From: AXM113@psuvm.psu.edu (Abner Mintz)
Newsgroups: alt.callahans
Subject: Re: Belated greetings, and other topics (was Re: Rhetoric: The...)
Date: 8 Apr 92 11:36:13 GMT
 <1992Apr5.152150.7254@waikato.ac.nz> <204420@unix.cis.pitt.edu>
Organization: Penn State University

Mentor:
>>>        In an *ideal* diverse society, all cultures might be considered as
>>>      equally valuable, their members entitled to equal protection of their
>>>      cultural practices.  Few human societies have even *attempted* this.

Tizrak:
Is any aggregate of cultures a society?  It seems to me that a number of shared
properties between groups are neccessary for a society to exist and function.
I will take as a least possible unit a common language; the groups must be able
to communicate in order to coexist (even if the communication consists of just
signals for 'go away, don't bother us, we're busy' that are understood by all
sides).
A second needed property is also related to communication: there must be an
agreed method to handle interactions and especially disagreements between
groups.  Otherwise, friction and eventually 'civil war' will occur.

Seawasp:
>        "Mentor, the problem I have with your quoted statement is pretty
>simple. ALL cultures equally valuable? Some cultures are mutually exclusive.

Yes ... but inability to mix and value are not related.  Still, I agree - by my
value system, not all cultures are equally valuable.  This is related to the
now-past thread on ethics.  I refuse to bow to moral relativism and to moral
absolutism.  In my view, there are a spectrum of ethical systems of varying
'worth'.  If you want to ask how to evaluate worth, then use the following
criteria (IMHO):  a valuable ethic system is one that allows a viable society
where individuals have the maximized chance of formulating and accomplishing
their individual goals.
Translate that into English?  Beats me ...

Stumpy:
>>  "Start by recognizing that everyone has equal rights. Evryone has an
>>equal right to (to quote the US declaration of independence) 'life, liberty
>>and the pursuit of happiness' and to the natural resources of the planet.
>>Actually giving everyone their 'share' is infeasible, but recognizing the
>>right is not. We plan to levy people on the amount of natural resources
>>they control over and above their rightful, equal share. This levy would
>>then be redistributed as compensation to those with less than their share.
>>  "Everything else is run by market forces, and a darn sight more fairly
>>than the current world market where most people are too poor to be able to
>>make much of an impact. No other taxes are necessary, and people don't

Hmmmm ... I make a bunch of bricks from river clay.  Having more than my share,
I give everyone nearby a brick.  None of us have anything useful, I still need
to make more bricks for the house I plan to build, and no-one but me has
learned how to make a brick.

Now, how about giving everyone equal access to the river clay?  A lot of people
who don't know what they're doing try to make bricks, fail, and use up all the
clay.  Even worse than before.

To me, the best solution is that everyone who wants to have an equal right to
learn to make bricks, and whoever learns well and is good at it gets an access
claim on the river clay ...

To translate into modern terms: a better solution than breaking the ownership
of factories up (which means that no-one controls enough to guide the company
and actually get something done) or splitting the output among everyone
(which means that no-one gains significantly by increased effort), the best
sort of company is one that is owned by the workers in the company (who get
shares) and run by the most competant leadership that they can hire.  Reverse
the current system: the workers hire the management, not the other way around.

Also, free education up to the limit of a person's ability is a must.  That
goes a good way towards eliminating the underclass.  Of course, there's always
the problem of getting the money, but if welfare gets any closer to the cost
of sending someone yearround to a cheap college .....

>>  "Ah, yes. That brings me to the point I was going to make. If everyone
>>has their share of resources, or compensation for it, each culture can take
>>its share and make things the way they prefer using their share. Nobody
>>else has the right to interfere so long as they use their own resources, or
>>pay the just, market adjusted rent for the excess."

Who decides?  Majority rule?  Then the minority may get stiffed anyway ...
Newsgroups: alt.callahans