UK Licences and CPC's AFTER Brexit

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
81

muckles:
when you actually have to vote directly for a media mogul to pay less tax and that is funded by budgets cuts for the NHS and you see the direct correlation and have nobody else to blame than yourself, then people might actually take more care over their decisions

I had to recalibrate my faith in human nature in order to gain a more realistic view of reality. The truth is most people are as thick as mince and don’t give a ■■■■ about anything but themselves. Once you take that on board everything else starts to make sense, and you can finally let go of the liberal delusion that deep down inside your average fellow human being there is a person who is as thinking, and who cares as much, as you. It’s a difficult step to take, but the intellectual rewards are immense.

82

wanderingstar:

muckles:
The problem with a meritocratic system is who decides who is worthy?
It requires some sort of establishment or elite class and they’ll only allow people who agree with their principles to vote and those that have the right to vote end up beholden to those who get them there, so no better than we have now, in fact even worse as those not considered worthy have no vote at all.

Legally defined, objective criteria, e.g. an IQ cut-off plus a state-funded qualification in philosophy/politics/economics. To have a system where the thickest, most uneducated person has power equal to that of a conscious, knowledgeable one is lunatic.

I believe IQ tests aren’t considered a particularly accurate measurement of real intelligence as it’s a far more complex thing.

As for state funded qualification in philosophy/politics/economics? Who decides the syllabus? Won’t that syllabus have some influence on the thought process of those who take it?

In my mind everybody that contributes to society should have the right to a vote in that society, any singling out of a particular group to get a vote or not means you have an elite and a section of lesser people and you have a way of controlling descent, by stopping those that disagree with the elite who have the vote.

83

muckles:
I believe IQ tests aren’t considered a particularly accurate measurement of real intelligence as it’s a far more complex thing.

As for state funded qualification in philosophy/politics/economics? Who decides the syllabus? Won’t that syllabus have some influence on the thought process of those who take it?

In my mind everybody that contributes to society should have the right to a vote in that society, any singling out of a particular group to get a vote or not means you have an elite and a section of lesser people and you have a way of controlling descent, by stopping those that disagree with the elite who have the vote.

Neo-Marxists teach that IQ tests are irrelevant and skewed as it suits their egalitarian agenda to do so. I think you’ll find that the engineers and medics who create and sustain the world we all live in score very highly on IQ.

There would potentially be some bias on that syllabus, but the elevated IQ of candidates should enable them to see thru it, and the core function would be to impart information, not to steer thinking.

To think that any current system is, or can be, free of control is unrealistic. It would be a much more prosperous project to try to seize some of that control as part of a new intellectual elite, than to waste time vainly trying to liberate the system wholesale.

84

wanderingstar:

muckles:
when you actually have to vote directly for a media mogul to pay less tax and that is funded by budgets cuts for the NHS and you see the direct correlation and have nobody else to blame than yourself, then people might actually take more care over their decisions

I had to recalibrate my faith in human nature in order to gain a more realistic view of reality. The truth is most people are as thick as mince and don’t give a [zb] about anything but themselves.

The mob is as thick as mince, hence party politics, individuals are far more complex,

I’m well aware that most people don’t think like me or agree with me, people will look after their best interests, but that doesn’t always mean selfish or we wouldn’t have formed into communities.

But democracy has to include everybody or you have an elite, and then you have the problems we have now where an elite has power.

wanderingstar:
Once you take that on board everything else starts to make sense, and you can finally let go of the liberal delusion that deep down inside your average fellow human being there is a person who is as thinking, and who cares as much, as you. It’s a difficult step to take, but the intellectual rewards are immense.

Please don’t start trying to belittle my views, just because they don’t agree with yours. Until that I was enjoying reading your posts, even though you weren’t in total agreement with me, I still respected your views as I do with many others here who I don’t necessarily agree with.

85

wanderingstar:

muckles:
I believe IQ tests aren’t considered a particularly accurate measurement of real intelligence as it’s a far more complex thing.

As for state funded qualification in philosophy/politics/economics? Who decides the syllabus? Won’t that syllabus have some influence on the thought process of those who take it?

In my mind everybody that contributes to society should have the right to a vote in that society, any singling out of a particular group to get a vote or not means you have an elite and a section of lesser people and you have a way of controlling descent, by stopping those that disagree with the elite who have the vote.

Neo-Marxists teach that IQ tests are irrelevant and skewed as it suits their egalitarian agenda to do so. I think you’ll find that the engineers and medics who create and sustain the world we all live in score very highly on IQ.

There would potentially be some bias on that syllabus, but the elevated IQ of candidates should enable them to see thru it, and the core function would be to impart information, not to steer thinking.

To think that any current system is, or can be, free of control is unrealistic. It would be a much more prosperous project to try to seize some of that control as part of a new intellectual elite, than to waste time vainly trying to liberate the system wholesale.

I don’t think the criticism I’ve read about IQ testing is about everybody being equal, but the test being to simplistic and I don’t believe we’re all equal in intelligence or ability.

How do you get away from an elite running the World for their own benefit if you limit who has the right to make decisions?

Like I said in my reply to Franglais, this is a germ of an idea and I’m well aware it will have holes in the plan.

86

The mob is made of individuals.

Selfish creatures would be just as likely to arrange into communities as unselfish ones. There is strength in numbers.

I’d argue it’s the nature of the elite that’s important, not whether there is one or not. No animal system can survive without the exercise of power of a minority over a majority, because nature is hierarchical, and we are a part of it.

I didn’t question your motives or integrity, but I do think liberal views are deluded. It’s much more respectful not to mince words in a discussion like this than it is to snowflake. You can critique a mindset without going ad hominem. My rule would be belittle the views, but not the person. But if your view differs from that, then I respect it.

87

muckles:
How do you get away from an elite running the World for their own benefit if you limit who has the right to make decisions?

You design a system, take a chance, and roll the dice. If it was certain to work there’d be no risk, and without risk there’d be no fun, and no glory!

88

Hi, prior to entering the EU, we could only load from the UK and deliver to the appointed destination. We were only then allowed to reload for the UK from that country or any other. I visualise that after brexit Uk hauliers could ,SAY, deliver in France and the perhaps reload in another country in the EEC providing that the load was for the UK. It worked then, Why not after brexit. We used to travel through what is now the EEC and the seals were checked on the borders at the countries through which we passed.

89

muckles:

wanderingstar:

muckles:
I believe IQ tests aren’t considered a particularly accurate measurement of real intelligence as it’s a far more complex thing.

As for state funded qualification in philosophy/politics/economics? Who decides the syllabus? Won’t that syllabus have some influence on the thought process of those who take it?

In my mind everybody that contributes to society should have the right to a vote in that society, any singling out of a particular group to get a vote or not means you have an elite and a section of lesser people and you have a way of controlling descent, by stopping those that disagree with the elite who have the vote.

Neo-Marxists teach that IQ tests are irrelevant and skewed as it suits their egalitarian agenda to do so. I think you’ll find that the engineers and medics who create and sustain the world we all live in score very highly on IQ.

There would potentially be some bias on that syllabus, but the elevated IQ of candidates should enable them to see thru it, and the core function would be to impart information, not to steer thinking.

To think that any current system is, or can be, free of control is unrealistic. It would be a much more prosperous project to try to seize some of that control as part of a new intellectual elite, than to waste time vainly trying to liberate the system wholesale.

I don’t think the criticism I’ve read about IQ testing is about everybody being equal, but the test being to simplistic and I don’t believe we’re all equal in intelligence or ability.

How do you get away from an elite running the World for their own benefit if you limit who has the right to make decisions?

Like I said in my reply to Franglais, this is a germ of an idea and I’m well aware it will have holes in the plan.

I really like what you’re saying on this one Muckles. It’s pretty sensible.

Problem with IQ testing is thinning the herd based on a scale to measure worth. That scale is put only in place by some people who think it’s a good idea - in their opinion. Humans are far more dynamic than this. I once heard Brian Cox surprisingly trot out similar ideas to prioritising IQ. What a narrow mind (physicists can be :laughing: ). As far as I know emotional maturity isn’t measured on an IQ test. That’s a really hard one to quantify, but I really like people who have it.

Edited due autocorrect on one word causing some mild distress

90

wanderingstar:
The mob is made of individuals.

The individuals in a mob can act very differently when they are not in a mob, hence the term “mob rule”

wanderingstar:
Selfish creatures would be just as likely to arrange into communities as unselfish ones. There is strength in numbers.

Agreed a selfish person will accept the standards of the community for their own best interests.

wanderingstar:
I’d argue it’s the nature of the elite that’s important, not whether there is one or not. No animal system can survive without the exercise of power of a minority over a majority, because nature is hierarchical, and we are a part of it.

I’d disagree, those at the top are out for themselves and those that they owe because they got them there regardless of the nature and the longer they exist the more corrupt they seem to become.

Of course society might not be able to overcome this as it might be a fundamental part of human nature. So the only way would be to remove those elites at regular periods, this was probably supposed to be the idea of the political system we have now, but it seems to have formed into a political class closely linked with each other, so elections really don’t provide real change.

wanderingstar:
I didn’t question your motives or integrity, but I do think liberal views are deluded. It’s much more respectful not to mince words in a discussion like this than it is to snowflake. You can critique a mindset without going ad hominem. My rule would be belittle the views, but not the person. But if your view differs from that, then I respect it.

I didn’t say you questioned my motives or integrity and I don’t mind straight talking, but I don’t agree with somebody thinking they have an intellectual high ground because of their views.

It’s a difficult step to take, but the intellectual rewards are immense.

You and I no more know if I have yet to receive the intellectual rewards of your way of thinking or indeed that I might have transcended to an even higher intellectual plain that you have yet to discover.

Also to assume my views are what is considered these days as liberal would seem confusing, as most of what people call modern liberal views seems anything of the sort, but more of section of society who believe they have some moral high ground which means they have the right to tell others how they should think and what they should say.

91

Freight Dog:
Problem with IQ testing is thinning the heard based on a scale to measure worth. That scale is put only in place by some people who think it’s a good idea - in their opinion. Humans are far more dynamic than this. I once heard Brian Cox surprisingly trot out similar ideas to prioritising IQ. What a narrow mind (physicists can be :laughing: ). As far as I know emotional maturity isn’t measured on an IQ test. That’s a really hard one to quantify, but I really like people who have it.

Hi Freight Dog - welcome to the debate! Discussion of the EU always seems to widen out right now! :smiley:

Someone has to assert opinions or nothing gets done.

High IQ people tend to be production oriented (making stuff in the first place), high EQ people tend to be distribution oriented (deciding who gets what of what’s produced). On a surface analysis (what is advertised as established values - not necessarily what really takes place on an economic level) our current system is too biased towards sharing/caring. I’m thinking short prison sentences, favouring the criminal over the victim, weak borders, the never-ending assault on masculinity, etc.

A very high EQ group might be a group of cardigan-wearing counsellors, but that wouldn’t be my vision of the team that could mend broken Britain. I’d want a group of inspired political visionaries - and that type of person just doesn’t tend to be big on empathy.

92

wanderingstar:
.

A very high EQ group might be a group of cardigan-wearing counsellors, but that wouldn’t be my vision of the team that could mend broken Britain. I’d want a group of inspired political visionaries - and that type of person just doesn’t tend to be big on empathy.

That’s a very polar way of looking at it. I don’t personally think someone with a lot emotional maturity is a cardigan wearing softy.

To keep the opposite pole going, bare in mind someone with a very high IQ invented the Atom bomb. Brilliant. :laughing: .

93

wanderingstar:
. I’d want a group of inspired political visionaries - and that type of person just doesn’t tend to be big on empathy.

Similar to psychopaths then? :laughing:

94

muckles:
I didn’t say you questioned my motives or integrity and I don’t mind straight talking, but I don’t agree with somebody thinking they have an intellectual high ground because of their views.

You and I no more know if I have yet to receive the intellectual rewards of your way of thinking or indeed that I might have transcended to an even higher intellectual plain that you have yet to discover.

Also to assume my views are what is considered these days as liberal would seem confusing, as most of what people call modern liberal views seems anything of the sort, but more of section of society who believe they have some moral high ground which means they have the right to tell others how they should think and what they should say.

I agree with most of what you said in your last post Muckles.

I was referring to neoliberalism, not classical liberalism.

I’d say I have a right to express my beliefs and findings, not to control people’s thoughts, which is impossible anyway with someone compos mentis, which you appear to be!

Well it’s been a good tussle and put the wind thru my intellectual hair. Thanks for the knockabout!

Freight Dog - Yes similar to a psychopath in some ways! Those genes must’ve been good for something or they wouldn’t have survived that long :smiley:

OK how about this for a non-polarised division of labour: the engineers design the machines and the empaths have their fingers on the buttons of them. We got a deal?

95

wanderingstar:
I’d say I have a right to express my beliefs and findings, not to control people’s thoughts, which is impossible anyway with someone compos mentis,

Jeees that’s a relief :open_mouth: :laughing: .

96

Freight Dog:

wanderingstar:
I’d say I have a right to express my beliefs and findings, not to control people’s thoughts, which is impossible anyway with someone compos mentis,

Jeees that’s a relief :open_mouth: :laughing: .

Narrow escape eh? :wink:

97

Meanwhile, back in the licence / CPC discussion :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

How the hell did you 3 manage to :open_mouth: :open_mouth: completely hi-jack the thread onto IQ’s etc.■■?

98

pierrot 14:
How the hell did you 3 manage to :open_mouth: :open_mouth: completely hi-jack the thread onto IQ’s etc.■■?

Not sure. I think it was IQ related… as in I think we all just had too much of it and couldn’t help ourselves from abstracting into the bigger picture. I’m back in my box now Pierre :laughing:

99

Is Freight Dog and Muckles in there with you ? :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

100

Muckles started it and Freight Dog ended it. I was just the middle man :sunglasses: