3.14... wrote:1. All people are born free. (Except the mentally handicapped whose freedom is restricted by the severity of the handicap.)
I object to the removal of freedom to the mentally handicapped.
2. No advantage in society should be heritable (i.e. Everyone should get equal opportunities. Accidents happen these are fine, no general heritable advantages)
I ask you to live them first before imposing your ideas on others.
Axiom 2 seems to imply "we should all exist at the lowest common denominator". So go and starve yourself to death: there are children in the world who starve to death.
If your claim is those children shouldn't exist, then take your wealth and give it to them. Right now, everything you own or have claim to. Start working at the highest pay job you can, and give it all away to starving children.
Or do you just want to take other people's stuff and give them to yourself and other people?
Second, I repeat this question: how do you plan on enforcing this
Do you shoot the professor who spends time talking with her children about the wonders of science?
Maybe you just throw the professor in jail?
How do you detect these purely consensual crimes? Do you build a "beauro of thoguht control", which spys on the citizens of the nation?
3. Anything that is to be thought to children (who will easily believe alot of things) must be proven scientifically, if not then it should be reserved untill the postoperational stage of cognitive ability has developed.
What scientific standards do you intend to use?
Do you plan on shooting people who disagree?
There are many things that have not, or cannot, be proved scientifically. And knowing what is currently true scientifically is a rather high burden.
Do you have a proof that kids should hold their parents hands when they cross the street? That the kid shouldn't tear the wings off of insects? That the kid should stop pulling the dogs tail, because the dog doesn't like it?
Or even "share with your friends", "don't eat dirt, it is bad for you", "fighting with timmy is bad, don't do it"?
I completely agree with your point on diversity. I have to however say, that just because we can't completely abolish inheritable advantages, unless we break down the family system, which I am not up for in this time of human history, it does not imply that we can not strive to.
Families provide lots of freely given labour to the raising of the next generation. Those resources are built up and given gladly
. If some people fail in passing on this cultural pattern to thier children, then their cultural pattern dies off. If you succeed, the pattern continues to propogate.
So in order to remove the family and remove all advantage, you need to develop a way of making people want to raise other people's children in a way that they have absolutely no freedom
over - they must follow exact state-presribed behaviour at all times, to make sure there is no advantage for one child over another.
While we are at it, we should remove the genetic advantage. Over time, wipe out all genes except for one set. You can either do this with high tech cloning, or you can do this slowly via the legal requirement to use sperm banks and egg banks to create new children. The human incubators used will be placed in strictly controlled environments so they cannot generate any difference in the brood's pre-birth environment.
Or you can stop being jealous. Is someone's life so much worse because someone else's life is better? What if making someone's life better did not make everyone else's life worse -- would you reject that?
The world doesn't reset every generation. Encouraging social mobility is a good idea, but banning any kind of intergenerational resource transfer would require seriosly insane amounts of force and cohersion.
So I ask you again, how do you plan on enforcing this?
Why is it ethical to punish someone who does extra for thier child?
If you want to force people to not help their children, you will have to use force. If you want to prevent people from raising their own children, you will have to use force.