www.Usenet.com
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
Aleksandar Sarovic wrote:
"Al" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
The society you envision would do this. You wrote that society would
choose
the values it felt most important, and then assign to each individual a value ('the productive power of man') that reflected how many of those values he had. By definition, the values that commanded the greatest and widest support in society would be the lowest values supported by most people: the lowest common denominator.
It is popular to say "Blame the immigrants! Send the home!", and wise to
say
"Immigration improve our country! Welcome them in!". In your 'Democratic Anarchy', what is popular is more important than what is wise; what gratifies immediately the largest number of people is more important than what is best for the longer term.
I am glad you did not complain to rules established by the consensus of political parties that will create the value of productive power of man.
Only because I didn't get round to it. :-)
That rules will be the most important ones at the beginning and they would never make "Blame the immigrants! Send the home!" because at least one party will never allow it.
Then if one party says "No to Any Taxes", the same thing would happen? Who then would pay for the roads to be maintained?
Also in my system the "immigrant problem" will be a totally non existent
one and you may find more about it by reading my book However, I am taking
the "Immigrant problem" as metaphor for all others non acceptable opinions
and behaviour that exists in today's society. First of all, my society
will be totally different one and that means it will probably generate
totally different problems. Here is a sample: If your chief is a jerk,
most likely you would not have guts to respond to him but you may be hard
to someone else just because of it. Do you believe that kind of behaviour
is the main origin for nationalism and racism?
I don't believe that, no.
In my system there will not be privileged people so that such problem would hardly exist.
There must always be privileged people; those who do more for their
community must be rewarded, if only to motivate others to emulate them.
But it may exist of course. For that reason I said the power of evaluation among the people will at the beginning probably be one cent. If you get hundred negative evaluations it will cost you one dollar. No one would actually care about one dollar. The most important information that such receiver will get is that a 100 people do not like something about him. Well it is up to the gay who receives such evaluation to find out who is to blame, him or these hundred people? I would know the answer immediately right now even in today's society. He may correct himself for his own good and then make a better society or not and everything would be as it is today.
You will not make many friends with such words, and your system will need many, many friends before it is taken seriously.
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
