I think gene manipulation is an ethical issue, and a tough one at that.
Yov, going back to your desire to see a workable solution, the problem with my version of a “free society” is that while we can come up with ways where everything can work, it is very difficult to see how we could get there from where we are. If at all possible, I could really only imagine it as very small incremental changes for a very long time… but we have to start sometime.
Nin wrote:
What are the skills that justify differences in scales of million folds? How do you justify inheritance of wealth? Just luck?
To the first point, the difference in scales of million folds is determined by the market. The designer makes millions because (for some reason I do not understand) people think those clothes are worth paying more. The women in third world countries sewing them are willing to do so for that level of pay, and the distributor can optimize their costs by making them there, and shipping them to the wealthier market.
None of this is causing anyone any harm. Everyone is happy with the transactions, and no one is forced to do something they don’t want to do. However, if you feel that they should be paid more, you are welcome to organize a boycott of that designer until they pay their manufacturers more money. You could also organize a charity from amongst all the wealthy designers where they collect money and help the third world country doing their manufacturing create better environments for their workers and such so it’s not a third world country. There are lots of things to do if you think something needs to be done.
On the second point, I don’t think justification of inheritance of wealth is necessary. Why is it wrong for someone who worked their whole life to obtain what they valued (wealth) to give it to who they want when they die? I honestly do not understand what the problem with this is.
As for legal equality being an illusion without social equality, I don’t think that’s correct. In the free society I am proposing, the courts would be entirely different than what we see today. There would be little need for lawyers, as there is only one law, and it’s not difficult for everyone to understand. A trial would be a matter of “Did this person break the maxim? Yes or No?” Sentencing becomes a bit more complicated, but it’s not going to be a matter of who has the better lawyer.
As for opportunity being random, and thus not able to be regulated, I think we might be talking about different kinds of opportunity. Rockefeller had the opportunity to provide a new technology at a low cost to every person in the US (kerosene lamps, and thus light). There’s no possible way to regulate it such that every person has that opportunity… it required him being in a certain position at a certain time in history, and acting in a certain way, AND getting lucky. He became the richest man in US history because he did all the right things, and things went his way… You can’t regulate such things because they are inherently uncertain. They can’t be controlled.
Nin wrote:
But: what is freedom? And how do you achieve it? Freedom can be freedom from fear, and in order for people to feel (and to be) safe you can easily justify a police state. Freedom can mean freedom from need and back we are to social programs. Freedom is too vague, I think. You need something more concrete than that. Smaller goals.
Freedom, as I defined it, and yov pointed out is from the coercive force of others. What you are listing as “freedoms” are an entirely different concept, closer to the positive rights I was talking about before. Very hard to implement.
As for athletics and learning… As I said, I could (and probably should) write a book on this idea. The idea goes along with your idea of the woman in Afghanistan who is the next Einstein. How can society find that person and get them the education they need to help the whole society as much as possible? I would argue that the absolute WORST way to accomplish this is mandatory state funded education. Such education has become a harsh restriction and impediment to the very people you are talking about… because everyone has to be treated equal, which means everyone has to be treated like the stupidest and laziest kid in the class.
A much more efficient and optimal education system would not have any of it be free, which means that employers, who need highly educated employees would have to find them, and they’d want to look for them at a young age. Now, you can’t tell if a 5 year old is going to be Einstein (well, not entirely), but you can sign a contract with their parents (or Guardian) that says the company will pay for 5 years of education as part of compensation for the parent’s work, of even for future work of the child or parents. Now you have a market where third parties can fund education for anyone they want, and sell off the contracts where they want. Some parents could afford to pay for their kids, but why do it when you can get someone else to? There might be parents who hold their kids back, but this is akin to child abuse, and would have to be dealt with accordingly.
If, after 5 years of education, the kid doesn’t want to be a Software engineer (or whatever), they could say “Hey, you the guy that owns my contract, how about you trade me over to the San Francisco Symphony so I can keep working on the Violin which I like and am much better at than working with computers?” The company is happy, because they can get a premium for the skills of the kid, they symphony is happy because they have a talent, and the kid is happy because he/she can work on what they enjoy.
The great thing is, Everything is paid for and done in the most cost effective way to give the best education possible, because the company is invested in the students success. The chances the woman from Afghanistan that is the next Einstein get found and end up in the right place to use those skills the best… is much higher than pure randomness.
I won’t get into why I think the Government is opposite of that, but I’m sure you can imagine.