: The problem with fsscism,a nd otehr ultra-right-wing ideologies, is the opposite; that it does away with moral duty
You would need to define what 'moral duty' encompasses and how it is to be enforced. If it is not enforced then it is defacto not an obligation of any real meaning to people.
: Stollerism, on the other hand, prevents teh strong from doing anythoing which might in any way increase teh suffering or perceived suffering of anyone worse off than them.
Lets be clear about what 'worse off' means - do you mean economics circumstances? Popularity? Number of dates? Height? As you left the door open with the notion of 'perceived suffering' I do wonder what on earth you meant. Also, why the assumption that the strong will injure the weak - or is the injury the same as that 'suffered' in the presence of superiority - the facing of an uncomfortable fact, ones relative inferiority (in whichever regard is the measure)? In that case your proposoal is disturbing. Can you clarify for me?
You also seem to think that the above goal, of letting no one rise above the common denominator, is a worthy one. Why is that - given that you recognised earlier the dangers of underspecialisation and the liberty restricting aspects - which would be *bad* for people rather than good?
: My view on rights is that of the UN Declaration of Human Rights,
which contradict one another. So it shouldn't surprise one that every signee will break with it.
Reading the first 21 articles would make any libertarian proud ; "Everyone has a right to life, liberty, and security of person" (Article 3); "Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others" (Article 17); "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression" (Article 19).
But then it goes and contradicts the earlier articles by creating rights, that if followed require that the earlier rights be abandoned;
"protection against unemployment" (Article 23); "rest and leisure, including . . . periodic holidays with pay" (Article 24); "food, clothing, housing, and medical care and necessary social services" (Article 25).
Because all these things must be produced one assumed that the UN prescribe slavery - of producer to recipient, in contradiction of article 4 ; "No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.". Not that they dont sound very pleasant, but I ask how are to be done if the earlier articles are as true?
Any lawyer could seriously embarass someone in court with this contradictory stuff.
: We both agree that everyone should be liable to some amount of socialized voluntary labor.
Voluntary? Does that mean you or I may decide that today we don't want to bother? At least Barry is clear about just how 'voluntary' its going to be.
: My difference with barry is taht I think taht unless epopel are allowed to choose, up to a point, hwo much time to devote to tehir interest, many peopel will be very unhappy and unable to fulfil their aspirations and dreams, also jobs which require individualized labor, long hours, specialization and which don't mesh well with collectivization (science is the classic example) will not get done.
Red Deathy's post explains the first feeling, and you have argued the latter well before. I ask what's meant by "up to a point" and who will be doing the "allowing". Thats no liberty - no more than a slave would feel when "allowed" to go to town on saturday, provided he be home to tend the dinner by 5 on pain of being killed!