Congratulations 48%

[Spearfish]

I read Atlas Shrugged a few years ago, and it's well written and intelligent. But it's also profoundly flawed in it's focus on the primary right of the individual and belief that the individual is rational. That idea of rational self interest has merit in arguing that human evolution is dependent on individuals operating under a code of personal values while seeking to improve their lot. However the overwhelming flaw is that it doesn't recognise that each individual operates within and is dependent on a society of interconnected individuals to be successful, and that society needs to be organised. It also doesn't recognise that human society in turn operates within a physical environment that is a network of interconnected systems, and that if those systems break down society collapses.

It's interesting when looking at Rand's ideas to consider Michels' iron law of oligarchy which is basically that all forms of human organisation descend into oligarchy. This is because of the tendency of humans to be self interested at the expense of others, so leaders inevitably seek increasing levels of power and control until they reach a state of oligarchy.

Society based on aristocracy didn't work now your saying meritocracy isn't working, what's the alternative?

It seems right wing policies have to be so much further right than left wing policies have to be left before the pitfalls of either political flavour is felt so sadly NZ swings either left or right looking for the least of a bad thing at the time of an election rather than looking for a good thing(what ever that is) capable of helping to create genuine, personal contentment in what ever forms that takes.(airy fairy tripe)

But then if we were all content with our lot then advertising/capitalism would be rooted?

[Headbanger]

society based on aristocracy didn't work now your saying meritocracy isn't working, what's the alternative?

destroy all humans.

[Spearfish]

Why?

I think there is a good defence for the generalisation that smarter people tend to have a more nuanced view of politics and the human condition, and are more likely to be aligned with "left-wing" ideas than the right, for a bunch of structural reasons related to the core beliefs of these philosophies. This topic is the matter of academic research - not sure how you can validly insist it's "retarded" just because you don't like the conclusion.

It's simple really GUILT, they have stuff and others don't. They are the rich pricks after all...

[Spearfish]

destroy all humans.

Not until Ive had my cheese and, heavy on the onion, sandwich for lunch.

[Crasherfromwayback]

. Ability to empathise with others can also be an important product of intelligence, thus smarter people tend to be more compassionate to the less fortunate.

They might also more easily recognise the folly of short-term greed and self-interest, perhaps understanding better that life is a long road with many twists and turns.


they're probably more widely read and have been exposed to more ideas and know more history... should I go on?

Do you really believe you shouldn't compare yourself with others? Admirable in some senses, I suppose, but how do you deal with sport?

I'm not sure I agree with the first bit. I often find extremely intelligent people tend to have a rather short fuse when it comes to dealing with people 'below' them. Often barely giving them the time of day.

The greed bit? No way. A lot of very intelligent people have been busted for fraud. Is that not all about greed?

Widely read? Whilst more often than not intelligent people do read a lot, I don't think being widely read will make you any more intelligent, it'll simply mean that. But that's not intelligence is it?

Sport? Well that's easy. You let the results speak for themselves. But I think you missed my point.

[shrub]

Society based on aristocracy didn't work now your saying meritocracy isn't working, what's the alternative?

It seems right wing policies have to be so much further right than left wing policies have to be left before the pitfalls of either political flavour is felt so sadly NZ swings either left or right looking for the least of a bad thing at the time of an election rather than looking for a good thing(what ever that is) capable of helping to create genuine, personal contentment in what ever forms that takes.(airy fairy tripe)

Meritocracy doesn't really exist in the modern world, or more to the point it is not followed in political or commercial environments. What we have is plutocracy which is in essence a modern form of feudalism.

But then if we were all content with our lot then advertising/capitalism would be rooted?

You're right, a very effective way of controlling people is to create and foster an ongoing sense of discontent and to offer the solution to that discontentment. It's been used in varying ways for all of time and right now it's framed in terms of "you deserve to have more and you will never be happy until you have.....". It's behind the almost obsessive desire to pay less tax, the growth of private debt and unsustainable consumption. I was amazed this morning, a guy on the radio was talking about how GST was stopping first home owners from building because "the GST on a $500k house is $75K, and that is too much". WTF???? I built my first home, and it was 110 m2, had particle board floors, chinaman hat light fittings and old sheets as curtains. I thought I was the king, but a young couple today would not be able to live without an ensuite, 2 lounges, internal entry garage etc because they have been convinced that is what they deserve.

[oneofsix]

Meritocracy doesn't really exist in the modern world, or more to the point it is not followed in political or commercial environments. What we have is plutocracy which is in essence a modern form of feudalism.

I've often said the 1%s are trying to return us to feudalism, you say they've already done it. There might be some truth in what you say but as life/history is a spiral I would suggest that the modern feudalism isn't as complete as the original and this time it has taken less than half a century for the revolt to start. You see I date the 1% from the 1980s, they took longer to build their base but greed didn't become god until then.

[Winston001]

Thanks for answering the question. I've always found Rand to be tedious.....I'll give you Friedman and Hayek, although I'd prefer Keynes of course -

Hayek is currently in vogue with the American right but for the sake of balance, here is what Paul Krugman (Nobel prize economist) has to say:



"Via Mark Thoma, David Warsh finally says what someone needed to say: Friedrich Hayek is not an important figure in the history of macroeconomics.


These days, you constantly see articles that make it seem as if there was a great debate in the 1930s between Keynes and Hayek, and that this debate has continued through the generations. As Warsh says, nothing like this happened. Hayek essentially made a fool of himself early in the Great Depression, and his ideas vanished from the professional discussion.


So why is his name invoked so much now? Because The Road to Serfdom struck a political chord with the American right, which adopted Hayek as a sort of mascot — and retroactively inflated his role as an economic thinker.



But the Hayek thing is almost entirely about politics rather than economics. Without The Road To Serfdom — and the way that book was used by vested interests to oppose the welfare state — nobody would be talking about his business cycle ideas."

Will read about Taleb when I get a moment.

[shrub]

I've often said the 1%s are trying to return us to feudalism, you say they've already done it. There might be some truth in what you say but as life/history is a spiral I would suggest that the modern feudalism isn't as complete as the original and this time it has taken less than half a century for the revolt to start. You see I date the 1% from the 1980s, they took longer to build their base but greed didn't become god until then.

Yeah, that fits neatly with most of the theories of political change I'm familiar with, but I would go as far as to say it's probably not so much the wealthy 1% as the global corporate giants. If you look at an organisation like Vodafone, even Bill Gates would be unable to gain a controlling interest in it and they have a very powerful presence in most of the world providing and therefore controlling just about the most important aspects of modern life - communication and information transfer. If you look at NZ, we have 2 degrees and telecom in competition, and proponents of Adam Smith would say that they keep Vodafone honest through the mechanism of the market, but that's bullshit. Both of them are so miniscule and insignificant that if Vodafone decided to own the NZ market, they would be gone by lunchtime.

In the media world it's not much different. In a process of mergers and acquisitions almost all of the developed world's media comes through (from memory) 6 giant organisations that in turn own just about every newspaper, radio station, TV network and movie studio. But probably the most chilling picture is dairy farming in NZ. When I grew up owning a dairy farm by the time you hit 30 was very achievable. You got a job as a farm hand, saved and borrowed to buy a herd, went sharemilking and then after a few years bought a farm. It was possible because 100 and 100 head of cattle was all you needed to be successful. Now the average farm has 386 head with an average size of 140ha (350 acres) and with a median price of around $30k per ha, that makes an average farm $4.2m. How many 30 year olds can aspire to that? So what happens is the farms are owned by a diminishing number of owners and the gubuy who used to own his own farm is an employee, or more likely a contractor. He is self employed, but a modern serf.

Ah, it's all fucked up. I'm off down to the pub.

[pete376403]

One of the very biggest hypocrisies in evidence is that by and large most left wing politicians espouse an equal society, and yet they are just as eager to be at the feeding trough of taxpayer funded perks. Take that fag Chris Carter as one of the most blatant examples, a socialist and a ''man of the people'', but he had a lovely old time at the taxpayers expense.

Bit like that other guy Bill English, claiming the living expense for renting his own house. The trough mentality applies to both sides, ALL sides of the parliament.

[slowpoke]

Ya gotta larf at the opinions and theories being spruiked about other people opinions and theories which were written in bygone ages...or even today for that matter. It's the intellectual equivalent of Chinese whispers: so and so wrote a book in the 30's based on theories and assumptions that may or may not even be accurate let alone relevant to today's conditions, then my uni professor desseminated it and put his spin and interpretation on it, then I regurgitate it with my own interpretations based on half remembered discussions with that hot nerd chick I was trying to impress a few years/beers ago.

Like so much "intellectual" twaddle all the generalising and conceptualising is like having a really big cock, it sounds great in theory but in practice it's virtually useless.

[oldrider]

Ya gotta larf at the opinions and theories being spruiked about other people opinions and theories which were written in bygone ages...or even today for that matter. It's the intellectual equivalent of Chinese whispers: so and so wrote a book in the 30's based on theories and assumptions that may or may not even be accurate let alone relevant to today's conditions, then my uni professor desseminated it and put his spin and interpretation on it, then I regurgitate it with my own interpretations based on half remembered discussions with that hot nerd chick I was trying to impress a few years/beers ago.

Like so much "intellectual" twaddle all the generalising and conceptualising is like having a really big cock, it sounds great in theory but in practice it's virtually useless.

Isn't that the whole point of the thread, enjoy it or don't bother reading it. Choice.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Like so much "intellectual" twaddle all the generalising and conceptualising is like having a really big cock, it sounds great in theory but in practice it's virtually useless.

The funniest thing with intellectuals is the amount of (large) words they feel the need to use to get their point across.

They take ten times longer, with at least that much more drivel, to say the same thing a so called (in their eyes) simpleton can say with half the words.

[mashman]

Ya gotta larf at the opinions and theories being spruiked about other people opinions and theories which were written in bygone ages...or even today for that matter. It's the intellectual equivalent of Chinese whispers: so and so wrote a book in the 30's based on theories and assumptions that may or may not even be accurate let alone relevant to today's conditions, then my uni professor desseminated it and put his spin and interpretation on it, then I regurgitate it with my own interpretations based on half remembered discussions with that hot nerd chick I was trying to impress a few years/beers ago.

Like so much "intellectual" twaddle all the generalising and conceptualising is like having a really big cock, it sounds great in theory but in practice it's virtually useless.

That's a Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious post.

[Brian d marge]

The funniest thing with intellectuals is the amount of (large) words they feel the need to use to get their point across.

They take ten times longer, with at least that much more drivel, to say the same thing a so called (in their eyes) simpleton can say with half the words.

true , look at Mrs Pardickle , in bleak house, , but there is a certain level of education one is expected to be familiar with , below that .....insecurity reigns

Stephen