>I meant that the constitutional protections have not been very >effective at protecting minorities historically
I agree. Ask just about anyone this question: supposing you were going to be placed, at random, into any soceity on Earth -- you do not know what social status you will have, what your income level will be, even what gender or nationality you will be -- the only choice you get is the initial choice of countries. In what country would you most like to be placed, totally at random? From my point of view, it has to be the United States of Western Europe. In most of the rest of the world, the odds would be stacked against you. Olin ----- Original Message ----- From: Euan Ritchie<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 12:09 PM Subject: Re: On Topic shocker! > Some minority rights. And even then it has not worked very well > historically. I disagree, I think it has worked spectacularly well. Non-wealthy people living in the modern democracies enjoy the greatest freedoms and wealth available to the non-elite in human history. With the possible exception of pre-farming/pre-nation state humanity where everyone was pretty much equally well off in the prosperous environments. But you'd have to make a value judgement on how much you value modern amenities for that one. There is an argument to be made that, oh say, a thousand years ago the simple life of a healthy peasant farmer was rewarding and enoyable living with the soil and not being burdened by too much philosophy - but that's just saying people who have found their niche have a good thing. You can find your niche today. I meant that the constitutional protections have not been very effective at protecting minorities historically _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l<http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l> _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
