ah, kelley, the radical left has to offer more than that. it may not semm politically correct, but the old man - with all his faith in progress - had a very classical, in fact aristotelian, concept of what a good society is. a good society is one that allows the full utilization of all human nature potential i.e. a system that does not limit what some people could have become under a different social order. this of it as a sort of pareto's optimum with a twist - that 'human potential' is defined accordning to some 'natural law' independently of the actual content of one's consciousness.
i think btw, that is the bascic difference between the libertarian right (l-r) and and the radical left (r-l) - speaking or mirrors, isn't that symmetry curious? both seem to accept the concept good society as one providing maximum individual good - they differ in how individual good is defined. the l-r school has it that individual good is whatever the individual in question believes it is. the r-l school has it that individual good is defined by the maximum potential embedded in the human nature.
on the surface, the l-r approach seem to 'make sense' 'coz it seems to be based on everday observation that people are not equal, from which we conclude that what's good for them must be different too - until we get into the 'bounded rationality' or 'false consciousness' problem - or simply speaking, that people often do not know what's good form them. the patient-doctor metaphor illustrates that quite nicely. things get complicated even further if we realise that the contents of consciousness is determined by one's past experiences - which tells that what people say is good form them is merely a reflection of their past and limiting experience rather than their full human potential.
on the surface, the r-l approach seems to be obtuse and indefensibel, because it necessarily relies on some sor of theory that defines 'human nature' and its full potential . of course the l-r has such a theory too - the hobbesian homo homini lupus - but that is veiled under the guise of 'common sense observations' (the ratfuckers are quite good at using that veil). however, upon a brief reflection, it is the r-l concept of human that is more defensible - you define human potential as the 'highest point' achieved by some; i.e. what was good for one or some, should be good for all (kantian categorical imperative).
thus your passage:
>there are good and bad wankers; naturally i am among the former. i thank
>the god i don't believe in that i have the luxury of doing it. for many
>years i did not. i consider myself lucky to be able to think beyond the
>mere tasks of survival in order to consider things like the above. indeed,
>i often considered things like the above before i even got myself some
>alphabet soup to legitimate my wanking, but often lacked a community within
could be used to define what is good life - being able to thank goddess for having the luxury of being able to think beyond the mere task of survival (marxian fishing in the morning and writing poetry in the evening) - and a good society is the one that makes that ideal available to everyone, not just the select few living in suburabn gated communities.
wojtek
PS. Since English is my second language and the dictionary i'm using was printed probably at the same time as the pentagon's maps of eastern europe - could you explain what 'wanking' means.
w.