The Ideal Society

[DamnedIrishman]

Discussion of real-world politics is not permitted on this forum. The following thread is a discussion of abstract political philosophy, economics and sociology. Please try to keep it that way. At the same time, try not to be scared off by my mentioning the word 'economics'.

As many of you will know by now, I am a huge fan of debate. Over recent days I have enjoyed scholarly argument with the Playground over various topics such as the basis of morality, the nature of God and the differing treatment of the genders in society. Sadly, those topics have all now ground to a halt (with the exception of the gender thread, which has turned to topics I am staying the hell away from). For this reason, I have imagined a new question: How do you envisage the ideal society?

I am a anarcho-socialist (though some prefer the terms social anarchist or libertarian socialist). This political philosophy aspires to create an entirely free society by abolishing all forms of hierarchy and authoritarian institution. The anarcho-socialist ideal is that every individual would have free access to land, information and tools of production.
My own envisioning of the ideal society is one where private property and currency are abolished. In their place: egalitarian distribution of resources and common access to land.
The work required to support the community is divided between the members of the community. With modern automisation and mass production, it is entirely feasible that any number of people can support a greater population than they constitute. In this case, why should everybody work eight hours a day, five days a week? Better surely that they divide up the necessary work between them and each work six hours a day, three days a week? Then they can dedicate their free time to artistic or intellectual pursuits, or (as the poet said) "dedicate themselves to studying the difficult arts of enjoying life".
A paradise, no?

I'm sure that there are people here who will disagree with me, or who will see a flaw in my rough envisioning of the better society. I welcome you to query me with these disagreements, that I might answer them. Otherwise, I welcome you to describe your own utopian visions, that they may be similarly discussed.

[The Rose Dragon]

It wouldn't work, because while a person is smart, people are stupid. Also, while a person can be selfless, people are selfish and therefore will likely run everything to the ground without supervision.

You'd need something completely detached from human imperfection to order things for people. Otherwise things will just become chaos or a situation of 99% of world's wealth in the hands of 1%.

And since there are no perfect things, there is no ideal society.

[Trizap]

yea the world tends to follow an intelligence version of conservation of ninjutsu:
one person alone is smart, but in a lot of numbers, people become stupid.

[DamnedIrishman]

It wouldn't work, because while a person is smart, people are stupid. Also, while a person can be selfless, people are selfish and therefore will likely run everything to the ground without supervision.


Why are they likely to run everything into the ground without supervision?



You'd need something completely detached from human imperfection to order things for people. Otherwise things will just become chaos or a situation of 99% of world's wealth in the hands of 1%.


In a currency-free economy, there is no 'wealth' to stockpile. That which is needed is produced by shared labour and divided up equally.

One of my favourite anarchist quotes is:


Person A: You anarchists must put a lot of faith in human nature.
Person B: Maybe. Though I don't see how you need faith in human nature to think that nobody can be trusted to be the boss of somebody else.

[averagejoe]

The ideal society is one focused on people giving each other high fives while going opposite ways on motorcycles. The source of most of society's problems comes from not enough of this.

[Shadowcaller]

There is no such thing as an "utopia", I would go so far to claim that its against human nature.

[DamnedIrishman]

The ideal society is one focused on people giving each other high fives while going opposite ways on motorcycles. The source of most of society's problems comes from not enough of this.

At 70kph that's a risky business.

[Trizap]

There is no such thing as an "utopia", I would go so far to claim that its against human nature.

true; third Matrix movie.....


it was revealed that the Matrix 1.0 was a utopia and was rejected by the humans inside of it for some reason

[hamishspence]

I think most utopian theories seem to be based heavily on "do not harm fellow members of the utopia"

Which is nearly always dependant on enforcement- people to prevent members harming each other, and stop them when they catch them doing it- or have evidence that they have been doing it in the past- that is, police.

[The Rose Dragon]

In a currency-free economy, there is no 'wealth' to stockpile. That which is needed is produced by shared labour and divided up equally.

Currency-free does not mean wealth-free. Food is a form of wealth. Drinkable water is a form of wealth. And without money, one person or another will figure out a way to collect what is necessary and "sell" it for favors or barter it unfairly for other goods.

Economy existed before currency. It wasn't fair then, either.

Nobody can be trusted to be the boss of someone else, yes. But humans are not born equal, no matter how much some people will claim to contrary. Some people are smarter or stronger, and the less intelligent and weaker ones tend to fall under their sway.

[Trizap]

I think most utopian theories seem to be based heavily on "do not harm fellow members of the utopia"

Which is nearly always dependant on enforcement- people to prevent members harming each other, and stop them when they catch them doing it- or have evidence that they have been doing it in the past- that is, police.

then the question how much force police should use to enforce things come in, you get the possibility of police abusing their power, and you just end up getting oppressed again.

[Ichneumon]

I think a utopia wouldn't be possible without some kind of authority heavily enforcing its authority and forcing people to act in the right way. You can't let people care for themselves without getting stuff like the Tragedy of the Commons.

[hamishspence]

hence the invention of laws and attempts at maximising impartiality of legal systems, in order to try, wherever possible, to weaken this tendency: "Without fear or favour" and all that sort of thing.

"A citizen may do anything that is not explicitly forbidden, a government and its agents may do nothing except that which is explicitly permitted"

[The Rose Dragon]

Anyway, maybe we should describe our own ideal society as well. I mean, I do not agree with the OP's view, but this was not the point of the thread, was it?

((If it was, feel free to correct me.))

[Ichneumon]

I agree, there should be fixed laws that dictate what people can't do and what the authority can do and how it should act and enforce its authority.

[averagejoe]

At 70kph that's a risky business.

A lot of research would go into the optimal speed-to-awesome ratio, and such things would also be dictated by many complex social factors. For example, two old friends in their mid twenties might high five at 70kph, but if one of them was greeting, say, a child or someone sickly then 5 or 10kph would be acceptable.

Anyways, it's less risky than the alternative. I would argue that most people just don't have it in them to cheat or harm someone they've high fived going opposite ways on motorcycles. It's the greatest instinctual bonding experience two people can go through.

[Trizap]

I think a utopia wouldn't be possible without some kind of authority heavily enforcing its authority and forcing people to act in the right way. You can't let people care for themselves without getting stuff like the Tragedy of the Commons.

but if you force people to act the right way, you just take away their freedom and such.

face it people, any society you come up with will have problems that makes it less than perfect, your attempts at creating utopia is like trying to find the color of sound!

[The Rose Dragon]

I agree, there should be fixed laws that dictate what people can't do and what the authority can do and how it should act and enforce its authority.

Humans are not capable of creating anything ideal, however. The ideal society would need ideal laws created by ideal people, and humans are anything but.

We can approximate, but at any arbitrary point you stop approximating before reaching idealization, problems will crop up.

[hamishspence]

yes- the most common anarchist complaint is that governments have been responsible for far more evil than criminals throughout history.

But the answer to that isn't necessarily to abolish governments, but to build very very heavy restrictions into them in order to maximise both security and freedom.

Given that people, being imperfect, will always have disagreements, its likely that there will always be a need for impartial arbiters- civil courts. How impartial is a different question- "as impartial as we can manage" is an answer of sorts.

[Ichneumon]

but if you force people to act the right way, you just take away their freedom and such.

face it people, any society you come up with will have problems that makes it less than perfect, your attempts at creating utopia is like trying to find the color of sound!

People's rights and freedoms are always going to be limited by the rights and freedoms of others, that's the very nature of freedom. Society would allow people to act the way they want as long as it does not affect others in unacceptable ways.

[DamnedIrishman]

Currency-free does not mean wealth-free. Food is a form of wealth. Drinkable water is a form of wealth. And without money, one person or another will figure out a way to collect what is necessary and "sell" it for favors or barter it unfairly for other goods.


True, natural resources are a form of wealth. But where does the concept of wealth come from in such a society? How can you think to sell something if you do not understand the concept of ownership? Capitalism might be the dominant mode in the modern world, but that does not mean it is necessary or inevitable.



Economy existed before currency. It wasn't fair then, either.


I draw your attention to Incan society, prior to the Spanish invasion. Wealth in this society means having many followers, not material possessions or money. Barter was limited within the Inca Empire: it was a method of gaining resources from foreigners which were not available in the empire. Most people lived on family estates, sharing between them the work needed to support themselves, with relatively few frivolous possessions. The only existing wage system was for the workers in iron and silver mines - they were given shelter, and paid in cloth which they could barter for food.



Nobody can be trusted to be the boss of someone else, yes. But humans are not born equal, no matter how much some people will claim to contrary. Some people are smarter or stronger, and the less intelligent and weaker ones tend to fall under their sway.

That is assuming that all intelligent people are selfish and scheming, or at least that everyone 'born superior' will bully or manipulate their fellow man.

[hamishspence]

Question is, do "life" and "property" come within those rights "you can do anything you want as long as you don't hurt/rob people"?

"forcing people to act the right way" is harder than "catch and punish people who act the wrong way"

[Shadowcaller]

That is assuming that all intelligent people are selfish and scheming, or at least that everyone 'born superior' will bully or manipulate their fellow man.

Well, you can't assume that all the "superior" people will be idealistic either. It goes both ways. And since all humans aren't idealistic there won't be a idealistic society.

[Ichneumon]

Question is, do "life" and "property" come within those rights "you can do anything you want as long as you don't hurt/rob people"?

"forcing people to act the right way" is harder than "catch and punish people who act the wrong way"


I'd say each individual is free to control his own life to a certain extent and that people do have the right not to be robbed of property they have a right to have. You don't have the right to own individuals I believe so I wouldn't say you can claim the right to not be robbed of those individuals. So that would mean you can liberate slaves without offending someone's rights.

[DamnedIrishman]

Well, you can't assume that all the "superior" people will be idealistic either. It goes both ways and since all humans aren't idealistic there won't be a idealistic society.

They don't have to be. Quite frankly, if I was a member of such a society and one member was trying to screw the others over, I would stop him. The idealistic will counter the manipulative. But so will other selfish people - sabotage each other because they want to be the one on top.

[The Rose Dragon]

That is assuming that all intelligent people are selfish and scheming, or at least that everyone 'born superior' will bully or manipulate their fellow man.

Not all. Just enough.

Speaking of the Incan society, I'd like to draw your attention to how they did not make it to today.

[Ichneumon]

Speaking of the Incan society, I'd like to draw your attention to how they did not make it to today.

That was because of European supremacist invaders.

EDIT: I'm sorry, I seem to be confusing Aztec with Inca, I'm not sure about the incan society.

[DamnedIrishman]

Not all. Just enough.

Speaking of the Incan society, I'd like to draw your attention to how they did not make it to today.

Due to a combination of smallpox (wiped out most of the population, don't you know), being attacked when already weakened by major wars, and being technologically outclassed. If the Inca had guns and vaccinations, they'd probably still be here.


EDIT: I'm sorry, I seem to be confusing Aztec with Inca, I'm not sure about the incan society.

Both the Incan and Aztec empires were conquered by the Spanish.

[hamishspence]

Genes- not "superior" human ones- but ones for immunity to the various diseases the invaders brought with them, played a big part.

EDIT: ninjaed

[Ichneumon]

Both the Incan and Aztec empires were conquered by the Spanish.

Nice to know. Thankies!:smallsmile:

[DamnedIrishman]

Would anyone care to suggest an alternative?


It's interesting being on the more challenged side of the debate for once. I wonder when GoC will show up and go through every possible flaw in careful detail...

[hamishspence]

one problem with abolishing private property is it acts to discourage effort. Why work as hard as possible, when all the produce of your effort is going to go into a common pool? Conversely, why not slack off if you know you won't be penalized?

[The Rose Dragon]

An alternative?

Leave it be.

Humans are not capable of imagining a truly ideal thing. We may think something is ideal, but it's going to be full of problems in practice.

Something ideal would have to be imagined by a being without flaws, and there is no such thing in reality.


one problem with abolishing private property is it acts to discourage effort. Why work as hard as possible, when all the produce of your effort is going to go into a common pool? Conversely, why not slack off if you know you won't be penalized?

Because you will be penalized. The less total work done, the less amount of output there will be. The less output there is, the less each individual gets.

Certainly not as fair as other economic systems, but it does not mean sloth will pay off.

[hamishspence]

depending on your views, we are progressing- very very slowly, toward an ideal society anyway- discrimination was normal not that long ago, its being increasingly discouraged. Same with slavery, or various other forms of exploitation.

Instant jumps from "normal" to "perfect" societies tend to go wrong. Though external pressure on the would-be utopians plays a part.

Its not so much that sloth pays off, its that working hard pays less. Resulting in everyone thinking short term, and the efficiency steadily decreasing. If you know other people are working as little as they can get away with- you don't have much incentive to carry the slack for them.

[DamnedIrishman]

An alternative?

Leave it be.

Humans are not capable of imagining a truly ideal thing. We may think something is ideal, but it's going to be full of problems in practice.


True, but just because we can never reach the truly ideal society doesn't mean we can't create a better one than we currently have.

[Ichneumon]

I'd say the best type of society is one in which we live in small communities in which communism would actually work. Between the different communities their would be fixed trade with each community functioning as a individual who can buy and sell products. What is bought and sold is chosen in a somewhat democratical way by a group of experts. Society would mostly be somewhat between technocratic and meritocratic, with people who know what they talk about having the right to decide how things are going to be. People can do tests to proof they have enough knowledge about the subject to talk about it.

(Oh and society would be mostly vegan, but that's just me being an animal right activist and not really on topic but I just have to mention it because this would be my ideal kind of society...)

[DamnedIrishman]

(Oh and society would be mostly vegan, but that's just me being an animal right activist and not really on topic but I just have to mention it because this would be my ideal kind of society...)

There's only one argument that would ever make me become a vegan, and that would be if it were finally proven that the world can only be fed by converting to a vegan diet and not using energy-inefficient meat farming.

[The Rose Dragon]

True, but just because we can never reach the truly ideal society doesn't mean we can't create a better one than we currently have.

Unless the human genetic makeup changes drastically in our lifetime to make humans be born more equal and less selfish, we can't.

There will be some persons who will be smart, strong and idealistic. They may make a better society work out locally for a short time. But it will not last long enough to be A Better Society. People will consume it, because they are stupid and selfish.

[Ichneumon]

There's only one argument that would ever make me become a vegan, and that would be if it were finally proven that the world can only be fed by converting to a vegan diet and not using energy-inefficient meat farming.

For once I am not going to argue with you on that, mainly because I feel this is not the place to talk about veganism/animal rights (although I would not mind discussing it some other time in another thread). Although I do completely disagree with you in that the meat industry is energy-efficient. :smalltongue:

[hamishspence]

" from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" unfortunately, leads to the able being expected to work harder because they are able, and punished if they do not- conversely, the needy, because they are "in need" get a bigger share.

Result- people do their best not to be seen as able, and instead, to be seen as needy.

[The Rose Dragon]

Although I do completely disagree with you in that the meat industry is energy-efficient. :smalltongue:

He just said it wasn't.

However, the meat industry is more delicious.

[Ichneumon]

" from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" unfortunately, leads to the able being expected to work harder because they are able, and punished if they do not- conversely, the needy, because they are "in need" get a bigger share.

Result- people do their best not to be seen as able, and instead, to be seen as needy.

Do you think we could indoctrinate integrity into the human mind? Would that be ethical?

[hamishspence]

what about the fact that many of the more essential materials for building brains are to be found in seafood, and that its very hard to get them out of plants?

If "integrity" is directly counter to survival instincts, it would be very hard to indoctrinate out.

Better, I think, to make co-operation pay more. To use people's natural selfishness in making their lives better.

"We must hang together, or we will assuredly all hang separately" : Ben Franklin.

[The Rose Dragon]

what about the fact that many of the more essential materials for building brains are to be found in seafood, and that its very hard to get them out of plants?

Dammit, I need to study for my biochemistry final tomorrow.

COLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEGE!

[DamnedIrishman]

People will consume it, because they are stupid and selfish.

We live in a capitalist society, thus people are encouraged to be selfish. They are bombarded by advertisments encouraging them to constantly consume more and more. Furthermore many people are poorly educated, for a variety of reasons, often because schools are underfunded and (as I have observed in my own education) priority is set on getting people working rather than expanding their intellects and helping them become rational human beings.

Your view of humanity is culturally biased, not to mention unpleasant.


Result- people do their best not to be seen as able, and instead, to be seen as needy.

You misunderstand this axiom. Work is shared. People contribute to the work in whatever ways they can, not as much as they can.

[Gorgondantess]

Ahhhh. Well, people of the playground, I present an alternative to your ideal societies: A libertarian republic.
The people would elect a representative to lead them, much like in good ol' US of A. This representative would regulate international commerce and provide international defense; just because you want peace doesn't mean everyone else does. In order to regulate international commerce, it would need a currency system, most likely based off a gold or silver standard, or the like, to help regulate balance.
At a local level, in districts, the people would elect mayors; these would follow a constitution dictating certain inalienable rights, such as "don't kill people", and the like. They would enforce these through a city law enforcement. This would also provide a means of tax collection.
After this, simple liberty; people would build businesses in a lassaiz faire environment, free to abuse their employees as much as they want. Smart businesses wouldn't, because noone would work there. They would be free to say things on their businesses like "no blacks allowed", or "no christians allowed", but none of them would because that would cause them to lose money with a smaller consumer amount.
There wouldn't be issues like "gay marriage", simply because the government would have no hand in marriage. There would be no issues about abortion or the like, because once again, the government would have no hand in these things.
There would be no welfare system; people would have to make their own, or get insurance.
This would create, in my opinion, a perfect society. There would be corruption, yes, but in the end it is unimpeded freedom. You get out what you put in. So, if you have a crappy job, it's your fault you didn't aspire to do more. If you're fabulously wealthy, you got there because you were smart and worked hard.
Is it flawed? Hell yes. But it's the best society that can be created, in my humble opinion.

[hamishspence]

People are selfish because they are animals, and animals are selfish because it keeps them alive- they cooperate for selfish reasons, and thus, they do well.

"Selfish cooperation" is a building block of social groups.

the above society is consistant with both Rand and Heinlein. Which does it derive from?

(Late life Heinlein- early version was an enthusiastic advocate of the more communistic style of utopia)

[The Rose Dragon]

People were always selfish. Not only today, but 1000, 2000, 5000 years ago. As long as history was recorded. The grass was greener on the other side so they wanted it for their own. That was before advertisement or the theory of capitalism.

Humans learned to kill each other long before written history started. In all other animals, killing another of its own species is learned behavior, taught by humans. In humans, there was no one to teach it. They learned it naturally.

That does not give me much faith about selfishness being a culture-induced trait.

[Gorgondantess]

the above society is consistant with both Rand and Heinlen. Which does it derive from?

My own convoluted mind. I've read neither.

[DamnedIrishman]

If you're fabulously wealthy, you got there because you were smart and worked hard.

I've always disagreed with this. The wealth of the world is not infinite. No matter how hard you've worked for it, taking more than an equal share of it means depriving someone else of it.

[hamishspence]

Maybe its a common trope in fiction and moral theory.

EDIT: That depends on if you view all wealth as something that should be communally owned or not.

If you convert less valuable material into more valuable stuff, why exactly do others have a right to it if they don't know how to do it?

[Ichneumon]

what about the fact that many of the more essential materials for building brains are to be found in seafood, and that its very hard to get them out of plants?

It would indeed be hard to make a complete society be vegan and completely healthy. Look at our society know, even now we are not living the most healthiest lives, at least not in the Western world.:smalltongue:


If "integrity" is directly counter to survival instincts, it would be very hard to indoctrinate out.

Good point.


People are selfish because they are animals, and animals are selfish because it keeps them alive- they cooperate for selfish reasons, and thus, they do well.

"Selfish cooperation" is a building block of social groups.

the above society is consistant with both Rand and Heinlen. Which does it derive from?

Did you read the Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins by any chance?:smallbiggrin:

Altruism has its evolutionary advantages because each individual is selfish and sees the individual advantages of being altruistic, it's really fascinating.

[Gorgondantess]

I've always disagreed with this. The wealth of the world is not infinite. No matter how hard you've worked for it, taking more than an equal share of it means depriving someone else of it.

And the person who is deprived of it is the one who didn't work hard/smart. I've already explained that.

[DamnedIrishman]

People were always selfish. Not only today, but 1000, 2000, 5000 years ago. As long as history was recorded. The grass was greener on the other side so they wanted it for their own. That was before advertisement or the theory of capitalism.

Humans learned to kill each other long before written history started. In all other animals, killing another of its own species is learned behavior, taught by humans. In humans, there was no one to teach it. They learned it naturally.

That does not give me much faith about selfishness being a culture-induced trait.

Many societies, especially primitive and agricultural societies, work together for the good of the group rather than the good of the individual. Just because certain societies were selfish (mainly Europe, but only them) and then went and conquered the rest of the world and forced it to follow their ways doesn't mean selfishness is the inevitable trait of human society.

[The Rose Dragon]

And the person who is deprived of it is the one who didn't work hard/smart. I've already explained that.

What is hard work? In a world of lottery, grand theft and extortion, don't we need a line where hard / smart work gets inhumane?


Many societies, especially primitive and agricultural societies, work together for the good of the group rather than the good of the individual. Just because certain societies were selfish (mainly Europe, but only them) and then went and conquered the rest of the world and forced it to follow their ways doesn't mean selfishness is the inevitable trait of human society.

Genetic conservation. They worked for the good of the genetic lineage. Two families only got together for breeding before someone stronger brought them together and started taking the lion's share.

Asians were also selfish. E.g. Chinese and Huns. Göktürks. Uyghurs were when the Turkic people started becoming peaceful and even then they were ruled by people who took more than their equal share.

Selfishness is not inevitable. But it would take thousands of years to get that trait out of a human trait pool.

As I said, individual persons can be selfless. Humanity as a whole is a selfish species, as has been observed so far.

[DamnedIrishman]

And the person who is deprived of it is the one who didn't work hard/smart. I've already explained that.

I understand perfectly. But just because you can take from others doesn't mean it's justified. After all, burglars have to be smart and work hard not to get caught, don't they?

[hamishspence]

I read a lot- The Selfish Gene, Climbing Mount Improbable, Freedom Evolves by Daniel Bennett, etc. And Freedom Evolves jokily calls such "altruistic selfishness" benselfishness after Ben Franklin.

The point to be made is no society is modelled solely on the good of the group- that always, the individual benefits more by co-operation than by going it alone.

[Arachu]

*Coughs, knowing he'll be challenged for wording... Takes a deep breath*

Athenian dictatorship. As in, a general challenges the ruler, and the winner is in control. If people had the integrity of most powerful Athenians nowadays, that system would probably work as well as it did.

And, yes, individuals have the mind of adults, while groups have the minds of toddlers; they imitate the first thing they see, and throw a tantrum at everything else :smallamused:. The world is filled with examples of successful anarchisms, but the best part about those, was that people were not sheep. They were wolves. At the time, an integral part of living was supporting yourself completely, which easily leads to true independence.

People now would hardly function in such a society for the same reason they can't be trusted with guns; they just don't have the mentality to handle it properly :smallamused::smallamused: Double-smirk!

In a society that has the sheer size of most modern countries, people have to fill roles for each other (for some reason I can't really put my finger on...).

Honestly, I think an economy that isn't based on a two-income budget would be a nice society trait. Or, wait, could that lead to social castes again?

... You know, communism could work in a small community. It's just... Unwieldy... At the scales it was used in.

... I wonder... Is there enough space left for people to be separate enough for an anarchy to function?...

[Gorgondantess]

What is hard work? In a world of lottery, grand theft and extortion, don't we need a line where hard / smart work gets inhumane?

What is hard work?
Building a corporation from the ground up. You might step on some faces on the way there.
And yes, there is always some luck involved.

As for inhumaneness... As long as you're not killing people, or harming them, or stealing from them. After that, you do what works.

[Ichneumon]

I read a lot- The Selfish Gene, Climbing Mount Improbable, Freedom Evolves by Daniel Bennett, etc. And Freedom Evolves jokily calls such "altruistic selfishness" benselfishness after Ben Franklin.

That's really interesting.

Completely off topic: Wasn't it Franklin who once said that racism is completely understandable because it is normal to care more for your kind? Or am I now confusing founding fathers with each other?

[Ichneumon]

... I wonder... Is there enough space left for people to be separate enough for an anarchy to function?...

I think that is actually one of the main problems of modern anarchism, that you can not fully be without government because there are just too many people in a given area to be left unchecked.

[DamnedIrishman]

What is hard work?
Building a corporation from the ground up. You might step on some faces on the way there.
And yes, there is always some luck involved.

As for inhumaneness... As long as you're not killing people, or harming them, or stealing from them. After that, you do what works.

But arguable you are stealing from them. The more you take from the global pie, the less there is for everyone else. This is the cause of poverty for millions.


I think that is actually one of the main problems of modern anarchism, that you can not fully be without government because there are just too many people in a given area to be left unchecked.

You don't need governments. You just need communities to look after themselves.

[Ichneumon]

But arguable you are stealing from them. The more you take from the global pie, the less there is for everyone else. This is the cause of poverty for millions.

The biggest cause of todays poverty is inequality between certain groups that encourage the gap between rich and poor.


You don't need governments. You just need communities to look after themselves.

I think we actually believe the same. I agree, yet I would say that even these small communities need some form of government and rules and the problem is that with todays world you can't really have "small communities".

[hamishspence]

thats the thing though, not all resources are a "global pie" Some would never be exploited at all were it not for enthusiatic speculators. If said resource was not exploited, how would the poor benefit either way?

and "looking after themselves" is still the perview of some sort of impartial governing body- a mayor, an elected council, etc.

[Gorgondantess]

But arguable you are stealing from them. The more you take from the global pie, the less there is for everyone else. This is the cause of poverty for millions.

No, the cause for poverty of millions is because these people are too stupid/lazy/insane/possibly unlucky to deal with their own problems, so they blame the smart, hard working people. You get back what you put in. Government can throw that off balance. Capitalism does it a little, socialism does it a lot. I say, benefit the hard working people, not the lazy ones. There may be some bad people in the hard working ones, and some good in the lazy ones...
But do you know who has donated to charity more than almost any other one man? Bill Gates.:smalltongue:

[DamnedIrishman]

Some would never be exploited at all were it not for enthusiatic speculators. If said resource was not exploited, how would the poor benefit either way?


Are these resources required for people to live healthily and happily? Generally not.


No, the cause for poverty of millions is because these people are too stupid/lazy/insane/possibly unlucky to deal with their own problems, so they blame the smart, hard working people. You get back what you put in. Government can throw that off balance. Capitalism does it a little, socialism does it a lot. I say, benefit the hard working people, not the lazy ones. There may be some bad people in the hard working ones, and some good in the lazy ones...


So everyone who lives in poverty is lazy or stupid? That's not a way to make friends. Can you blame people for being stupid if they never have a chance for an education? Can you call people lazy who spend their entire lives working for tiny wages, sometimes for up to eighteen hours a day, to produce for corporations who sell on the products at enormous profit?

Do you think you would have done so well with your life if you were born on a goat farm in sub-Saharan Africa and never went to school? Or if you had to stich footballs for thirty cents an hour to pay for food to survive?

Me, I was born into a well-off family, I get free education, free healthcare. I can get a job for good money and never have to break a sweat for the rest of my life and still be considered rich by more than three billion people. That's hardly fair.

[The Rose Dragon]

But arguable you are stealing from them. The more you take from the global pie, the less there is for everyone else. This is the cause of poverty for millions.

Ah, pragmatism.

"Is it acceptable for a million people to starve to feed a billion people if the alternative means global starvation?"

The funny part is that most starving societies did not starve because they were taken from, but because they weren't given to. In Africa (a BIG IIRC), no one really took anything from them - the conditions were just not good enough for self-sustainability.

[hamishspence]

And, I suspect that the money and resources he donates, are done in such a way as to "help people to help themselves"

Metal- leads to cars- computers, ships, ploughs- etc. A metal object cannot feed a single person- but it can make life a whole lot better.

[Gorgondantess]

As for the "global pie"...
in some areas, the "global pie" is bigger than others. If we all layed on our asses all day, the global pie would shrink down to nothing. If we all worked really really hard, the global pie would become huge and would get whipped cream and cherries. So, the society I demonstrated aims to maximize this global pie.
Listen, my society won’t stop people from being selfish, or stop corruption. People will always be like that, no matter what society they are in. So, mine aims to maximize wealth and efficiency, fairness about these things, and not worrying about innate human nature that cannot be stopped.

[Ichneumon]

and not worrying about innate human nature that cannot be stopped.

Wouldn't it be better if we would keep this ideal that it can be stopped and focus on changing our nature while striving for a society in which we would live. It might be impossible, but we would reach something that is at least a bit more near.

[DamnedIrishman]

As for the "global pie"...
in some areas, the "global pie" is bigger than others. If we all layed on our asses all day, the global pie would shrink down to nothing. If we all worked really really hard, the global pie would become huge and would get whipped cream and cherries. So, the society I demonstrated aims to maximize this global pie.
Listen, my society won’t stop people from being selfish, or stop corruption. People will always be like that, no matter what society they are in. So, mine aims to maximize wealth and efficiency, fairness about these things, and not worrying about innate human nature that cannot be stopped.

The 'global pie' is the 'global pie', and the only place it could be bigger is another world. The 'national pie' might be bigger in some areas, but the 'national pie' is still a fragment of the 'global pie', and the large American pie, for example, is big significantly on the backs of exploited south-east asians, africans and south americans.

[hamishspence]

changing human nature is probably harder than changing society the slow way- with laws that discourage discrimination and penalize crime.

Exploitation of others as crime is more commonly punished now- businessmen who subject their workers to great danger being punished by charges of negligent homicide.

[Ichneumon]

changing human nature is probably harder than changing society the slow way- with laws that discourage discrimination and penalize crime.

But wouldn't the result be 100% more effective? :smallamused:

[The Rose Dragon]

But wouldn't the result be 100% more effective? :smallamused:

Probably more, but the world has a finite lifespan. You also have to consider which one would come around first.

I think neither will ever happen, but considering evolution is a very gradual process compared to social change, I'd rather put my bets on enforcement of social values.

[hamishspence]

depends on the costs.

Now, taking over the world with a massive set of worldwide military coups, taking children away from parents at birth and bringing them up in communes, educated to be unselfish- and keeping this up for several generations- would certainly accomplish the goal of changing human nature.

But would it be a world we would want to live in?

[Gorgondantess]

The 'global pie' is the 'global pie', and the only place it could be bigger is another world. The 'national pie' might be bigger in some areas, but the 'national pie' is still a fragment of the 'global pie', and the large American pie, for example, is big significantly on the backs of exploited south-east asians, africans and south americans.

Let me explain this... very clearly....
So, you have a farm. This farm does not affect any other farms. It's on its own land. When this farm produces more, it does not cause all other farms to produce less. It's in a contained area.
You're a lazy person, so you don't take care of this farm. Therefore, all the crops grow wild and/or die. You don't harvest them. There is that much less food in the world.
Then, a man buys your farm from you. This man has gas powered tractors and plows and advanced agricultural techniques. He causes the farm to flourish, harvests the crops and sells them. There is that much more food in the world.
If everyone was like the former man, the "global pie" would shrink. If everyone was like the latter man, it would become larger. Is that clear enough?

[Ichneumon]

But would it be a world we would want to live in?

That's the right question. Who are we and who do we really want to be?

[DamnedIrishman]

Let me explain this... very clearly....
So, you have a farm. This farm does not affect any other farms. It's on its own land. When this farm produces more, it does not cause all other farms to produce less. It's in a contained area.
You're a lazy person, so you don't take care of this farm. Therefore, all the crops grow wild and/or die. You don't harvest them. There is that much less food in the world.
Then, a man buys your farm from you. This man has gas powered tractors and plows and advanced agricultural techniques. He causes the farm to flourish, harvests the crops and sells them. There is that much more food in the world.
If everyone was like the former man, the "global pie" would shrink. If everyone was like the latter man, it would become larger. Is that clear enough?

Who said you have a right to own land in the first place? There are many people without land. Why shouldn't land be shared equally, the work to produce shared equally, and the resultant food shared equally?

[The Rose Dragon]

Is that clear enough?

The world still has a finite amount of resources. You need seeds, water, fuel, etc. to make the farm grow, and if you take too much, others will suffer.

[hamishspence]

this would be the notion of creating wealth- that it isn't just something to be redistributed but that, given sufficient work and talent, objects of low value can be converted into objects of high value.

This is possible because the world is not a closed system- there is always energy coming in from elsewhere- the sun- and this energy can be converted into plants- which can feed people and allow them to do work.

And abolishing private property discourages people from doing this-

"Why should I do that work when someone else can do it and I benefit/Why should I do that work when I only see a tiny benefit and thousands of people who did nothing get most of it"

[Gorgondantess]

The world still has a finite amount of resources. You need seeds, water, fuel, etc. to make the farm grow, and if you take too much, others will suffer.

...I am dumbfounded at how you could think that. You turn these seeds, water, fuel into something that is more than seeds, water, fuel. Otherwise no farms would make any money.


Who said you have a right to own land in the first place? There are many people without land. Why shouldn't land be shared equally, the work to produce shared equally, and the resultant food shared equally?
You're avoiding the point. But, to answer your question, you bought the land from someone else. Happy?

[Gorgondantess]

this would be the notion of creating wealth- that it isn't just something to be redistributed but that, given sufficient work and talent, objects of low value can be converted into objects of high value.

This is possible because the world is not a closed system- there is always energy coming in from elsewhere- the sun- and this energy can be converted into plants- which can feed people and allow them to do work.

THANK YOU.:smallbiggrin:

[hamishspence]

It looks like we have reinvented Objectivism. Which is pretty much the direct inverse to collectivism.

[DamnedIrishman]

...I am dumbfounded at how you could think that. You turn these seeds, water, fuel into something that is more than seeds, water, fuel. Otherwise no farms would make any money.

You're avoiding the point. But, to answer your question, you bought the land from someone else. Happy?

First of all, although seeds are a renewable resource, water, soil and fuel aren't necessarilly.

Second: why did he have a right to have it? You're avoiding my question too. If everyone worked together, then the global pie would grow, except resources could be distributed fairly.

[Ichneumon]

First of all, although seeds are a renewable resource, water, soil and fuel aren't necessarilly.

Second: why did he have a right to have it? You're avoiding my question too. If everyone worked together, then the global pie would grow, except resources could be distributed fairly.

I agree the problem lies with distribution.

[Gorgondantess]

First of all, although seeds are a renewable resource, water, soil and fuel aren't necessarilly.

Second: why did he have a right to have it? You're avoiding my question too. If everyone worked together, then the global pie would grow, except resources could be distributed fairly.

oh don't give me that non-renewable resources thing. Fine, it was a solar powered tractor.:smallamused: Soil is renewable, and so is water.

And the first person who had the land found it, claimed it, and tilled it, working it onto farmable land. He sweat over it, he gets it.

Also, do you know the origin of thanksgiving? I probably can't tell you it because it's "real world" politics, but it refutes the idea that "if we all just work together, everything will be great!"

[hamishspence]

Because he lived in a society where things, such as land, can be bought.

I work hard for years, spending money only to keep myself alive, and with my savings, buy a big chunk of land. logically, that would mean I own it and can develop it as I wish (as long as my developments do not hurt the areas around me- by pollution, for example.

If no amount of working will get me the resources needed to obtain any sort of property- why work?

[Gorgondantess]

Because he lived in a society where things, such as land, can be bought.

I work hard for years, spending money only to keep myself alive, and with my savings, buy a big chunk of land. logically, that would mean I own it and can develop it as I wish (as long as my developments do not hurt the areas around me- by pollution, for example.

If no amount of working will get me the resources needed to obtain any sort of property- why work?

Excellent. In a socialistic society, people have no motivation to work. Everything is given to them on the backs of the few people who do work.

Oh, some will put in an effort, but just about no matter what they won't do their very best.

[The Rose Dragon]

...I am dumbfounded at how you could think that. You turn these seeds, water, fuel into something that is more than seeds, water, fuel. Otherwise no farms would make any money.

You should also notice that you lose the fuel irrevocably. Think of it this way: there is a machine that grinds grain into flour. It works by a machine which carries the water up, which in turn works by the water falling down to turn a mill. Each time the a single pound of water is carried up, you lose energy due to friction heat.

You can never have gain without loss at the current level of knowledge (since there is no practical way of turning energy into matter).

[DamnedIrishman]

And the first person who had the land found it, claimed it, and tilled it, working it onto farmable land. He sweat over it, he gets it.


He stole it then? He said that he wanted it and nobody else could have it, because he said so.
Do you recognise the quotation: "How can you sell your mother?"

To steal: to take what is not yours.

[DamnedIrishman]

Excellent. In a socialistic society, people have no motivation to work. Everything is given to them on the backs of the few people who do work.

Oh, some will put in an effort, but just about no matter what they won't do their very best.

No. In a socialist society EVERYONE SHARES THE WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
It's not a difficult concept to get your head around.

[hamishspence]

But- at least in the case of sunlight- we have a steady source of fuel- that will run out, eventually. In 5 billion years.

Now oil, gas, etc are renewable- but only over millions of years. And only if the carbon we have in this age gets laid down somehow- like, through there being great forests that last millions of years, and get buried, and compressed.

EDIT:
How do you enforce everyone sharing the work?

and if no-one has claimed the resources previously- how can they be stolen? To steal is to take what is somebody elses.

[Gorgondantess]

You should also notice that you lose the fuel irrevocably. Think of it this way: there is a machine that grinds grain into flour. It works by a machine which carries the water up, which in turn works by the water falling down to turn a mill. Each time the a single pound of water is carried up, you lose energy due to friction heat.

You can never have gain without loss at the current level of knowledge (since there is no practical way of turning energy into matter).

Yes, that is true. But first of all, that friction heat goes on to warm everything up.

However, it's a matter of turning, say, useless seeds into useful crops. Or petroleum into plastic. It's maintaining a more desirable state of things. So, there is loss, but in the end you can make it so that most of the world is a desirable state of being. So... there is reason to work hard after all, and if everyone works hard, then we have lots of desirable states of matter and energy! What a notion! And there is a highly practical way of turning matter into energy.:smalltongue:

[Gorgondantess]

No. In a socialist society EVERYONE SHARES THE WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
It's not a difficult concept to get your head around.

In a socialist society WHY WORK? What incentive is given to you to work? What incentive is given to you to do a good job?

[DamnedIrishman]

In a socialist society WHY WORK? What incentive is given to you to work? What incentive is given to you to do a good job?

Erm... to eat? To have the things you are making? Social pressure - because everyone else working alongside you wants you to? Pride in your work - might seem a strange concept, but craftsmanship still exists? The fact that if you do your job badly, you are the one that suffers because you are doing your share of the work to support YOURSELF along with your community?

Why would you be provided for if you didn't do your share?

[hamishspence]

again- if you do more than your share, it all gets taken away to feed others. And if you do less than your share (and manage to make it look like its not your fault, or conceal it) you get provided for. "to each according to his need"

[Gorgondantess]

Erm... to eat? To have the things you are making? Social pressure - because everyone else working alongside you wants you to? Pride in your work - might seem a strange concept, but craftsmanship still exists? The fact that if you do your job badly, you are the one that suffers because you are doing your share of the work to support YOURSELF along with your community?

Why would you be provided for if you didn't do your share?

It doesn't work like that. Please, before you say anything else, look up the origin of thanksgiving.

[The Rose Dragon]

And there is a highly practical way of turning matter into energy.:smalltongue:

Energy into matter.

Heat energy is lost energy, as it is the hardest kind to convert into any other kind. It is also not storable.

[hamishspence]

Of course, cheating (according to the biologists) is a strategy that can only work when the cheats only make up about 10% of the population. Beyond that, the strategy breaks down.

So, the cheats increase in number, then start staring because they can't go on exploiting others and drop down. Then build up again, in an endless cycle.

EDIT: Sunlight- boil water- turn turbines- charge capacitors.

[DamnedIrishman]

It doesn't work like that. Please, before you say anything else, look up the origin of thanksgiving.

How do you know? You've never experienced it.

Right, I've read various sources. You may note that the governor doesn't GIVE anyone any land, he allows them to work it to feed themselves. Nobody gains any wealth, they live exactly as they had before except they're only supporting immediate family rather the community as a whole. Effectively, a socialist arrangement still.

Furthermore, these were white European settlers in the 1600s. They had come from a country where concepts of wealth and property ownership was already the dominant mode. Why don't you compare to the original dwellers in America rather than the 17th Century immigrants?

[The Rose Dragon]

Of course, cheating (according to the biologists) is a strategy that can only work when the cheats only make up about 10% of the population. Beyond that, the strategy breaks down.

So, the cheats increase in number, then start staring because they can't go on exploiting others and drop down. Then build up again, in an endless cycle.

That's the predator - prey fluctuation. If the predator has a set, low number, the prey will thrive. When there is more prey to go around, the predator will have more to eat and grow in number. Soon, there will be too much predator and the prey will not suffice to feed the entire population, and the predator will fall down again.

There is a name for that fluctuation when applied to economics, but it eludes me at the moment.


EDIT: Sunlight- boil water- turn turbines- charge capacitors.

Congratulations, you turned energy into energy. I'm still waiting for you to practically convert energy into matter, as well as store heat energy relatively efficiently. If you can, I hear there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you.

[hamishspence]

but when applied within a species, which does not eat each other, but sometimes cheats each other, its the Cheating Strategy.

converting energy to matter isn't the main issue- its converting energy into work- and work into matter. Which is rather easier- its what evolution has designed life to do.

Its true that there is a finite amount of carbon on the planet- but converting "useless" carbon into useful carbon is what life does.

Similarly with storing it- storing energy is hard, and very inefficient, but that is things like batteries.

[DamnedIrishman]

but when applied within a species, which does not eat each other, but sometimes cheats each other, its the Cheating Strategy.

It's the same principle. The prey produces and the predator consumes what they have produced.

[hamishspence]

Not quite the same- parasite eats what you produce- predator eats you.

[Gorgondantess]

How do you know? You've never experienced it.

Right, I've read various sources. You may note that the governor doesn't GIVE anyone any land, he allows them to work it to feed themselves. Nobody gains any wealth, they live exactly as they had before except they're only supporting immediate family rather the community as a whole. Effectively, a socialist arrangement still.

Furthermore, these were white European settlers in the 1600s. They had come from a country where concepts of wealth and property ownership was already the dominant mode. Why don't you compare to the original dwellers in America rather than the 17th Century immigrants?

Sigh...
I don't know what them being whites has to do with it. And I live in a country where concepts of walth and property ownership are in "the dominant" mode.

Listen, I'm right, you're wrong. That's what I believe, and I'm too stubborn, or in my own mind, smart and logical to believe anything else.

You beieve (or at least I think you do) that you're right and I'm wrong. You're too compassionate and smart for me to change your mind and believe anything else, at least in your own mind. And many people would agree with you.

I'll leave it at that.

[hamishspence]

I also remember reading suggestions that the earlier American colonists- who became the Aztecs, Inca, Maya, etc, did have conceptions of ownership- they just applied them slightly differently.

[DamnedIrishman]

Sigh...
And I live in a country where concepts of walth and property ownership are in "the dominant" mode.


Me too.


Listen, I'm right, you're wrong. That's what I believe, and I'm too stubborn, or in my own mind, smart and logical to believe anything else.

You beieve (or at least I think you do) that you're right and I'm wrong. You're too compassionate and smart for me to change your mind and believe anything else, at least in your own mind. And many people would agree with you.

I'll leave it at that.

I accept everyone's right to have an opinion if they are prepared to defend it, and defend it you have. It was excellent amusement arguing with you.

And yes, we will never see eye-to-eye with this. I commend you on your eloquence, and hope we have an opportunity to debate again in the future.

[hamishspence]

An interesting question would be- how many societies, groups, cults, etc, abolished the concept of private ownership. And what happened to them?

[The Rose Dragon]

So can we just agree that neither of your ideas will work since they are against human nature and the nature of economics? :smalltongue:

[Gorgondantess]

Me too.


I accept everyone's right to have an opinion if they are prepared to defend it, and defend it you have. It was excellent amusement arguing with you.

And yes, we will never see eye-to-eye with this. I commend you on your eloquence, and hope we have an opportunity to debate again in the future.

Touche.:smallsmile:

[DamnedIrishman]

So can we just agree that neither of your ideas will work since they are against human nature and the nature of economics? :smalltongue:

Since we have an incomplete understanding of both human nature and economics... no. We can't rule anything out.

[hamishspence]

ah, but one is already being used- sort of- the more individualistic, private property style. Crudely, but the Western system is far closer to Gorgondantess's than DamnedIrishman's

And DamnedIrishman's has been tried out- many times. Not precisely the same way, but approximately.

[DamnedIrishman]

Touche.:smallsmile:

Yes, this is actually all a clever ruse to prevent "ROCKS FALL EVERYBODY DIES " if I join your heroes & villains campaign.

:smallwink:

[DamnedIrishman]

ah, but one is already being used- sort of- the more individualistic, private property style. Crudely, but the Western system is far closer to Gorgondantess's than DamnedIrishman's

And DamnedIrishman's has been tried out- many times. Not precisely the same way, but approximately.

I wouldn't claim that the current system is working in the middle of a global recession brought about by irresponsible financial practices and the crisis of overproduction (amongst other factors).

As for my system... the fact that it has only been tried 'approximately' is obviously the flaw!
:smalltongue:

[The Rose Dragon]

ah, but one is already being used- sort of- the more individualistic, private property style. Crudely, but the Western system is far closer to Gorgondantess's than DamnedIrishman's

And DamnedIrishman's has been tried out- many times. Not precisely the same way, but approximately.

It's hardly ideal though, isn't it?

When I say "work", I mean "be the way the ideal society will work".

EDIT: I love how we all have been very civil, yet I have the feeling that this thread will be locked anyway.

[hamishspence]

Now we have tested the "Property- Private or Communal?" question, and reached the "agree to disagree" point, shall we go on to Law, individual vs group rights?

or duty to others- what's optional and whats obligatory?

or government- universal vs elected?

There is the possibily that Society is like science- we will never know what the perfect society is- but we can get closer and closer to it.

Possibly way to avoid being locked is to focus on the less political aspects of the topic. Maybe law or economics?

[DamnedIrishman]

Now we have tested the "Property- Private or Communal?" question, and reached the "agree to disagree" point, shall we go on to Law, individual vs group rights?

or duty to others- what's optional and whats obligatory?

or government- universal vs elected?

Right...

Group rights are more important than the individual, as long as this does not unfairly suppress the individual.

Treat others as you would like to be treated is obligatory. Nothing else should be needed.

Government should be direct by the people who are affected by the decision that needs to be made.

THE END.

[hamishspence]

I prefer "Individual rights are more important than group ones- as long as they don't permit the individual to initiate unacceptable harm to other individuals."

But thats me :smallamused:

on government- imagine one where all decisions are made by Internet vote- one would still need people to ensure the voting does not get corrupted- and to identify the questions to vote on.

And one needs people to enact the decisions- decide on who is to carry them out.

And so, we have prototype government again.

[The Rose Dragon]

Government: Dictatorship by an outer force. The said outer force should be free of flaws and have nothing to gain from the success of the society.

Rights: Individual rights over group.

Duty to Others: Only what the nature of economy requires at the moment.

[hamishspence]

I like the notion of government as the paid agent of the people- the servant rather than the master- in that sense.

How exactly does society benefit from the government having nothing to gain in its success? After all, any goverment is made up of individual people- who will gain if they are members of that society.

And how do you get an "outer force"? Even a government ruling from Antarctica has to be fed.

Reason to be wary of dictatorships- can't be removed without force if they are discovered to be flawed. And a flawless governor of any kind is a practical impossibility- better to have checks and balances in to remove the governor when they show signs of corruption. Or ideally, before- rotating new governors in regularly.

[Arachu]

I shall now paraquote Andrew Ryan (that was his name, right?), the antagonist from Bioshock, because it is relevant



Should a man not be entitled to the fruits of his own labor?
"No", says the man in Washington (republic), "it belongs to the people".
"No", says the man in Moscow (communist at the time), "It belongs to everyone".
"No", says the man in the Vatican (religion-basis), "It belongs to God".

(Note: I am not referencing real-world politics or religion. I am referencing something that references some.)


I agree with the view (storyline of the game aside...), in a way. In my opinion, a man should be entitled to his own products (and, in all honesty, should have some), but that mentality would quite probably fail now, due to the amount of people, as well as the "do what that guy said" counter-mentality. The problem with any given system of government is its applicability; it only works in certain situations. Some governments work better with less people, and some work better with more people, and any given system needs full support to function at all. Some of the more effective systems (anarchy, dictatorship, monarchy) just don't work in current conditions (numbers, greed, and mentality/greed, respectively).

Any given system has an environment in which it works perfectly. And rarely do any of them function very well at all outside of that. It is merely the structure of function of society in general. So, yeah, I guess there could only a "perfect" society in "perfect" conditions. Which, sadly, is impossible.

Still, there are a lot of different systems, and therefore a lot of possible conditions. So, there is, in all probability, a 'better way' to do almost anything.

[Trizap]

to make the closest thing to an ideal society, you have to make one based upon human nature.

note I said the closest thing to an ideal society as in the closest you can possibly get to it, because an ideal society cannot truly be achieved, but the closest thing you can possibly get to it can.

everything has to benefit you in some way, because people don't care about the community, they only care about themselves.
everyone has to have inalienable rights that can only be restricted by other people's inalienable rights
it has to be capitalistic because people will only work for their own benefit- money which they can use to get food, supplies, a home and whatever else they want.
to ensure fairness there should be people who represent the people's opinions and such, talking to other people who represent other people's opinions to come to a decision that would benefit everyone the most.
to make no one can oppress anyone else, all these representatives have equal power and act as counterbalances to each other.
to make sure the government is up to date on the people's opinion, representatives should run elections every few years so there is always a person who can do the job best according to the current circumstances.

add this all up and you get........a democracy!

guess what everyone!? we already HAVE the closest thing to an ideal society!
democracy! USA! we already have a system that works for everyone! you are already in it! you don't need to discuss anything, some guys a couple hundred years ago already already answered all your questions! hurrah!

[hamishspence]

Machiavelli's The Discourses had some interesting arguments to make- that all three- democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy are inherently bad through their corruptibility, and it is better to have a system that partakes of all three, thus allowing for each group to act as a check on the others.

and also, that there are two groups- the haves and the have-nots, and all legalisation favourable to liberty comes from the clash between them. Trying to abolish one or the other doesn't work.

President- Cabinet/Congress- Electorate.

[Arachu]

I shall state this indirectly, to keep the discussion out of real-world politics.

(@ Trizap)

The system you described is not a democracy. It is a republic. It sure works, but it is not democratic.

As you pointed out, representatives elect the leader, not the people themselves (which is true in your example, as well). I see very little problem in this; democracy almost always leads to mob rule. And trust me, that's a bad thing :smalleek:

What annoys me about your example is the way it's worded (and is always worded, for that matter). It's not a democracy. It is a republic. Call it what it is.

[/public service announcement]

Also, this is a theoretical discussion about politics, not a complaint about any existing ones. It is theorization on what systems may also work.

And, let's not forget that at least one of us (DamnedIrishman) is not from America anyway. That kind of puts speed-bumps in your statement's way.

(Sorry if I sounded spiteful. I was going for stubborn :smalltongue:)

[hamishspence]

now anarchy and "pure democracy" are slightly different, in that in a pure democracy, all decisions are made by consensus, wheras in an anarchy, no group decisions are made at all.

[thubby]

i think most governments start out ok. there is an inherent flaw in the way they accumulate random stuff, however. the government as an entity evolves, and it builds up defects because, lets face it, we screw up.

so my ideal society wouldn't be too far from most first world nation's governments, but i would put in something a bit more far reaching than a president change, though it would probably have to be less frequent.

[hamishspence]

at the other direction, Machiavelli argued that power is so corrupting that elected officials should be changed yearly- terms of five years or more lead to trouble, as with the Decemveri.

But then, thats a more pessimistic view.

Even with a capitalistic viewpoint- some views favour a hefty increase in contribution from rich people (maybe because rich people benefit more from the amenities of society and therefore should pay more to maintain it.)

[DamnedIrishman]

everything has to benefit you in some way, because people don't care about the community, they only care about themselves.

I'd hate to live where you do then, because you must be surrounded by some pretty horrible people. Everyone I know cares about others - their friends, their families, even their communities. Why have so many people here lost faith in human nature? Where are you people all from that things are so bad?

[Shadowcaller]

I'd hate to live where you do then, because you must be surrounded by some pretty horrible people. Everyone I know cares about others - their friends, their families, even their communities. Why have so many people here lost faith in human nature? Where are you people all from that things are so bad?

See, you are both wrong really. We see what we want to see. I have a friendly community, people help each other and such. But just beacuse of that I don't pretend that the rest of the world is exactly the same. I know there are bad people out there, I see it on the news every day, and thats just a very small part of it.

Its naive to think that just beacuse where we live people are friendly everyone else is. Of course, the opposite isn't good either.

[DamnedIrishman]

Its naive to think that just beacuse where we live people are friendly everyone else is. Of course, the opposite isn't good either.

I know. It's not that I question: more the fact that people believe that people are bad and will never change? People say that a socialist society will never work because people won't work together - as if people can't learn to work together, as if nothing can possibly be done to work out one's own character flaws and change them. THAT is naive.

[Shadowcaller]

I know. It's not that I question: more the fact that people believe that people are bad and will never change? People say that a socialist society will never work because people won't work together - as if people can't learn to work together, as if nothing can possibly be done to work out one's own character flaws and change them. THAT is naive.

Please before we go any further, tell me what you exactly mean with "character flaws" and how is your society planning to deal with these "flaws".

[DamnedIrishman]

Please before we go any further, tell me what you exactly mean with "character flaws" and how is your society planning to deal with these "flaws".

In this particular case, I was referring to egocentric selfishness and inability to work towards a common good. Obviously, not all people would class these as flaws. However, for the purpose of an socialist society, they would be seen as flaws.

Really though I am talking about the fatalism with which people treat so-called 'human nature', as if human beings stopped growing and developing past adulthood. As an example: I used to be stupendously arrogant. I realised this, recognised that it was upsetting some people around me, and used willpower and reflection to try and mellow out that trait to try and be a better (or a least a nicer to be around) person.
It seems though that many people on this forum think that the characteristics of personality, including negative ones like propensity to violence, avarice, rudeness or whatever are set in stone and will never change. This is, quite frankly, a load of rubbish. Everyone changes throughout their lives. With the will behind it, people can and will work together for their mutual benefit.

Of course, putting the will behind it is the difficult part, in the same way that recognising any unpleasant part of your personality and changing it is difficult. But that doesn't mean it is impossible.

[Shadowcaller]

In this particular case, I was referring to egocentric selfishness and inability to work towards a common good. Obviously, not all people would class these as flaws. However, for the purpose of an socialist society, they would be seen as flaws.

Really though I am talking about the fatalism with which people treat so-called 'human nature', as if human beings stopped growing and developing past adulthood. As an example: I used to be stupendously arrogant. I realised this, recognised that it was upsetting some people around me, and used willpower and reflection to try and mellow out that trait to try and be a better (or a least a nicer to be around) person.
It seems though that many people on this forum think that the characteristics of personality, including negative ones like propensity to violence, avarice, rudeness or whatever are set in stone and will never change. This is, quite frankly, a load of rubbish. Everyone changes throughout their lives. With the will behind it, people can and will work together for their mutual benefit.

Of course, putting the will behind it is the difficult part, in the same way that recognising any unpleasant part of your personality and changing it is difficult. But that doesn't mean it is impossible.

So what your saying is that everyone should be mold into a personality that fits into this society?

Edit: Sorry if I sound a bit snarky... or missunderstood you completly.

[DamnedIrishman]

So what your saying is that everyone should be mold into a personality that fits into this society?

I'm not in favour of coercion. What I am saying is that such a society could exist, because people can learn to work together for the benefit of all, and those that want such a society could thus create such a society together.

On a side note, doesn't the education system attempt to mold you into a personality that fits into society? Doesn't most people's upbringing consist of an attempt by their parents/guardians to fit them into the society? Socialisation is a perfectly accepted concept - we're all taught to live together. Compare those that aren't socialised - sociopaths.


Edit: Sorry if I sound a bit snarky... or missunderstood you completly.

Don't worry about it. If I didn't think I could justify my beliefs I wouldn't have them. Besides, you're perfectly welcome to be semi-aggressive when challenging an argument in debate. I know there is no real ill-will behind it.

[GoC]

This is a topic to be treated with 2000 books not a single thread in a forum.:smalleek:

Anyway, seems I saw this topic a bit late (I went to sleep just before this topic went up and slept for 14 hours or so). I'll read through it and catch up.

EDIT: Ok, I went through the thread opening a quote in a new tab each time I saw something to be argued. I've now got 23 tabs open.
So instead I'll just respond to each of the posts that contain an idea of perfect society with maybe a couple of extra responses thrown in.

[GoC]

For this reason, I have imagined a new question: How do you envisage the ideal society?
On economy/government:
Primarily capitalistic. With several functions provided by government including:
1. Laws. More on this later.
2. Courts.
3. Law enforcement.
4. Defence/offence. The two are one and the same.:smallamused:
5. Education.
6. Food and shelter for those without means to support themselves.
7. Medical aid to those without means. Includes firemen.
8. Transportation.
9. Energy.
10. The arts. Things that have no real world use (music or computer games for instance).
Did I say "primarily capitalistic"? I meant "one step away from communism".:smalltongue:
Needless to say it suffers from the problem of trying to decide who is "without means to support themselves". It shouldn't collapse too badly though.

On law:
With the growth of instant communication a "pure" democracy has become feasable again. As a prevention of mob rule a requirement is stipulated: The Advanced Reasoning, Bias and Fallacy Detection course.:smallbiggrin:
An example of a test question would be examining speeches from politicians to determine argument quality and rewriting the speech into a logical form (A->B, X is a member of Y, evidence for position Z is a,b,c).:smallamused:
Debate on the law would use a forum with VERY strict posting guidlines accessable through computers at certain locations with secure lines. You use passport number or another ID number as well as your password to log on. Registering involves going to the registration office with said ID and requesting a password.
On submitting your vote you must also write about the forum thread related to that law, explaining how the arguments advanced for it or against it (that have not been disproven) are wrong (note: Arguments relying on facts with a low rating do not have to be argued against). This means that anyone who votes has to know WHY he is voting. All in all I expect about 10,000 votes per law for a country the size of the US.
This would not be an ordinary forum though. Each "post" is actually an argument against one or multiple other arguments. Obviously thread will have a tree format.
Oh yeah, this forum would also have another section on the role of law and government in society and another one on ethics.
Now for the next part: forum moderation. Most could be handled by an automated process that checks that arguments are in the appropriate form and that they are not inconsistent. Mods are voted on by anyone legally able to vote.
A fact listing will also be required on the forum. Listing a huge number of facts with various levels of certainty (I'm thinking a 1-100 score system). Arguments can reference any fact on the fact list or make up their own but the ones with a referenced fact have the "stamp" so to speak.
The fact listing shows the methodology and the studies linked with each fact. A fact rating can be challenged of course, though expect a fact with a few studies behind it to require you making a study of your own and presenting it before a panel of experts in the field the study is in.

The communications revolution has very interesting implications for our society...


I am a anarcho-socialist (though some prefer the terms social anarchist or libertarian socialist). This political philosophy aspires to create an entirely free society by abolishing all forms of hierarchy and authoritarian institution. The anarcho-socialist ideal is that every individual would have free access to land, information and tools of production.
How do you prevent the tragedy of the commons?
How are disputes resolved?
How are cheaters punished?


The work required to support the community is divided between the members of the community.
To each according to his ability? Then you'll need to judge ability.
Who is going to be doing the judging?
How do you decide what work needs to be done? Will it just be farming and house building? If so expect a pseudo-capitalism to form around other goods.


I'd hate to live where you do then, because you must be surrounded by some pretty horrible people. Everyone I know cares about others - their friends, their families, even their communities. Why have so many people here lost faith in human nature? Where are you people all from that things are so bad?
They care about their in-group. Not anyone else. Remember that point I'm always arguing? New car vs ten people fed in Africa?


I'd say the best type of society is one in which we live in small communities in which communism would actually work. Between the different communities their would be fixed trade with each community functioning as a individual who can buy and sell products. What is bought and sold is chosen in a somewhat democratical way by a group of experts. Society would mostly be somewhat between technocratic and meritocratic, with people who know what they talk about having the right to decide how things are going to be. People can do tests to proof they have enough knowledge about the subject to talk about it.

The problem is that the required community size for decent efficiency and sufficient number of experts is large.
Who sets the tests?
How do you prevent the severe in-group/out-group mentality in these situations? That could lead to one community deciding to raid from or the trading caravans.


Athenian dictatorship. As in, a general challenges the ruler, and the winner is in control. If people had the integrity of most powerful Athenians nowadays, that system would probably work as well as it did.
How does one become a general? Wouldn't the bloodshed mean that only the most severe of dictatorships would be challenged?


In a society that has the sheer size of most modern countries, people have to fill roles for each other (for some reason I can't really put my finger on...).
Sheer number of different jobs. I'm fairly sure there are over a million different types of jobs in the world.


Ahhhh. Well, people of the playground, I present an alternative to your ideal societies: A libertarian republic.
The people would elect a representative to lead them, much like in good ol' US of A. This representative would regulate international commerce and provide international defense; just because you want peace doesn't mean everyone else does. In order to regulate international commerce, it would need a currency system, most likely based off a gold or silver standard, or the like, to help regulate balance.
At a local level, in districts, the people would elect mayors; these would follow a constitution dictating certain inalienable rights, such as "don't kill people", and the like. They would enforce these through a city law enforcement. This would also provide a means of tax collection.
After this, simple liberty; people would build businesses in a lassaiz faire environment, free to abuse their employees as much as they want. Smart businesses wouldn't, because noone would work there. They would be free to say things on their businesses like "no blacks allowed", or "no christians allowed", but none of them would because that would cause them to lose money with a smaller consumer amount.
There wouldn't be issues like "gay marriage", simply because the government would have no hand in marriage. There would be no issues about abortion or the like, because once again, the government would have no hand in these things.
There would be no welfare system; people would have to make their own, or get insurance.
This would create, in my opinion, a perfect society. There would be corruption, yes, but in the end it is unimpeded freedom. You get out what you put in. So, if you have a crappy job, it's your fault you didn't aspire to do more. If you're fabulously wealthy, you got there because you were smart and worked hard.
Is it flawed? Hell yes. But it's the best society that can be created, in my humble opinion.
In order to go into detail I'll need to know who makes the laws in your system.
The government will also own (or regulat) eduaction, right? And transportation systems? And the means of communication? If not then you should probably have a look at your system again as one system in history fits it perfectly: feudalism.:smallamused:

Three things upset your balance:
1. Those who can't work and don't have people to support them.
2. Monopolies.
3. Inheritance. If you're fabulously wealthy you probably got there by having a wealty parent.:smallamused:

If a multi-industry monopoly (or even just a gathering of monopolies from several industries) is established then it can easily turn into a de facto dictatorship (also, a multi-industry monopoly can also spread to other industries). With the ruling corporation able to make it's own laws and if someone refuses then they can be Fired. This could involve being banned from their private property (iow: everything), starved (no job) or simply no longer having any property or contact with other citizens ("anyone associating with this person will lose their job because his bad habbits might be catchy").


No, the cause for poverty of millions is because these people are too stupid/lazy/insane/possibly unlucky to deal with their own problems, so they blame the smart, hard working people.
I've finally found a flat-earther!:smallbiggrin:
I know a large number of these poor people. They simply do not have any opportunity to rise above poverty.
Tell me what a person in poverty should do?

I can't really argue against you as you've provided no evidence for your position...

btw: Living where I did I discovered that intelligence is not just your genes, it's how stimulating an environment you had as a child. And malnutrition doesn't help.


Listen, I'm right, you're wrong. That's what I believe, and I'm too stubborn, or in my own mind, smart and logical to believe anything else.

You beieve (or at least I think you do) that you're right and I'm wrong. You're too compassionate and smart for me to change your mind and believe anything else, at least in your own mind. And many people would agree with you.

I'll leave it at that.
No. It doesn't work that way. If you are both logical people starting from the same premises then a consensus can be reached.

[hamishspence]

Why are "egocentric selfishness" and "ability to work together toward a common good" treated as mutually exclusive?

One would expect that, if "working together" proves more profitable, and safer, than "working alone" the egocentrically selfish person will leap at the idea- because the person benefits from working with others.

[Adlan]

My Ideal Society will be founded on another planet, ideally a terraformed, earthlike planet. Hopefully we'll be dumped with Blankets, Hatchets, and more of our own tools, Enough to set up a Self sufficiant society. Hopefully the world has been seeded with earth life forms, unless we've discovered alien life (hopefully alien edible life).

In my ideal society, a Set of agreed upon rights and duties will be established, in a document like the constitution of the US, a clear document, that is much more fixed than the common law of the UK, would be what I would wish. Public Services would be seperate, each one collecting it's own tax, rather than from the central supply. Trains, Post, buses and such, would be chartered monopolies, rather than goverment departments. Run like the BBC, with profits reinvested for the good of the service it provides, and independant systems to check it's running properly.

Goverment interference in the economy would be limited to the break up of monopolies, and the certification of quality (food saftey and such). This means, much as I don't like it myself (being a farm boy) an end to farm subsidies.

Taxation shall be levied by General Sales Taxes, and Specific Item Taxes, and Property Taxes (eg: Tax for size of house, number of cars, that sort of thing).

Healthcare would operate by a universal insurance program, rather than a regional system, as the post code lottery is not kind (personal experiance). This would not be part of the main tax pool.

Schools would follow the Scandanavian system, of voucher based entitlement, allowing natural selection of good schools, as much as I dislike the idea of nutjobs mentally indoctrinating their kids, homeschool would be permitted.

Defense would be a Militia service, on the basis of the swiss system, everyone doing a year, and from then on serving a portion of every year, everyone trained. Contientious objectors would be trained as medics, or other non combat roles, or if they still objected, to public service work.

Ideally everyone in the country would be trained, and armed, for defence, and public security.

Laws would be on the freedom side of the equation, effectivly, only laws to protect other people from you, not you from your self. Thus, driving drunk: illegal, danger to others, Getting drunk, legal, danger to yourself.

Cultrually, I would want to a society of permissiveness, contempt towards not using reason, respect for firearms and Nature, Sexual freedom, combined with even better sexual education, and knowledge of contraception.

Politically, I would have a house of elected life peers, who must be over 50 and a system of 3-4 yearly elected commons. The Leader of the Life Peers is head of state, the leader of the commons is the priminister. They would create and sponsor new laws.

A seperate system of Judges and courts would the adjudicate on these laws as they come into use.

I think thats enough to give you a sketch.

[GoC]

In my ideal society, a Set of agreed upon rights and duties will be established, in a document like the constitution of the US, a clear document, that is much more fixed than the common law of the UK, would be what I would wish.
What would this consitution say?
How do you feel about intellectual property rights for instance?


Politically, I would have a house of elected life peers, who must be over 50 and a system of 3-4 yearly elected commons.
Why must they be over 50?

[DamnedIrishman]

DamnedIrishman: Care to take apart my ideal society in that thread?

I'll try my best, don't you worry.


On economy/government:
Primarily capitalistic. With several functions provided by government including:
1. Laws. More on this later.
2. Courts.
3. Law enforcement.
4. Defence/offence. The two are one and the same.:smallamused:
5. Education.
6. Food and shelter for those without means to support themselves.
7. Medical aid to those without means. Includes firemen.
Did I say "primarily capitalistic"? I meant "one step away from communism".:smalltongue:
Needless to say it suffers from the problem of trying to decide who is "without means to support themselves". It shouldn't collapse too badly though.


You bloody socialist! Don't make it easy for me then, agree with the broad principles of my own personal political philosophy. I'll have to be extra aggressive... but then, I know that you get your kicks that way, so why the hell not?

:smallbiggrin:

My first qualm: you have a department for offense/defense. You are envisioning the perfect society, and you imagine angry people outside it with military capabilities?



On law:
With the growth of instant communication a "pure" democracy has become feasable again. As a prevention of mob rule a requirement is stipulated: The Advanced Reasoning, Bias and Fallacy Detection course.:smallbiggrin:
An example of a test question would be examining speeches from politicians to determine argument quality and rewriting the speech into a logical form (A->B, X is a member of Y, evidence for position Z is a,b,c).:smallamused:
Debate on the law would use a forum with VERY strict posting guidlines accessable through computers at certain locations with secure lines. You use passport number or another ID number as well as your password to log on. Registering involves going to the registration office with said ID and requesting a password.
On submitting your vote you must also write about the forum thread related to that law, explaining how the arguments advanced for it or against it (that have not been disproven) are wrong (note: Arguments relying on facts with a low rating do not have to be argued against). This means that anyone who votes has to know WHY he is voting. All in all I expect about 10,000 votes per law for a country the size of the US.
This would not be an ordinary forum though. Each "post" is actually an argument against one or multiple other arguments. Obviously thread will have a tree format.
Oh yeah, this forum would also have another section on the role of law and government in society and another one on ethics.
Now for the next part: forum moderation. Most could be handled by an automated process that checks that arguments are in the appropriate form and that they are not inconsistent. Mods are voted on by anyone legally able to vote.
A fact listing will also be required on the forum. Listing a huge number of facts with various levels of certainty (I'm thinking a 1-100 score system). Arguments can reference any fact on the fact list or make up their own but the ones with a referenced fact have the "stamp" so to speak.
The fact listing shows the methodology and the studies linked with each fact. A fact rating can be challenged of course, though expect a fact with a few studies behind it to require you making a study of your own and presenting it before a panel of experts in the field the study is in.

The communications revolution has very interesting implications for our society...


As much as I hate to say it, inflicting intellectual limitations on the ability to vote cannot be called 'democratic'. Either the vote is free for all, or you effectively create a ruling political class.
As much as I admire the system that you have designed as an excellent forum for discussion, it still retains the problem of discussion of abstract political theory. Some ideas cannot be simply justified with studies, or are so new that we cannot predict the outcome. Much like our own hypothetical societies: they are debated against a backdrop of psychological and sociological principles that are neither codified or fully understood, and the only way they could be tested would be to put them into practice.

How do you prevent academic complacency if you establish a panel of 'experts' (or even an entire college of them)? It has been known in the past for the scientific establishment to suppress ideas which run counter to the accepted theories. Obviously these ideas are now accepted, but intellectual ability does not ensure either moral quality (there are plenty who would use their gifts for selfish gain) or acceptance of your socialist ideal (there will always be Republicans, so to speak, and some of them are highly educated).



How do you prevent the tragedy of the commons?
How are disputes resolved?
How are cheaters punished?

It turns to me...

If I knew what the tragedy of the commons was, I would answer that question. I will research the subject at a later point, and come back to this.
Why do we need specific institutions to punish cheaters? Do you, as an individual society, just let people get away with cheating you?
Disputes are resolved through discussion and diplomacy, preferably with both parties coming to agreement but if this is not possible then an independent arbiter chosen to preside - chosen by both parties as someone whose wisdom is respected and is non-partisan.



To each according to his ability? Then you'll need to judge ability.
Who is going to be doing the judging?
How do you decide what work needs to be done? Will it just be farming and house building? If so expect a pseudo-capitalism to form around other goods.


Everyone does what they are able to do: judgement of capabilities aren't always needed. With menial labour, for example, people who aren't strong enough to carry bricks up a ladder are given a different job to do instead, like painting. With skilled trades, those who are trained to do certain jobs do those jobs, and if they need assistance then they either get people to do specific tasks as and when required, or they train an assistant - who in return for learning the skilled trade, doesn't have to do other more unpleasant work in order to do his fare share of the community's work.

How do you decide what work needs to be done? Well, the basics are easy - food, shelter, clothing... we all know we need this, so that comes as standard. For luxuries, the community decides what they want and how they can create it. If they want a pool table, they make one - everyone has free access to information, and this includes schematics. If resources (such as wood, metal etc) are unused and a specific member of the community wants to create something, he may ask his community and if they generally approve, he can do what he wants with them.

I could go into a huge long discussion about how to provide a quality of life more or less equal to the current western standard, but quite frankly it would take far too long. But don't you worry, it's all planned out for when the revolution comes.



They care about their in-group. Not anyone else. Remember that point I'm always arguing? New car vs ten people fed in Africa?


Which works in this society, as it is based around semi-autonomous communities running themselves, and working together on larger projects when their is net benefit for both communities (ie major infrastructure, electricity generation, manufacture of goods which are beyond the resources of large towns such as computers and cars).



The problem is that the required community size for decent efficiency and sufficient number of experts is large.
Who sets the tests?
How do you prevent the severe in-group/out-group mentality in these situations? That could lead to one community deciding to raid from or the trading caravans.


Free exchange of information reduces the required amount of experts because anyone with a fair grasp of science can usually grasp it through study of texts. And don't tell me that academics wouldn't write books just because they could. You know it's not true.
Just because communities are autonomous doesn't mean they become isolated. Neighbourly tensions could be defused in sports leagues, if people really get funny about it. Otherwise, mass socialisation - have people from lots of communities get together regularly for festivals, parties and good times. This also helps prevent inbreeding...


I've finally found a flat-earther!


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/ They have a forum, you'll have hours of fun. I used to...



No. It doesn't work that way. If you are both logical people starting from the same premises then a concensus can be reached.

Only when debating something based entirely on logic (which doesn't include people) or something where we have supporting studies (which we don't, because we're not sociologists).

[hamishspence]

How is such a soceity to be set up while avoiding the envious neighbours problem?

Either its set up after all possible objectors have been defeated, which is a massive undertaking that may be completely impossible and require incredible ruthlessness to set up, "come the revolution"

or, its done first, in which case, you have the neighbours having to cope with people fleeing to you, and solving it with aggression.

And revolutions tend to end up just, eventually, creating new haves and have-nots- witness Orwell's Animal Farm, which illustrates the problem.

[Arachu]

They care about their in-group. Not anyone else. Remember that point I'm always arguing? New car vs ten people fed in Africa?


True. In general, people tend to care more about what's 'happening to them' then what's 'not happening to them', even if they only have minor problems. Sadly, overcoming this requires either a degree of empathy for everything (which is both difficult and unlikely) or a deep level of enlightenment (which, again, is very difficult, and nigh impossible, to achieve).




How does one become a general?

Wouldn't the bloodshed mean that only the most severe of dictatorships would be challenged?


1. The same way generals are made in any relevant militant system; military prowess/leadership ability (hopefully both).

2. For that to be true, said dictators would have to be severe; which, to my understanding, was very rare (though I'd wager on it's existence...). Someone would eventually challenge the ruler, and someone would eventually win. Unfortunately, as I hinted at, ambition is usually laced with traces of corruption (and we all know how corruption festers). If people now could handle that kind of power (which, admittedly, scales with population), that system might work, but as it is, it probably wouldn't. Which is sad, because it really did work for Athens...




Sheer number of different jobs. I'm fairly sure there are over a million different types of jobs in the world.


Good point, though I chalk the number up to the sheer necessity. Necessity which is typically caused by a mix of population and technology.

[hamishspence]

Machiavelli used the Decemvirate of the Roman republic as an example, arguing that whenever unlimited power is given for a year or more, corruption starts to set in.

[Arachu]

You are envisioning the perfect society, and you imagine angry people outside it with military capabilities?


To be fair, the proper plan assumes that others will oppose the plan. He doesn't have to imagine it (regrettable though that may be...).
So, basically, plan to have a plan for when others come up with bad plans :smalltongue:

[DamnedIrishman]

To be fair, the proper plan assumes that others will oppose the plan. He doesn't have to imagine it (regrettable though that may be...).
So, basically, plan to have a plan for when others come up with bad plans :smalltongue:

That's as maybe, but we're talking about fantasy-world idealistic utopia here! The Perfect Society. Unless you like conflict of course, in which case the perfect society would obviously have enemies...

[GoC]

My first qualm: you have a department for offense/defense. You are envisioning the perfect society, and you imagine angry people outside it with military capabilities?
Well yes. But why would they attack us? They'd just publish propaganda about the elitest country next door where the common man is has no voting rights.:smallbiggrin:


As much as I hate to say it, inflicting intellectual limitations on the ability to vote cannot be called 'democratic'. Either the vote is free for all, or you effectively create a ruling political class.
Indeed. However anyone can join the ruling political class. All it requires is a bit of intelligence. Needless to say the tests are on a "take as long as you want" basis.


As much as I admire the system that you have designed as an excellent forum for discussion, it still retains the problem of discussion of abstract political theory. Some ideas cannot be simply justified with studies, or are so new that we cannot predict the outcome.
Which ideas cannot be justified?
Lack of outcome prediction almost always causes people to err on the side of caution. With one exception: scientists. They'll just test it.:smallbiggrin:
Fankly I'd be more concerned about them breaking society in a wayward sociology test...


How do you prevent academic complacency if you establish a panel of 'experts' (or even an entire college of them)?
Same way we do today:
We look at the results and if the results are good we have an expert.
Or we can vote them on if you want...


It has been known in the past for the scientific establishment to suppress ideas which run counter to the accepted theories.
This is mass corruption. A problem with any political system.
However, I like to think that due to the way science works you are much less likely to get a problem with corruption.
Most scientific peer reviewed journals will publish more or less anything.


Obviously these ideas are now accepted, but intellectual ability does not ensure either moral quality (there are plenty who would use their gifts for selfish gain) or acceptance of your socialist ideal (there will always be Republicans, so to speak, and some of them are highly educated).
Moral quality is a problem with humans in general. The only way to solve it is to kill them all.:smallwink:
If my socialist ideal is not accepted then so be it. The laws will be modified to the new method.


It turns to me...

If I knew what the tragedy of the commons was, I would answer that question. I will research the subject at a later point, and come back to this.
It's the main problem with anarchy.


Why do we need specific institutions to punish cheaters? Do you, as an individual society, just let people get away with cheating you?
So you advocate letting the common man be judge, jury and executioner?


Disputes are resolved through discussion and diplomacy, preferably with both parties coming to agreement but if this is not possible then an independent arbiter chosen to preside - chosen by both parties as someone whose wisdom is respected and is non-partisan.
So basically a judge?:smallbiggrin:
What if they do not agree on a non-partisan?


Everyone does what they are able to do: judgement of capabilities aren't always needed. With menial labour, for example, people who aren't strong enough to carry bricks up a ladder are given a different job to do instead, like painting.
Who assigns jobs?
If you let anyone pick then almost everyone will most pick the easiest job. What do you do when there are too many painters and not enough brick carriers?
What happens as people exagerate their afflictions and illnesses? When people don't really put much effort into brick-moving? Taking half of what they could because it's easier?


With skilled trades, those who are trained to do certain jobs do those jobs,
Do they have a choice?
Or are you talking about a master-apprentice system?
If you are then what do you do for research? What when a new industry is founded?


For luxuries, the community decides what they want and how they can create it.
How does this work? A big sit-down with six billion people?


If they want a pool table, they make one - everyone has free access to information, and this includes schematics.
Where is the incentive for innovation?


If resources (such as wood, metal etc) are unused and a specific member of the community wants to create something, he may ask his community and if they generally approve, he can do what he wants with them.
So every time someone needs something he must gather everyone and ask? Do I need to say how impractical and inefficent this is?
What if there are insufficient resources to do what is required?


Which works in this society, as it is based around semi-autonomous communities running themselves, and working together on larger projects when their is net benefit for both communities (ie major infrastructure, electricity generation, manufacture of goods which are beyond the resources of large towns such as computers and cars).:smallconfused:
And community selfishness won't be a problem?
What if a certain community is where the main pipeline will be comming through and they'll have to do the lion's share of the work for a fraction of the benefit?
What of resources nearby? How do they divide them?
Who decides which major infrastructure should be built?


Just because communities are autonomous doesn't mean they become isolated. Neighbourly tensions could be defused in sports leagues, if people really get funny about it.
Two words: Football hooligans.


Otherwise, mass socialisation - have people from lots of communities get together regularly for festivals, parties and good times. This also helps prevent inbreeding...
Feasable for up to the number of people in a community (which incidentally can't be larger than a couple of thousand). After that there will be problems...

Now that I think about it, large cities are simply more efficient. Everything there in the same place helps a lot.

What about crimes where noone know who did it? Or crimes commited by outsiders? Or a group of bandits sacking communities? Or another country deciding to have fun?
You'll need an organized and professional military. That requires taxes. You'll also need at many super-communities as you can't build a carrier with a town of 2000...


Only when debating something based entirely on logic (which doesn't include people) or something where we have supporting studies (which we don't, because we're not sociologists).
You'll notice that I said "the same premises".:smallwink:


1. The same way generals are made in any relevant militant system; military prowess/leadership ability (hopefully both).
Who judges this prowess?

[DamnedIrishman]

Indeed. However anyone can join the ruling political class. All it requires is a bit of intelligence. Needless to say the tests are on a "take as long as you want" basis.




Which ideas cannot be justified?
Lack of outcome prediction almost always causes people to err on the side of caution. With one exception: scientists. They'll just test it.:smallbiggrin:
Fankly I'd be more concerned about them breaking society in a wayward sociology test...





Same way we do today:
We look at the results and if the results are good we have an expert.
Or we can vote them on if you want...


That runs straight into the problem of defining 'good' and getting everyone to agree on it.



This is mass corruption. A problem with any political system.
However, I like to think that due to the way science works you are much less likely to get a problem with corruption.
Most scientific peer reviewed journals will publish more or less anything.


Conceded.




It's the main problem with anarchy.



The Tragedy of the Commons does not apply, because it presumes free access to resources - which isn't the case, since communities control resources, not individuals (unlike the world we currently live in). It also assumes that demand is unlimited, which it isn't - if you don't believe me, study the economic problem known as overproduction.

Anarchy does not mean nobody works together. Social pressures can keep people in place without the requirements for organised governments.



So you advocate letting the common man be judge, jury and executioner?


Isn't that how the justice system is supposed to work now anyway? We choose the people who make the laws, and we serve on juries. Why shouldn't law be in the hands of the common man? If you even begin to say something along the lines of 'vigilante justice' then answer the problems of 'police brutality' and 'corruption of public officials' first.



So basically a judge?:smallbiggrin:
What if they do not agree on a non-partisan?


No, because a judge isn't chosen on the basis of being respected, he represents a state institution.



Who assigns jobs?
If you let anyone pick then almost everyone will most pick the easiest job. What do you do when there are too many painters and not enough brick carriers?
What happens as people exagerate their afflictions and illnesses? When people don't really put much effort into brick-moving? Taking half of what they could because it's easier?


If everyone picks the easiest, the easiest jobs get done. However, the hard work is still there. The hark work will then be divided up between everybody again, because it still needs to be done.
Communities decide who does what.

Ultimately, if people are lazy, then they don't get the things they need. All the work done is the necessary work done to survive. If people are lazy they are the ones to suffer for it. Don't get the harvest in, then you don't eat over the winter. Simple.



Do they have a choice?
Or are you talking about a master-apprentice system?
If you are then what do you do for research? What when a new industry is founded?


If people want to carry out research, then they can. The highlight of the system is that is vastly increases people's free time. And once again, don't pretend for an instant that some people won't do research purely because they can. Furthermore, if people develop new ways to get the work done with less effort - they don't have to work so much, but still get the same benefits they had before. It encourages ingenuity.

If work needs to be done and people are the only ones who can do it, then they kindof have to. If they don't they suffer - either directly or through the ire of their community. But everyone has to do an equal share of the work anyway, so they might as well do that as anything else.



How does this work? A big sit-down with six billion people?


Within their communities. For bigger things, various communities have to work together. And yes, that means big sit-downs. So does your system, it just means people are talking over the internet rather than in a big hall somewhere.



Where is the incentive for innovation?


It makes your life easier, you gain respect as a valuable member of your community, you get to play with your new invention and as we all know chicks dig engineers.



So every time someone needs something he must gather everyone and ask? Do I need to say how impractical and inefficent this is?
What if there are insufficient resources to do what is required?


If there are insufficient resources to do what is required... it can't be done, just like in any other system. You could gather more resources yourself, or with your community's aid if they think the project is worthwhile.
Communities can make up their own rules. They can have set allowances people can make use of before they have to ask everyone else's approval. It is to prevent people taking more than a fair share.




:smallconfused:
And community selfishness won't be a problem?
What if a certain community is where the main pipeline will be comming through and they'll have to do the lion's share of the work for a fraction of the benefit?
What of resources nearby? How do they divide them?
Who decides which major infrastructure should be built?


They decide, between themselves. If too many communities are involved, they can choose representatives from amongst themselves and send those in their stead.
Community selfishness will always be a problem, but hopefully counteracted by socialisation between communities, and by the selfishness of every other involved community.

The work will be shared fairly. Which means those who gain most benefit will do the most work.



Two words: Football hooligans.


Better than gun totin' bandits.



Feasable for up to the number of people in a community (which incidentally can't be larger than a couple of thousand). After that there will be problems...


True of any society. The more people there are, the harder they are to manage.



What about crimes where noone know who did it? Or crimes commited by outsiders? Or a group of bandits sacking communities? Or another country deciding to have fun?


A system of community constables working as police officers. As for bandits, simply arm the people of the community. Living in countries with police forces and armies seems to make people think it is impossible to defend oneself...



You'll need an organized and professional military. That requires taxes. You'll also need at many super-communities as you can't build a carrier with a town of 2000...


No you won't. Besides, this is my ideal. There ARE no other countries. There are no states at all, for that matter. Just a world dotted with thousands of independent communities.

You only need certain military technologies to counter other ones.

[Arachu]

Who judges this prowess?

Ironically enough, the guy in control...

[GoC]

That runs straight into the problem of defining 'good' and getting everyone to agree on it.
good=agrees with reality
Or we can just go with utilitarianism. Noone's going to complain tooo much about people chucking fat men off bridges.:smallbiggrin:


The Tragedy of the Commons does not apply, because it presumes free access to resources - which isn't the case, since communities control resources, not individuals (unlike the world we currently live in). It also assumes that demand is unlimited, which it isn't - if you don't believe me, study the economic problem known as overproduction.
Umm...
It does apply. A tragedy of the commons applies when people can graze their sheep on the common pastures. It's all well say "the community controls the resources" but what does that mean?


Anarchy does not mean nobody works together. Social pressures can keep people in place without the requirements for organised governments.
Social pressures may not keep everyone in place. Five people can just form their own in-group and then social pressures are useless.


Isn't that how the justice system is supposed to work now anyway? We choose the people who make the laws, and we serve on juries. Why shouldn't law be in the hands of the common man? If you even begin to say something along the lines of 'vigilante justice' then answer the problems of 'police brutality' and 'corruption of public officials' first.
No, I meant a single common man.


No, because a judge isn't chosen on the basis of being respected, he represents a state institution.
Ideally a judge should be respected.


If everyone picks the easiest, the easiest jobs get done. However, the hard work is still there. The hark work will then be divided up between everybody again, because it still needs to be done.
So everyone works until all the jobs get done?


Communities decide who does what.
A community is an abstract construct. What actually happens?


Ultimately, if people are lazy, then they don't get the things they need. All the work done is the necessary work done to survive. If people are lazy they are the ones to suffer for it. Don't get the harvest in, then you don't eat over the winter. Simple.
Wait... so how do you decide who was lazy? A simple accusation of "Bob worked really slowly today"? Do you realize the mess this would cause? Person X is unpopular with the group. They say he rarely works very hard. Person X starves.
When someone says they're sick and tired people are automatically going to suspect them of skimping on their duties (expecially if they say they're sick often). This is going to create a LOT of friction. And I mean A LOT.


If people want to carry out research, then they can. The highlight of the system is that is vastly increases people's free time
How so? Everyone is going to be start working slower and slower until you reach the minimum effort required. This will be FAR below the optimum and will result in much less free time than we have now. In a developed country you can work 16 hours a week and survive perfectly well now.


And once again, don't pretend for an instant that some people won't do research purely because they can.
They will, however, have to do this research in their free time. There's also the problem that with the small communities all you get is indivual researchers and none of the teams. No big labs. No big projects. No planes. No CERNs. No ITERs.


Furthermore, if people develop new ways to get the work done with less effort - they don't have to work so much,
By a MUCH smaller margin. A person in the modern day who developes a cheap machine (and it WILL have to be cheap to be made by one person) that increase the productivity/work ratio of farming by 0.01 will never have to work again in his life. It would be worth it to devote a good 10 years of his life to it. But in your case it's not even worth devoting a single year to.
Don't forget that your society will be barely above subsistence level due to slowly decreased productivity.


If work needs to be done and people are the only ones who can do it, then they kindof have to.
Cars do not have to be made. Niether do chairs. Or cuttlery. Or dishwashers.
Did I mention that all hobbiest will have disappeared because anything they make must be shared? People cannot create anything now without it getting taken away.


If they don't they suffer - either directly or through the ire of their community.
The community WILL NOT enforce this in all cases. Joe has 5 really close friends. They're not going to stop talking to him just because he doesn't work.


Within their communities. For bigger things, various communities have to work together. And yes, that means big sit-downs. So does your system, it just means people are talking over the internet rather than in a big hall somewhere.
In my system people can decide to join in.
In yours everyone must gather.
You keep talking of a community like it's a single thing. It's not. It's made up of several thousand people.


If there are insufficient resources to do what is required... it can't be done, just like in any other system.
How do you decide which project to sacrifice? The new chair or the new table? A big sitdown involving a thousand people for every decision?
Ouch. Inefficiency...
There are never enough resources for everything unless you're talking about a post-scarcity society (in which case other government systems perform better).


Communities can make up their own rules. They can have set allowances people can make use of before they have to ask everyone else's approval. It is to prevent people taking more than a fair share.
I've just realized that racism and bigotry will be rampant...


They decide, between themselves. If too many communities are involved, they can choose representatives from amongst themselves and send those in their stead.
And the community getting shafted by the consensus decision is going to abide by it? Don't make me laugh...


Community selfishness will always be a problem, but hopefully counteracted by socialisation between communities, and by the selfishness of every other involved community.
A society built on hope in human nature... marvelous.
Communities will only care about the nearby ones (the ones they socialize more than once per ten years) and the distant ones will be more or less irrelevant.


The work will be shared fairly. Which means those who gain most benefit will do the most work.
That's not how it will work. It will work like the community the pipeline is being built through doing all the work with maybe some dissenting votes by the communities that socialize with that one.


Better than gun totin' bandits.
I was pointing out that they will not get closer together, they will in fact develope a strong in-group/out-group sense.


True of any society. The more people there are, the harder they are to manage.
But they are managed better in a place with codified laws, actual impartial government and no innate in-group/out-group.


A system of community constables working as police officers. As for bandits, simply arm the people of the community. Living in countries with police forces and armies seems to make people think it is impossible to defend oneself...
Not from a group of trained bandits who know how to raid. Expect these bandits to innovate. Expect killdozers.:smallamused:


No you won't. Besides, this is my ideal. There ARE no other countries. There are no states at all, for that matter. Just a world dotted with thousands of independent communities.
Communities X and Y decide to go over the mountain and destroy a community there. Taking home the spoils of war. Overjoyed at this victory they attack two more communities next year with similar results. Can you see where I'm going with this?


Ironically enough, the guy in control...
So he'll pick people loyal to him and have himself and his henchies accumalate wealth at everyone else's expense. Grab a few slaves from among the pretty women of the town...

[Arachu]

So he'll pick people loyal to him and have himself and his henchies accumalate wealth at everyone else's expense. Grab a few slaves from among the pretty women of the town...

As I stated, modern people (and, hell, almost all people) couldn't really handle it. Athens got very lucky, very often.

And, to be fair, you're thinking of conventional dictatorship, in which the guy in control exerts all of the power at his disposal. When people think 'dictator', they (quite rightly) think 'someone who takes power for their own benefit'. But Athenian dictators were loyal to Athens, and they took power for the entire state's benefit (for the most part). They gained rulership, but they weren't tyrants (except maybe a few short examples I don't know about).

Finally, I never said it would work now; quite the contrary. I just admire how well it worked for Athens.

[Weezer]

Ideal Society:

I think that the best society would be a basic republic but with severe restrictions placed on the powers of leaders. The sphere of influence of the government would be restricted exclusively to foreign policy and maintaining infrastructure. Aside from that it would be banned from interfering with the lives of the people. People would live how they chose with no interference, working how they please, selling what they want. This would develop into a laizzes faire capitalist economy because there will always be people who are willing to buy, sell and develop products and services.

As for a system of justice it would be purely based around personal responsibility. People are personally responsible for their actions good or bad and also if you see something that would be labeled as a "crime" happening it is your responsibility to stop it and hand out punishments as you see fit. If you see it and choose not to stop it then you mustn't believe that its wrong enough to stop it. This would be a self correcting system because people would develop on their own various customs based around this, what was punishable and how it should be punished. This would create an organic justice system developed in such a way that it matches peoples morals and values.

Anything else is up to personal choice and preference.

______________

In response to any of the more socialist ideas, I'm not going to try to argue that it wouldn't work cause it probably could, I think that the idea of everyone deserving an equal share of everything is a fallacy. There isn't a reason that I can see for everyone to deserve an equal share of available resources. The idea of socialism is based on the idea that everyone is equal and if they all work hard everyone should be compensated equally. This is not true, people aren't truly equal. I'm not physically equal to Olympic medal winners, mentally equal to people like Da'Vinci.

Someone who barely graduates high school and spends the rest of his life flipping burgers is not equal to someone who founds a company that discovers how to cure cancer or the scientist that made the discovery. There is no reason that he deserves anything more than to earn a very small amount of money because while he is performing a necessary task it isn't one that deserves much compensation.

[DamnedIrishman]

I realise I can answer most queries with "Well, it's fairer than the current system..."



Umm...
It does apply. A tragedy of the commons applies when people can graze their sheep on the common pastures. It's all well say "the community controls the resources" but what does that mean?


No it doesn't. Common pastures weren't community controlled - they weren't controlled at all, so anyone could use them as much as they liked without thinking of other users. Community control of the land means that if one person is overusing the resource, they can be denied access.
Besides, I don't see how overgrazing due to one person's selfishness applies when... the community as a whole owns the livestock, and not individuals.

Did you not read the bit about abolition of private property?



Social pressures may not keep everyone in place. Five people can just form their own in-group and then social pressures are useless.

... except that the five can't support themselves, as they don't have anything to do it with. See above.



No, I meant a single common man.


Socialism. Communities decide, not individuals.



Ideally a judge should be respected.


Ideally,yes. In reality?
Ultimately this is a flaw in any system.



So everyone works until all the jobs get done?


Yup. Considering most of the jobs are maintenance based, people do a few hours work two days a week and then have lots of free time.



A community is an abstract construct. What actually happens?


People talk to each other. It might seem a strange concept in the modern world, but it is possible.



Wait... so how do you decide who was lazy? A simple accusation of "Bob worked really slowly today"? Do you realize the mess this would cause? Person X is unpopular with the group. They say he rarely works very hard. Person X starves.
When someone says they're sick and tired people are automatically going to suspect them of skimping on their duties (expecially if they say they're sick often). This is going to create a LOT of friction. And I mean A LOT.


It's a few hours work for a couple of days a week. For a start, some people will happily do more than their fare share if they're doing work they enjoy. Again, it's a strange concept, but there is such thing as pride in your work. But obviously we can't rely on that.
If there is friction within a group, then they'll have to talk to each other and sort it out between themselves like mature, responsible adults.



How so? Everyone is going to be start working slower and slower until you reach the minimum effort required. This will be FAR below the optimum and will result in much less free time than we have now. In a developed country you can work 16 hours a week and survive perfectly well now.


Why should they do that? If they work slowly, they longer. If they work efficiently and quickly, the job gets done and they can all get naked and play frisbee in the sunshine.



They will, however, have to do this research in their free time. There's also the problem that with the small communities all you get is indivual researchers and none of the teams. No big labs. No big projects. No planes. No CERNs. No ITERs.


For a start, I'm happily to lose CERN and ITER if it also means losing inequality, nuclear weapons, imperialism...
What is to stop one plucky researcher forming a research institution? If they're doing useful work (say developing medicines, more efficient fuel production or labour-saving devices) then they will be supported with the resources they need, and then you can have both laboratories and research teams.



By a MUCH smaller margin. A person in the modern day who developes a cheap machine (and it WILL have to be cheap to be made by one person) that increase the productivity/work ratio of farming by 0.01 will never have to work again in his life. It would be worth it to devote a good 10 years of his life to it. But in your case it's not even worth devoting a single year to.
Don't forget that your society will be barely above subsistence level due to slowly decreased productivity.


A person who suggests labour-saving devices or practices in their workplace risks losing their job because they're no longer needed. If people can work out ways to increase productivity per person, then the overall amount of work needed for everyone is decreased, and thus their share decreases too and they have more time to spend making love to beautiful persons of their preferred gender in the long grass.

The society would exist at subsistence level + enough to survive if the next year or two's harvest fails. What's wrong with that? If you produce more food than can be eaten and reasonably stored it... goes bad. You may note that both the US and the EU are in the practice of burning huge quantities of excess grain to protect prices for overproducing farmers.



Cars do not have to be made. Niether do chairs. Or cuttlery. Or dishwashers.
Did I mention that all hobbies will have disappeared because anything they make must be shared? People cannot create anything now without it getting taken away.


If there is demand, they will be produced. If there is not demand they won't. Simple. Cars aren't really necessary in self-suffient communities anyway - you simply don't need to drive. And if it three days to hike somewhere - so what? You've got bucketloads of free time. And it increases the proportion of the population worth playing naked frisbee with because of all the exercise. Want a chair and nobody will make you one? Build it yourself - designs are available because all information is shared, you've got plenty of time to learn carpentry because you work six hours a week and the community will support you because they gain a skilled tradesman.

The world has a population of six billion. How many of those do you think would not tell you to stick your dishwasher where the sun doesn't shine and wash your own damned dishes? After all, you've got to pass the time somehow.



The community WILL NOT enforce this in all cases. Joe has 5 really close friends. They're not going to stop talking to him just because he doesn't work.


They will if they have to pick up the slack. Joe can't really justify not being bothered to help his fellow man for a mere six of the one hundred and sixty eight hours of his week. And even if he has those five friends - how does this compare to the ire of his community. Imagine you live in a society where you know everyone in your town by name? Where everyone works together for the benefit of all? Where everyone joins in organised activities, like giant games of naked under-25s frisbee together? Suddenly five people starts to feel fairly isolated, especially when they're busy joining in the reindeer games.



In my system people can decide to join in.
In yours everyone must gather.
You keep talking of a community like it's a single thing. It's not. It's made up of several thousand people.


I never said people have to join in. If they don't attend community meetings (say, one or two a week) then they don't get to have their say. Simple enough.
If groups are too large then you have mineshaft meetings. You talk with the fifty or so people nearest you. You come to a group decision, then you choose a representative and they go to a bigger gathering.
Yes, it is time-consuming. But when time no longer equals money, what's the rush?



How do you decide which project to sacrifice? The new chair or the new table? A big sitdown involving a thousand people for every decision?
Ouch. Inefficiency...
There are never enough resources for everything unless you're talking about a post-scarcity society (in which case other government systems perform better).


Define 'everything'. Human wants are not unlimited. Give people that which they need to survive, the company of friends and a way to pass the time with each other and they're generally pretty happy.
Obviously, coming from a western society it may be a step-down in some respects. Boo-hoo, but quite frankly coming from an entirely unsustainable society which relies heavily on depriving people in poorer states doesn't give you much of a moral leg to stand on. You want utilitarianism? This is utilitarian.



I've just realized that racism and bigotry will be rampant...


Compared to now? That's nothing to do with the dominant political philosophy.



And the community getting shafted by the consensus decision is going to abide by it? Don't make me laugh...


Communities are quite happy to get shafted by governments and corporations so... yeah. Besides, how many major conflicts do you envisage in such a world? There's no need for oil pipelines if people don't need cars.



A society built on hope in human nature... marvelous.


Aren't all societies built on hope in human nature? Apart from capitalism, which is built on "I've got a gun and a bucket of money so SCREW YOU!".
Capitalism puts capital first. Socialism puts society first. Money is more important than people?



Communities will only care about the nearby ones (the ones they socialize more than once per ten years) and the distant ones will be more or less irrelevant.


But the nearby ones care about the slightly further away, and they about the slightly further away, and then on and on until every is connected.

That's not how it will work. It will work like the community the pipeline is being built through doing all the work with maybe some dissenting votes by the communities that socialize with that one.



I was pointing out that they will not get closer together, they will in fact develope a strong in-group/out-group sense.

But they are managed better in a place with codified laws, actual impartial government and no innate in-group/out-group.


A huge global web of linked communities. We know the next village, they know the next village, they know the next village... all the way to the ends of the earth. No states, countries or any form of borders. No national identities to use as a basis for your bigotry. The only thing people can really cluster over is race, to be blunt. Solution: many, many, many mixed marriages!



Not from a group of trained bandits who know how to raid. Expect these bandits to innovate. Expect killdozers.:smallamused:


If the bandits are trained, why can't the constables be? If the bandits can innovate, why can't the constables? After all - they both have the same resources.
And nobody has guns, because there are no gun factories and no military-industrial complex.



Communities X and Y decide to go over the mountain and destroy a community there. Taking home the spoils of war. Overjoyed at this victory they attack two more communities next year with similar results. Can you see where I'm going with this?


Community X and Y decide to destroy community Z. Communities A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T and U go "Not on my bloody watch you don't!"

[Arachu]

Two major systems and flaws I've observed;

Communism: Bigotry, fanaticism, and oppression are all likely, on a scale.

Capitalism: Greed, elitism, and thus oppression are all likely, and admittedly probable.

I see flaws, and benefits, in both.

But I will say this; I now see currency-based economy's most major flaw.

Once an economic system based on material wealth grows, it changes according to the actual value and demand of said material. Once an economic system based on universal units of currency grows, the value of the material slowly decreases, without ever increasing.

As the supplies grow and their demand lessens, the universal value of currency plummets. Despite this, goods are treated as though they had the same value.

The amount of currency needed skyrockets, and in turn the amount in circulation skyrockets. Result: The value of the economic unit plummets.

I shall now reference the economy of the United States throughout history. When it was young, the penny was the standard unit. Now, the dollar is the standard unit. The value of currency is decreasing.

I'm sure this is still true throughout the world, though I can't be certain of that...

To summarize; all currency systems inevitably fail.

And, actually, that wasn't just a shot at capitalism. Currency-based communist systems fare even worse (due to the value of the object in relation to the unit)


... Yeah.

[DamnedIrishman]

Two major systems and flaws I've observed;

Communism: Bigotry, fanaticism, and oppression are all likely, on a scale.

Capitalism: Greed, elitism, and thus oppression are all likely, and admittedly probable.

I see flaws, and benefits, in both.

But I will say this; I now see currency-based economy's most major flaw.

Once an economic system based on material wealth grows, it changes according to the actual value and demand of said material. Once an economic system based on universal units of currency grows, the value of the material slowly decreases, without ever increasing.

As the supplies grow and their demand lessens, the universal value of currency plummets. Despite this, goods are treated as though they had the same value.

The amount of currency needed skyrockets, and in turn the amount in circulation skyrockets. Result: The value of the economic unit plummets.

I shall now reference the economy of the United States throughout history. When it was young, the penny was the standard unit. Now, the dollar is the standard unit. The value of currency is decreasing.

I'm sure this is still true throughout the world, though I can't be certain of that...

To summarize; all currency systems inevitably fail.

And, actually, that wasn't just a shot at capitalism. Currency-based communist systems fare even worse (due to the value of the object in relation to the unit)


... Yeah.

Welcome to my way of thinking.
:smallcool:

[Arachu]

Welcome to my way of thinking.
:smallcool:

Woo! :smallcool:

[GoC]

Did you not read the bit about abolition of private property?
Does this lack of private property extend to houses and beds?
Two people want the rights to the nicest bed. What happens?


... except that the five can't support themselves, as they don't have anything to do it with. See above.
Wait a minute... so if you don't work you don't get food?
So it's not just social pressure is it? You're starving people who don't work. Then what if they pretend to work? Or slack off in general?

You seem to keep changing your mind about various bits of your society. Work in progress I'm guessing?


Socialism. Communities decide, not individuals.
So you don't see the advantage in having specialized lawmen?


Yup. Considering most of the jobs are maintenance based, people do a few hours work two days a week and then have lots of free time.
See below. I'm responding from bottom up btw.


People talk to each other. It might seem a strange concept in the modern world, but it is possible.
People talk to eachother but they often disagree.


It's a few hours work for a couple of days a week. For a start, some people will happily do more than their fare share if they're doing work they enjoy. Again, it's a strange concept, but there is such thing as pride in your work.
Few enjoy back-breaking work in the hot sun.


If there is friction within a group, then they'll have to talk to each other and sort it out between themselves like mature, responsible adults.
If these are the same mature and responsible adults who we've had around for most of human history then I expect bloodshed. Lots of bloodshed.:smallamused:


Why should they do that? If they work slowly, they longer. If they work efficiently and quickly, the job gets done and they can all get naked and play frisbee in the sunshine.
If they work at two-thirds the maximum speed their total time worked increases by less than 1%. The cost vs benefits just doesn't add up.


What is to stop one plucky researcher forming a research institution? If they're doing useful work (say developing medicines, more efficient fuel production or labour-saving devices) then they will be supported with the resources they need, and then you can have both laboratories and research teams.
Wait a minute... You say below you are talking about a barely-above-subsistence society.
Research teams require the meeting of like-minded people. How exactly will this happen?


A person who suggests labour-saving devices or practices in their workplace risks losing their job because they're no longer needed.
Actually, such people get promoted or at least hefty bonuses. Managers want to encourage those sorts of things.


If people can work out ways to increase productivity per person, then the overall amount of work needed for everyone is decreased, and thus their share decreases too
By a negligable amount. In the very text you quoted is the response to this. The amount of benefit they get from the invention is tiny compared to what they'd get in a capitalist society.


The society would exist at subsistence level + enough to survive if the next year or two's harvest fails. What's wrong with that?
Nothing... except that everyone will be working a heck of a lot longer than 6 hours a week. More like a good old 60 just like in the good old days.:smalltongue:


If there is demand, they will be produced. If there is not demand they won't. Simple.
A computer. You want one. They cannot be produced.


Cars aren't really necessary in self-suffient communities anyway - you simply don't need to drive.
So these communities are almost entirely self-sufficient? Contact with ousiders just decreased a whole lot more.

Just wondering... won't a lot of foods be impossible?
Things that grow in different climates?
Meals will be a lot blander...


You've got bucketloads of free time.
Why do you believe this?


Want a chair and nobody will make you one? Build it yourself - designs are available because all information is shared, you've got plenty of time to learn carpentry because you work six hours a week and the community will support you because they gain a skilled tradesman.
You certainly don't want a chair enough to learn carpentry.
AND with no private property you can't own the chair. So in order for you to get one. single. chair. You must make spend a few years and make 2000 chairs.


The world has a population of six billion. How many of those do you think would not tell you to stick your dishwasher where the sun doesn't shine and wash your own damned dishes? After all, you've got to pass the time somehow.
And you'd rather not pass it washing dishes? This also serves as a counterpoint to "if there is demand it will be produced".


They will if they have to pick up the slack.
No they won't. They'll have to work an extra minute each. The community as a whole picks up the slack.


Joe can't really justify not being bothered to help his fellow man for a mere six of the one hundred and sixty eight hours of his week.
Where are you getting this crazy idea that it's only six hours? Look at how hard the amish work.


And even if he has those five friends - how does this compare to the ire of his community. Imagine you live in a society where you know everyone in your town by name? Where everyone works together for the benefit of all? Where everyone joins in organised activities, like giant games of naked under-25s frisbee together? Suddenly five people starts to feel fairly isolated, especially when they're busy joining in the reindeer games.
If all six get isolated then the five no longer have any incentive to keep working. But why would they be isolated anyway? Their close friends and relatives aren't going to stop talking to them for them no stopping talking to Joe.


You come to a group decision,
Riiiiiight...
Do you know how rarely people really agree? Most of the time they'll just concede because they're sick of the argument.


Yes, it is time-consuming. But when time no longer equals money, what's the rush?
It means that there's far less productive work going on.


Define 'everything'. Human wants are not unlimited. Give people that which they need to survive, the company of friends and a way to pass the time with each other and they're generally pretty happy.
Then why does everyone work 9 to 5, five days a week?
People want to have a few extra things. They might also want things that are pretty unnecessary. A a tennis court, a birthday cake, a TV.


You want utilitarianism? This is utilitarian.
It has sub-optimal utility.


Compared to now? That's nothing to do with the dominant political philosophy.
Division of people into small groups with little contact with "outside" groups? Remember this nice study? (http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/12/the-robbers-cav.html)


Communities are quite happy to get shafted by governments and corporations so... yeah.
That's because they can't do anything about it. Here they can simply say "No way! Go screw yourselves." and there's nothing anyone can do about it.


A huge global web of linked communities. We know the next village, they know the next village, they know the next village... all the way to the ends of the earth. No states, countries or any form of borders. No national identities to use as a basis for your bigotry. The only thing people can really cluster over is race, to be blunt. Solution: many, many, many mixed marriages!
Ever heard of six degrees of seperation? The average seperation is six degrees. The seperation between a palastinian freedom fighter/terrorist and the security forces/occupying forces he blows up is less than 10.
A rough rule: For your people you're very close to you might care about someone two degrees away from them. For people you hang around with occasionally you might care about someone one degree away from them. For people you just barely know you'll care only about them.
Race, language, location. Three things to be bigots about.

Also, you mentioned no cars. You realize that people won't even know anyone a mere 100 miles away? At all?


If the bandits are trained, why can't the constables be? If the bandits can innovate, why can't the constables? After all - they both have the same resources.
So you DO see the point in a military after all?


And nobody has guns, because there are no gun factories and no military-industrial complex.
They can MAKE a gun factory.


Community X and Y decide to destroy community Z. Communities A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T and U go "Not on my bloody watch you don't!"
How would they know? Ever heard of masks?
X and Y can quite easily become a bandit society.

Weezer: Vigilante's. People beating up others for the heck of it. Lynch mobs.
A meritocracy is desired but the modern world certainly doesn't have one. There's gender and race inequality. There's millionares who inherited their wealth.
The only person advocating pure socialism is that damned irishman...:smallannoyed:


The amount of currency needed skyrockets, and in turn the amount in circulation skyrockets. Result: The value of the economic unit plummets.
Does not follow. The amount of currency needed grows at a steady rate (3%-7% per year generally) as does the amount in circulation.

[LXH]

Basically what's written in the US Constitution, only actually enforced (I'm looking at you, Full Faith and Credit clause).

Term limits for Justices.

Mixed economy. Capitalist opportunity mixed with enough social programs to ensure equality of opportunity in schools and higher education. Meritocracy should not devolve into legacy cronyism.

Either single payer health care or an insurance driven system kept honest by a non-profit government plan to compete with.

Free press, but no Clear Channelesque domination of an entire medium. National, non partisan news agency akin to CBC should be established to run stories you can't catch on the horrible for-profit network and cable news programs. Absolutely NO personality driven political shows featuring bloviating demogogues on this network.

Military would be moderate in budget: heavy in defense capability but no particular emphasis on rapid deployment/occupation capabilities. Absolutely no nuclear weapons.

Fortify that church/state wall of separation. With turrets.

[GoC]

Military would be moderate in budget: heavy in defense capability but no particular emphasis on rapid deployment/occupation capabilities. Absolutely no nuclear weapons.

Another country with nukes can now bully you as much as it wants.

Note: Tomorrow I have to study so expect no replies til wednesday afternoon (GMT)..

[LXH]

Another country with nukes can now bully you as much as it wants.
Except that hasn't actually happened since the Cold War (except if you want to count our own behavior). The way I see it, either we work towards mutual disarmament or continue to stockpile and have a situation of perpetual mutually assured destruction. Not to mention you provide greater motivation for other nations to proliferate so they don't risk being bullied by you.

Anyway, I don't think we should get into this as it's impossible to have this particular debate without citing real world examples, and I'd really rather not be banned so soon.

[Recaiden]

But I will say this; I now see currency-based economy's most major flaw.

Once an economic system based on material wealth grows, it changes according to the actual value and demand of said material. Once an economic system based on universal units of currency grows, the value of the material slowly decreases, without ever increasing.

As the supplies grow and their demand lessens, the universal value of currency plummets. Despite this, goods are treated as though they had the same value.

The amount of currency needed skyrockets, and in turn the amount in circulation skyrockets. Result: The value of the economic unit plummets.

I shall now reference the economy of the United States throughout history. When it was young, the penny was the standard unit. Now, the dollar is the standard unit. The value of currency is decreasing.

I'm sure this is still true throughout the world, though I can't be certain of that...

To summarize; all currency systems inevitably fail.

Why is the currency decreasing in value a sign of failure. There's a reason wages and the amount of money increases.

[Arachu]

Does not follow. The amount of currency needed grows at a steady rate (3%-7% per year generally) as does the amount in circulation.

As does the amount needed for supplies. Which results in the necrosis of the entire system.

Look at WW2 Germany and Russia. Marks had so little value, that people could afford to burn them for heat and use them for insulation. The value of the economic unit was almost negligible; it had so little value that it was more valuable as a utility.

The world economy at the time, the new systems, and the plans to need thousands of marks speed-grew the problem, but it's the same problem.

Gods, I wish anarchy could work with our mindset...

[Weezer]

Weezer: Vigilante's. People beating up others for the heck of it. Lynch mobs.
A meritocracy is desired but the modern world certainly doesn't have one. There's gender and race inequality. There's millionares who inherited their wealth.


It is Vigilantism, that would be the system of justice. If someone beats people up for the heck of it, then he will be stopped by the people who get beat up banding together or the friends of those who get beat up. Lych mobs would be stopped in much the same way.

Yeah I agree that bigotry is a problem that needs to be delt with and I think the modern world has made great progress in that direction recently. Okay if the millionaires inherit wealth someone worked to earn it then gave it to them, so they deserve to have it.


The only person advocating pure socialism is that damned irishman...:smallannoyed:
Yeah I realize that,

[Recaiden]

As does the amount needed for supplies. Which results in the necrosis of the entire system.

Look at WW2 Germany and Russia. Marks had so little value, that people could afford to burn them for heat and use them for insulation. The value of the economic unit was almost negligible; it had so little value that it was more valuable as a utility.

The world economy at the time, the new systems, and the plans to need thousands of marks speed-grew the problem, but it's the same problem.

Gods, I wish anarchy could work with our mindset...

And once it gets to anywhere near that point, the government can intervene. It's not a failure, it just needs maintenance.

EDIT: Actually, I disagree very strongly that vigilante justice will be effective.

[GoC]

Except that hasn't actually happened since the Cold War (except if you want to count our own behavior).
That's because there's a balancing factor (other countries with nukes). Without this balancing factor the opposing country can threaten all it want (and maybe kill a couple of cities to show it's serious).


Anyway, I don't think we should get into this as it's impossible to have this particular debate without citing real world examples, and I'd really rather not be banned so soon.
Just consider hypothetical countries.


As does the amount needed for supplies. Which results in the necrosis of the entire system.
Explain yourself.


Look at WW2 Germany and Russia. Marks had so little value, that people could afford to burn them for heat and use them for insulation. The value of the economic unit was almost negligible; it had so little value that it was more valuable as a utility.
Hyperinflation is an accepted economic problem. Ordinary inflation only becomes hyperinflation under specific circumstances.

Also DamnedIrishman, I found this little formulae dictating when altruism (such as working when you don't need to) is a good idea:
"Specifically, the requirement is C/B < FST where C is the cost of altruism to the donor, B is the benefit of altruism to the recipient, and FST is the spatial structure of the population: the average relatedness between a randomly selected organism and its randomly selected neighbor, where a "neighbor" is any other fox who benefits from an altruistic fox's restraint."
Unless everyone has the same worth to you as you do it's never to your advantage to be altruistic solely for it's own sake.


It is Vigilantism, that would be the system of justice. If someone beats people up for the heck of it, then he will be stopped by the people who get beat up banding together or the friends of those who get beat up.
So you'll need to go home in crowds of 20 or more?
This is basically rule by strength. Considered the worst form of government ever.


Okay if the millionaires inherit wealth someone worked to earn it then gave it to them, so they deserve to have it.
They "deserve" to have it? What an odd definition of "deserve"...
You also realize that you'll end up with feudalism right?

[LXH]

OK. Let's consider Hypothetical Country A (HCA), which lies in a geopolitical region containing another country, Hypothetical Country B (HCB), that happens to already have nuclear weapons. HCB and HCA also have a shared, thirty year history of animosity towards one another. HCB's current leader is known to be quite hawkish and is rumored to very badly want to attack HCA, but is only being held back by the influence of a Very Strong Ally (VSA).

HCA is running an ambiguous nuclear development program, as it is entitled to do under the provisions of the Hypothetical Non-Proliferation Treaty (HNPT). However, it is believed in certain circles that this program is cover for developing nuclear weapons. Even though this has not been proven, it is a widely distributed argument among proponents of attacking HCA. My question would be: Would HCA still be arguably pursuing this course of action, especially in light of the fact that HCA's revolutionary leader proclaimed such a goal to be incompatible with HCA's hypothetical state religion, if HCB did not contain its own weapons with which to bully the region? As noted, HCB is allied with VSA, the strongest global military power, as well as three of the strongest powers in its hypothetical geopolitical region. It also, within the last four decades or so, overwhelmingly defeated its neighbors in a war that lasted less than a week while using only conventional weapons. Given these realities, nuclear weapons are not needed for HCB to deter violence. Would it not create a more sound platform from which to lecture HCA about its obligations under the HNPT if the lecturing countries themselves adhered more earnestly to those provisions?

Another case would be the hostilities between Hypothetical Country C (HCC) and Hypothetical Country D (HCD). These two nations also share a history of animosity as well as border disputes, and in fact were one nation at one point but divided over religious reasons. HCC developed nuclear weapons as a deterrent to the nuclear program conducted by HCD. And while the VSA did not aid HCD in its initial development, it has in recent years established a nuclear partnership that only strengthens the nuclear capability of HCD, despite being allies with both HCC and HCD. This news, naturally, has only spurred HCC to up its own stockpile, even as the country itself has nearly been torn apart by the combined forces of disruptive military coups, political assassinations, and now a powerful, organized amalgamation of a displaced, fundamentalist neighboring governing power and their terrorist allies. Should these factors result in the collapse of HCC, its nuclear arsenal would be at great risk of falling into the hands of a network that has already launched several successful attacks against many countries, including VSA.

The repercussions of simply wanting to avoid being at a military disadvantage could now possibly become the largest threat to global security the world has seen in a very long time. All because a country did not want to risk being "bullied."

[DamnedIrishman]

You've finally finished replying? At last. I've been so bored waiting...


Does this lack of private property extend to houses and beds?
Two people want the rights to the nicest bed. What happens?


They share it until one of them finally gives up. This whole thing is about autonomous communities - people can govern their lives, and work out compromises and whatever they like.



Wait a minute... so if you don't work you don't get food?
So it's not just social pressure is it? You're starving people who don't work. Then what if they pretend to work? Or slack off in general?


The work done by the community is the work done to survive. If the work isn't done, then nobody gets food.
Why is this my problem - in the modern world people starve if they don't work (unless they're on welfare of course, but even that's only in a minority of countries). If they lived alone on a farm then they'd starve if they didn't work. What's so terrible about the same applying?



You seem to keep changing your mind about various bits of your society. Work in progress I'm guessing?


I should think so, considering the task ahead is restructuring the entirety of human society into a more equitable model, and adapting to unforseen problems as they arise. Surely it is better the model changes than I dogmatically stick to a flawed system?



So you don't see the advantage in having specialized lawmen?


I can see the advantages and disadvantages. What's the real difference between a man with a stick, and a man with a stick and a badge? Police training doesn't change human nature.



People talk to eachother but they often disagree.


Yes, yes they do. And they can get over it. You'd prefer charimatic dictators? You can either have democracy and disagreement, or no democracy at all.



Few enjoy back-breaking work in the hot sun.


It's not that bad if you don't have to do much of it. Besides, if they hate it that much they can trade their shift with someone in return for doing something they dislike. And if everyone tries to shirk it, then they can just put it on a rota.



If these are the same mature and responsible adults who we've had around for most of human history then I expect bloodshed. Lots of bloodshed.:smallamused:


My system has less power concentrated per individual, therefore less possibility for corruption. Besides, most people are brought up in a system where competition is encouraged. You don't think that might have an effect on behaviour?



If they work at two-thirds the maximum speed their total time worked increases by less than 1%. The cost vs benefits just doesn't add up.


As long as the work gets done, it doesn't matter.



Wait a minute... You say below you are talking about a barely-above-subsistence society.
Research teams require the meeting of like-minded people. How exactly will this happen?


Defining 'subsistence' as 'enough to feed the population' not 'everybody tends their smallholding'.
I've said how they could meet: individuals choosing to establish research institutions.



Actually, such people get promoted or at least hefty bonuses. Managers want to encourage those sorts of things.


Fine. Then their old coworkers get sacked. Efficiency means less staff = better.



By a negligable amount. In the very text you quoted is the response to this. The amount of benefit they get from the invention is tiny compared to what they'd get in a capitalist society.


Every rich man stands on the back of a lot of his fellows. Why should I pander to them?



Nothing... except that everyone will be working a heck of a lot longer than 6 hours a week. More like a good old 60 just like in the good old days.:smalltongue:


Except they wouldn't. If people had to work sixty hours a week to support themselves in my society they would have to work sixty hours a week in the modern society. After all, my society reduces consumption.



A computer. You want one. They cannot be produced.


So you find like-minded computer wanters and you set up a computer factory. Free exchange of information? Besides, I'd rather play naked frisbee. In return for giving computers to others, they provide you with the food and resources you need.



So these communities are almost entirely self-sufficient? Contact with ousiders just decreased a whole lot more.


As much as they can be. But some things are more efficient to mass-produce, so groups of communities will run factories together.



Just wondering... won't a lot of foods be impossible?
Things that grow in different climates?
Meals will be a lot blander...


Just like they are for 90% of the world. Besides, greenhouses exist.



Why do you believe this?


Because due to modern agricultural techniques and mass production, it is possible for any number of people to provide for a population which exceeds their own size. If we take the necessary work and divide it equally between the entire population, everyone works a lot less.



You certainly don't want a chair enough to learn carpentry.
AND with no private property you can't own the chair. So in order for you to get one. single. chair. You must make spend a few years and make 2000 chairs.


Just because you don't own the chair doesn't mean you can't sit on it. Besides, mass production still exists within the theory. There are enough chairs for everyone.



And you'd rather not pass it washing dishes? This also serves as a counterpoint to "if there is demand it will be produced".


If there is sufficient demand and access to the required resources, it will indeed be produced. The fact is, what is a series of small decreases in the ease of your life is in fact a major boost to a huge number of lives around the world.



No they won't. They'll have to work an extra minute each. The community as a whole picks up the slack.


Aye, and the community will make Joe work. And if he continues to refuse, they'll stop sharing their property with him - the place he lives, the food he eats.



Where are you getting this crazy idea that it's only six hours? Look at how hard the amish work.


They insist on living several centuries ago.



If all six get isolated then the five no longer have any incentive to keep working. But why would they be isolated anyway? Their close friends and relatives aren't going to stop talking to them for them no stopping talking to Joe.


If the community is prepared to support Joe if he isn't working, that's their business. And they do have a incentive to keep working. What else are they going to do? They can't live off a trust fund without currency.



Riiiiiight...
Do you know how rarely people really agree? Most of the time they'll just concede because they're sick of the argument.


A decision has been reached.



It means that there's far less productive work going on.


As long as the work gets done, it doesn't matter. There's no profit to gain.



Then why does everyone work 9 to 5, five days a week?
People want to have a few extra things. They might also want things that are pretty unnecessary. A a tennis court, a birthday cake, a TV.


Because they have to pay for food, utilities and lodging and those things are expensive? That's where most people's money goes. People do want luxuries. These can be provided. I plan to base my socialist utopia on a stage-by-stage fulfillment of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.



Division of people into small groups with little contact with "outside" groups? Remember this nice study? (http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/12/the-robbers-cav.html)


Yes, it turns out that if you tell people that outsiders are the enemy they believe you. Plus, we're not talking about children here, Furthermore, follow-up proved that they could easily become friends again.



That's because they can't do anything about it. Here they can simply say "No way! Go screw yourselves." and there's nothing anyone can do about it.


And the same applies.



Ever heard of six degrees of seperation? The average seperation is six degrees. The seperation between a palastinian freedom fighter/terrorist and the security forces/occupying forces he blows up is less than 10.
A rough rule: For your people you're very close to you might care about someone two degrees away from them. For people you hang around with occasionally you might care about someone one degree away from them. For people you just barely know you'll care only about them.
Race, language, location. Three things to be bigots about.


The Palestine conflict is territory-based. The religious side of the conflict is just propaganda to help Hamas recruit. Without states, you can't have war between states.



Also, you mentioned no cars. You realize that people won't even know anyone a mere 100 miles away? At all?


Unless they hike, which they can, and people have been known to do. There are also horses.
They don't need to know people 100 miles away. They know people ten miles away. And those people know people ten miles away. And those people... you get my often-repeated drift.



So you DO see the point in a military after all?


I see the point of it. That doesn't mean I approve.



They can MAKE a gun factory.


And where does this group of bandits acquire the relevant materials?



How would they know? Ever heard of masks?
X and Y can quite easily become a bandit society.


That is not a problem unique to my society though, is it? Some people might argue that America is a bandit society. Including me. And, for the sake of balance, so is the land of my birth, England, for following them.



The only person advocating pure socialism is that damned irishman...:smallannoyed:


Socialism is based on principles of people coming first. How can I think any other system is as ethically valid?


YOUR MOVE.

EDIT:



Also DamnedIrishman, I found this little formulae dictating when altruism (such as working when you don't need to) is a good idea:


Nobody is working when they don't need to. That's the whole point! They're doing the work needed to continue their lives.

[Arachu]

The amount of money circulating isn't a problem by itself. Nor is the amount needed, when accompanied by the former.

But the failing point of currency is when economic disasters (such as war, natural events, and the like) occur. The value of certain resources can double (even triple!) from one incident. Economy is frail. Look at history...

Am I the only guy in the WORLD who paid attention in History...

Not to mention; the weakness is the quick rate of price increases. This is a break in the system, as the amount in circulation has to increase. But, the amount awarded for work increase at a steady, slow rate, while the need for money thrashes about erratically. At a certain point, it is like an economic seizure. And there's no medicine or brain surgery for a system.

That cement my point any? :miko:

[Recaiden]

They share it until one of them finally gives up. This whole thing is about autonomous communities - people can govern their lives, and work out compromises and whatever they like. What happens when one person decides they want the bed enough to kill the other guy?


I can see the advantages and disadvantages. What's the real difference between a man with a stick, and a man with a stick and a badge? Police training doesn't change human nature.It helps. And your views on human nature may be incorrect. A man trained not to be just a man with a stick is better.


It's not that bad if you don't have to do much of it. Besides, if they hate it that much they can trade their shift with someone in return for doing something they dislike. And if everyone tries to shirk it, then they can just put it on a rota.Wht do you assume there will be so little work?


Defining 'subsistence' as 'enough to feed the population' not 'everybody tends their smallholding'.
I've said how they could meet: individuals choosing to establish research institutions.Why would they decide to do that? They can get everything that they need working in their community.


Except they wouldn't. If people had to work sixty hours a week to support themselves in my society they would have to work sixty hours a week in the modern society. After all, my society reduces consumption.Doesn't it also reduce production? I think that would decrease a lot more.


So you find like-minded computer wanters and you set up a computer factory.
I don't think it works like that.


Just like they are for 90% of the world. Besides, greenhouses exist.
It's still a bad thing.


Because due to modern agricultural techniques and mass production, it is possible for any number of people to provide for a population which exceeds their own size. If we take the necessary work and divide it equally between the entire population, everyone works a lot less.Some people have to work more. Modernizing everything would help, but on such small scales, maybe not.


If there is sufficient demand and access to the required resources, it will indeed be produced. The fact is, what is a series of small decreases in the ease of your life is in fact a major boost to a huge number of lives around the world.People won't accept that though.


And where does this group of bandits acquire the relevant materials?Banditry? Or their community.


Nobody is working when they don't need to. That's the whole point! They're doing the work needed to continue their lives.Leading to a huge decrease in quality of life for many people.

[DamnedIrishman]

What happens when one person decides they want the bed enough to kill the other guy?


Then the rest of the community deals with him, however they think fair.


It helps. And your views on human nature may be incorrect. A man trained not to be just a man with a stick is better.


And a man with principles holding the stick is better. Why would a community choose a violent bully as their constable?



Wht do you assume there will be so little work?


Because unnessecary occupations are rid of. I've been through this.



Why would they decide to do that? They can get everything that they need working in their community.


Good for them. So they should. We don't need research institutions. But they can exist if people want to create them.



Doesn't it also reduce production? I think that would decrease a lot more.


Yes, it does reduce production. You produce what is necessary, therefore there is no wastage.



I don't think it works like that.


It does. Otherwise, how would they exist in the first place.
Person decides to build it, gets labour and resources... taadaa! Factory. That's how they happened in our world.



It's still a bad thing.


For the 10% of the world relying on the oppression of the 90%, yes. If people are that bothered, they can invest more time in developing new cooking techniques.



Some people have to work more. Modernizing everything would help, but on such small scales, maybe not.


Why?



People won't accept that though.


No, rich people won't accept that. The only reason you think that matters is because they're the ones with power in our society.



Banditry? Or their community.


Every resource available to them is available to their opponents.



Leading to a huge decrease in quality of life for many people.

But a huge increase in life quality for many, many, many, many, many, many more. You can't claim the moral high ground if you live in a western society. That includes me.
10% of the world's population uses 90% of the world's resources. Justify that, and I'll think you have a leg to stand on, so to speak.

[Recaiden]

Every resource available to them is available to their opponents.Unless, you know, their opponents aren't other bandits. Say they attack a village, and take their resources. This village was not prepared for an attack because this hasn't happened before. They now have he resources of 2 villages, more than any other.




But a huge increase in life quality for many, many, many, many, many, many more. You can't claim the moral high ground if you live in a western society. That includes me.
10% of the world's population uses 90% of the world's resources. Justify that, and I'll think you have a leg to stand on, so to speak.Okay, you win there. If I could justify that, I'd have all of the legs to stand on.

[DamnedIrishman]

Unless, you know, their opponents aren't other bandits. Say they attack a village, and take their resources. This village was not prepared for an attack because this hasn't happened before. They now have he resources of 2 villages, more than any other.


But they've proven themselves to be dangerous, so what is to stop the four surrounding villages allying together to stop them?



Okay, you win there. If I could justify that, I'd have all of the legs to stand on.

:smallbiggrin:

[Arachu]

10% of the world's population uses 90% of the world's resources. Justify that, and I'll think you have a leg to stand on, so to speak.

Which leads me back to where I started was last at...

This example illustrates my point. Currency systems slowly bleed to death. And, as history shows, currency systems inevitably have to borrow money from other currency systems, which causes them to collapse when their allies come to collect.

History also shows the only way most systems work for thousands of years without collapsing, is by it being replaced (and reset) every so often. Mandate of Heaven, as China put it. Find a way to make that peaceful, and you have a major component of a utopian (or close to utopian) society that is viable.

[DamnedIrishman]

History also shows the only way most systems work for thousands of years without collapsing, is by it being replaced (and reset) every so often. Mandate of Heaven, as China put it. Find a way to make that peaceful, and you have a major component of a utopian (or close to utopian) society that is viable.

Adopt, adapt and improve...

You have a point there. The question remains on how to institutionalise the revolution though, without the need for bloodthirsty Mongol hordes.

EDIT: I have noticed a significant decrease in the amount of challenges to my political theories since I started incorporating regular games of naked frisbee into them. Learn from this, would-be future political leaders.

[expirement10K14]

In my opinion, an ideal society must remain small and tight knit. The larger the society, the harder it is to govern.

Our schools local Socialist said that he is well aware that pure socialism is not feasible, but that an ideal society should have a tiered structure.

His example was using the U.S.

Imagine that each neighborhood selects their own leader, who acts as their representative. The leaders from each neighborhood get together with other leaders in their county, choosing one of them to be their representative at the regional level. This goes on to State, then to a larger grouping. (time zones or similar). The four or five left would act as the leaders of the country. I personally like this system as each tier is now responsible for choosing those above them, and those voting know the representatives they vote for well.

[Arachu]

Adopt, adapt and improve...

You have a point there. The question remains on how to institutionalise the revolution though, without the need for bloodthirsty Mongol hordes.


Exactly. Perhaps the society should revise itself every 30 years or so?:smallconfused:

Not really sure how it'd work, but I'm sure someone has an idea :smalltongue:



EDIT: I have noticed a significant decrease in the amount of challenges to my political theories since I started incorporating regular games of naked frisbee into them. Learn from this, would-be future political leaders.

Yes. Feel the power of naked frisbee. :smallwink:

[Trizap]

I'd hate to live where you do then, because you must be surrounded by some pretty horrible people. Everyone I know cares about others - their friends, their families, even their communities. Why have so many people here lost faith in human nature? Where are you people all from that things are so bad?

no, everyone from I come from is really nice, in fact I growing up in the second best place to grow up in the U.S. almost everyone I know are good people,
real beautiful and all that- where I grew up just doesn't affect my viewpoint, I'm my own person, I can believe anything I want.

I advocate for a republic and capitalism because both of those systems acknowledge the world ain't perfect, and thus allow themselves to be self-correcting.

that and people have already tried socialism, people have already tried communism.

we all know how that turned out.

really, everyone is trying to find an ideal society, which is impossible.

what you need to find is a society that works, the society we have here seems to be working fine for now.

[DamnedIrishman]

no, everyone from I come from is really nice, in fact I growing up in the second best place to grow up in the U.S. almost everyone I know are good people,
real beautiful and all that- where I grew up just doesn't affect my viewpoint, I'm my own person, I can believe anything I want.


So why are you convinced they're all selfish, uncaring people then?



I advocate for a republic and capitalism because both of those systems acknowledge the world ain't perfect, and thus allow themselves to be self-correcting.


Except capitalism seems to work more on the principle, "The world ain't perfect so why bother trying when some of us could just grow rich by stamping down on our fellow man." Or at least that's how it demonstrates itself in our world.
Besides, a republic means a state without a king. Narrow it down. Unless you mean republic as "America is a republic", in which you mean a representative democracy.



that and people have already tried socialism, people have already tried communism.

we all know how that turned out.

really, everyone is trying to find an ideal society, which is impossible.

what you need to find is a society that works, the society we have here seems to be working fine for now.

We've tried capitalism, and we can see how that's turned out: terribly. People dying of easily treatable diseases, people not given access to food and clean water, 10% of the global population using 90% of global resources, crime, corruption and now a global recession!
The society we have now is working fine for you dear friend, not working fine in general.

[Trizap]

So why are you convinced they're all selfish, uncaring people then?


they are not.

I'm just saying a good society has to give the people what they want, people buy what they want, not what they need, its unreasonable to think that people will put aside so much of themselves for the rest of the community, because if
they do, such people become insignificant, unable to live up to their full potential because they are so busy with helping everyone else, and what will your group-based system and conformity be good for when all the people aren't what all they could be? while your system addresses the quantity of the people, it does not take in mind their quality, something of which I would rather have. I would rather put up with having only a few quality friends and dealing with all the idiots and jerks that I come across in the world, rather than live in a place where everyone can't be truly who they can be, where people are forced to be homogeneous and have all the same personalities, I don't care if I get along with people, I'd rather meet different people, variation is needed in the world, diversity is needed.

and might I point out more flaws of socialism? oppressive, restrictive, no motivation to work why? because everyone gets payed the same amount,
there is no motivation to move up or work harder because I won't get more rewards for my efforts, one guy could work harder than another guy who only works a bit less, and guess what? they still receive the same amount,
despite that one guy wasn't really working that hard, basically, since everyone got payed all the same amount would just get lazy with working, the socialist economy would collapse from not enough being done.

and while you say that capitalism is bad, socialism is pretty much dead; China has made many reforms, North Korea has degenerated into a stagnant dictatorship, and Cuba's economy is not doing very well.

then there is capitalism which has been around before socialism and is still going strong that and we had a global depression before and we bounced back, we just have to figure out how to do that without a world war, something I'm pretty sure humanity is smart enough to do, we don't need revamp, we just need to self correct ourselves, as I've said capitalism is self-correcting because its a free market, people don't want the depression to continue therefore they will find a way to fix it because that is what the consumers want, as someone said, cycles like the mandate of heaven would be needed- we just need to turn these global depression into a nonviolent economic form of that because that is how capitalism will go anyways: in cycles.

[DamnedIrishman]

they are not.

The point is moot, because I didn't think they were. It was merely a (somewhat) strawman argument responding to your statement that people won't work together for net benefit of all.



I'm just saying a good society has to give the people what they want, people buy what they want, not what they need, its unreasonable to think that people will put aside so much of themselves for the rest of the community, because if
they do, such people become insignificant, unable to live up to their full potential because they are so busy with helping everyone else, and what will your group-based system and conformity be good for when all the people aren't what all they could be? while your system addresses the quantity of the people, it does not take in mind their quality, something of which I would rather have. I would rather put up with having only a few quality friends and dealing with all the idiots and jerks that I come across in the world, rather than live in a place where everyone can't be truly who they can be, where people are forced to be homogeneous and have all the same personalities, I don't care if I get along with people, I'd rather meet different people, variation is needed in the world, diversity is needed.


I don't put myself before the rest of the world. I don't assume I'm a better person than millions in dire poverty. You do not seem to actually have studied my proposed system - it's purpose is to provide for all and maximise the development of all, which the capitalist system demonstrably fails to do. You seem to be in favour of elites dominating the rest of the world. My conscience can never support this.



and might I point out more flaws of socialism? oppressive, restrictive, no motivation to work why? because everyone gets payed the same amount,
there is no motivation to move up or work harder because I won't get more rewards for my efforts, one guy could work harder than another guy who only works a bit less, and guess what? they still receive the same amount,
despite that one guy wasn't really working that hard, basically, since everyone got payed all the same amount would just get lazy with working, the socialist economy would collapse from not enough being done.


We've been through these arguments over the past few pages. If you would care to re-read through these and raise a specific point of reasoning that you disagree with, I'll happily counterargue.



and while you say that capitalism is bad, socialism is pretty much dead; China has made many reforms, North Korea has degenerated into a stagnant dictatorship, and Cuba's economy is not doing very well.


I wouldn't call any of those countries 'socialist'. Furthermore, they all differ from my suggested ideal society.
China is the only economy in the entire world predicted to grow this year.



then there is capitalism which has been around before socialism and is still going strong that and we had a global depression before and we bounced back, we just have to figure out how to do that without a world war, something I'm pretty sure humanity is smart enough to do, we don't need revamp, we just need to self correct ourselves, as I've said capitalism is self-correcting because its a free market, people don't want the depression to continue therefore they will find a way to fix it because that is what the consumers want, as someone said, cycles like the mandate of heaven would be needed- we just need to turn these global depression into a nonviolent economic form of that because that is how capitalism will go anyways: in cycles.

Capitalism wasn't around before socialism. Socialist societies have existed for millenia - look at native american and incan society for examples. Socialist societies came first because they existed before currency, before cities - the earliest human tribal societies are socialist and communitarian.
Capitalism is still growing strong by oppressing the majority of the world's population. Your arguments fail to address that fact. Even America has 17% of it's population around the poverty line. That's not a record to be proud of.

[Yarram]

It wouldn't work, because while a person is smart, people are stupid.

I'm sorry to say, but I completely disagree with this. I'd say, SOME persons are smart... But most aren't, and due to overwhelming numbers of stupid persons, people are stupid.

EDIT:


they do, such people become insignificant, unable to live up to their full potential because they are so busy with helping everyone else, and what will your group-based system and conformity be good for when all the people aren't what all they could be?

Pardon, just for personal interest, and not as an attack against your argument or anything, what do you define "full potential" to be. Because it seems to me that you've just used that statement as a truism.
If you're like me, what you're interested more than anything else is happiness. The whole point of a so-called ideal society, is to give as much potential for happiness as possible, or at least that's what I assume. Does it really matter, that some you-buet (good) technology isn't discovered if everyone is content with their lives?

EDIT EDIT:
I'd also like to point out that socialism doesn't necessarily mean communism, for example, my idea of socialism would be a society where every company was owned by the government, and the government produced everything, and people worked for the government for money, then payed the government for goods. Of course this requires a lack of corruption that we assume is implausible given the history of scumbags.
The point of this though, is it makes sure everyone is working. You still have to work, and aren't given anything free.

[Erts]

I'm new here, and I'm just wondering...
How does your society deal with things which are uncontrollable?
Hurricanes, droughts, disease, tornados, floods, etc.
Also, when you say "if you want to build a computer, you can make a factory," your not making much sense.
Computers and much high tech machinery take a lot of stuff to build, and if there are no cars, and you don't know any one more than 100 miles away?:smallconfused:

[DamnedIrishman]

I'm new here, and I'm just wondering...
How does your society deal with things which are uncontrollable?
Hurricanes, droughts, disease, tornados, floods, etc.


Same way any society would - food and support to those that need it, then helping rebuild the damage.



Also, when you say "if you want to build a computer, you can make a factory," your not making much sense.
Computers and much high tech machinery take a lot of stuff to build, and if there are no cars, and you don't know any one more than 100 miles away?:smallconfused:

Been through this so many times...

Besides, who needs computers when you have naked frisbee and wild, untamed, regular lovemaking? People have their priorities wrong...

[Shadowcaller]

Besides, who needs computers when you have naked frisbee and wild, untamed, regular lovemaking? People have their priorities wrong...

...
People have sex about 6-8 times a month, I doubt the lovemaking will take up that much of their time. :smallsigh:

[Erts]

Been through this so many times...

Besides, who needs computers when you have naked frisbee and wild, untamed, regular lovemaking? People have their priorities wrong...

Ummmm, love making is nice, but so is the joy of knowledge, of discovery, of gazing outside a airplane onto beutiful scenarios.
The joy of downloads? The joy of reading? The joy of video games?
What about being able to talk to people across the world?
Plus, ever heard of porn? It comes on a computer now.

And trust me, if a hurricane is coming, you will want cars and roads, and probably planes.

[DamnedIrishman]

...
People have sex about 6-8 times a month, I doubt the lovemaking will take up that much of their time. :smallsigh:

Speak for yourself.

Don't expect coherent arguments from me right now, I am absolutely exhausted from the gym and an impromptu night out. Time for a bath with classical accompaniment and then a warm bed.

Besides, people would canoodle more if they weren't distracted by TV and computers. Especially if they were bronzed and toned from regular games of naked frisbee.


Ummmm, love making is nice, but so is the joy of knowledge, of discovery, of gazing outside a airplane onto beutiful scenarios.
The joy of downloads? The joy of reading? The joy of video games?
What about being able to talk to people across the world?
Plus, ever heard of porn? It comes on a computer now.

And trust me, if a hurricane is coming, you will want cars and roads, and probably planes.

Last thing I want in a hurricane is a plane.

Porn doesn't even compare to sex. Neither do video games, downloads and staring out of airplanes, if it's done tight right. And if you're not doing it right, you should be practicing.

EDIT: Hell of a typo...

[Erts]

But sex isn't everything!
What about hunting? How is that done?
Or zoos? Or museums? Who builds those?
The society you describe sounds a lot like the one in the Giver, (not meant to be insult) except for the fact they know what death is, and there is not as much censorship.

And how does naked frisbee work in the Saharaa? What about in the Artic Circle?
And mountain ranges? And rainforests?

EDIT: By hunting, I don't mean the joys of hunting. I mean, how will people hunt?

[Shadowcaller]

Speak for yourself.

Don't expect coherent arguments from me right now, I am absolutely exhausted from the gym and an impromptu night out. Time for a bath with classical accompaniment and then a warm bed.

Besides, people would canoodle more if they weren't distracted by TV and computers. Especially if they were bronzed and toned from regular games of naked frisbee.



Last thing I want in a hurricane is a plane.

Porn doesn't even compare to sex. Neither do video games, downloads and staring out of airplanes, if it's done tight. And if you're not doing it right, you should be practicing.

Yes, lets assume that all people like exactly the same things, you are already assuming that all people all peaceloving and caring. So why don't step a bit further?

Yes, I do speak for myself since I am another person with different intrests from you, I do not share your views and neither will every person in your society.

[DamnedIrishman]

But sex isn't everything!
What about hunting? How is that done?
Or zoos? Or museums? Who builds those?
The society you describe sounds a lot like the one in the Giver, (not meant to be insult) except for the fact they know what death is, and there is not as much censorship.


I draw your attention to the following statement:


Don't expect coherent arguments from me right now, I am absolutely exhausted from the gym and an impromptu night out. Time for a bath with classical accompaniment and then a warm bed.

No hunting - what's the point? Just raise livestock.
Zoos? You want to capture a load of animals and keep them in pens for people to gawp at, be my guest.
Same goes for museums. That's how they originated, y'know. Collections by collectors.



And how does naked frisbee work in the Saharaa? What about in the Artic Circle?
And mountain ranges? And rainforests?

Sunscreen, giant igloos, plateaus and clearings.
:smalltongue:



Yes, I do speak for myself since I am another person with different intrests from you, I do not share your views and neither will every person in your society.

Well it is my ideal society, isn't it? Rather the point...

[Erts]

I draw your attention to the following statement:

No hunting - what's the point? Just raise livestock.
Zoos? You want to capture a load of animals and keep them in pens for people to gawp at, be my guest.
Same goes for museums. That's how they originated, y'know. Collections by collectors.



Sunscreen, giant igloos, plateaus and clearings.
:smalltongue:





Because you say you are tired, I won't judge you.
It is also possible you just used sarcasm.
If so, one of 2 things.
1: Don't use sarcasm to give solution for your plans.

If not, then
2: Really? Have you ever been in a desert? What about a sand dune desert? What about hostile places, with poisonous frogs, dangerous animals, conditions, and many other things?
And in todays world, you can have sex as much as you can in yours. You also can use complicated machinery.

(I just want to say though, you do seem like a very smart guy. And I certainly like debating political philosophy [any philosophy really.])

[Faulty]

I think I'll just drop this (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html) here. Might help some curious people out...

[Erts]

The thing is, he is arguing his brand of anarcho socialism.
Mainly, it is close knit societies all over the world, with free sex, free stuff, free opoturnities, etc.
The problem with this is that some people like to explore. To invent. To research. To test the boundaries of what might happen, of human ingenuity.
What if some guy in a society in Iowa wants to go the ends of the earth? What if he wants to see a lion? What if he wants to see the bay of fundy? Or the Grand Canyon? Or trek the alps? Sail around the world? Gaze into a city of lights? Should he waste his time building a boat, trying to survive mountains, and all kinds of logistical problems?
Free sex and naked freesbee is nice, but still, this stuff is better. And, naked freesbee only works if the climate is alright.

Plus, what about people with STI's (They are now called infections, except for HIV.)? How do they fit into this free sex thing? Or lepers? Or phyisically deformed people?

His society might work if the world was an endless great plane with rivers, and equal resourses spread everywhere. Unfortunately, its not.

[DamnedIrishman]

The problem with this is that some people like to explore. To invent. To research. To test the boundaries of what might happen, of human ingenuity.
What if some guy in a society in Iowa wants to go the ends of the earth? What if he wants to see a lion? What if he wants to see the bay of fundy? Or the Grand Canyon? Or trek the alps? Sail around the world? Gaze into a city of lights? Should he waste his time building a boat, trying to survive mountains, and all kinds of logistical problems?

The other 'problem' is that my society is based upon principles of equal distribution of resources to promote a pleasant lifestyle for all six billion people on this planet. For the people who are members of the 10% of the world's population consuming 90% of global resources, this often means you can't do as much as you can now.
However, I have no sympathy with this argument because the ability to do such things is standing on the oppression of others.

If people want to travel, they can travel. If you want to trek to the ends of the earth, then do so. But don't be suprised when this takes several years instead of a few days of plane travel. You'll value it more if you do it the honest way.

[Recaiden]

It isn't your ideal society. It's the ideal society. And how is using technology to travel dishonest?

[DamnedIrishman]

It isn't your ideal society. It's the ideal society. And how is using technology to travel dishonest?

It's not. "The honest way" is more a figure of speech.

It is my envisioning of the ideal society, ergo it is what I think the ideal society would be like, ergo it is my ideal society.

Creating the mutual ideal society is a different task altogether and given the average amount of cooperation between the Left and the Right, practically impossible.

[Erts]

And the other problems?

Look, I encourage you to try to trek through the Himalayas without equipment.

In your society, it takes years and years to go somewhere. People who leave their communities probally never see their home again.

What about the STI's? And lepers?

And what if I want to write a book? Will only people in my community get to read it?
How will you spread out these resourses? Do you dig up mountains, and lift them over the world?
Example: I live in a place with no iron. I want to build something which requires iron. The nearest place is several hundred miles away.
So how do I even tell people over there I want some iron?

What about in the artic? Or a desert? It takes way more than six hours of work to do something.

You have a good idea. It just doesn't work when you factor in geography and logistics. You say, "This works, I have calculated."
True, this could work on a small scale. But you have to factor in the whole world.

[DamnedIrishman]

And the other problems?

Look, I encourage you to try to trek through the Himalayas without equipment.

In your society, it takes years and years to go somewhere. People who leave their communities probally never see their home again.

What about the STI's? And lepers?

And what if I want to write a book? Will only people in my community get to read it?
How will you spread out these resourses? Do you dig up mountains, and lift them over the world?
Example: I live in a place with no iron. I want to build something which requires iron. The nearest place is several hundred miles away.
So how do I even tell people over there I want some iron?

What about in the artic? Or a desert? It takes way more than six hours of work to do something.

You have a good idea. It just doesn't work when you factor in geography and logistics. You say, "This works, I have calculated."
True, this could work on a small scale. But you have to factor in the whole world.

Just because I believe in the equitable distribution of resources doesn't mean I think everyone should live in small isolated, self-sufficient villages. Mass production and modern agricultural methods are required for my society to exist, and that relies on infrastructure and cooperation between communities to run larger scale industrial operations. Without such techniques, a six-hour week is quite frankly laughable.

Just because I don't like cars doesn't mean you can't travel more than a hundred miles. There are such things as trains. I'm not a complete Luddite - I don't want to ban everything invented in the past hundred years. That means socially-owned, open access free radio, television and internet (although internet perhaps renders the previous two obsolete).

If something is possible now, it is possible in my society. The only difference is that people work for the good of everyone instead of for wages, and in return for working they get their share of the fruits of everyone else's labour - in return for practicing medicine, or working the fields, or fixing leaking taps, or maintaining broadband cables, they get food and board and entertainment.

In the meantime, I welcome a better alternative.

[Erts]

Just because I believe in the equitable distribution of resources doesn't mean I think everyone should live in small isolated, self-sufficient villages. Mass production and modern agricultural methods are required for my society to exist, and that relies on infrastructure and cooperation between communities to run larger scale industrial operations. Without such techniques, a six-hour week is quite frankly laughable.

Just because I don't like cars doesn't mean you can't travel more than a hundred miles. There are such things as trains. I'm not a complete Luddite - I don't want to ban everything invented in the past hundred years. That means socially-owned, open access free radio, television and internet (although internet perhaps renders the previous two obsolete).

If something is possible now, it is possible in my society. The only difference is that people work for the good of everyone instead of for wages, and in return for working they get their share of the fruits of everyone else's labour - in return for practicing medicine, or working the fields, or fixing leaking taps, or maintaining broadband cables, they get food and board and entertainment.

In the meantime, I welcome a better alternative.

So who is going to build this train? Who is going to enforce rules about it?
What is going to power it? And how will a global system of trains going all over the world be more efficent? (A global system of trains! Thats going to take a while.)



If I am working to survive, I don't care about some guy i have never heard of over 100 miles away and if he has internet. (I care about his well being yes, but why should he have internet?)

What about expensive treatments for diseases? MRI's are complex, how will we build those? They cost 3 million dollars.



You don't need governments. You just need communities to look after themselves.
Sorry to bring an old point back up, but I think you have contradicted yourself.

While I agree it is unfair 10% of the population uses 90% of the worlds resourses, this is not a solution.

[DamnedIrishman]

So who is going to build this train? Who is going to enforce rules about it?
What is going to power it? And how will a global system of trains going all over the world be more efficent? (A global system of trains! Thats going to take a while.)


Compared to a global system of cars and roads? They're about as feasible as each other, except that trains move people more efficiently due to lower fuel use per passenger



If I am working to survive, I don't care about some guy i have never heard of over 100 miles away and if he has internet. (I care about his well being yes, but why should he have internet?)


Because if he gets internet, you get internet.



What about expensive treatments for diseases? MRI's are complex, how will we build those? They cost 3 million dollars.


They're free if you have the resources and the technical knowledge to build them. Stop thinking in terms of currency.



Sorry to bring an old point back up, but I think you have contradicted yourself.


Cooperation is the keyword.



While I agree it is unfair 10% of the population uses 90% of the worlds resourses, this is not a solution.

It's a better solution that just ignoring the problem.

[Erts]

It will be harder. Who will organize the system to build it? Or regulate it?
You need some kind of group, either a government or a company, or a group. Small communities can't just go "hey, you want a giant train?" "oh sure, i'll just give up my naked frisbee and sex to build a train."
And internet? Laying down giant cable all over the world?

Most people won't want to travel. So why build a train?

MRI's cost a lot because it is hard to run them. It consumes a lot of resourses. They are giant spinning magnets with complex machines measuring fired up particles.

And what about lepers?
And brain surgery. You can't just have untrained civilians do that.

Space travel? Deep sea exploring?

[Surrealistik]

This thread cannot end well.

[DamnedIrishman]

It will be harder. Who will organize the system to build it? Or regulate it?
You need some kind of group, either a government or a company, or a group. Small communities can't just go "hey, you want a giant train?" "oh sure, i'll just give up my naked frisbee and sex to build a train."
And internet? Laying down giant cable all over the world?

Most people won't want to travel. So why build a train?

MRI's cost a lot because it is hard to run them. It consumes a lot of resourses. They are giant spinning magnets with complex machines measuring fired up particles.

And what about lepers?
And brain surgery. You can't just have untrained civilians do that.

Space travel? Deep sea exploring?

I haven't got the time to reply properly to this now, as I am going out. However, I will be back in four and a bit hours and I will do just that.

In the meantime, rise to the challenge and suggest an alternative model for a better society.

Good luck.

:smallsmile:

[Erts]

I only just got back myself.

The perfect society can't be reached by some guys ideas. Well, certainly not mine. And probably noone either.

If I could have an ideal society? Hmmmm....

:smallsmile:

Magic. Lots of magic.

I'm not trying to sound hypocritical as in "well, you have a better idea?"
I don't.
But that doesn't mean your right.
I think that societies, in general, always have flaws, but are able to do okay. People want to be happy, and generally are.
Of course, there were and lots of bad societies that did not work. (Nazi Germany, Wartorn countries, slave countries etc.)

This also comes down to how we define society, they can range from a family to the entire world. Arguably, GITP is a society, 30,000 strong plus. (Hard to gauge how many people have backup accounts, and how many dead accounts there are.)

This has been an extremely interesting discussion though.

[hamishspence]

How to encourage cooperation is always a tricky question. Carrot rather than stick makes a lot of sense- people work together because they see the profit in doing so. Threatening people in order to get them to work together for no immediate reward sounds a lot like slavery.

Property rights are not something that can just be completely thrown out- they've existed for a very long time. Even animals have a concept of territory and things that belong to them- how exactly can humans get along completely without it?

[V'icternus]

*Note: Feel free to disregard this post, as I am tired, sick, and as I think I just saw a T-Rex walking down my street, possibly delusional*

I've looked at Humans for a while now. Seen what they do as a populace, and studied their history. I've seen the variations, and I've seen that no matter how you define htem, they refuse to be pigeonholed. There is always a group of people who are different, and oppose your views, even if those views are as basic as "people like freedom".

Also, I have been working on my ideas for an ideal society. For my ideal society. And it starts of rather drastically...
First off, freedom gets axed. At least for a while. No freedoms, no rights, just shut up and get back in line.
Next, currency gets replaced with nothing. A big uprooting happens, and a new system is put in place. You get what you get. (Basically: If you can get it yourself, good. If you can't, then get it from someone else. If you have something someone wants, and you're not in need of it, give it to them)

Now, for an even more drastic step...

Criminals. The downside of society is criminals. So, if you're proven to be a criminal, and we aren't convinced that you wont do it again...
Well, we kill you. Prisons are a waste of space, money and time. You wanna wreck the world for others? Then you die. (This also reduces the population, helping with world hunger and overcrowded populaces.)

Of course, this society would have to be globe-spanning. And, in the end (which may take upwards of a decade), everyone left alive would be much better off than they were beforehand.

Fear, and forcing people to do what they should, is the only way to give them the best society they can have. Give people the freedom to decide themeselves, and you get arguments, conflicting views, and disunity. And if ythey don't unify, they seperate. If they seperate, they're not a society any more, they're multiple societies. So, this incredibly extremist and crazy pathway is the only one that leads to a calm, unified society.

Feel free to nitpick (I've already had many concerns expressed to me about the whole "killing off upwards of a third of the human race" thing), and above all, remember that this is basically tough love, but with the cold minded emotionlessness of a machine.

*And again, please see the above note when considering my current sanity*

[Faulty]

*dude I'm so hardcore*

Very angsty societal concept you have going.

[Erts]

*Note: Feel free to disregard this post, as I am tired, sick, and as I think I just saw a T-Rex walking down my street, possibly delusional*

I've looked at Humans for a while now. Seen what they do as a populace, and studied their history. I've seen the variations, and I've seen that no matter how you define htem, they refuse to be pigeonholed. There is always a group of people who are different, and oppose your views, even if those views are as basic as "people like freedom".

True. With you so far.


Also, I have been working on my ideas for an ideal society. For my ideal society. And it starts of rather drastically...
First off, freedom gets axed. At least for a while. No freedoms, no rights, just shut up and get back in line.
Next, currency gets replaced with nothing. A big uprooting happens, and a new system is put in place. You get what you get. (Basically: If you can get it yourself, good. If you can't, then get it from someone else. If you have something someone wants, and you're not in need of it, give it to them)
My mind is going through a big huge :eek::confused: moment.
First: I can see why you think this might be a good idea, etc, but you got holes.
Namely: How, why, and who? You can't just declare "freedom, and all rights which have been hundred of years old are gone!" You have to get some kind of action.
Currency is an even bigger one to rid of. If this is an organization, then how will you pay them? Why should anyone listen to you?
And if I have my old Gameboy, and someone wants it, why should I give it to them rather than to a young cousin? And how do you determine if it is being used or not? Whats to stop me from lieing?



Now, for an even more drastic step...

Criminals. The downside of society is criminals. So, if you're proven to be a criminal, and we aren't convinced that you wont do it again...
Well, we kill you. Prisons are a waste of space, money and time. You wanna wreck the world for others? Then you die. (This also reduces the population, helping with world hunger and overcrowded populaces.)

Again, I can see how this is argueble, but, most criminals and murderors are not caught.
Also, there are plenty of crimes which you can't possibly argue are death sentanceble, like, stealing 500 dollars, or vandalism. Even if you say "they are a waste of space," it is still better just to have them pay a fine, or watched.
And what about crimes which someone was falsely sentanced for? Its not their fault that they are a waste of space, they much rather would be out of prison.

And, while I am sure you thought of this, but isn't this just the slaughther of innocents in some respects? Can I just shoot your mom in the face because she is accused of murder, or destroyed some fancy heirloom of a person who was a jerk to her because I am the state?


Of course, this society would have to be globe-spanning. And, in the end (which may take upwards of a decade), everyone left alive would be much better off than they were beforehand.

Fear, and forcing people to do what they should, is the only way to give them the best society they can have. Give people the freedom to decide themeselves, and you get arguments, conflicting views, and disunity. And if ythey don't unify, they seperate. If they seperate, they're not a society any more, they're multiple societies. So, this incredibly extremist and crazy pathway is the only one that leads to a calm, unified society.

Feel free to nitpick (I've already had many concerns expressed to me about the whole "killing off upwards of a third of the human race" thing), and above all, remember that this is basically tough love, but with the cold minded emotionlessness of a machine.

*And again, please see the above note when considering my current sanity*

The thing is, there is no way to achieve this. There would just be rebellion.

And in the end, change would happen. Borders would be drawn. Fights would happen.

And how would there be impartiality? Could you depend on those implementing the rules to be completely unbiased?

Why would they want to give back this power in the end?

Your talking about something close to a fascist dictatorship, just this time, you don't target a group. And no currency.

[V'icternus]

Well, obviously my perfect society is not one which people can look at and like. It's rough, it's extreme, and most of all, it involves the killing of people for random petty crimes. Still, I've considered the other possible ways of getting a perfect society, and none work. This way, the people who are left are very happy, and the people who aren't left... well, they're dead, so, you know... whatever.

This is why people can never really have a perfect society. Society fails. People just refuse to live at peace with other people. So, some kind of massive change would have to take place. And, whatever's in charge would have to have supreme and unstoppable power. In the end, everything's good for those remaining, but during the process itself...

Well, it might take three full generations to get the end result desired.

[Faulty]

Well, obviously my perfect society is not one which people can look at and like. It's rough, it's extreme, and most of all, it involves the killing of people for random petty crimes. Still, I've considered the other possible ways of getting a perfect society, and none work. This way, the people who are left are very happy, and the people who aren't left... well, they're dead, so, you know... whatever.

This is the epitome of pseudo-philosophical wangst.

[Erts]

Well, obviously my perfect society is not one which people can look at and like. It's rough, it's extreme, and most of all, it involves the killing of people for random petty crimes. Still, I've considered the other possible ways of getting a perfect society, and none work. This way, the people who are left are very happy, and the people who aren't left... well, they're dead, so, you know... whatever.

This is why people can never really have a perfect society. Society fails. People just refuse to live at peace with other people. So, some kind of massive change would have to take place. And, whatever's in charge would have to have supreme and unstoppable power. In the end, everything's good for those remaining, but during the process itself...

Well, it might take three full generations to get the end result desired.

No, your society wouldn't work.

Well, only under one very specified condition. If there is some unpartial being carrying it out.

I think like skynet. Human error comes in, people will keep power, people won't get caught, currency won't get anything done, etc.

[V'icternus]

See, that might be the way to go about it... impartial, emotionless machines...

Emotional leadership is not useful. Letting people slip through the cracks and making choices based on your emotions is not the way to go, because that usually leads to... well, modern society.

But, machines keeping everything in line could work...

Obviously, after time has passed, general freedom would be awarded. People could do anything they liked as long as they didn't hurt anyone in any way.

As for people not getting caught, well, there's only one way to solve that problem 100%, and it's not the perfect society. It's basic genocide.

Still, deterants being more severe than crimes is one way of saying "we're sick of you criminals, so get out of our lives".


Anyway, for now, such measures aren't neccesary. The world is still less screwed up than it could be. Give it fifty years or so, though... (So, you know, after I'm probably long dead...)

[Arachu]

I will say this; though freedom is undeniably one of the greatest things ever, the lack of freedom is horrible and miserable (typically), and I heavily support freedom and the concept of freedom, some people just can't be trusted with freedom.

Which is why prisons (and, frankly, the death penalty) are a good thing. The only problem with most court systems, however, is that they rely on the impartiality and honor of the judge (which, ideally, is true, but unfortunately, it is not always so).

Even though I'm obsessed with freedom and oppose all forms of oppression, I will admit that emotion must be omitted (I would say 'ousted', but that's a tad strong) from possibility.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go autohypnotise myself so I forget that I said all of this. I need to preserve my sanity somehow... :durkon:

[V'icternus]

I will say this; though freedom is undeniably one of the greatest things ever, the lack of freedom is horrible and miserable (typically), and I heavily support freedom and the concept of freedom, some people just can't be trusted with freedom.

Which is why prisons (and, frankly, the death penalty) are a good thing. The only problem with most court systems, however, is that they rely on the impartiality and honor of the judge (which, ideally, is true, but unfortunately, it is not always so).

Even though I'm obsessed with freedom and oppose all forms of oppression, I will admit that emotion must be omitted (I would say 'ousted', but that's a tad strong) from possibility.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go autohypnotise myself so I forget that I said all of this. I need to preserve my sanity somehow... :durkon:

Preserve it? No, get rid of it. Join my side. We have chocolate flavoured bath towels and flying remote controls.

First step: Don't sleep at nighttime. Being nocturnal is fun! :smallbiggrin:
Second step: Be insane. :smalltongue:
Third step: Make a list of steps, following each one with some form of smiley. :smallsmile:

Then, voila! You're on the crazy team.

Also, yeah, leaders can't have emotion, however, they should always take its effect on others into account.

[Yarram]

I will say this; though freedom is undeniably one of the greatest things ever, the lack of freedom is horrible and miserable (typically), and I heavily support freedom and the concept of freedom, some people just can't be trusted with freedom.


What is freedom?

[V'icternus]

Freedom (or one definition of it) is the ability to do what you want, when you want.

[Yarram]

Freedom (or one definition of it) is the ability to do what you want, when you want.

What you want, when you want? That's a fairly shallow view (not intended as a flame by the way). I asked the question in an attempt to provoke thought, as opposed to being given a one-liner without the ramifications being considered, and also so I wouldn't have to reply mildy condescendingly and scathingly, which isn't intentional again, but I am tired.

As we are currently, we can do anything we want, at any time to the best of our physical capabilities. For example if I wanted to bash up some little kid, I could. Of course, there would be consequence. By the definition of "What you want, when you want," you're not asking for freedom per-say, rather life without personal consequence. This is of course ridiculous, because if I were allowed to live my life without consequence, then the rest of the world would bear the consequence of my actions. For example if I kicked a child, the child would have no choice but to accept the kick graciously without any negative reaction towards me, as reacting to my kick would be a consequence on me. This is extremely hippocritical, and I'm sorry to say it, (I'm not directing this at anyone in particular, merely pointing out that this hasn't been thought through) anyone that thinks like that is clearly an ****-hole. To live with freedom unhippocritically would require that whenever anyone performs a negative action towards you, you would not be allowed to react in turn or you'd be impeaching on their freedom.

The whole point of restricting "freedom" is to protect us from wankers. If there were no legal consequence in a society (which having true freedom means) for anything, then the society would dissolve into gangs, and the whole "society" would disappear. If there were to ever be a free society, human-kind would have to be perfect. Seeing as it's not, having any sort of freedom is ridiculous, as all freedom is bought at the expense of others having the same luxury.

In conclusion, I give everyone permission to do whatever they want, to the best of their physical abilities. If you want more than your physical abilities then you are either a) disabled, in which case I forgive you, or b) dellusional, because you seem to want the world offered to you on a silver platter, without you having to work hard like most of the rest of us.

[DamnedIrishman]

By the definition of "What you want, when you want," you're not asking for freedom per-say, rather life without personal consequence.

Needless to say, true freedom is only ever possible for one individual at a time. The function of a freedom-loving society is to balance the needs of the individual fairly with the needs of all other individuals.

[Yarram]

Needless to say, true freedom is only ever possible for one individual at a time. The function of a freedom-loving society is to balance the needs of the individual fairly with the needs of all other individuals.

Exactly my point.

EDIT: BTW I forgot to mention.

the lack of freedom is horrible and miserable (typically),

That is a truism. (see above post)

[V'icternus]

Actually, I don't want life without consequence. I just see freedom as being "do whatever, whenever". Which, yeah, we can do now. Right now, I have a lot of freedom. However, if I excersise it in certain ways, there will be consequences. So, I have to decide what to do and what not to do. However, I am still free to do whatever I like.

[DamnedIrishman]

That is a truism.

I would not say that the idea that 'lack of freedom is horrible and miserable' is a truism. In fact, quite the opposite: freedom is a heavy burden. Freedom means loneliness, because to be free is to be independent of others. Freedom means being responsible to oneself and oneself alone - a heavy psychological burden.
Freedom does not bring the the pleasures of comfortable slavery. Freedom does not mean happiness. A huge majority of people across the globe would willingly give up their freedom in return for shelter, food and stability in their lives. And why should they not? One who is not free can be happy and fulfilled - lack of freedom does not necessarily constrain the mind, the spirit and the emotions. Every prisoner can think, love and dream.


However, if I excersise it in certain ways, there will be consequences. So, I have to decide what to do and what not to do. However, I am still free to do whatever I like.

So then, everyone is ultimately free then? Human freedom can only be constrained by heavier 'consequences', unless one developed a way of controlling the brain, or perhaps by drugging an individual.

Another thought: every man is a slave to his own limitations.

[V'icternus]

Exactly. Freedom is objective.

[DamnedIrishman]

Exactly. Freedom is objective.

Freedom is ultimately objective. But it is our subjective interpretations of it that matter: nobody cares about their freedom if they don't realise they're oppressed.

[Arachu]

First step: Don't sleep at nighttime. Being nocturnal is fun! :smallbiggrin:
Second step: Be insane. :smalltongue:
Third step: Make a list of steps, following each one with some form of smiley. :smallsmile:


Okay, so we know I'm crazy :smalltongue:

---------------------------------------


My criteria for 'freedom' (butcher for words as you see fit :smalltongue:)

1: You have the power to do that which furthers yourself.
2: You do not (have to) live in fear of your own (assigned) protectors.
3: You have the ability to leave your residence/place of residence.
4: You can possess that which you desire to own.

As you can see, they have the potential to be misused (especially 1 and 4).

Yeah, when I put it like that, it looks like a very bad idea...

But still, I readily defend the concept of (something close to true) freedom over the state of (something akin to) being a prisoner.



I would not say that the idea that 'lack of freedom is horrible and miserable' is a truism. In fact, quite the opposite: freedom is a heavy burden. Freedom means loneliness, because to be free is to be independent of others. Freedom means being responsible to oneself and oneself alone - a heavy psychological burden.
Freedom does not bring the the pleasures of comfortable slavery. Freedom does not mean happiness. A huge majority of people across the globe would willingly give up their freedom in return for shelter, food and stability in their lives. And why should they not? One who is not free can be happy and fulfilled - lack of freedom does not necessarily constrain the mind, the spirit and the emotions. Every prisoner can think, love and dream.


Though I see logic in your statement, I respectfully disagree with it. People throughout history (Sparta springs to mind) have fought near-fanatically for freedom, harder so if they have lost their freedom to another being or process. Thus, I assert that (albeit limited) freedom is a goal to fight for. Thus, it must be preferable to bonds.

Though, I will admit that freedom is a tad meaningless if you'll freeze to death...

[Yarram]

I think the word freedom is being thrown around too much. My point was that it's not important for happiness and "perfect society."


Back on topic though, after some thought, I conclude that perfect society is implausible due to it requiring humankind to be uncorrupted, and historical evidence clearly shows the opposite. Any ideal society requires implementation by a group of benevolent, self-less (the reason selflessness is so important is that most bright, ballanced and happy people don't see the need to take over a nation and turn it into a Utopia due to them allready being satisfied in life.) and incredibly foresighted individuals, and those kind of people (at least I think) aren't the type who will perform the catalyst that makes such drastic changes possible due to the immense risk involved. (look at Communist Russia, China and Columbia for evidence.)

At least of the top of my head, I can't think of any leaders that weren't corrupt in some way.

[DamnedIrishman]

People throughout history (Sparta springs to mind) have fought near-fanatically for freedom, harder so if they have lost their freedom to another being or process. Thus, I assert that (albeit limited) freedom is a goal to fight for. Thus, it must be preferable to bonds.

Though, I will admit that freedom is a tad meaningless if you'll freeze to death...

Sparta? Given the social structure of the city-state, Sparta may have been 'free' but it's population was constantly heavily oppressed.

Furthermore, people will fight for a lot of things, including ignorance and hatred.


Back on topic though, after some thought, I conclude that perfect society is implausible due to it requiring humankind to be uncorrupted, and historical evidence clearly shows the opposite.

Uncorrupted? That would imply some original natural state of grace (the noble savage, perhap) I can't accept.

[Recaiden]

Back on topic though, after some thought, I conclude that perfect society is implausible due to it requiring humankind to be uncorrupted, and historical evidence clearly shows the opposite.

We just need the best society that we can. If humans were different, maybe we could have a better society, but they aren't so a perfect one is one that's the best it can be using humans.

[Erts]

The thing is V'icternus, is it is pointless to discuss an ideal society without being able to make a plausible way to reach it.

Therefore, you do need an impartial thing, like skynet.

But, of course, what if someone hacked it? Or abused it?

Only through small gradual change can you change society, other times it just fails.

[DamnedIrishman]

The thing is V'icternus, is it is pointless to discuss an ideal society without being able to make a plausible way to reach it.


No it isn't. It's an intellectual, sociological and moral exercise, for a start. Furthermore, the abstract imagination of an ideal society gives a guidepoint which can be modified with reason into a practical society.

[Recaiden]

We can come up with an ideal society and break it down into small acceptable changes.

[V'icternus]

This thread has gotten me thinking about the best attainable society, and... well, I think this is it. I think this is the best we humans can do without killing each other, and who wants that, right?

Sure, some countries and whatever need some tweaking, but overall, this seems to be the height of human society in action.

Sad, I know.

Still, people always have it better off than they think...

[DamnedIrishman]

Still, people always have it better off than they think...

MILLIONS. STARVING. IN. POVERTY.


EDIT: Statistics:

http://www.globalissues.org/i/poverty/wdi-2008/2005-poverty-levels-bar.png

Admittedly a few years out of date, but I still feel it underlines my point nicely.

[V'icternus]

Yeah, and a lot of people never live to see poverty. It could always be worse than how you have it.

And, because a majority of Human's tend to "forget" about all these people who they could help, I can't see the world getting any better with Human's in charge. It's just not in Human nature to help others... (Help the group, sure. But not that group over there, with their bizzare ways and funny hats/shoes/wings/whatever)

Obviously, this COULD be a better society. I just don't think it will be, looking at the HUman race as we currently are.

[DamnedIrishman]

Obviously, this COULD be a better society. I just don't think it will be, looking at the HUman race as we currently are.

Not intending this as a criticism of your person, but that mindset just feels to me like the easy way out of facing a difficult issue.

[Recaiden]

without killing each other


Um...what?

[V'icternus]

Not intending this as a criticism of your person, but that mindset just feels to me like the easy way out of facing a difficult issue.

Well, seeing as nobody seems willing to go the hard way any more in the modern world, I think I've just given up expecting anyone do do something I don't expect.

@Recaiden: A lot of problems could be solved if large, large ammounts of people died. Obviously, that's not really a good thing to do. But, for instance, wanna get rid of the poor and hungry in an easy way that does not force people to seperate with their own wealth? (Which people seem to hate doing)
There's your ultimate solution.

It's impractical, and isn't the right way to go by any standards, but it's a solution to a problem. Like ripping off your finger to prevent your finger from hurting.

[DamnedIrishman]

Well, seeing as nobody seems willing to go the hard way any more in the modern world, I think I've just given up expecting anyone do do something I don't expect.

@Recaiden: A lot of problems could be solved if large, large ammounts of people died. Obviously, that's not really a good thing to do. But, for instance, wanna get rid of the poor and hungry in an easy way that does not force people to seperate with their own wealth? (Which people seem to hate doing)
There's your ultimate solution.

It's impractical, and isn't the right way to go by any standards, but it's a solution to a problem. Like ripping off your finger to prevent your finger from hurting.

There may be a grain of truth to your words: Dunbar's Number (aka the Monkeysphere!) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number). The optimum number of human beings in a society being... around one hundred and fifty. Brings a whole raft of new problems with it though, unless we invent robotic slaves.

[Recaiden]

@V'icternus: I meant that we currently do kill each other, so if that would stop, that'd be an improvement. I realize that killing most people is a simple solution, but it's hardly ideal, so we can throw it out.

@Irishman: It also lends more credit to the society we were discussing earlier. ~150 person communities.

[DamnedIrishman]

@Irishman: It also lends more credit to the society we were discussing earlier. ~150 person communities.

Just the right number of people to play naked frisbee with.
:smallsmile:

[Erts]

Just the right number of people to play naked frisbee with.
:smallsmile:

And god forbid you want to test the limits of humanity, like building a huge building, researching the bottom of the oceans, and go into outer space.

[DamnedIrishman]

And god forbid you want to test the limits of humanity, like building a huge building, researching the bottom of the oceans, and go into outer space.

It's a joke.
Furthermore, why would you want to do any of those three things in particular?

[PId6]

The problem with any discussion of an "ideal society" is what exactly do you mean by "ideal." There are many possible ways to interpret it. Is it ideal for an individual? Ideal for a group? Ideal for everyone? Ideal for gaining knowledge? Ideal for making the best food? Ideal for artistic development? Ideal for equality? Ideal for segregation? Ideal for science? Ideal for religion? Ideal for nature? Ideal for humanity? Ideal for everyone having something to do? Ideal for everyone not having to do anything? There are many different ways to have an "ideal" world depending on what exactly you want it to be ideal for.

If we're going with an unlimited definition here, I will have to say that an ideal world is one ruled by me. :smallamused:

[V'icternus]

I refuse to live in a world ruled by someone who isn't, in any way or form, myself. Therefore, I present this option: Bow down before me or suffer my generally disaproval! Muahahahaha!

Also, perhaps the perfect society for Humans isn't one society at all. If people who think alike split off into their own, different societies, seperated from the others, maybe that would actually lead to a fairly utopian existance.

[PId6]

I refuse to live in a world ruled by someone who isn't, in any way or form, myself. Therefore, I present this option: Bow down before me or suffer my generally disaproval! Muahahahaha!

Also, perhaps the perfect society for Humans isn't one society at all. If people who think alike split off into their own, different societies, seperated from the others, maybe that would actually lead to a fairly utopian existance.
Though unless you make some limit, all you're going to end up with is 6,783,421,727 different societies. Everyone thinks at least a little different from everybody else. I certainly don't consider a society of me to be utopian; after all, who would I have to do my bidding?

[Yarram]

The problem with any discussion of an "ideal society" is what exactly do you mean by "ideal." There are many possible ways to interpret it. Is it ideal for an individual? Ideal for a group? Ideal for everyone? Ideal for gaining knowledge? Ideal for making the best food? Ideal for artistic development? Ideal for equality? Ideal for segregation? Ideal for science? Ideal for religion? Ideal for nature? Ideal for humanity? Ideal for everyone having something to do? Ideal for everyone not having to do anything? There are many different ways to have an "ideal" world depending on what exactly you want it to be ideal for.

I'd go with, "ideal for humankind having the maximum potential for personal happiness for each member."

[DamnedIrishman]

I'd go with, "ideal for humankind having the maximum potential for personal happiness for each member."

I'm going to agree, but also state that my ideal society isn't one where idealistic utilitarians butcher people to harvest their organs.

Or perhaps 'maximum potential for personal happiness for each member' should justt be interpreted as an equal amount of potential per person - as in, they get the same resources behind them for happiness.

[Yarram]

I'm going to agree, but also state that my ideal society isn't one where idealistic utilitarians butcher people to harvest their organs.

Or perhaps 'maximum potential for personal happiness for each member' should just be interpreted as an equal amount of potential per person - as in, they get the same resources behind them for happiness.

That's exactly along the lines of what I've been thinking. A society where every person has all resources at their disposal for their own happiness, including educational programs that teach personal happiness as opposed to leaving people to make their own ways, which is a risk.

[DamnedIrishman]

That's exactly along the lines of what I've been thinking. A society where every person has all resources at their disposal for their own happiness, including educational programs that teach personal happiness as opposed to leaving people to make their own ways, which is a risk.

I always thought the way to bring this about would be to provide resources in the order of Maslow's hierarchy. Start off with providing for purely physical needs, and work your way up to intellectual and creative needs and eventually self-actualisation.

[PId6]

I always thought the way to bring this about would be to provide resources in the order of Maslow's hierarchy. Start off with providing for purely physical needs, and work your way up to intellectual and creative needs and eventually self-actualisation.
If you ever find a way to dish out self actualization, let me know.


I'd go with, "ideal for humankind having the maximum potential for personal happiness for each member."
Why just humankind? Should we then have no qualms about exploiting other animals and/or the environment and/or possible extraterrestrial life in the ideal world? And beyond that, each culture (or even individual) has a different idea of what happiness means for them. If the overall total happiness were the only measure, then it could easily lead to the organ transplant solution or something similar in which the happiness of some individuals are sacrificed for the sake of the greater good. If we just draw an arbitrary line somewhere and say we must not cross this line, can we still say it's a true "ideal" world rather than just a flawed image based on our own personal morals which might not necessarily translate for others?

[DamnedIrishman]

If you ever find a way to dish out self actualization, let me know.


Give people the opportunity to fulfill all their needs. Some might choose not to do so, but nobody will be unable to if they choose to try.



Why just humankind? Should we then have no qualms about exploiting other animals and/or the environment and/or possible extraterrestrial life in the ideal world? And beyond that, each culture (or even individual) has a different idea of what happiness means for them. If the overall total happiness were the only measure, then it could easily lead to the organ transplant solution or something similar in which the happiness of some individuals are sacrificed for the sake of the greater good. If we just draw an arbitrary line somewhere and say we must not cross this line, can we still say it's a true "ideal" world rather than just a flawed image based on our own personal morals which might not necessarily translate for others?


'maximum potential for personal happiness for each member'

Second, I've got quite enough problems to work out with my plans to deal with nonhumans too. However, ridding ourselves of an exploitative capitalist system would go a fair way to helping the planet.

[PId6]

Second, I've got quite enough problems to work out with my plans to deal with nonhumans too. However, ridding ourselves of an exploitative capitalist system would go a fair way to helping the planet.
Since this is about the "ideal" system, such gaping problems should be taken into account. Just saying how to make it better doesn't make the system ideal.

[DamnedIrishman]

Since this is about the "ideal" system, such gaping problems should be taken into account. Just saying how to make it better doesn't make the system ideal.

Entirely true. But then whatever my best wishes, I am not an economist, psychologist, sociologist, philosopher, politician and revolutionary all rolled into one, so developing my ideal system is limited by my own abilities.