What type of people own high-high-end gear?

[Marco]

IME you tell people 'You can't do that' they just get resentful and may do it anyway just to spite you.

If it's done for what is justifiably perceived as the greater good of all, some folks need to learn to do what they're told, and like it, by those with the authority to boss them

I have no time for pig-headed idiots with an irrational resentment of authority, together with an innate desire, regardless of the consequences to others, to do what they like, when they like.

Marco.

[Joe]

I picked drink-driving as that is a generally-acknowledged example of where social pressure succeeded where legislation did not. IME you tell people 'You can't do that' they just get resentful and may do it anyway just to spite you. If they don't do it because they personally feel it is wrong then everybody is happy.

And I think you need both; gentle persuasion for sensible people, backed up with laws and stiff penalties for 'less sensible' people. Anyone whose thought processes run 'Those bastards want to stop me drinking and driving; I'll down 10 pints of beer and drive at 90mph just to spite them' is probably not long for this world anyway.

[Macca]

If it's done for what is justifiably perceived as the greater good of all, some folks need to learn to do what they're told, and like it, by those with the authority to tell them such

I have no time for pig-headed idiots with an irrational resentment of authority and an innate desire, regardless of the consequences to others, to do what they like, when they like.

Marco.

'It's for the greater good' has been used as an excuse for many of the abominations in history. Reminds me of that other quote, 'Only the most intelligent of men can understand so evil a philosophy.'

And who decides who is the authority and whose version of morality is the right one? Ultimately there is only one authority and that is physical force. So are we going to use physical force with those who won't 'do as they are told'.

'Now we see the violence inherent in the system! Come on everyone, come and see the violence inherent in the system!'

[Rothchild]

Wrong to think in terms of figures IMO, much more sensible to think in terms of ratios.

If the minimum wage had increased at the same rate as the pay of FTSE100 directors in the same period (since the introduction of the minimum wage) it would now be worth ~£16ph. Have the FTSE directors really added so much more value than their staff in that period? Absolute figures are a bum steer, ratios are all that matters.

That said it's fair to say that it's not the gap between have a have-not that's the issue, globally the very poorest have (on average) been lifted by neo-liberalism in the past 30 years, it's the gap between have and have-yachts that's been stretching out (and that's why we're seeing more unrest in the global-north, the global-south has seen benefits).

[Marco]

And who decides who is the authority and whose version of morality is the right one?

Whoever makes the law obviously has the authority to impose it, and those who don't obey it, face the consequences. Simples! That's how civilised society works.

I'm not saying that those who make the rules are always right, far from it, but anyone who thinks that being spiteful and opposing the law, for the sake of 'acting awkward', and considers that as justifiable behaviour, needs a good kick up the arse and a rude introduction to the real world!

Marco.

[Marco]

Could you please answer this, from earlier:

Not at all. I think the point I'm making is pretty clear, unless you condone money being earned illegally from the likes of child trafficking, slavery or pedophilia, all of which right now are making some of the super-rich, even richer!

So are you saying that they should be allowed to keep that money?

Marco.

[Macca]

Do poor people really care that there is an increasing gap between them and the super-rich? That someone can afford a 100 ft yacht whilst they are struggling to keep their 10 year old Fiat Punto on the road? IME no, they really don't care, they don't even think about it. Only the educated middle classes think that this matters.

They might care if they were getting poorer at the expense of the super-rich, but they are not so there isn't really an issue unless you are of the mentality that says 'If we can't all have 100 ft yachts then no-one should have one.'

I've never understood that outlook, personally. I'm glad that there are people who have 100 ft yachts even though I will never have one. The same applies to high end hi-fi.

[Marco]

They might care if they were getting poorer at the expense of the super-rich, but they are not so there isn't really an issue unless you are of the mentality that says 'If we can't all have 100 ft yachts then no-one should have one.'

Lol.... You still don't get it, do you?

I'm the very last person to begrudge anyone their (legally earned) wealth, within reason.

To use your example above, own a 100ft yacht, by all means, two even, perhaps even three, if it floats your boat (no pun intended), but no-one *needs* 100 x 100ft yachts, or rather more accurately, that much disposable income, especially when it's been earned both illegally and immorally, as I outlined earlier, whilst there are others in the world who don't even have a roof over their heads or the wherewithal to feed their children.

That's fundamentally WRONG, on all levels, and obscene - and something needs done about it. I've already said what I would do, so have no intention of repeating myself for you to miss the point again, or twist it to suit your counter argument.

Marco.

[struth]

Alas, No advance in wealth, no softening of manners, no reform or revolution has ever brought human equality a millimeter nearer.
Can we change? Well, as much as Star Trek said we will, it is probably going to remain sifi fiction.

[Rothchild]

Do poor people really care that there is an increasing gap between them and the super-rich? That someone can afford a 100 ft yacht whilst they are struggling to keep their 10 year old Fiat Punto on the road? IME no, they really don't care, they don't even think about it. Only the educated middle classes think that this matters.

'JAMS' are not 'the poor' folk who live in the global-south are poor. Potentially, if they had chance to stop worrying about where their next meal came from, or if their kid was going to succumb to easily preventable sickness ('there's some lovely filth over here') they might take form a positive view of the yacht owner but they might also view them as absurd. ('King? I didn't vote for him')

From herein I propose that if your argument can't be illuminated via Python quotes it is inadmissible to the debate ;-)