21st Century Champagne socialists favour a world in which everyone has equal access to the resources they require in order to flourish, rather than one of equal distribution.
21st Century conservatives (with a small c) favour a world in which everyone has equal opportunity to build the resources they require.
What’s the difference? Incentive. Building resources in an efficient way requires it. Having resources to share skips over the incentive problem of getting them in the first place.
What’s the problem with both views? One problem is resource sustainability. In a World that wasn’t over-populated, Adam Smith and Karl Marx could conveniently ignore the environmental impacts of their theories.
Another problem is hypocrisy (do as I say, not as I do).
Then there’s the policy confusion (too many targets). Having equal access implies all of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs are met, when in reality, too many people are grasping just for the first need (basic food and shelter) and the nation’s too poor at policy-making to provide them all with that first need, let alone the others (high quality healthcare, crime prevention, free access to museums, foreign aid etc). Meanwhile, building resources requires skill, energy and materials. If too many people are failing to build just the first of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, that’s a problem also.
What to do? If good government requires the governors to do the greatest good for the greatest number, use the Maslow model as a foundation for your policy priorities and skip the vanity projects!
‘Tit for tat’ relationships – the sexy, sassy women who meets the fake, chancer guy.
The double whammy – the beautiful young women who gets hit on by successful older guys seeking trophy girlfriends AND by loser older guys who’s lack of maturity means they can only relate to a women half their age.
If sex is the force of attraction, love is the glue.
Follow the middle road, to make rapid progress in a cooperative setting.
Turn hard left to rapidly terminate forward progress.
Turn hard right to rapidly terminate forward progress.
So it is with UK politics.
Science, Technology, Engineering and Math skills are undergoing a period of increased emphasis in our schools. Some might argue it’s at the expense of Art subjects. Does it have to be a zero-sum game?
Science hypothesises, experiments and interprets. Art creates directly, with no underlying rules or logic to adhere to. Science is structured simulation. Art is role play and improvisation. To reach human markets (voters or buyers) needs emotion, not just product features. Art and Science should therefore be seen as a partnership.
Secondly, at school, can we engage more students in STEM subjects, by emphasising it as a means to an Art end? Invite students to come on the STEM journey to empower Art.
Thirdly, great science discoveries utilise Psychology and thought experiments. Or sudden leaps of insight (realisations). Great thinking is arguably as much an art as utilising the science.
Since everything is inter-connected, governments shouldn’t bow to single-issue pressure groups.
It’s possible to retain existing flexibility when you slow things down. If you can’t control outcome uncertainty, try to control the pace instead.
Better research upfront makes for better policy outcomes later.
Time is frozen – the moment you discover you’ve been betrayed.
Our calendars are there to help working people count down the days to their next holiday.
Time seems greatest at both ends of a person’s life – looking forwards and looking back.