Squeers

“I don't think you're capable of humility,”

Strangely Squeers, I don’t care a rats what you think

But I would say, “humility” is lacking in anyone who decides to stand in judgment over the supposed shortcomings of others

which I will simply put it down to your inherent leftard capacity for hypocrisy

“I confess it's a dilemma.”

I see no dilemma…

It is probably because you philosophy is based on airy-fairy notions of wannabe fairness

Mine are based on common sense which says

we each have different genes,
therefore we each have different abilities,
therefore we will each achive differently

Like dearest Margaret said (and she saw no dilemma either)

“Let our children grow tall, and some taller than others if they have it in them to do so. “

Re “emulate (or parody) the decadent lifestyles of their unworthily wealthy "betters".

Who appointed you judge?

You are no one… a mere voice (- more a whisper or a wild beast breaking wind) in the wilderness…

I must admit it is only because I am a little bored that I am bothering to respond to you in the first place.

Its called “feeding the trolls”….

Best not to.. but now and again we throw them a scrap to gnaw on

I do not pretend to speak for “European Christians”, only for myself

I do not pretend I should sit in judgment over the humility of others

I do not pretend to have all the answers

However, I do know, my efforts should not be taxed simply to subsidise the profligacy of idiots, pursuing a failed and pointless philosophy of egalitarian sameness and the indolence of incorrigibles.

In short… you want it… you go work for it… and you buy it….

Don’t ask me for a sub because I owe you nothing

And I am the one who will decide which charities I will sponsor

Col:

<it is only because I am a little bored that I am bothering to respond to you in the first place.

Its called “feeding the trolls”…. >

you've used Squeers's name a few times of late, so I inferred you were desperate for some attention and threw you a bone.. Talk about ungrateful!

<But I would say, “humility” is lacking in anyone who decides to stand in judgment over the supposed shortcomings of others>

I was standing in judgement of our "society". Don't you stand in judgement og greens and socialists? Don't we all stand in judgement variously on OLO? And don't you regularly stand in judgement over those you despise?

<we each have different genes,
therefore we each have different abilities,
therefore we will each achive differently>

But it is surely more about luck and opportunity than genes or abilities?

True though that there are exceptions; my State School daughter recently triumphed over a cohort of older students from elite private schools in instrumental music. I didn't see any superiority of genes, and certainly not ability, just rich parents, expensive instruments, private tutors etc. etc. Very gratifying it was, but she'll need to continue to work twice as hard to make up for her demographic disadvantage--sorry, I mean genetic.

Thank you Peter for your comments. I never said in the article that our current situation and that of the Roman's was exactly the same. However in my view our circumstances are similiar enough from a historical trajectory perspective that I think the analogy of bread and circuses then as now is far from being invalid.

Squeers, I think it is highly unlikely that our society will change until events force us to do so. As a result I foresee a long and porbably quite nasty period of decline ahead of us following something like John Michael Greer's catabolic collapse theory (for those not familiar this is NOT an apocalyptic view of the future). If I was to recommend anything it would be that policy makers factored in declining marginal returns into policy decisions, eg. is investing billions of dollars into road tunnels that make a journey by car 20 minutes quicker really a good idea given the challenges we face.

Donkeygod, I agree that radical simplification of government is required and will happen in due course, as we head down the catabolic collapse path. However I disagree with your comment about society not needing to. As we progress along the energy depletion path at the global level this will force a simplification of society. In many ways this will be good for many people in the long run but potentially very painful in the short term.

Cameron Leckie

Squeers “But it is surely more about luck and opportunity than genes or abilities”

It is about attitude and behavior

Attitude might be inherited genetically or by parental role model influences etc.

But behavior is always the prerogative of the individual

And as individuals, we should all get a chance to make our own choices,

It is the despotism of collectivists, by any name, which seeks to limit the choices of the individual and subordinate them in the name of the collective.

That is the great lie of socialism,

Just as making the rich poor will not make the poor richer,

So too, reducing personal choice will never improve collective outcomes, indeed collective outcomes are more prone to failure because the length of the decision chain between the decider and the outcome.

Squeers, your comments have been directed at me and my motivations etc

So I suggest you never forget

I am fully entitled to observe the obvious shortcomings of reason, logic and morality in your posts, with as much direct analysis as I choose, regardless the level of discomfort you may experience.

(in short – don’t try to throw a figurative punch at me unless you are prepared to get one back… on the chin)

In short… you want it… you go work for it… and you buy it….

Don’t ask me for a sub because I owe you nothing

And I am the one who will decide which charities I will sponsor

Col,
The tragedy is that we have people in power who disagree with that & even more who support them. Is stupidity already an epidemic ? Do we still have time to to develop an antidote ?
Australia WAKE UP !

Yep, bread and circuses...also rampant parasitical behaviour rewarded with praise and wealth and all middle class and corporate welfare.
"Socialism" vs "Capitalism" arguments are like which is best: Frozen or burned? Both are unspeakable without balance and both extremes are harmful.
Will the extreme capitalist acknowledge the massive public bailouts and the need for infrastructure and rules?
Will the extreme socialist acknowledge the limitations of bureaucracy and top-down control?
Doubtful as most folks are having so much fun labelling and abusing the other side.
A lot of our problems are demographic....we need turnover at the top so the world can utilise the technology developed recently, and move away from a "empty world, cheap energy, steal from savages" mindset.
For those who *still* think the last decade was good economics....just how long can you live on credit card debt, and what happens when you stop racking it up and have to pay back? In macro economics it's called "boom - Bust - Recession". The "blame" should go to the spenders...but it won't. The media will blame the government for over-spending while the real over-spenders continue to reap profits!
So long as finance runs the economy we will have very wealthy accountants and our real wealth will steadily decline. Boom - Bust will continue so long as the price of money is manipulated for political reasons. (Why are interest rates set by committee?) Don't these folks *believe* in the free market? (Hint: The RBA is like a bit legal insider trading service...able to profit from any market!)