Regarding the idea of the "classless society"

[zarus tathra]

I get it. The stinking, filthy, rotten rich should own all and the rest of us should be ruled by them unconditionally. I don't suppose you see the flaw in that bullshit. They're called stinking, filthy, rotten for a reason.

No, I don't think they should own us. But I don't think the "revolutionaries" should, either. And I think a lot of them really, really want to.

Ideally, both factions would kill each other off and the people who actually do things would get on with their lives.

But maybe right now the revolutionaries need more power. They can't kill each other off if only one side owns all the guns.

[Berati]

No, I don't strive for that ideal. That's just bullshit status quo apologetics. What I'm more afraid of is that a group would attempt to "end history," that is, make further social developments impossible the way every leftist movement thus far has attempted. And when a group's ideology is as disruptive and narrow-minded as "redistribution of wealth," you can easily see why I become convinced that cultural and intellectual stagnation will necessarily follow.

Not sure who you are referring to?
Can you name a few examples of these leftist ideologies that are currently in power?

[zarus tathra]

Marxism is explicitly about the "end of prehistory." They think that once they're in power, their abstract design will reign unchallenged for all time.

Nazism said it would "reign for a thousand years." They also thought that they would rule for eternity.

Read "The Open Society and its Enemies." Basically, the book says that the philosophical core of all totalitarian ideology is the belief that one's philosophy has the future of human history predicted in all important respects. Even Francis Fukuyama's idea of a perfect New Democratic Order, or his "end of history" scenario, is totalitarian; every book that isn't about democracy that he writes is about how we have to control biotech and keep it from making people better because it would hurt the feelings of stupid people.

[Berati]

Marxism is explicitly about the "end of prehistory." They think that once they're in power, their abstract design will reign unchallenged for all time.

Nazism said it would "reign for a thousand years." They also thought that they would rule for eternity.

Read "The Open Society and its Enemies." Basically, the book says that the philosophical core of all totalitarian ideology is the belief that one's philosophy has the future of human history predicted in all important respects. Even Francis Fukuyama's idea of a perfect New Democratic Order, or his "end of history" scenario, is totalitarian; every book that isn't about democracy that he writes is about how we have to control biotech and keep it from making people better because it would hurt the feelings of stupid people.

Ok, lets use that book. This is from wikipedia concerning "The Open Society and its Enemies"

The last chapter of the first volume bears the same title as the book, and is Popper's own philosophical explorations on the necessity of liberal democracy as the only form of government allowing institutional improvements without violence and bloodshed.

And liberal democracy is "a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of liberalism, i.e. protecting the rights of minorities and, especially, the individual. It is characterised by fair, free, and competitive elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, and political freedoms for all persons."

If you agree with the bolded part, then it gives the appearance that you are contradicting your initial question: "Why shouldn't we strive for an accurate estimation of an individual's usefulness, intelligence, strength, etc?"

The answer is that we (as the govt) should never make such estimations, rather we provide "the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, and political freedoms for all persons" in order to achieve a liberal democracy instead of a totalitarian state.

Now do yo get why there should only be one set of laws that applies to everybody? and why that is not leftist nor an impotent sense of morality?

[zarus tathra]

"Rule of law." That's a good term. Too bad nobody actually knows what it means. One group might think it means "strong property rights," another might think it means "fairness," another purposefully ambiguous term.

Like most political philosophers, I would put more weight on Popper's criticisms than on his political prescriptions.

[zarus tathra]

I'm revising my previous comment.

When the laws are just made up by some dictator or shadowy council and unconstrained by any rational standard, then yes, "rule of law" is meaningless. When the laws fit some kind of rigorously defined standard that pretty much everyone can agree on, then "rule of law" becomes more meaningful.

[doorknob]

Classifying people into groups is inescapable. As long as people are diverse there will always be "groups" of people. And I don't think that classifying them is wrong unless done in a particularly negative light. I wouldn't want a world where every one is a cardboard cut out all fitting into one classification. Other than human of course.

All though I'd like a level financial playing field for all. Things are quite skew around here monetarily.