The KK

[Bonnie]

I don't think he's necessarily a Socialist-- a good deal of what he wrote, in general terms, is a Christian point of view.
If you've got more than you need, it is morally good to serve others. If you hoard it all, it is morally suspect to let others go down the drain right in front of you.

Now, dealing with the KK-- I honestly don't think of saying to the individuals "Oh, you've got to give other people money" but I do think it's good for the human race as a whole to keep this in mind. And then every individual of the human race should contribute to the effort in whatever way they can. If individual KK members think they're doing enough, then that's between them and their God-- not me.

Since this discussion has ventured into the realm of economic morality, what do you think of this?
I'm a bit of an anti-Marxist. Instead of from each according to ability and to each according to need. I think it should be from each according to need (well, negative need because it's only taken if you don't need it) and to each according to ability. It isn't capitalism, because that would leave out the "from each" bit, even though I think markets decide ability. The definition of need is very very very difficult, especially when considering long-term need for investment and unforseen circumstances.

[hr]

I love cheese.

[exnihilo]

Quoting McK from 17:06, 3rd May 2006Subsequently I was speculating that any discussion you enter into about wealth or class in St Andrews is necessarily influenced by those attacks made upon you in other similar posts.

I'm not sure I follow that, largely because I don't remember being attacked in respect of wealth or class, but I may simply be misunderstanding your point. I should add that I'm not in the KK, never have been, and don't much care for it as an institution; however, I do think it legitimate to call people on petty spite and jealousy which is what the attitude "rich people throwing their money about - the pricks" all boils down to, however much dressed up as a political statement.

As for where I live, yes, I do indeed live in Glasgow and have done for a little over three years. I don't see the relevance though, a great many graduates post here. I remain involved with a few societies, am in St Andrews often, am an active member of the General Council with a strong interest in my alma mater, and, God help me, I'm even one of those people who donate to the place.

Your point, scratter?

[BenEsq]

Hoi hoi. If people feel uncomfortable with something, then why not promote the alternative and see who buys into it. As something of a leftie myself, I dislike people who can only be 'anti-' more than I do conservatives, for example.

Don't like the coverage single sex clubs get? Don't bash, promote something else. Besides, simply bashing as unqualified end to itself will do nowt but add to the constructed existing aura that KK have.

I also dislike generalisations e.g. I know a KK member on £60 per week rent.

[hr]

Lions and tigers and bears...Oh my!

[Irish Frank]

Quoting Boxers from 15:53, 3rd May 2006
are you a Socialist? Your arguements just seem to smack of redistribution of wealth and an unwillingness to accept a meritocratic system.

Ouch. What is socialism, Boxers? Certainly not that.

[Lodestone]

DrAlex,

Yes, but you as an outside agent are assuming that these people have that level of money that their lives aren't benefiting from it. I submit that, as everything in your argument is based on internal and subjective interpretations of concepts like "is this money useful to my life?" and "am I benefiting from this money?", your line of argument as a disapproving third party is moot.

Take what I'm saying, then, as an if-then statement: if someone's life isn't benefiting from extra money, then it's morally suspect to hold on to or spend it. Personally, I've read enough research to convince me that beyond a certain threshold quality of life doesn't increase.

Moreover (and more empirically), anyone with that much money has probably stomped on some proverbial toes in order to get there, preventing others from getting there. Thus one could argue that the rich person owes a debt to society.

Just out of curiosity, are you a Socialist? I simply don't buy this, as it completely reads of opinion presented as fact. Show me the empirical evidence.

I'm not anything in particular.

I said "probably" because I do think it applies in most cases. I don't know that, but that's my intuition. You did, however, miss out the stronger argument:

"It may be their hard-earned cash, but it is only so because the circumstances of their life allowed them to earn it, and to be such a person who could earn it."

Boxers,

In no way whatsoever can you assume that people who have money have probably stepped on other people's toes to get it! Not everyone has made money by elbowing their way to the top of their profession. For example, what about people who have say invented something, like some sort of medical equipment or drug that saves people's lives and its been developed and they have made a substantial amount of money from it. In this case, if anything, society owes a debt to the rich person!

As I'm saying, I think that in most cases gaining tremendous wealth has involved hampering others' pursuit of happiness. You're talking about a minority. Hence "probably". But, as I'm saying, this is the weaker argument

I pose the same question as DrAlex, are you a Socialist? Your arguements just seem to smack of redistribution of wealth and an unwillingness to accept a meritocratic system.

I'm not anything in particular, but I do believe in redistribution of wealth to a certain extent (probably the Welfare State extent), and I do believe in a sliding scale of income tax.

The problem with meritocracy is that its logic only truly works on a level playing field. Hence my stronger contention that the rich person owes a debt to society for allowing the ability to become rich.

[flarewearer]

So Lodestone, what do you define as too much money? It seems to me that despite the good intentions of your arguments, that it is such a subjective matter to ultimately make it futile.

Is it morally wrong to have more money than your neighbour if you worked hard for it, saved for it and didn't spend it on things you really couldn't afford.

Take the proposal for the new council tax system based upon home improvements and "environmental" factors. Neighbour A and neighbour B live in similar houses and earn similar amounts of money. Neighbour A saves his money, invests it wisely and improves his house with a conservatory, doing up his garden, adding an extention etc. Neighbour B spends his money on booze, gambling and TV and hi-fi systems he can't afford, getting himself into debt. Under this system, it would be the conscientious "A" who has to pay the higher taxes for having improved his property, wheras the good-for-nothing neighbour B does not. Neighbour A, by his hard work and fiscal solvency is in effect paying for the fact neighbour B cannot afford to contribute his fair share.

I know its an utterly hypothetical situation, but it could happen in the near future. Is this situation not somehow morally wrong also? As far as I can see it, your arguments for wealth redistribution are based on 2 erronous principles, that;

...the less wealthy actually deserve to have wealth distributed in their favour.
...the more wealthy came about their relative wealth by some means of deception, cheating, or preventing others increasing their wealth.

[hr]

[munchingfoo]

Hmm - I don't think the dislike of those with wealth actually has anything to do with the amount of money they have.

I know some super rich people who are thoroughly nice blokes but I also know some less wealthy people who are total cunts about the amount of money they have - even if it's less than the nice richer guys.

I think it's to do with the attitude of the person. If a person believes they are better than another because of having a greater wealth and this is reflected in their attitude towards that other person (and I think we can agree that there are members of this university, be they few or not, who have this attitude) then we would be within our rights, I feel, to use the derogatory language used in this thread.

I only know one member of the KK personally and he is a great guy. I have not met the others and therefor cannot comment about them on an individual basis (or collective for that matter)

[hr]

Tired Freudian references aside - your mother played my mighty skin flute like a surf crowned sea nymph trying to rouse Poseidon from his watery slumber!

[Rufus]

...and the award for the most sensible post on this thread so far goes to [drum roll] the above.

Wise words.

[Lodestone]

So Lodestone, what do you define as too much money?

Money beyond which one's quality of life does not improve.

It seems to me that despite the good intentions of your arguments, that it is such a subjective matter to ultimately make it futile.

Unfortunately the book I have which cites all the research I've looked at on the matter is on loan to someone else at the moment, so I can't get the citations--but there's an established way of rendering measurement of quiality of life objective, and correlating that with income. And above a certain point there is no more increase.

Is it morally wrong to have more money than your neighbour if you worked hard for it, saved for it and didn't spend it on things you really couldn't afford.

No, certainly not. But it's morally suspect to hold on to it if you have no use for it. And you owe a debt to the society which allowed you to do that.

Take the proposal for the new council tax system based upon home improvements and "environmental" factors. Neighbour A and neighbour B live in similar houses and earn similar amounts of money. Neighbour A saves his money, invests it wisely and improves his house with a conservatory, doing up his garden, adding an extention etc. Neighbour B spends his money on booze, gambling and TV and hi-fi systems he can't afford, getting himself into debt. Under this system, it would be the conscientious "A" who has to pay the higher taxes for having improved his property, wheras the good-for-nothing neighbour B does not. Neighbour A, by his hard work and fiscal solvency is in effect paying for the fact neighbour B cannot afford to contribute his fair share.

I know its an utterly hypothetical situation, but it could happen in the near future. Is this situation not somehow morally wrong also?

Tax is really difficult to make truly fair and yet simple enough to be workable. I'm not particularly happy with the proposed revisions, but I think they're better than the current proposed system, where because of the particularly odd system of tiered rates, the tax absorbs 4.9% of the income of those in the lowest quintile and 1.7% of the income of those in the highest.

As far as I can see it, your arguments for wealth redistribution are based on 2 erronous principles, that;

...the less wealthy actually deserve to have wealth distributed in their favour.
...the more wealthy came about their relative wealth by some means of deception, cheating, or preventing others increasing their wealth.

The priciples are actually that--
--the less wealthy sometimes need to have wealth distributed in their favour
--the more wealthy are fortunate in having had the ability to create the wealh, and owe something back to the society which allowed that

What you cite as my second reason I gave only as a bolster, and have admitted is the much weaker line to take.

[smiley]

Quoting Lodestone from 23:29, 3rd May 2006

Is it morally wrong to have more money than your neighbour if you worked hard for it, saved for it and didn't spend it on things you really couldn't afford.

No, certainly not. But it's morally suspect to hold on to it if you have no use for it. And you owe a debt to the society which allowed you to do that.

Why is it morally suspect if it is your own money that you've worked hard for? You may not need it at that particular moment but the time may come in the future when you will need it. And when that time comes isn't it better to have money of your own that you have saved rather than having to rely on the state to bail you out?

I'm a little confused, are you opposed to people having savings? Because I suppose they are not using that money and they don't really need it at that particular moment, but like I said, who knows what could happen in the future.

I'm of the opinion that whatever someone does with their own money is nobody elses business as long as it isn't illegal or hurting anyone.

[smiley]

Oh, and as for the KK, the members I know personally are nice guys and they don't flash their cash around. I don't actually know if they even have very much cash. They seem pretty ordinary to me!

I actually do get really annoyed by the people who moan about how poor they are then go blow all their cash shopping/going out for lunch/drinking and then go off to abuse the hardship fund by lying through their teeth about their 'poverty'. The hardship fund should be there for people who really need it. Not just for people who can't be arsed sticking to a budget that might cramp their lifestyle.

[orudge]

Quoting smiley from 23:57, 3rd May 2006
I actually do get really annoyed by the people who moan about how poor they are then go blow all their cash shopping/going out for lunch/drinking and then go off to abuse the hardship fund by lying through their teeth about their 'poverty'. The hardship fund should be there for people who really need it. Not just for people who can't be arsed sticking to a budget that might cramp their lifestyle.

Hear, hear. I was standing in the queue waiting to use a cash machine yesterday when a girl was getting annoyed because she found she'd got no money left, and how she wouldn't be able to buy some shoes to match her new top or something of the sort. It's surely not that difficult to budget to some degree, is it?

[hr]

http://www.owenrudge.net/
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37103734

[Lodestone]

Smiley,

I'm thinking you, and possibly others, are missing that I'm talking about strikingly large amounts of money here. Really pretty big fortunes.

As for why it's morally suspecy--check backa few posts; I've outlined a couple of arguments.

[smiley]

Quoting Lodestone from 00:04, 4th May 2006
Smiley,

I'm thinking you, and possibly others, are missing that I'm talking about strikingly large amounts of money here. Really pretty big fortunes.

As for why it's morally suspecy--check backa few posts; I've outlined a couple of arguments.

No matter how large someone's fortune is I still don't think its anyones business what they do with it. I'd hope that someone with wealth of that magnitude would give alot to charity, I would if I was very rich but I guess some people might feel differently.

You were saying earlier that these people owe a debt to society because they probably stepped on alot of people's toes on the way up. I don't think thats a very convincing argument and its impossible to prove.

You also said 'It may be their hard-earned cash, but it is only so because the circumstances of their life allowed them to earn it, and to be such a person who could earn it'. Not really. I think your earning potential really depends on what kind of person you are, how determined you are and how hard you work.

People at this uni are from a whole range of backgrounds and it won't just be the already well off people who go on to get great jobs. It'll be the people who have worked hard at their degree and any other relevant extra curricular/placment type things, and the people who have forceful personalities who do well in interviews. Pretty much the people who are determined to be a success whatever the odds are for or against them.

If someone from a not-very-well-off background leaves uni, gets a great job, works hard and rises up through the ranks to end up earning loads of money which they wisely save up for the future is that still morally suspect? Would they still owe something to society then?

[Colleen]

I don't mind that people have more money than me - most people seem to - but I do get annoyed when people assume that I am somehow not permitted to go on a night out because I have to budget for rent, tuition fees, food, and all the other little bills that make life more painful.

It also worries me that people on this thread are bandying about 'socialism' like it's somehow a bad word. It's not.

[Smith]

Quoting Colleen from 00:28, 4th May 2006
I don't mind that people have more money than me - most people seem to - but I do get annoyed when people assume that I am somehow not permitted to go on a night out because I have to budget for rent, tuition fees, food, and all the other little bills that make life more painful.

It also worries me that people on this thread are bandying about 'socialism' like it's somehow a bad word. It's not.

All I can say is, it seems like a lot of people are quite selfish. If one day I'm earning a decent amount of money, I won't be giving it to any charity, I'll be setting up my own bursary scheme at St Andrews, whereby I'll give a few poor and needy students, like myself, a few extra quid, as long as they apply for it.

Now that is how to give back and to help society. After all, it's the smartest students that help advance our civilisation.

[hr]

Cake, and fine wine.

[Lodestone]

No matter how large someone's fortune is I still don't think its anyones business what they do with it.

I mention the magnitude because points like the following then become irrelevant:

"You may not need it at that particular moment but the time may come in the future when you will need it. And when that time comes isn't it better to have money of your own that you have saved rather than having to rely on the state to bail you out?"

I'd hope that someone with wealth of that magnitude would give alot to charity

Then clearly you're running off the same gut feeling as me. I'm just saying that amassing a fortune and then not giving a chunk of it away is immoral.

You were saying earlier that these people owe a debt to society because they probably stepped on alot of people's toes on the way up. I don't think thats a very convincing argument and its impossible to prove.

Which is why I've said several times now that that isn't the argument I prefer. I put it in for bolster and completeness.

You also said 'It may be their hard-earned cash, but it is only so because the circumstances of their life allowed them to earn it, and to be such a person who could earn it'. Not really. I think your earning potential really depends on what kind of person you are, how determined you are and how hard you work.

Certainly it does, to a large extent. But you're missing the extent of what I mean here: why is one the way one is?

[exnihilo]

Quoting Smith from 03:39, 4th May 2006
If one day I'm earning a decent amount of money, I won't be giving it to any charity, I'll be setting up my own bursary scheme at St Andrews, whereby I'll give a few poor and needy students, like myself, a few extra quid, as long as they apply for it.

Highly laudable, as long as they're not just poor and needy but also academically brilliant.

[blimey]

Erm... while it is all great and good debating what we think about the people in the KK no one seems to address the real question:

What do we think about a male only exclusive club? Is it acceptable in the 21st century that such an anachronistic group still exists?

[exnihilo]

Why is it anachronistic? And why should it be unnaceptable? Is there no right to free association any more? If they were doing women down in some way, attacking their liberties, then it should be closed down forthwith, but they're doing nothing of the sort. So it's nobody's concern but theirs who they let in.