Clinton v Trump: Dawn of Presidency

Smeelia

Thousand Master
#82
I would have used far from perfect but then that might only be me..
Oops, I must have mistyped. I meant to say it's not as bad as some but not nearly as good as it could be, basically.

It's not really lowering our standards if we are removing those that are a detriment to groups in our society. As for telling ourselves people would take advantage - well, I mean, I know most people don't burgle houses for a living, but I still lock my door and set the alarm before leaving my house (means I have to be there with my keys whenever a friend comes round but that's ok, I know it's safer). Banks know a lot of people make credit card payments on time, but still run credit checks and if someone's is bad, they refuse to give out credit cards (meaning some people can't get loans for potential business ideas or getting a new car, but it's good because they can be somewhat sure the person will pay things back). Same thing here - it will stop some people from coming here or mean they have to apply for a visa, but it goes some way to tackling abuse. Unless your line of thinking is that nobody put any safeguards in place for anything in life, and everyone just be free to do what they want.
Safeguards are fine, although you do have to be careful that they're not unreasonably detrimental to others. There's room for subjectivity and drawing the line isn't always going to be easy but it's often better to put the effort in than just go with something that seems easier but may cause other issues itself.

In the context of European Citizens, they are essentially a part of our society so there is grounds for offering them protection on that basis (if arguably so). The UK itself is divided into different regions and has different levels of government and different cultures, even so we still make up one society and try to strike a balance that is fair to as many as possible (at least in theory). It's another case where drawing the lines isn't always so straightforward as an obvious "us" and "them" split.
 
#83
In the context of European Citizens, they are essentially a part of our society so there is grounds for offering them protection on that basis (if arguably so). The UK itself is divided into different regions and has different levels of government and different cultures, even so we still make up one society and try to strike a balance that is fair to as many as possible (at least in theory). It's another case where drawing the lines isn't always so straightforward as an obvious "us" and "them" split.
I think this complication has only arose with the EEC becoming the EU and moving towards political union through the back door. I'm clear on what us and them means - us = British citizens and them = non-British citizens. I don't see why someone from France or Poland should be favoured over someone from India or Nigeria, to me they are both foreign and should be treated the same, expected to take the same language tests on arrival, go through the same paperwork and have the same restrictions in terms of how much they need to be earning before receiving a work permit. The EU lowered it's own standards purposely just to let in countries in Eastern Europe that had severely lower minimum wages than what we have - that's not a society I want to be part of, where there is so much disparity between one member state and another.
 

Smeelia

Thousand Master
#85
I think this complication has only arose with the EEC becoming the EU and moving towards political union through the back door. I'm clear on what us and them means - us = British citizens and them = non-British citizens. I don't see why someone from France or Poland should be favoured over someone from India or Nigeria, to me they are both foreign and should be treated the same, expected to take the same language tests on arrival, go through the same paperwork and have the same restrictions in terms of how much they need to be earning before receiving a work permit. The EU lowered it's own standards purposely just to let in countries in Eastern Europe that had severely lower minimum wages than what we have - that's not a society I want to be part of, where there is so much disparity between one member state and another.
I'd rather have a society that moves towards incorporating more people into it and offers fairness for all rather than one that drives people out and only supports a smaller and smaller group (especially when it becomes to the detriment of those outside the society). I'm not saying the EU are exactly providing that (their reasons for expanding may not be entirely benevolent) but it's what I think we should ultimately be aiming for.

At the end of the day, countries are basically a made up way of grouping people and the people living in them are complex beings that are the same and yet different to each other. I can understand the practical benefits of trying to focus on improving things for a particular limited group without overextending and stretching limited resources but, as technology and availability of resources improves, we have less and less of an excuse.

I suppose this comes around to my previous point, we're making things more difficult for ourselves by continuing with an outdated and inefficient system that will probably never be able to support a larger and fairer society. Some people seem committed to maintaining the existing system rather than consider ways to improve it to enable it to effectively support a larger group of people. I suppose that maybe brings us back to the original topic, many people do want to see change and will jump at anything that looks vaguely like it could be an opportunity. What we really need is better alternatives.

Good, I might have to have hung you for treason otherwise
(sorry I'm fruiting up the thread I know)
I'm fairly confident that they actually stopped hanging from being a punishment for treason (eventually).

They do say that fruit is good for you, so I expect you're fine.
 
#86
I don't see why we need to incorporate more people, I really don't. There are already issues facing people that are already here that need addressing. How about focus on the people that are here now, paying taxes and contributing NOW - don't they deserve that? They are the ones who built this society after all.

Countries are not made up. People fought for those territories, fought to keep them safe, people call those places their home and each country has their own unique culture, whether it comes from them festering it themselves or from a mix that has come from outside. You are thinking to a point so far in the future, and to shaft people because of the way you think society will look like in 100 or so years time the policies that will govern that kind of landscape, people will get left behind. But they won't just get left behind, they will become angry, and result in situations like we have now. People want change in the way things are happening NOW so they can see something different happening immediately, not a change to support the kind of world SOME want to see.
 

Smeelia

Thousand Master
#87
I don't see why we need to incorporate more people, I really don't. There are already issues facing people that are already here that need addressing. How about focus on the people that are here now, paying taxes and contributing NOW - don't they deserve that? They are the ones who built this society after all.

Countries are not made up. People fought for those territories, fought to keep them safe, people call those places their home and each country has their own unique culture, whether it comes from them festering it themselves or from a mix that has come from outside. You are thinking to a point so far in the future, and to shaft people because of the way you think society will look like in 100 or so years time the policies that will govern that kind of landscape, people will get left behind. But they won't just get left behind, they will become angry, and result in situations like we have now. People want change in the way things are happening NOW so they can see something different happening immediately, not a change to support the kind of world SOME want to see.
I wouldn't say the people here now "built" this society, they may have slightly reshaped it (at least partly depending on how long they've been here and lived) but we're always working based on the society that existed and was created by those before us (going a whole long way back). Sometimes the foundations are flawed and if we don't directly address those flaws, and instead only look at the surface level, then we're not improving things as much as we could. Sometimes it's not even a case of flaws so much as changing requirements.

Countries were originally made up and they are subject to change. It's the people that really matter (and culture is a personal thing) and, as you say, there's no inherent reason to treat someone from Nigeria differently from someone from France. Why do people who happen to be geographically nearby deserve special treatment?

We can keep playing our little game of artificial competition between made up teams if we want but we should at least be honest about it.

I don't see the point in going out of our way to maintain a flawed system when there are things we could be doing now to make things better for a lot of people, especially when we supposedly believe in making things better. We might have to make gradual progress to get there but taking steps back, moving towards nationalism and pushing others away don't seem like things we really need to do and are more likely to be counter-productive.

I don't see why we can't work on solving problems here while also working on solving problems elsewhere and working together with each other to do so. Isn't that basically what societies are supposed to be for?
 
#88
Bringing back the jobs is a naive fantasy. Nobody seems to realise that bringing back the jobs inevitably involves paying a lot more for things. As much as you may personally fail to realise it, everyone benefits immensely from globalisation. It might be hard to measure the social and cultural impacts, but at the very least I'm more than willing to bet you couldn't afford the device you're reading this on if it had to be made in Western Europe.
Then how did Western Europe and the US manage to produce most of their own consumer goods for much of the 20th Century? Globalisation didn't really kick in until the 1980s. Regardless of where they're made, I'd rather spend £500 on a smartphone someone was being paid £100 to make and the execs make less profit than one someone was being paid £10 to make with the extra profit going to shareholders, which is what happens now. I'm not sure how anyone can think exploiting the non-unionised workforce of poor countries is "good".

I have no desire to go back to old social models, but from an economic standpoint that was clearly a much better system for ordinary people - Goods were sold at less of a markup so that the people who made them could afford to buy them (without needing to incur debt by entering into credit agreements - who but the very wealthy can afford to save or make any major purchases outright these days?) and the wealthiest people were taxed for the benefit of everyone, including themselves, because they have to live in the same society as everyone else. That's anther thing that's happened - Back in the 1950s-1970s the top rates of income tax were much higher.

I don't have anything against immigration, I believe everyone should be able to live and work anywhere they please. I don't have anything against people of different races, cultures or nationalities, I don't like us all being set against each other to distract from the real people who are causing all these problems which manifest themselves in the anger we're seeing from voters - The selfish people at the top. But of course they control the narrative because they control the press, so of course they'll point the finger at anyone but themselves.
 
#89
Then how did Western Europe and the US manage to produce most of their own consumer goods for much of the 20th Century? Globalisation didn't really kick in until the 1980s. Regardless of where they're made, I'd rather spend £500 on a smartphone someone was being paid £100 to make and the execs make less profit than one someone was being paid £10 to make with the extra profit going to shareholders, which is what happens now.

I have no desire to go back to old social models, but from an economic standpoint that was clearly a much better system for ordinary people - Goods were sold at less of a markup so that the people who made them could afford to buy them (without needing to incur debt by entering into credit agreements - who but the very wealthy can afford to save or make any major purchases outright these days?) and the wealthiest people were taxed for the benefit of everyone, including themselves, because they have to live in the same society as everyone else. That's anther thing that's happened - Back in the 1950s-1970s the top rates of income tax were much higher.

I don't have anything against immigration, I believe everyone should be able to live and work anywhere they please. I don't have anything against people of different races, cultures or nationalities, I don't like us all being set against each other to distract from the real people who are causing all these problems which manifest themselves in the anger we're seeing from voters - The selfish people at the top. But of course they control the narrative because they control the press, so of course they'll point the finger at anyone but themselves.
And how do you convince people to give up on the money they receive from dividends? It isn't just the wealthy that own shares...

In theory the ideas you paint are nice, in reality there is no feasible way of making them work. Politics is about pragmatism and compromise, if you aren't willing to do either, your ideology will fail. Probably with good reason, too much of any single ideology is more than likely dangerous.
 
#90
So your answer to the super rich getting richer and the poorest (not just in our society, but the world) having their rights gradually eroded and becoming virtual slaves to global finance (you're right, everyone is tied into it now with pension funds and the like) is to "compromise" with such people, who clearly are willing to put the almighty dollar above human life?

I think this is another area we're going to have to agree to disagree.
 
#91
So your answer to the super rich getting richer and the poorest (not just in our society, but the world) having their rights gradually eroded and becoming virtual slaves to global finance (you're right, everyone is tied into it now with pension funds and the like) is to "compromise" with such people, who clearly are willing to put the almighty dollar above human life?

I think this is another area we're going to have to agree to disagree.
No, my solution is to pragmatically acknowledge that human nature and your "socialist" (I personally think the phrase "extreme socialist" is appropriate, but you'll likely be upset by that.) utopia are fundamentally incompatible. Humans don't look out for other people, they look out for themselves. Working class, upper class, illuminati, gentry, middle class, whatever -- human nature doesn't change. It's simply impossible to create a society where all people are equal, but resources are finite. You can try and make the share more even, but you can't give everybody infinite amounts, and how would you find somebody who was infallibly benevolent enough to take control? You couldn't.

As nice as your socialist dreamworld sounds, it will not and cannot ever exist, as it is fundamentally incompatible with humanity.
 

Smeelia

Thousand Master
#92
No, my solution is to pragmatically acknowledge that human nature and your "socialist" (I personally think the phrase "extreme socialist" is appropriate, but you'll likely be upset by that.) utopia are fundamentally incompatible. Humans don't look out for other people, they look out for themselves. Working class, upper class, illuminati, gentry, middle class, whatever -- human nature doesn't change. It's simply impossible to create a society where all people are equal, but resources are finite. You can try and make the share more even, but you can't give everybody infinite amounts, and how would you find somebody who was infallibly benevolent enough to take control? You couldn't.

As nice as your socialist dreamworld sounds, it will not and cannot ever exist, as it is fundamentally incompatible with humanity.
That's absolute nonsense. People are quite capable of looking out for each other, it happens all of the time. You could argue that they do so for personal reasons, and thus ultimately do so for themselves, but they still do it and, in a practical sense, that's good enough.

Pretending that "human nature" prevents us from caring about others is just a convenient lie that makes it easier to avoid acknowledging that people sometimes choose to be horrible to each other when they're quite capable of choosing to be benevolent.
 
#93
I wouldn't say the people here now "built" this society, they may have slightly reshaped it (at least partly depending on how long they've been here and lived) but we're always working based on the society that existed and was created by those before us (going a whole long way back). Sometimes the foundations are flawed and if we don't directly address those flaws, and instead only look at the surface level, then we're not improving things as much as we could. Sometimes it's not even a case of flaws so much as changing requirements.

Countries were originally made up and they are subject to change. It's the people that really matter (and culture is a personal thing) and, as you say, there's no inherent reason to treat someone from Nigeria differently from someone from France. Why do people who happen to be geographically nearby deserve special treatment?

We can keep playing our little game of artificial competition between made up teams if we want but we should at least be honest about it.

I don't see the point in going out of our way to maintain a flawed system when there are things we could be doing now to make things better for a lot of people, especially when we supposedly believe in making things better. We might have to make gradual progress to get there but taking steps back, moving towards nationalism and pushing others away don't seem like things we really need to do and are more likely to be counter-productive.

I don't see why we can't work on solving problems here while also working on solving problems elsewhere and working together with each other to do so. Isn't that basically what societies are supposed to be for?
So you're saying culture plays no part in how people act? It may be a personal thing, but it shapes our beliefs, how we view the world and how we act. It's like you don't even understand human nature. When you're at a party, where there's 1000s people, what do you do? (this is the general you, not you as an individual), you find and stick with those that are most similar to you, and relate to you in terms of culture. Societies are built from those who hold similar values, maybe some differences in political thought but the values are generally the same - the world is not yet at a point where everyone from every country holds the same values, so I don't see it being a very cohesive society. The world is interesting because of the different societies and cultures that have been allowed to manifest.

Just like how devolved powers do the best to solve issues in particular parts of a country etc., countries looking at and acting in the interest of their own people and to those they welcome into their country (and who have undergone checks and been allowed passage based on that country's rules etc.) makes sense. They can focus in on issues for that particular area and do their best because they are focusing on their nation. You can call it artificial competition, but for those losing out, it's not very artificial at all - it's happening right now, and they want to see that their nations are giving them a fighting chance, rather than making things easier from those outside their own society.

You keep saying this system is so flawed, but there's no evidence to suggest your proposed solution would work. I think governments working on their own social and political issues and, where it is best, doing trade deals (not agreeing freedom of movement) would be best to resolve a lot of issues, as people are taking the time to work on their own problems and getting their own house in order. You know, it's like in a work place - concentrate on your own work, if you look to what others are doing too much (aside from shadowing to see examples of good practice), it will distract you. This is better than everybody being so involved here there and everywhere, doing what they think is better for those in other nations, where there may in fact be huge cultural difference and so therefore the interference does more bad than good. You know what's best for your OWN nation, or should be looking into it, so stick to that.

We could work on solving problems elsewhere, but those people elsewhere are not paying for this society and keeping it afloat. We help where we can and show compassion, but their issues need to be looked at by their own governments. Our governments need to focus on doing what's best for us, their own people - it is us, after all, that put them where they are.
 
#94
That's absolute nonsense. People are quite capable of looking out for each other, it happens all of the time. You could argue that they do so for personal reasons, and thus ultimately do so for themselves, but they still do it and, in a practical sense, that's good enough.

Pretending that "human nature" prevents us from caring about others is just a convenient lie that makes it easier to avoid acknowledging that people sometimes choose to be horrible to each other when they're quite capable of choosing to be benevolent.
People are certainly capable of caring about others. Capability is not the issue - the issue is whether people act in that way or not. How can you guarantee that everyone will consider everyone else every second of every single day, to the point where a society like the one you fantasise about could work? The answer is you can't.
 
#96
That's absolute nonsense. People are quite capable of looking out for each other, it happens all of the time. You could argue that they do so for personal reasons, and thus ultimately do so for themselves, but they still do it and, in a practical sense, that's good enough.

Pretending that "human nature" prevents us from caring about others is just a convenient lie that makes it easier to avoid acknowledging that people sometimes choose to be horrible to each other when they're quite capable of choosing to be benevolent.
When it comes down to it, everything is done for inherently selfish reasons. By no means am I excusing human behaviour, humans suck. Don't mistake my condemnation of human behaviour as excusing it. But practically there will be a point where inevitably it benefits somebody more to **** on somebody else than not, and it's impossible to overcome that, humans just aren't benevolent enough.

Machines are simply not infallible, neither are the beings that program them. I don't think there will ever be a means of implementing this system that isn't vulnerable.
 
#98
Even part of that's selfish to an extent. The country only wanted state education for everyone when they realised they would end up with better workers as a result.

People will their interests first. And I think, the more people realise this and accept it, the better. Stops you getting some shocks along the way in life when you suddenly realise, that not a lot of people will care about you. It's a flaw, but it's not something I think people should be shamed or punished for, unless those self interests directly harm someone else or threaten their lives - law, here's your queue.
 
#99
So I should bin my left wing ideals cos people are arseholes yeah I've hit that barrier when I felt like I wanted to dump them but I won't. I have hope even a little but still hope for the future hope for a left wing labour government that would put people before businesses intrest.
 
Machines are simply not infallible, neither are the beings that program them. I don't think there will ever be a means of implementing this system that isn't vulnerable.
If we can (and I believe eventually, we will) create an AI with a greater capacity for learning and understanding than the human mind, it will take it from there. I might be entirely wrong about what's best for society, equally you might be entirely wrong, but it will know because it will be more intelligent than any human. Humans questioning its judgement will be like monkeys trying to advise a President.

If it decides to kill us all and continue on alone, or create its own species in our wake (or perhaps just absorb us into some kind of Borg collective) that will be for the best.