Consolidating this and the 'Liberal' post, let me reply to both. i hope this will be the last word, because I think we've achieved something here constructive. You've concinced me that your utopia will pay due respect to freedom, (by which i mean that while it may not maximize freedom, it at least seems to weigh freedom as a factor in the equation against equality, and to assure at least a reasonable degree of freedom) and won't intervene in things like families' right to have some time by themselves. Hopefully, i've convinced you that in spite of my respect for tradition, I don't support things like patriarchy, oppression of homosexuals, or the other things you rightfully despise. I think, unfortunately, that at heart I find it hard to come up with a strong argument against job rotation. I'm beginning to think that you may have a good point here.
Think about this; having similar schedules for everyone itrinsically fosters a sense of camaraderie and community. Two things that are sorely lacking in America today. I remember high school where everyone had somewhat similar routines, and I seem to remember that that really encouraged getting along with everyone else. For reasons UTTERLY UNRELATED to 'human rights', 'equality', or 'freedom', job rotation may be a good idea; it would seem to foster the third, often-forgotten slogan of teh French Revolution, the idea of FRATERNITY.
When you originally proposed job roattion, I thought you meant EVERYONE doing EVERY job. I still oppose THAT kind of job rotation, because it would make specialization totally impossible. But the kind that merely assigns everyone to do some skilled work and some unskilled work makes a lot of sense to me. In fact, I think that everyone should be required to work for the state building houses or doing other work like that for a couple of years after high school. Sort of like a civilian draft.
And thanks, by the way, for the post below where you said I was a 'sort of socialiat' and that you 'rather liked me'.
We still continue,of cpourse, to disagree on a couple of things. On religion- i don't expect to convince you,a nd you shouldn't expect to convince me, bt I am a believer. I hope that your society will at least recognize people's ight to believe and practice the religion that they choose, as did socialist Nicaragua, and won't adopt official atheism.
On private schools; I do believe, after thinking about this, that vouchers tare the only solution which respects the feredom of people to teach in the manner that they think best (within limits) as well as the need to separate one's enjoyment fo social goods from one's wealth. I think we've got to an impasse here. Just think about this, though. Suppose a Quaker school had decided, at a time of war, that it was their duty to attempt to teach pacifist values. Suppose this was in teh context of an unjust war,like Vietnam. Wouldn't you have, in that context, praised God fro their independence from business and the state? I would have.
Finally, on 'tradition' in general. You're right about it not being teh duty fo teh state to intervene in divorce, amrriage, etc. Maybe that's where the duty of religion lies.