Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Benevolent Paternalism

Ultimate said:
The fact that you interpret it that way says more about you than it does about me.
Pot / kettle.
Click to expand...
how else is it supposed to be interpreted? You are saying that people who know best should be in charge. Thats your idea in a nutshell. Near on a thousand years of trying to get away from that and you say fatha knows best.
 
DotCommunist said:
You are saying that people who know best should be in charge. Thats your idea in a nutshell. Near on a thousand years of trying to get away from that and you say fatha knows best.
Click to expand...
That's better - try talking English occasionally. Anyway, you are saying you have a problem with the idea that the people who know best should be in charge? Of course the people who know best should be in charge. That's not tyranny, it's common sense. And I'm quite sure most people outside this forum would agree.
 
DotCommunist said:
you haven't actually read a textbook have you. VP is an anarchist, I'm a recovering stalinist leaning towards left communist principles.
Click to expand...
I've read a few bits and pieces of the classical writers - Proudhon, Kropotkin, Godwin etc. Which is how I know anarchism is a load of rubbish.
 
Ultimate said:
That's better - try talking English occasionally. Anyway, you are saying you have a problem with the idea that the people who know best should be in charge? Of course the people who know best should be in charge. That's not tyranny, it's common sense. And I'm quite sure most people outside this forum would agree.
Click to expand...


LOL
 
DotCommunist said:
people in charge know best? the answer was given. it was LOL
Click to expand...
No, I didn't say that. I said the people who know best should be in charge. Surely you can tell the difference?
For example, would you put in charge of a shop someone who didn't know anything about retailing?
 
DotCommunist said:
Who knows best? Who knows best how to manage a society?
Click to expand...
I don't think 'societies' get managed. Economies and workplaces do. But the people who know best how to manage anything are - or should be - the ones who are most experienced in whatever it is they are managing, and who know something about management. If you don't realise that, I wonder what planet you live on.
(I say 'should' be because in reality, of course, the top jobs don't always go to the best people.)
 
Ultimate said:
That's better - try talking English occasionally. Anyway, you are saying you have a problem with the idea that the people who know best should be in charge? Of course the people who know best should be in charge. That's not tyranny, it's common sense. And I'm quite sure most people outside this forum would agree.
Click to expand...

:facepalm:

You've said earlier that the people with the most force of personality should rule. That's usually not the people who actually "know best." Putting the people "who know best" in charge is rather chancy anyway. There's no guarantee that they'll have the best interests of the people in their hearts. More likely, they'll have their own interests at heart. Its so very naïve to expect anything else.

And I haven't even gotten to the issues of the fact that no one can have a broad enough span of knowledge to run everything. You can't expect someone versed in Economics to also be knowledgeable about city planning.

And that isn't the end of the list of problems by far.
 
Last edited:
long way away from your idea of benevolent paternalism- now you are advocating that people who know what they are doing hold sway in their workplaces. You've just took the goalpost and ran with it into the distance
 
Yuwipi Woman said:
:facepalm:

You've said earlier that the people with the most force of personality should rule. That's usually not the people who actually "know best." Putting the people "who know best" in charge is rather chancy anyway. There's no guarantee that they'll have the best interests of the people in their hearts. More likely, they'll have their own interests at heart. Its so very naïve to expect anything else.
Click to expand...
I said nothing of the sort. Anyway, managers aren't there to love their employees, they're there to make sure the place is run efficiently. They should also, of course, be good empathisers and be prepared to listen to people, and the best managers are like that. Your claim that they're more likely to have their own interests at heart suggests you just have a chip on your shoulder. I don't know how many jobs you've had, but did you think, in all of them, that the managers didn't give a toss about you? Not at all?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom