Do you believe equality and equal treatment under a law to be undesirable?

[Kasz216]

sapphi_snake said:

Kasz216 said:

badgenome said:

Mr Khan said:

But you are equally able to take from the system according to your need. All who have need have equal access to that aid, and all who have the means contribute equally according to their level of means

Ultimately the success of such systems boils down to education and to cultural mores. We have this culture of greed in many places in the world where the greed ethic applies to those with a strong or weak work ethic equally. Those who work hard whine about every cent they have to give up, and those who don't work try to play the system to make themselves as comfortable as possible without having to do anything

If all understand their shared responsibility not only for their own lives, but for the good of society as a whole, and more to the point everyone enjoys their role in society unjealously, then we have a system where redistribution functions without abuse

Problem is, the provider and the consumer are in no way equal.

Such a system as you describe, if it can work at all, is only feasible when a society is almost entirely homogeneous and has a shame culture rather than a guilt culture.

that and i'd really find it hard to see a situation where everyone enjoys their role in society unjealously.

Someones going to be jealous... whether it be that they're workering harder for an equal good, or not as hard, or even just like it is now.  Everyone being jealous of people who get to be famous doing entertainment and artistic things.

Well, they found a way to do that in Brave New World.

Yeah, it's called being a fictional book.

The problem with Soma and pleasure by distraction is two fold.

1) Drugs don't effect people the same way.

2)  Distraction by amusement doesn't work, because everytime your working your crappy unimportant job, your not being amused.

Outside which, living in the Brave New World society would just be horrifying.  I mean, Huxley's whole point was that such a society was on it's way down the pipes and should be avoided at all costs.

If he saw the world today he'd probably think we were well on our way to such a society.  For example, I currently work in one of the areas in the country with the largest unemployment rate in the country in Las Vegas.  In the area by where I work I think it's something like 14%?   Though I'd say over half of my customers are unemployed, it's easy to tell because unemployment debit cards look different from regular ones.

They all come in, take money off their unemployment cards and throw them in the slot machines hoping to get rich.  They're upset with their lives but also generally apathetic because they get enough money to eat and to fuel their hopes of hitting the "Big One". 

However would see the Tea Party and Occupy Wallstreet movements are the exact reasons why it won't work out in the end.  People want more then just distraction.

Heck, even look at the communist Utopia of Star Trek, they have jealousy.

 

That's not to say such a society couldn't work.  It just couldn't work with humans.  Even in the most "community" based societies there was more then enough indivualism out there to make such a system useless.  Even in an area where confusinism ruled there would be a large amount of jealousy and discontent over who could help the state best.

Oh, and additionally.... Brave New World is about fascism, not communism.

Outside Soma you could argue hitler's gameplay was page for page out of that book.  Though instead of Henry Ford he wanted to replace Germany itself as a sort of god like figure that replaced all relgions.

If I remember correctly, Huxley himself states the main difference between Nazi Germany and a Brave New World was that technology was more advanced in his book.

 

Food for anyone who actually thinks that would be an ideal society.  Of course, some people think "The World Stood Still" was a utopian tale as well...

When it was about a Giant Robot who murdered anyone who did anything so mildly violent as slapping someone.

To be fair the movie did release in 1951 but i mean... still!