$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gt1370a', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gt1370a', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Vexed', '
')Young's central criticism of meritocracy was that a system in which social position is determined by objective characteristics would still be inegalitarian and unstable. There have since been other lines of criticism; proponents of critical theory often argue that merit is defined by the power elite simply to legitimise a system in which social status is actually determined by class, birth, and wealth."
PeakOil is You
Why do Americans hate poor people?
Re: Why do Americans hate poor people?
by untothislast » Fri 04 Nov 2005, 06:24:16
If social position is not determined by objective characteristics, what SHOULD it be determined by?
Why does there need to be "social position?"
It's a naturally occurring phenomenon. People want things. They try to get them. Those who can, do; those who can't don't. Hierarchies develop. It can either be ordered as within a society or chaotic as in anarchy. In different situations, different characteristics are valuable. In a society like ours, intelligence and hard work are valued. In a more chaotic system, it might just be brute force.
So you would like enforce a system where there is absolute equality of outcome? Everybody is exactly the same? Have you been reading Ray Bradbury, and missing the point?
The perception of poverty is subjective and personal, based upon the fact that in modern society, we set the bar for what we consider to be an acceptable level of affluence, ever higher - in order to keep people running around on the old Hamster wheel, in search of greater material rewards.
Because the dollar/pound/euro in your pocket only has any value at all, because it isn't in someone else's; the only way to assist you in your aspirations, is to create a system whereby large swathes of the world's population are actively kept from reaching the same position as you - whereupon you would lose your position of relative supremacy and wealth (which is what your ego really craves). Meanwhile, we live off the backs of their labour very well indeed. The reason why so much of the world's manufactures are coming out of China, and why an enquiry about my domestic gas supply will most probably be dealt with by a young man in Delhi, is because we can get away with paying them a pittance.
Some people are poor because they're plainly lazy. Some are relatively (there's that word again) poor, because their needs are modest and simple. For the most part, the rest are born into that condition, and will never be able to escape it, because it's in our own interests that the wealth doesn't get a chance to trickle down too much.
I've never had a problem with the idea of people advancing themselves, via their own innate talents and personal ambition - but the crucial thing, is that it shouldn't exploitatively be at the expense of anyone else. We also need to ensure that there is always a basic safety net provision in society, so that people don't just fall through the cracks.
'What? You mean they get something for free?!
Yes. And at a fundamental - no frills level - why not?
Think we can't afford to eradicate real poverty? Take a look at how much the US (sorry if the US keeps getting bagged, but it IS the only world superpower) has spent on armaments and the prosecution of war since WW2. Type it out, and when your wrist goes dead from hitting the zero key, don't say I didn't warn you.
-
untothislast - Tar Sands
- Posts: 686
- Joined: Sat 22 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: European Capital of Kulcha 2008
