I really hate this country ....

quote:

---

Of all the glib cliches of the modern argument the genetic imperative is perhaps the silliest.

---

The Robinson speaks the truth. There are many ways that genes can be selfish -- and indeed they must since only selfish genes, by definition, are successful -- but the outward expression of that underlying genetic selfishness may be anything but. In other words, behaviours such as parental care, altruism and reciprocity can be favoured by natural selection even if the genes responsible for them are "acting" in their own interest.

Joe

quote:

---

parental care, altruism and reciprocity

---

Altruism is an interesting one. The others are manifestations of self-interest. Altruism is a rare thing, even among socialists.

Anyway what has your point got to do with the viability of socialism without the 'common ownership of the means of production and distribution' part?

Paul

quote:

---

If their speed had crept over 70 due to the hill then they wouldn't have time to slow down safely, but slow down they do. It's not unusual to end up overtaking on the inside simply because the cars in the right hand lane are braking. Madness and completely unnecessary. I suppose that if nobody dies nothing will be done.

---

Even if someone dies nothing will be done.

Cameras are instruments of oppression and revenue collection, they are not safety devices.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Steven Toy:

Crony B.Liar only got rid of Clause IV of Labour's ideology to get in power and for no other reason.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An interesting theory but what factual basis does it have?

---

Their track record over the last seven years in office is more than adequate factual basis. There is an emerging pattern of lies, deceit, spin, "leaking" draconian proposals to the press only to tone them down at a later date (fat tax anyone?).

To New Labour, being in government is a game of manipulation of the press, the opposition, and most importantly the electorate.

Pragmatism over principles: we say what needs to be said to win general elections and once securely in power for up to another five years we pursue our hidden ideological agenda that has no relation whatsoever to our manifesto pledges (tuition top-up fees anyone?)

quote:

---

The older Clause IV is generally understood to favour not simply the nationalisation of the "commanding heights of industry" but the abolition of private enterprise. As such it is not a socialist ideal but a communist one - an ideal that has not been Labour policy for a century:

---

Your understanding of the difference between communism and socialism is perhaps a little shaky.

Communism was the end that was never reached; it was the failed utopian ideal.

Socialism was the means of attempting to deliver that ideal. Given the flawed nature of human beings rendering them incompatible with such an end, oppression was the obvious consequence.

The nations of the former Eastern Bloc were not communist, they were socialist - the clue is in the names - CSSR, USSR.

Socialism is very much alive and well under new Labour only it is repackaged to be seemingly acceptable to the electorate. The main difference now is the absence of any kind of revolution - New Labour are taking their time.

Imagine what this country will be like if New Labour win another couple of terms of office.

Speed cameras are one of the first of many tools of oppression and social tweaking.



Regards,

Steve.

Alexg

Dom was whinging about having to work and pay taxes. He suggested life in a cave would be idyllic, no more work and no more taxes. I made it clear that I wouldn't feed such a person, in other words 'wake up Dom, you have to work to feed yourself'...yes, even in a cave.

As for taxes. I try to view taxes as a social (not socialist) arrangement whereby a group of unrelated people, and quite often people who are quite unlike each other and even have different priorities in life, come to a convenient understanding that they will share part of their efforts to achieve some things collectively, that they couldn't achieve alone. I selected you and Matthew as typical of people with different views to myself about a fair number of issues, but who would nevertheless, probably recognise the benefits of contributing to such a common "fund", in a primitive society.

Such people would probably debate how much 'common effort' was appropriate to contribute and how much of that effort to allocate to defence or health/age care etc etc but would nevertheless recognise the overall benefits.

Dom clearly couldn't see any benefits or at least, didn't want to contribute...

I couldn't select Mick P or Mike L or others who occasionally share a common viewpoint with myself, such a society would be too cosy and unrealistic...

Apologies to both yourself and Matthew if I have misrepresented you.

Cheers

Don

*giggles* at Steven not Don

[This message was edited by Matthew Robinson on Tue 08 June 2004 at 18:45.]

Paul,

quote:

---

Altruism is an interesting one. The others are manifestations of self-interest.

---

Actually, they all are manifestations of selfishness at the level of the gene. My point is simply that selfish genes do not necessarily imply selfish individuals.

quote:

---

Anyway what has your point got to do with the viability of socialism without the 'common ownership of the means of production and distribution' part?

---

I didn't bring up the viability of socialism in my post, so I'm not sure what to say. For what it's worth I don't think there's a biological basis for socialism, but I don't think there's one for capitalism either.

Joe

*Guffaw guffaw*

Socialism was a failed Twentieth Century experiment.

However, for some politicians and political thinkers old habits die hard, don't they Matthew?

On the surface, the ideals of socialism are very seductive, although its application in practice is hell on earth.



Regards,

Steve.

Have you considered starting your own blog Steven? Your work deserves a wider audience.

Speaking of Traffic Camera's

Showing my ignorance, I realize you use traffice circles, whilst here they are a noveltly ( I can only think of one, and it is in a town miles away )Do you utilize the noth-american style 4 way stop governed by traffic lights?

If so do you use camera's to monitor compliance with the lights?

Reason I ask is some studies have show in NA that the "yellow" light has been reduced in duration forcing some drivers in some instances not to clear the intersection before the light turns red. The camera companies get the majority of the revenue. The same studies showed that if the yellow light was increased in duration than the instances of red-light running would be greatly reduced.

The red-light monitoring was put in, in the name of safety. The shortening of the yellow caution light was not publicized, but found out by some concerned citizans with stop-watches.

So if they shorten the yellow they collect more revenue, but if they lenghten the yellow in the name of safty revenue collection falls.

So what was the real reason, safety of revenue?

( sorry if I have miss-represented the information here, it was in an article in Car and Driver magazine awhile back. I can look up the article if anybody is interested )

regards,

michael

quote:

---

For what it's worth I don't think there's a biological basis for socialism, but I don't think there's one for capitalism either.

---

I think there's a biological (or other 'ical') basis to believe that voluntary socialism can't work. An obvious data point is the number of prominent avowed socialists who exploit their position and resources to get better schooling for their children in favour of the children of less prominent people.

The instinct to give your offspring an advantage is extremely powerful, as evidenced by the sharp increase in property values within the catchment areas of allegedly 'good' schools. The use of privilege to give an unfair advantage is very non-socialist.

Anyway ISTM that in a capitalist society the government can act to alleviate oppression, in a socialist one the government is the oppressor. And that the former is therefore more stable and agreeable to human nature than the latter.

I think thread drift is an inevitable consequence of human nature...

Paul

Paul,

I think we're looking at the question from different angles. My perspective is that of a student of evolutionary biology and it seems to me that capitalism doesn't tap into some aspect of our selfish genes any more than socialism taps into some aspect of our evolved cooperative behaviour.

All I was trying to say by agreeing with Matthew -- regrettably in a thread with all sorts of political dimensions -- is that even though genes themselves are selfish, it's a mistake to conclude that the organisms they create are capable of acting only in their self-interest.

I have a feeling my answer won't be satisfying, but before you write it off have a look at this page on biological altruism.

Joe

P.S. Another example of altruism you might find interesting.

Talking about socialism is a peculiar preoccupation of the traditionalist right and some on the left who are still living in the 70s. It's not remotely relevant to British politics and hasn't been for 30+ years (other than to keep Labour out of power).

Rather than the "means of production" contempoary politics are much more about whether you want to keep an exta £500 a year to put towards a second holiday or you'd like the government to use that money to improve healthcare for poor, black and asian people in Hackney you are unlikely to ever meet.

Matthew

Can we just be clear about one thing. Outside well characterised (Mendelian) inherited disease there is no reliable evidence that genetics dictate individual human behaviour.

John

[This message was edited by John C on Tue 08 June 2004 at 23:31.]

quote:

---

Rather than the "means of production" contempoary politics are much more about whether you want to keep an exta £500 a year to put towards a second holiday or you'd like the government to use that money to improve healthcare for poor, black and asian people in Hackney you are unlikely to ever meet.
Matthew

---

Matthew

Are the black and asian people in Hackney rich ?

Surely it should read improved healthcare for all - end of story.

PS: There are many in this country who would be grateful for £500 for their FIRST holiday. Let us not forget that.

Come back Mr. Parry !

quote:

---

it's a mistake to conclude that the organisms they create are capable of acting only in their self-interest.

---

I don't conclude that. It would be extremely naive, even for a non-expert in evolutionary biology....

I do assert that Jeremy's rose tinted view of socialism is contrary to human nature.

But since Matthew asserts that socialism has been dumbed out of British politics it's all moot. I'll take my £500 thankyou, I could use a holiday.

Paul

I don't want to see poverty in our rather prosperous country. There should be no excuse for homelessness, and the best education and healthcare should be available to all.

However, I feel that the above can be delivered in a free market with the appropriate checks and balances in place, and with a welfare state that will provide an appropriate safety net for those who fall on troubled times.

What I don't want to see is "social engineering" and manipulation of behaviour patterns of the electorate, nor tools of oppression being used to monitor, control, and check our movements.

I also agree with Margaret Thatcher when she said that there is no such thing as society - as individuals we have to embrace freedom and responsibility hand-in-hand for the common good.

As a believer in existentialism, individuals are permanently detached from other individuals but by their conscience...

Governments exist to serve and not be served.



Regards,

Steve.

[This message was edited by Steven Toy on Wed 09 June 2004 at 1:33.]

quote:

---

Rather than the "means of production" contempoary politics are much more about whether you want to keep an exta £500 a year to put towards a second holiday or you'd like the government to use that money to improve healthcare for poor, black and asian people in Hackney you are unlikely to ever meet.

Matthew

---

I didn't know I had any choice.

cheers

Nigel

The choice we have in the UK has always been less tax + less public spending (Tory) Vs more tax + more public spending (Labour).

New Labour was never about changing that but about keeping the Labour party's nutters away from anything they could mess up. The Tories, by contrast, have put their nutters in charge.

Overall, It's really about whether you want us to be more like the US or more like Scandanavia.

I seem to recall that the overall tax bill never really droppped until the Tories. We were just taxed differently as indeed we are now...

Yes the headline rate for income tax has fallen since I started working but National Insurance contributions have gone up from 7.5% to current levels. Also personal allowances have been gradually eroded by successive governments. VAT was 10% when it was introduced...

Thatch had the windfall from North Sea Oil, Gordon had his £20Bn from the mobile phone companies. What has that all been spent on? Road tax and high levels of tax on fuel

Can I have my £500 back now?

quote:

---

Originally posted by seagull:

Thatch had the windfall from North Sea Oil, Gordon had his £20Bn from the mobile phone companies. What has that all been spent on? Road tax and high levels of tax on fuel

---

Thatchers oil money was spent on unemployment benefit and tax breaks for the rich.

Browns millions has been spent on health/education/transport/tax breaks for families and lower paid people/environmental issues.

Choices, choices.

Stephen

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:

I didn't know I had any choice.

cheers

Nigel

---

You do. Vote Labour or Tory.

Regards

Stephen

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Bennett:

---

You do. Vote Labour or Tory.

Regards

Stephen

You think that is choice?

cheers

Nigel

If you have more than one possibility, you have a choice.

You may not like your choices of course....

Stephen

How about the Lib Dems?

Mathew

quote:

---

put towards a second holiday or you'd like the government to use that money to improve healthcare for poor, black and asian people in Hackney you are unlikely to ever meet.

---

it`d be nice if the extra taxes levied by nice Mr Brown actally went towards the Good Causes advertised. In fact the lion`s share seems to be swallowed up by the hordes of extra beaurocrats who can smell a new gravy train a mile away...I see it happening time and time again, each time the government announce a new wad of cash for some public service or other.

Very little of this extra actually filters down to those used to justify it being levied in the first place

From where I stand, thereis nothing "NEW" about this particular socialist government...just good old fashioned Stalinism, replete with 5 year plans, targets, and damnation for anyone in the system who voices the obvious "King`s New Clothes" criticism

In my own institution, staff have been clearly told that raising any comments percieved as "negative" at meetings will likely result in loss of the "performance" related elements of salary.....in fact this has actually occurred in a number of cases, so is no idle threat....it makes me chuckle when I hear Tony Blair decying "repression" in OTHER countries

Laurie S


Laurie S