogs I stand to inherit a modest
amount, nothing outrageous, but it should pay off the mortgage (though they
really shouldn't shuffle off quite that soon); now assuming the mortgage is
all sorted out by then the dosh might well pay for private education for my
grandchildren, or possibly university for my own kids (ain't got no kids
yet); or it might be good dosh to help my kids with the deposit for their
first property purchases; or you never know I might just blow the lot having
a right old good time; etc. The upshot of course may well be that my kids
get a leg up, an advantage over certain others so to speak, and there's no
chuffing way that any right thinking parent would deny them that, is there?

Presumably in your world my parents' estate should cede directly to the
state, I and mine should see not one penny of it, and we're all back to
square one again? Despite my father, my mother, my step-father, and my
step-mother having put a lot of time and effort into providing for
themselves and their families as soon as they shuffle off of this mortal
coil us kids can't have a ha'penny, is that it? Well it's your opinion, I
can't say that I share it, but I do hope that you've made your will and that
your entire estate will revert to the treasury coffers in the event of your
death... after all, you wouldn't wish to garner any unfair advantage for
your own children would you now? (Taking the pith, of course you would...
wouldn't you?)

ZK

 

Twas me, and yup that was the short that I meant. Your comments immediately
reminded me (and others it would seem) of that story.

ZK - pleased that somebody identified it, cos I couldn't remember what it
was called

 

wrote

Nah, they don't like him do they.