Does anyone else yearn for a society based on inequality?

[C0ckney]

and while we're on the subject, what if people aren't particularly concerned with the welfare of a country but concerned with the welfare of a class, or just themselves.

[Heraclitus]

which changes nothing. please answer my question.

Ah, I see what you mean.

The goals of a society should ultimately be decided by those that contribute to said society.

[Al B. Sure!]

Ah, I see what you mean.

The goals of a society should ultimately be decided by those that contribute to said society.

Do you realize how vague that is? What does contributing to society mean?

[Heraclitus]

and while we're on the subject, what if people aren't particularly concerned with the welfare of a country but concerned with the welfare of a class, or just themselves.

How exactly do you plan to avoid a tragedy of the commons if people who vote don't have incentives to care about society?


Also let me make you a bit uncomfortable and suggest that you think to your response of this kind of argument if you replace the word class with ethnicity.

[Heraclitus]

Do you realize how vague that is? What does contributing to society mean?

Contribute as in not being a net drain.

[Al B. Sure!]

Contribute as in not being a net drain.

net drain in what?

[C0ckney]

and what do you mean by contribute?

[Heraclitus]

Who exactly is it that shares no long term interest in the welfare of the country? Are you saying that laborers or people who can't find jobs do not share a long term interest in the welfare of the country.
Historically disenfranchised groups have always suffered legalized abuse, discrimination and oppression no matter what the promise of legal protection. The case of black people in the United States is an excellent example. Women are another example. There was a time when a man could legally kill his wife in the United States with little fear of legal repercussion. Statistics show that after 19th amendment was passed the rate of "accidental" deaths at home of women declined while the rate of convictions of husbands murdering theri wives increased. Effectively once women could vote - and serve on juries, men could no longer get a free pass on "accidentally" beating the little woman to death.

I'm not saying they don't care at all, I'm just saying that they have a stronger interest in taking care of themselves rather than society as a whole.

Finally, let me point out to you, a Slovene, that had Slovenia not successfully secede from Yugoslavia, and had Slobodan Milosevich managed to create his vision of Yugoslavia converted into Greater Serbia you would be a second class citizen in your own country and would be singing a different tune.

Oh I'm well aware of this. This is the same basic argument I use for immigration restriction, a people do have a right to decide with whom they want to live in a country, I firmly support secession and the right to leave emigrate without harassment from one's native country remember?

[C0ckney]

How exactly do you plan to avoid a tragedy of the commons if people who vote don't have incentives to care about society?

i don't see how this follows from what i wrote. i was making the point that many people see things from the point of view of their class or something else besides country.

Also let me make you a bit uncomfortable and suggest that you think to your response of this kind of argument if you replace the word class with ethnicity.

certainly people hold such views and in a democratic society people can hold those views. i believe that such views are best countered by using democratic means.

i would also say that democracy doesn't simply mean voting. it's a society where people have freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of conscience and certain other rights guaranteed.

[Heraclitus]

net drain in what?

Taxes for starters. Though there are other possibilities.

[Heraclitus]

i would also say that democracy doesn't simply mean voting. it's a society where people have freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of conscience and certain other rights guaranteed.

If we are talking about what makes a representative system work (thought there are again other ways to do this), I'm going to say that I'm in favour of all of these freedoms, the ones you list are very good choices since I think a functional republic needs freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of conscience very badly. My own most optimistic hopes of reform of the West include those three rights reigning supreme.

[Heraclitus]

BTW I could be mean and point out that if say smokers feel repressed there will be fewer smokers in a state either through emigration, secession or conversion.

Let me also emphasise that society does need to oppress some, we're just haggling over who. A clear example of this are those convicted of serious crimes, many countries deny them votes at least during their incarceration and all deny them various freedoms for some periods of time.

[Hauldren Collider]

I bet I can summarize this ENTIRE THREAD in ONE WORD. Here goes nuthin


*sigh*

[Elok]

I'm not saying they don't care at all, I'm just saying that they have a stronger interest in taking care of themselves rather than society as a whole.

I have a hard time believing any subset of the population values society as a whole over its own narrow interests. I think even individual people who sincerely feel that way are few and far between.

[Aeson]

Isn't the "organic" movement actually a product of feminism? Why do you use feministically loaded words to describe your utopia? Are you a vaginally armed militant?