Are we naturally aggressive ?
kingrollo
Posts: 3,191
Not us as cyclists - as human beings...
Was out with some 'friends the other night - one of whom is quite wealthy with his own business - his opinions on one or two things disturbed me'
- Basically there shouldn't be any such thing as benefits as each person can choose to work or not to work
- Pursuit of money is a natural instinct and its right to pursue even more - even when you have enough
Etc, etc,
I don't want to hold myself up as a moral angel because I am not - but when I see people with very little - and others with way more than need it bothers me - am I out of step here ?
Is f____ you jack I am alright - the accepted norm ?
Was out with some 'friends the other night - one of whom is quite wealthy with his own business - his opinions on one or two things disturbed me'
- Basically there shouldn't be any such thing as benefits as each person can choose to work or not to work
- Pursuit of money is a natural instinct and its right to pursue even more - even when you have enough
Etc, etc,
I don't want to hold myself up as a moral angel because I am not - but when I see people with very little - and others with way more than need it bothers me - am I out of step here ?
Is f____ you jack I am alright - the accepted norm ?
0
Posts
As for your "friends" opinion - he's entitled to them - doesn't make him right - any more than you with more socialist views are right - it's just what we as a country decide to do.
Kinesis Racelight 4S
Specialized Allez Elite (Frame/Forks for sale)
Specialized Crosstrail Comp Disk (For sale)
and as he gets older he might understand just how fleeting success and health can be.
..but it does buy a superior type of misery!!
* by some people I mean most people, sad but that’s the way it is!
The first one is complicated. It's certainly a lifestyle choice for some but I wouldn't advocate removing all benefits.
For the second question, it depends on your definition of 'enough' most people already have enough money to just survive (in the normal sense of the word). That means we're all guilty of this. How many people don't have things they don't really need? It also depends what he does with his money. He's probably creating jobs etc. I'm always wary of when people start to say rich people 'don't need' their money so it should be taxed. It's just the politics of envy.
The first one is complicated. It's certainly a lifestyle choice for some but I wouldn't advocate removing all benefits.
For the second question, it depends on your definition of 'enough' most people already have enough money to just survive (in the normal sense of the word). That means we're all guilty of this. How many people don't have things they don't really need? It also depends what he does with his money. He's probably creating jobs etc. I'm always wary of when people start to say rich people 'don't need' their money so it should be taxed. It's just the politics of envy.
The first one is complicated. It's certainly a lifestyle choice for some but I wouldn't advocate removing all benefits.
For the second question, it depends on your definition of 'enough' most people already have enough money to just survive (in the normal sense of the word). That means we're all guilty of this. How many people don't have things they don't really need? It also depends what he does with his money. He's probably creating jobs etc. I'm always wary of when people start to say rich people 'don't need' their money so it should be taxed. It's just the politics of envy.
Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
I keep looking - but nobody seems to be dropping any around where I go ...
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition
Kinesis Racelight 4S
Specialized Allez Elite (Frame/Forks for sale)
Specialized Crosstrail Comp Disk (For sale)
This is exactly the problem.
I did put that little wink at the end - I was just pulling your leg - I couldn't imagine anyone (with one exception) repeat posting the same thing over and over ...
Like everything there has to be a minimum to maximum, limits to test and balance as a result.
The behaviour described in the OP is so common that one wonders whether this has similarly instinctual roots.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0000yjs
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition
Perhaps you should read "The Great Transformation" by Karl Polanyi?
It is an important work. When written, socialism was seen as a potent force and a major threat by die-hard capitalists. Ever since that era (the 30s and 40s) they have made every effort to suppress and destroy socialism.
... although completely wrong about most things:
http://bostonreview.net/class-inequalit ... -economics
Trouble is he rambles on about this and that without giving any precise reason why he is wrong other than to introduce the moral dimension to economics! Probably because a handbook for human happiness is impossible since human nature is too fickle.
His piece on Donald Trump was a lot more sure footed:
The entire world cannot aspire to a western standard of living without something cracking under the strain.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/20/th ... 6dhDXIb5-g
It is true of indigenous tribes where co-operation is required by everyone, such as the bushmen of the Kalahari for example, that they rarely fight. They have a scant conflict vocabulary.
The third world has seen catastrophic erosion of more symbiotic existences. In the first and developing world, mechanisation has eroded traditional vocations. This erosion of role, of position, ultimately - an individuals feeling of worth is lost in the now the volatile, less tangible, less structured world we live in.
Freedom is entirely dependent on income.
We have inequalities borne of the subjective i.e a stock brokers can and often earn more than a GP, a street cleaner earns less than a financial executives PA.
There are multiple examples of how our apparent esteem and perceived importance is a cause for potential assertion of one's status. In the grander scheme of things, the individual who seeks to underline their own status through aggressive behaviour, is part of a social fabric that is under innumerable and immeasurable pressures - money, terrorism, media, fear, competition, self worth, vanity. materialism and the status perceived through material acquisition is immense competition and underpins a lot of our lives - the seemingly inexorable cycle: work > gain > work > upgrade. (Upgrade the kitchen, your mobile phone, the car, the dwelling, the bike?).
Our survival does not rely directly with the immediate co-operation of others, our existences are not clearly defined in terms of function, role or hierarchy. Therein lies the erosion of traditional obligation and a historically more ordered, more defined social position. Without this definition, may I suggest that acting aggressively has little consequence?
Therein lies the grey and the rub.
In those pressures of modern existence, it is hardly surprising that individuals can act aggressively and in certain situations, commit acts of violence.
If we turn it on it's head, acts of aggression, are to me, an expression of insecurity but simultaneously, the promotion of ego is rife and acceptable.
If a person is content with their 'lot' , they are far less likely to be aggressive.
It isn't odd that this thread has descended into an argument about Capitalism or Socialism. Though, I don't think historical conquests, conflict and war before the industrial revolution can be discussed in that light. However, modern conflict on a macro or micro scale must be discussed with a backdrop of economics.
My own opinion is that whilst Capitalism has in no doubt transformed our lives, Capitalism has created misery for millions.
It beggars belief that the proponents of Capitalism are in denial of the fact. After all, we in the West have become fat (in stark degrees) due to the exploitation of goods, resources, people - internally and externally.
The argument "It's not Capitalism that's at fault, it's the governments that set the laws; the taxation laws, the welfare state etc" or worse "...there will always be winners and losers" as if it is a natural side effect that the majority of the worlds peoples live in poverty, is somewhat flawed. Poverty is directly linked to Capitalism.
Statements such as 'i'm alright Jack' and 'Look at me, i'm successful', suggest an intrinsic Autism.
I'm not saying that those who make such brash statements are Autistic, i'm suggesting that they are severely blinkered. Few are successful without detriment to others, the environment or equality. All success comes at a price, whether by design or default.
Now, before the honourable defenders of Capitalism start spouting bollox about the alternative - either Communism or socialism, I do not think there is a viable alternative to capitalism or socialism. The alternative is something in the middle, where better equality is at the forefront of decision.
We still have to have reward for contribution, for effort, for innovation and being entrepreneurial but we need to be more objective about the social and environmental contribution an individual or corporation makes. So long as individualism is promoted and reigns, our perceived status and perceived worth will always be measured by an infinite material yardstick. That carries an undeniable and potentially infinite amount of pressure.
Perhaps, simply, we're not so different to those rats. We need the heroin of status to elevate and differentiate ourselves from the next rat.