Re: RE: Naders Big Chance

On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Kendall Clark wrote:

>   dave> I world where each person is judged entirely on their own
>   dave> merits.
>
> How horrible. Really. *Entirely* on their own merits? I would do very,
> very poorly indeed. What about people utter lacking in merit? If
> judged *entirely on my merits*, I'd likely never have gotten the
> education I have, probably wouldn't get much medical care, etc.


> That seems -- though pushed perhaps further than you intend -- to be a

Gee, you think?

Perhaps a better way of saying it would be that I want a world where
people are pre-judged on nothing.

As to the judgement I was referring to, it was not any and all forms of
judgement.  Rather, I was thinking specifically of the types of judgements
we make when we determine with whom we will associate with, with whom
we'll work, etc.

Right now, bigotry (regardles of whether it is racist or not), clouds
those judgements to one degree or another.  Eliminating racism wouldn't
necessarily change this fact, just the impact it has.  Although I suspect
that the work that goes into eliminating racism can't help but affect
bigotry in general.

> I find a far more desirable world to imagine is one in which in which
> human rights are maximally respected and achieved, irrespective of
> one's merit. I 'merit' what the UDHR claims for me only because I'm a
> human person like any other.

I'm not arguing here.  What you and are I saying we want are two entirely
compatible things.

> You might also imagine a kind of Singerian "eutopia" where everyone's
> interests are respected appropriately -- which would probably end up
> looking very much like Maximal Human Rights World.

Well, I might indeed imagine such a thing.  In fact, I do.

> Ah, yes, here we go. Wallerstein, from his 1998 *Utopistics* (The New
> Press):

Sounds interesting.  I'm adding it to my list.


-dave

/*==================
www.urth.org
We await the New Sun
==================*/