: : Then again, you have set up a scenario between two communities. But why not extend this form of argument to the internal dynamics within C1 for example.: It would be equally valid.
: Presumably there are differences in "natural ability" within this single community. How are those individuals who don't 'measure up' (in your definition) to be treated?
: Not to be treated. The arguments I laid out would be as valid.
So you would maintain, I suppose, that a "collectivist direct democracy" would devolve 'naturally' into a meritocracy?
: : While I appreciate you concern for the rights of individuals, I feel you carry this philosophy into a psychology of individualism that ignors basic realities. While we are self-evidently individuals, we are immensely dependant upon others.
: Interdependant. And that interdependancy never requires unchosen obligations.
Ahh yes....Interdependant...kinda makes it sound like an equivalence of dependancy, sort of one on one. Well it isn't. My life depends upon the actions of countless thousands of others. Still, the problem of social obligation remains. Sartre recognized this problem in his philosophy of
existentialism. I'm not sure how he resolved it. A free market capitalist philosophy blythly assumes that 'rational self-interest' will obviate any necessity for such terms as "obligation". The theory might sound rational to some....the practice has proved disasterous around the world. This is partly because "profit" and self-aggrandizement have come to be valued and respected as goals rather than values that provide a sense of self-worth through, for example sharing. One should do what one wants (so long as it doesn't interefere with the rights of others) you say. Fine, no problem. Neither is this inconsistent with socialist values. Extending these rights to property is another matter.
