>It is quite obvious that more people have an
>opportunity to achieve status by accumulating material
>possessions than by any other "natural"
>characteristics that I mentioned, so from that
>standpoint wealth accumulation is a more desirbale way
>of attining status than that based on birth, physical
>strength, sexual attractiveness, skin color, etc.
>What is so strange about this conclusion?
That isn't what you said. You said that "wealth accumulation seems to be the most egalitarian way to social status achievement". Now you are merely saying it is a "more desirable" way. You're still wrong, in that your premise is that the ability to accumulate wealth is less a "natural" characteristic than skin colour and other such. Of course that is nonsense. For one thing it is entirely possible for a person to alter or enhance their "natural" physical attributes artificially. For another, it seems plain that some people have greater natural ability to accumulate wealth than another (a much smaller proportion of the population than those with born with desirable physical characteristics, too).
>As a point of clarification, I am not proposing that
>status diffrences are ethically desirable. On the
>contrary, I consider them ethically undesirable, just
>like killing other living things. However, they are
>also unavoidable, a basic fact of life if you will,
>just like killing other living things is. Therefore,
>minimizing the negative consequences of status
>attainment (e.g. deprivation or suffering of others)
>is the best we can hope for. This is analogous to
>minimizing the negative consequences of killing living
>things by doing it in a "humane" way that minimizes
>pain and suffering - it is the best we can hope for
>without risking extinction.
Again, what makes you think I'm proposing to abolish social status? I'm quite annoyed that you are implying that I am. In fact my suggestions have been precisely along the lines you suggest, minimising the negative social consequences of status.
In particular, I have advocated a separation of the issues of personal economic security and personal economic contribution, so that those who would inevitably enjoy greater social status and power over the means of production would no longer be in a position to exercise economic coercion over others.
If you had been paying attention, would would recall that this was originally posed in response to someone advocating the Parecon system, which instead advocates 'balanced job complexes', essentially a convoluted and to me flawed system of trying to equally share the prestigious and thus socially high status jobs that carry with them power, particularly economic power, over others.
Perhaps you are not really responding to what I say at all, but countering the points made by those who advocate that sort of future? If so, I wish you wouldn't do so in response to my posts, quoting from my posts as if I was the one you are arguing with. You can see, I'm sure, that by doing this it implies that I am arguing something different from what I am.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas