There is a myth that civil society functions in the service of the people and for the greater good of all.
The reality as seen from the ground contradicts this and, if truth be told, our system of governance has once again been derailed to serve the needs of the few (as it has countless times in the past) and is the consequence of the labors of greedy men (as it has, again, many times in the past).
Now, where we had systems of Social Administration (read Government) deliberately built on the recognition of all men as equals in the construct called 'State,' we find a new entity designed to serve the new monied class over those of simpler needs and desires (again).
Those driven by the greed impulse fail to see or are unable to see the impact of their activities on the society as a whole, and carry on in blissful ignorance the undermining of the very social prerequisites we need for total quality of life, things like equality of all men before all institutions of the State, access to equity through land ownership, and equal rights for all (yes it really is straight out of Animal Farm).
I have had this discussion over and over, and those who resist the notion of 'social engineering' fail to see that it is already an engineered society whose weaknesses have been exploited for personal gain for whatever reason, and they are being less than honest in their arguments and their resistance to the truth.
The State is not some amorphous entity overlaid over society, but the result of a contract among the people that make up the nation and is supposed to be an expression of the will of the majority. If at present the rules that govern the functioning of society warrant adjusting then we the people need to express what needs adjusting and make ourselves available to turn the gears.
Take the capitalist approach to the economy of the State for example; while it ostensibly intended to give everyone the opportunity to freely express themselves through economic activity, what it did in fact do was create an environment where the new 'strong' could take advantage of the newly weak by taking away their ability to gather equity, the equivalent of size and strength under the new dispensation.
Having relinquished the power of personal strength to the collective, many have come to see the State morph into a heavy club used by the new bullies, those of economic might.
I put to you that ALL scarce resources need to be equally divided among all, and access to property and finance should not be the realm of those who deem themselves divine.
Not only is social engineering required to return the State to what it was intended to be or should be, it is critical that we begin the process of righting historical wrongs if we are to stem the tides of negative behavior that are glaring symptoms of an ideology gone wrong.
We HAVE to have this discussion.
You simply cannot stack everything in your favor at the start of the game and expect the game to run smoothly; at some point someone will react negatively to the unfairness of the situation and turn the board over and fling all of the play pieces metaphorically to the ground.
I return to the issue of land ownership.
We the people need to accept that the country is small and that no one should be allowed to become the new 'Land Baron.'
The State needs to place a cap on the amount of land any one person can own so as to create and preserve an environment of belonging for all manner of men, and all the concomittant rights and responsibilities that it comes with.
When we are back on the road to becoming a nation of equity partners and involved citizens, many of the problems that are driven by greed and insecurity (like the need to have more than your neighbor to make yourself feel good about yourself regardless of your true needs) that contribute to the failure of the collective called 'State' will be undone and their anti social intentions released to the wind.
Now is not the time for entrenched and hardened positions, but for negotiations and for the ceding of advantage and the literal giving of round for the greater good so that we do not end up having this same conversation after much blood has been spilt.
The reality is that we share one world bequeathed to all by a kind and benevolent creator, and the inheritance of all men must be respected and will not be denied.
We've been at this same place many times before in the past and it always ended with death, destruction and the changing of the established order by force. That we know this is an advantage and it should flavor how we approach this conversation of understanding again because, it is an indisputable fact that those who fail to learn from history are condemned to relive it.
Something to think about...
The State needs to place a cap on the amount of land any one person can own so as to create and preserve an environment of belonging for all manner of men, and all the concomitant rights and responsibilities that it comes with.
ReplyDeleteSo you are saying that it is okay to breach the guaranteed constitutional right of some to 'equalise' others? On the one hand you say all should be treated with equality yet on the other you endorse stripping some of their rights? What is your rational for this argument?
Once more you write 'pseudo-intellectual' commentary that has no substance. Written a lot without actually saying anything except the line I quoted above.
I was at one time a law student and don't recall any rules with respect to revealing one's identity. However, I am no longer a law student and I am not even a lawyer, so I have no fear in saying that I will disagree with any action or plan by anyone that takes away the rights of any person regardless of race, social standing or gender. That said,I can freely add my name to any comments I make. Now for my real comment.
ReplyDeleteTaking your lead, let us say we decide that the first constitutional right of any citizen is the right to own land, but the price of land being what it is, that right is taken away from most middle class people. Then can we not start here and do the research required to lobby for the proper measures to be taken by the government to bring land prices within the reach of those who really need but cannot afford to own?
So we seek the advice and assistance of a real lawyer, one with experience in land matters (R.C. Chadeesingh I can reccommend) and work from there. Just a suggestion. You decide where we go from there.
Law Student,is it a right for an elite few to continue to act in such a manner that the less fortunate are not afforded the opportunity to own property of their own. Where exactly did you get that it is being advocated that one aims to take away the right to property onwership. What is being advocated is that ALL should be able to afford a stake in the society that they are to asked contribute to it's development. How can a family who has to pay very outrageous reants contribute to society if he after paying this rent cannot feed his family properly. will tell you how, he will go out and commit crimes, he will have his children do same for example. Or is it your rational that this man must continue to assist in the enrichment of an elite few
ReplyDeleteTo both Jennifer Ali and TT HaveYourSay:
ReplyDeleteIt is the right of any citizen to own property. To enjoy said property.
If someone can afford said property, or even purchase more property, it is his 'right' to do so.
Why should s/he be 'punished' for having more assets, when 99 times out of 100, such people work harder than others to acquire such assets?
Where exactly did you get that it is being advocated that one aims to take away the right to property onwership. [sic]
To answer that statement (it ought to be a question I believe) I quote the blog writer:
The State needs to place a cap on the amount of land any one person can own so as to create and preserve an environment of belonging for all manner of men, and all the concomittant [sic] rights and responsibilities that it comes with.
Quite clearly this is saying that even if a person is able to afford additional land, s/he ought not be allowed to purchase or own or enjoy such a right to property.
As for the statement "Taking your lead, let us say we decide that the first constitutional right of any citizen is the right to own land, but the price of land being what it is, that right is taken away from most middle class people.", this is what is called a fallacious argument.
It argues two unrelated positions, lumped together to try to sway opinion.
The right to own land is not being taken away from anyone, middle class or not. It is a different argument if they cannot afford it. If for example, a middle class person should win a lottery, then be able to afford land, they still have the right to purchase. So that right of owning property is still there, affordability aside.
How can a family who has to pay very outrageous reants contribute to society if he after paying this rent cannot feed his family properly. will tell you how, he will go out and commit crimes, he will have his children do same for example.
A puerile attempt at reasoning.
There are many thousands, millions of people who are 'poor' or middle classed and have never turned to crime.
If you make such an assertion, provide evidence to back up your view.
Get one thing straight Law Student. The judiciary cannot make the laws. The parliament and by extension the government can. And although the opinion of the judiciary will and should be sought for the drafting of any laws, ultimately the opinion of the people must come first. The people, by the way are for the most part not familiar with the law or as knowledgeable as the "Law Students". Their main concern is providing for themselves a satisfactory standard of living which INCLUDES the ownership of property at an affordable cost. AND also get this straight, the government will seek the advice of practicing lawyers... not Law Students. Right now your opinion is not worth much to anyone but yourself.
ReplyDeleteThe judiciary cannot make the laws.
ReplyDeleteYou could not be more incorrect. Do a little research.
AND also get this straight, the government will seek the advice of practicing lawyers... not Law Students.
I fail to see the relevance.
Right now your opinion is not worth much to anyone but yourself.
Perhaps, but other readers will benefit from my thoughts and knowledge. Especially since: The people, by the way are for the most part not familiar with the law or as knowledgeable as the "Law Students".
All in all, your little rant reeks of a little tantrum because I pointed out the errors of your 'argument'.
Law Student I want to again remind you to respect the others posting here if you want to continue to post here yourself.
ReplyDeleteCensoring again Mr Alexander, because one of your supporters cannot take criticism? Perhaps you can tell me what you disapprove of so I can censor myself?
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing even remotely rude or out of place in my comments.
As I mentioned before, if you can't take the heat, then don't put your comments out for public scrutiny. Once you do, you can expect to be taken to task for it.
Let me point out a little truth to you:
Nobody is ever convinced by argument, anyway. They just think up new reasons for maintaining old positions and become more defensive.
I am trying to enlighten your readers and show another side. You should be thanking me, not seeking to clamp down on opposite views.
I encourage opposing views.
ReplyDeleteIt is rudeness and boorish behavior that I can do without
So where is the rudeness and boorish behaviour? Enlighten me.
ReplyDeleteLaw Student, this was NEVER an arguement. It IS rather a discussion. Make suggestions. How do we move forward? Do we just leave things as they are or do we find ways to improve them? I assume you are one of the young people who will form the next generation. Yours will be the responsibility of fixing what is being destroyed NOW. Do you hope to fix things by just arguing them away? It doesn't work that way. So if you intend to argue rather than discuss and offer SOLUTIONS then you will be ignored. We have no patience with those who have nothing to offer.
ReplyDeleteJennifer, had you done a little searching (read that as a trip to my profile on my blog) you'd realise my kids would be the next generation. Not me.
ReplyDeleteYou are still thinking in a narrow path. Why must I suggest solutions?
I have been a 'teacher' for many years. The sign of a successful teacher is the ability to impart knowledge but more important than that I think, is the ability to impart thinking skills. So I prefer to teach people how to think, rather than think for them.
When I come here and express myself and/or my alternative views, it is with the intention of broadening minds.
Perhaps as a mature person, I have less patience with those around me, but I don't mollycoddle people.
By the way Jennifer, an 'argument' is not a quarrel.
ReplyDeleteIt is a course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating a truth or falsehood; the methodical process of logical reasoning;
I had a point for Law Student – who at first had me agreeing with them – but then lost me for saying this:
ReplyDelete"Why should s/he be 'punished' for having more assets, when 99 times out of 100, such people work harder than others to acquire such assets?"
It doesnt help pulling figures out of thin air to justify your argument it makes your other points seem less legitimate.
Many people who have more assets do not have them purely because they worked harder than others to acquire them.
Some people inherit. Some people get lucky. Some people find it easier to get start up money and loans. some people have less dependents and hence more opportunity for success. some people have the right education, contacts and friends to help them out. Some are straight up crooked and corrupt. Some people are a little less corrupt but still not totally clean. Some people work hard and get paid well while some others work harder but are not remunerated the same. The list goes on...
My point being your logic and evidence is flawed.
Amount of work and size of assets do not simply relate, the picture and context is different for every one of the fictional 100 people you mention. It is not that 99 worked harder than everyone else. To claim so is simplistic and part of a bigger smokescreen against new ideas.
You were better off sticking to the point about how can one take away assets from people who already own them.
Not only that Dylan, but the point that is lost here is that real estate and other scarce or diminishing resources MUST be managed if all the people are to benefit as citizens and shareholders in the State.
ReplyDeleteBecoming a billionaire by whichever means and then buying up all the land is a way of having yourself declared King.
That undermines the spirit of democracy and puts a price on the power of the people.
Some people inherit. Some people get lucky. Some people find it easier to get start up money and loans. some people have less dependents and hence more opportunity for success. some people have the right education, contacts and friends to help them out. Some are straight up crooked and corrupt. Some people are a little less corrupt but still not totally clean. Some people work hard and get paid well while some others work harder but are not remunerated the same. The list goes on...
ReplyDeleteThis does not negate the fact that more people, regardless of HOW they come by capital, have to work.
I give you an example. At the moment, people think Laurence Duprey is a schemer/corrupt. Does that mean he did not put in harder hours? Indeed not.
The 99 out of 100 is a simple analogy to demonstrate my point... I offered no statistical evidence. My mistake if I gave the impression as Gospel.
Self employed people, where the rich truly live, work harder than employees. Unless they reach a point where they do not need to work and can play.
Your last line made my point, and when Duprey's money gave him financial leverage to buy all the land in the Kingdom, his act of channeling insurance money into real estate had the effect of drying up the available land for sale and pushing up the prices due to basic rules of supply and demand.
ReplyDeleteIf he was buying a never ending resource I would say have at it, but land is not never ending, and what it symbolizes to society is much more than just land value.
It is homes, and neighborhoods, and tradition, and families and thriving communities that raise children into contributing adults.
I thought I made this point in the piece, anyway I made it again.
It is not about distressing the rich, I am all for being rich and would like to have that affliction myself, it is about protecting the weak from your riches, and if you dont understand that then I may have failed to make my point.
You have failed to make your point because of the fallacious argument you made - as I said in my very first comment. You cannot expect to acknowledge the rights of some while curbing it in others.
ReplyDeleteBe consistent in outlining your position and provide how you justify it. You have yet to do this.
You made you point Phillip. Most of us got it. I have first hand knowledge of Harry Harnarine grabbing land at outrageous prices with money that didn't belong to him. See where the HCU is now. Was it made public who bought some of the HCU assets? You would be shocked to know.
ReplyDelete