[ExI] Social Mobility and Bioconservatism

[painlord2k at libero.it]

Il 20/02/2009 12.11, Stefano Vaj ha scritto:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:20 PM, painlord2k at libero.it
> <painlord2k at libero.it>  wrote:
>> Exactly.
>> In a market, whoever would give a job to an unqualified or less qualified
>> person would  had paid with his money, not with the taxpayer's money. This
>> would control the nepotism, and let able people to climb the social ladder.
>
> We both know well that I do not share your expectations from
> "pure-market", radically libertarian/individualistic solutions, but
> what is of interest is that in the conservative/progressive debate the
> general idea shared to some extent by both opponent that the first
> party would represent and defend the "wild capitalist, social
> darwinist, competitive" side is a pure mythe, at least in Europe.

Given what the Republicans and Bush did in the US, I would suggest the 
myth is not only Italian or european but "western".

The myth can only be disproved in front of the masses only with the big 
failure of the governments on economic matters.


> In fact, in most circumstances, they represent and defend the attempt
> of vested interests and parasitic classes to be *protected* from all
> that (only, in that case they are more often rich or middle class than
> poor).

I agree.


> Additionally, when this is the case as it often is,
> conservatives happen to be as well rabid neoluddite, the two things
> being connected for a number of reasons.

I would suggest that conservative "neoluddite" is another myth.
The progressives are able to be as much, if not more, Luddite as the 
conservatives and are sure more efficient Luddite than the conservatives.

For example, the position of the Catholic Church about the use of the 
Genetically Modified Organism is more progressive than the position of 
many leftists.

> This, IMHO, is a possible point of convergence in our camp.

Probably.

Mirco