Reply to: Has egalitarianism failed England?

[BrowneIssue]

There's definitely good and bad about any sort of class system, and I would suggest, the same applies when there is no class system either.

Human beings are naturally hierarchical in the way they like to govern or be governed.

No everyone aspires to run the country, at the same time not everyone wants to sweep the streets either.

People tend to gravitate to what feels comfortable to them, with opportunity (or lack of) and other socially conditioning factors affecting their place in society.

The problem is, as far as I can see, is that modern-day living and the media constantly remind us that being rich and successful is the ideal to which we should aspire.

But you cannot have a society where everyone is rich and successful and does no work, because who would be left to do the unglamourous work ?

Consider the feudal system. Whatever you may have seen on telly in Hollywood movies, the feudal system had considerable merit when it worked as it was intended to.

The King would gift a loyal Noble with a tract of land, in which said Noble was to support both himself and also provide resource back to the King.

The contract between the Noble and the Villein (the peasant who worked the Noble's land) was complex and some might say amounted to little more than slavery.

However, it was the Noble's obligation to treat his subjects fairly.

If he didn't and they revolted, the Noble would suffer accordingly, and the loss of income and resource would deeply upset the King.

In practice, Noble's ruled with an even-tempered hand, but I suppose we only get to hear the bad stories.

Skip forward to modern day.

We don't have Nobles in the feudal sense any more, but we have politicians instead. We don't suffered physical indentured service, although it could be argued we do financially through our taxes.

Are we more free today than we were 500 years ago ?

Are our laws more just ?

Do we punish the guilty as much as we used to ?

Is our society better off or worse off ?

imagine the following..

1. Your local MP is your Liege Lord/Lady
2. Your Liege's responsiblity is to house you, feed you and protect you.
3. All tax you pay is reinvested in to the local community.
4. You toil for your Liege in return for number 2.
5. If you are sick, your Liege provides for you and your family.
6. If your Liege fails to provide, he or she is accountable and replaced. the old Liege is publicly punished for their failure, the severity depending upon their crime(s).
7. You have some luxuries and treats, which you save up for from time to time.
8. You are not a free man or woman, in today's sense, but your labour is indentured as opposed to your physical being.


Appealing or not ? Why ?

I would suggest that the social organisations that exist today will be superceded at some point in the future. The question is, what will follow ?
We can't forever go round and round the circle trying capitalism, socialism, fascism, communism, republicanism, etc.

Even political instruments of control evolve, so what's next and does it worry you ?

Is this the longest post ever written on CUK?

Probably.

Doh!!!

I've written longer, and others have written even longer than that !

So why single mine out for exception ?

Oh FFS!

SallyAnne quoted your post and added a question.

I quoted your post, SallyAnne's post and answered in the affirmative thus making the post even longer thus negating my affirmation!

It was a joke!

(Nearly)

Sorry, but to be fair, that's what smileys are for !

There were no smiley's !

I always assume people talk earnestly and seriously, unless something in the context / subtext or indeed a smiley indicates otherwise.

Shakespeare didn't use smileys!

Terry Pratchett doesn't, to the best of my knowledge use smileys in his books.

Do you need a smiley to tell you when something is meant to be funny?

("Yes Churchill, whenever it's your posts I'm supposed to be laughing at!" is probably your response to that one...)

No Churchy, I wouldn't think that nor even say it tbh.

You are quite right about the Bard or Terry Pratchett not using smileys, but there is a difference which I'll try and point out.

Shakespeare is mostly known as "serious stuff" and as such, when read, most people will read it in an earnest manner.

TP is the opposite. You know he'll try and crack a joke every chance he gets, so the mind is more receptive.

Call it "cognition by association".

On a forum, things are a little more blurred, since people are rarely, if ever, consistent in their postings and their tone, so trying to guess "What mode is Churchy in today" can be blimming hard work.

A simple emoticon can speak volumes for the rest of the post.

Just my 2p worth, if that.

I'm not advocating that you read every single post previous to one that you may be analysing at a particular time. However, reading posts in isolation and not in the flow of a series of posts may create an undesired effect.

For example, you wouldn't read a random block of 3 lines from a "Monty Python" film script and expect to grasp the full humour of a scene, would you?

WHS

[Churchill]

No Churchy, I wouldn't think that nor even say it tbh.

You are quite right about the Bard or Terry Pratchett not using smileys, but there is a difference which I'll try and point out.

Shakespeare is mostly known as "serious stuff" and as such, when read, most people will read it in an earnest manner.

TP is the opposite. You know he'll try and crack a joke every chance he gets, so the mind is more receptive.

Call it "cognition by association".

On a forum, things are a little more blurred, since people are rarely, if ever, consistent in their postings and their tone, so trying to guess "What mode is Churchy in today" can be blimming hard work.

A simple emoticon can speak volumes for the rest of the post.

Just my 2p worth, if that.

I'm not advocating that you read every single post previous to one that you may be analysing at a particular time. However, reading posts in isolation and not in the flow of a series of posts may create an undesired effect.

For example, you wouldn't read a random block of 3 lines from a "Monty Python" film script and expect to grasp the full humour of a scene, would you?

[Board Game Geek]

Yes Churchill, whenever it's your posts I'm supposed to be laughing at!" is probably your response to that one...)

No Churchy, I wouldn't think that nor even say it tbh.

You are quite right about the Bard or Terry Pratchett not using smileys, but there is a difference which I'll try and point out.

Shakespeare is mostly known as "serious stuff" and as such, when read, most people will read it in an earnest manner.

TP is the opposite. You know he'll try and crack a joke every chance he gets, so the mind is more receptive.

Call it "cognition by association".

On a forum, things are a little more blurred, since people are rarely, if ever, consistent in their postings and their tone, so trying to guess "What mode is Churchy in today" can be blimming hard work.

A simple emoticon can speak volumes for the rest of the post.

Just my 2p worth, if that.

[Churchill]

Sorry, but to be fair, that's what smileys are for !

There were no smiley's !

I always assume people talk earnestly and seriously, unless something in the context / subtext or indeed a smiley indicates otherwise.

Shakespeare didn't use smileys!

Terry Pratchett doesn't, to the best of my knowledge use smileys in his books.

Do you need a smiley to tell you when something is meant to be funny?

("Yes Churchill, whenever it's your posts I'm supposed to be laughing at!" is probably your response to that one...)

[Board Game Geek]

Oh FFS!

It was a joke!

Sorry, but to be fair, that's what smileys are for !

There were no smiley's !

I always assume people talk earnestly and seriously, unless something in the context / subtext or indeed a smiley indicates otherwise.

[Churchill]

I've written longer, and others have written even longer than that !

So why single mine out for exception ?

Oh FFS!

SallyAnne quoted your post and added a question.

I quoted your post, SallyAnne's post and answered in the affirmative thus making the post even longer thus negating my affirmation!

It was a joke!

(Nearly)

[Board Game Geek]

I've written longer, and others have written even longer than that !

So why single mine out for exception ?

[Churchill]

There's definitely good and bad about any sort of class system, and I would suggest, the same applies when there is no class system either.

Human beings are naturally hierarchical in the way they like to govern or be governed.

No everyone aspires to run the country, at the same time not everyone wants to sweep the streets either.

People tend to gravitate to what feels comfortable to them, with opportunity (or lack of) and other socially conditioning factors affecting their place in society.

The problem is, as far as I can see, is that modern-day living and the media constantly remind us that being rich and successful is the ideal to which we should aspire.

But you cannot have a society where everyone is rich and successful and does no work, because who would be left to do the unglamourous work ?

Consider the feudal system. Whatever you may have seen on telly in Hollywood movies, the feudal system had considerable merit when it worked as it was intended to.

The King would gift a loyal Noble with a tract of land, in which said Noble was to support both himself and also provide resource back to the King.

The contract between the Noble and the Villein (the peasant who worked the Noble's land) was complex and some might say amounted to little more than slavery.

However, it was the Noble's obligation to treat his subjects fairly.

If he didn't and they revolted, the Noble would suffer accordingly, and the loss of income and resource would deeply upset the King.

In practice, Noble's ruled with an even-tempered hand, but I suppose we only get to hear the bad stories.

Skip forward to modern day.

We don't have Nobles in the feudal sense any more, but we have politicians instead. We don't suffered physical indentured service, although it could be argued we do financially through our taxes.

Are we more free today than we were 500 years ago ?

Are our laws more just ?

Do we punish the guilty as much as we used to ?

Is our society better off or worse off ?

imagine the following..

1. Your local MP is your Liege Lord/Lady
2. Your Liege's responsiblity is to house you, feed you and protect you.
3. All tax you pay is reinvested in to the local community.
4. You toil for your Liege in return for number 2.
5. If you are sick, your Liege provides for you and your family.
6. If your Liege fails to provide, he or she is accountable and replaced. the old Liege is publicly punished for their failure, the severity depending upon their crime(s).
7. You have some luxuries and treats, which you save up for from time to time.
8. You are not a free man or woman, in today's sense, but your labour is indentured as opposed to your physical being.


Appealing or not ? Why ?

I would suggest that the social organisations that exist today will be superceded at some point in the future. The question is, what will follow ?
We can't forever go round and round the circle trying capitalism, socialism, fascism, communism, republicanism, etc.

Even political instruments of control evolve, so what's next and does it worry you ?

Is this the longest post ever written on CUK?

Probably.

Doh!!!

[SallyAnne]

There's definitely good and bad about any sort of class system, and I would suggest, the same applies when there is no class system either.

Human beings are naturally hierarchical in the way they like to govern or be governed.

No everyone aspires to run the country, at the same time not everyone wants to sweep the streets either.

People tend to gravitate to what feels comfortable to them, with opportunity (or lack of) and other socially conditioning factors affecting their place in society.

The problem is, as far as I can see, is that modern-day living and the media constantly remind us that being rich and successful is the ideal to which we should aspire.

But you cannot have a society where everyone is rich and successful and does no work, because who would be left to do the unglamourous work ?

Consider the feudal system. Whatever you may have seen on telly in Hollywood movies, the feudal system had considerable merit when it worked as it was intended to.

The King would gift a loyal Noble with a tract of land, in which said Noble was to support both himself and also provide resource back to the King.

The contract between the Noble and the Villein (the peasant who worked the Noble's land) was complex and some might say amounted to little more than slavery.

However, it was the Noble's obligation to treat his subjects fairly.

If he didn't and they revolted, the Noble would suffer accordingly, and the loss of income and resource would deeply upset the King.

In practice, Noble's ruled with an even-tempered hand, but I suppose we only get to hear the bad stories.

Skip forward to modern day.

We don't have Nobles in the feudal sense any more, but we have politicians instead. We don't suffered physical indentured service, although it could be argued we do financially through our taxes.

Are we more free today than we were 500 years ago ?

Are our laws more just ?

Do we punish the guilty as much as we used to ?

Is our society better off or worse off ?

imagine the following..

1. Your local MP is your Liege Lord/Lady
2. Your Liege's responsiblity is to house you, feed you and protect you.
3. All tax you pay is reinvested in to the local community.
4. You toil for your Liege in return for number 2.
5. If you are sick, your Liege provides for you and your family.
6. If your Liege fails to provide, he or she is accountable and replaced. the old Liege is publicly punished for their failure, the severity depending upon their crime(s).
7. You have some luxuries and treats, which you save up for from time to time.
8. You are not a free man or woman, in today's sense, but your labour is indentured as opposed to your physical being.


Appealing or not ? Why ?

I would suggest that the social organisations that exist today will be superceded at some point in the future. The question is, what will follow ?
We can't forever go round and round the circle trying capitalism, socialism, fascism, communism, republicanism, etc.

Even political instruments of control evolve, so what's next and does it worry you ?

Is this the longest post ever written on CUK?

[Churchill]

And what, is your qualification to say that?

'nominative absolute' - The phrase has no grammatical connection with the rest of the sentence.

Sorry, that rule doesn't apply to your question.

You're suffering from a surplus comma.

[Board Game Geek]

And what, is your qualification to say that?

Not as much as I would like (eg, Degree in Anthropology / Psychology), and I do recognise the irony of my comment, and I spent a good 15 minutes agonising over posting it for that very same reason.

In the same fashion, are you qualified to ask me ?

Can I be comfortable in knowing that you are asking me academically, socially, or sociopathically ?

Can you be confident that the answer I gave is the real one ?

After all, don't we all adapt and change our answers depending on what we perceive as to be the most pleasing reply to our questioners ?

Taken to extremes of course, you veer in to pathological liar territory, but when the answers are of little significance and hold no real import, then why not vary them to fit the audience ?

It seems to me that the most successful people in the world are not the rigid, opinionated stereotypes, but the social chameleons who are able to adapt, mimic and empathise in order to progress.

I think I've veered off track a little...ooops !

[threaded]

Threaded, your punctuation betrays your lower middle-class upbringing!

Go on, entertain us by exhibiting your vanishingly thin grasp of English by explaining what you imagine to be wrong with the above.

To assist in digging yourself a deeper hole, I'll give you a clue: 'nominative absolute'.

[Churchill]

And what, is your qualification to say that?

Threaded, your punctuation betrays your lower middle-class upbringing!

[threaded]

And that is one of the problems of today.

Most people seem to think they are qualified to talk about anything and everything.

You could say "everyone is entitled to their own opinions" and I would agree.

"Entitled to their own" doesn't however mean sharing them with others, unless you happen to be qualified to do so.

And what, is your qualification to say that?

[Board Game Geek]

I prefer talking nonsense from my position of ignorance thanks.

And that is one of the problems of today.

Most people seem to think they are qualified to talk about anything and everything.

You could say "everyone is entitled to their own opinions" and I would agree.

"Entitled to their own" doesn't however mean sharing them with others, unless you happen to be qualified to do so.