QUOTE(abis @ 7 Jul 2008, 11:15 AM)
Nu vad de ce ar fi relevant nivelul de poluare atunci cand cercetam fericirea.
Daca o populatie isi obtine fericirea printr-o economie ce presupune poluarea mediului, inseamna ca acea fericire nu e de durata si peste 3-4 generatii e probabil ca urmasii lor, ce traiesc intr-un mediu viciat si lipsit de resurse, sa nu mai fie la fel de multumiti.
QUOTE
Posibil. Insa in conditiile in care societatilor respective li s-ar impune o oranduire egalitarista, democratia si toleranta ar deveni istorie. Prin urmare, si fericirea.
Esti intr-o adanca eroare. In realitate, numai egalitarismul poate garanta functionarea satisfacatoare a democratiei. Doar atunci cand fiecare vom avea aceeasi avere si aceeasi pozitie sociala, fiecare vot va conta la fel. In schimb, in sistemele ce tolereaza inegalitati, cand o minoritate detine averi incomensurabile, e clar ca aceasta poate influenta si santaja dupa bunul plac activitatea politicienilor, legiuitorilor etc. Mai mult, cand doar o parte, mica, din populatie detine mijloacele de productie, e de asteptat ca restul sa depinda de ei, sa fie fortati sa accepte la angajare conditii ce nu ii avantajeaza (deloc sau nu pe deplin), sa nu aiba un cuvant de spus in privinta activitatii desfasurate la locul de munca etc.
Dupa cum spune John Myles, prof. de sociologie la U. din Toronto:
QUOTE
Democracy, by definition, is egalitarian (“one person, one vote”): rights are attached to people, not to their property. Markets, by contrast, are driven by inequality (“one dollar, one vote”) and, by deinition, generate more inequalities. In the 19th century, it was widely believed that mass democracy would destroy markets: the “many” would simply use their political power to expropriate the wealth of the “few” and markets would collapse. That never happened. [...]
Times have changed, and as the inequality trends indicate, Canadians face new distributive challenges. This is no time to rest on the laurels of those who preceded us. The viability of our society requires efficient markets; but it also requires effective democracy."
La randul sau, Frank Cunningham, care preda stiinte politice la aceeasi U din Toronto, completeaza:
QUOTE
"Inequality is an enemy of democracy. Autocracy is harmful to public spirit, since people understand themselves to be politically impotent. When a democratic society contains significant inequalities, it begins to resemble an autocracy. If money can determine for whom one is able to vote and dictates limits on what representatives can do once elected, understandable cynicism results and, with it, the weakening of public commitment."
Pentru mult mai multe, vezi zici:
Inegalitatile economice conteaza.De altfel, conform unui sondaj marca Financial Times, publicat la 19 mai 2008, marea majoritate a cetatenilor (76%-85%) inclusiv din tari dezvoltate ca Germania, Spania, Italia, China considera ca in prezent inegalitatile economice in randul societatilor sunt exagerat de mari si ca trebuie sa-i taxam mai mult pe bogatasi.
Ostilitatea generala fata de inegalitati, impreuna cu tendintele de redistribuire prin intermediul taxarii progresive sunt semne ca un viraj pe plan mondial spre egalitarism devine o reala posibilitate si ca el este vointa maselor.
...
