Organization of a better Society

[mranderson]

So interesting discussion with Singo has made me start this thread. I refuse to steal other people's threads :D

What would be the best, working way of organizing a society (in this modern time)? Feel free to throw out ideas as well as criticize them (at an IR level of course :mad:). Let us say you would need to place it in the United States due to the fact that you have been chosen by an AI (same techonology as today, don't ask me how they got an AI, but everyone will listen to an AI :rolleyes:) because you'll make the best decision, and your new government is used to replace the United States.

(I'm interested to here your ideas first, and I'm working on mine right now Singo. Just now that I'll be basing it off of Robert A. Heinlien's book starship troopers novel. )

[singo]

Well, I think I will throw out an idea before actually getting to work designing my new world order and say that I think the biggest challenge would be getting the people who live where your society is going to go to accept it.

It does seem like the only way people voluntarily accept a new societal (possibly made up word) structure is in times of great strain, catastrophe or oppression. And even then, with the uniting factor (which is ALWAYS what people dont like about the current something, never what they do like about something else), such change usually leads to a civil war and lots of death.

Actually, the only exceptions I can think of off the top of my head would be British industrialisation and the fall of the Soviet Union.

[SolidSamurai]

Also the rise of fascism. :D

The perfect society would be presidential democracy. Essentially dictatorial but with 'democracy' in the title, so big things get done faster. Wait, we're already becoming that.

[singo]

Also the rise of fascism. :D

No, that one DEFINATELY came under the heading of violent, just not full blown civil war. And I assume you are talking about fascism in Germany, because there WAS a war when it tried to rise in Spain.

[Ragnarox]

I must say that I have been heavily influenced by the works of Heinlein, particularly his novel Starship Troopers and find many of the ideas presented in this novel to be rather attractive. In fact the entire way the Federation is set up in this novel is probably the most attractive argument for authoritarian-fascism I have ever seen. More importantly though (possible spoiler upcoming), is the idea that in order to "better" society and the human race as a whole, each individual must find "betterment" on their own terms, allow them to decide how high they wish to climb on the "moral ladder". Only those who can find it within themselves to climb to the point where they idealize the notion that survival of the individual is no different than survival of the nation, may become citizens. Only those who can properly demonstrate that they have reached this point may participate in the political system.

There's more to this but in summary that's the moral fiber of the society which I idealize, or rather something along those lines.

[Icarus]

1. Private Property is abolished. All of the land, resources, etc. are owned by the state. This in turn will destroy private capitalism, eliminating the bourgeois class.

2. True Democracy, as in the one outlined by the greeks, where EVERYONE is an active participant government. This ties in with number one, because a true democracy in which everyone engages in an active administrative role is giving the people control of the governments holdings. Urban and Rural areas will not be mutually exclusive, they will coexist in the same areas, to the point where there is no distinguishable thing as a "town" or "city".

Such conditions will so blur the line between society and government, that it is expected that they will become one, or probably more accurately, government as we know it will cease to exist, as there would be no distinction between the people and their rulers.

3. To tie in with the others, only if an individual is a member of the proletariat will he/she be considered a citizen of the state, and protected as such. Of course, there will be exceptions for things like children, and people with mental/physical disabilities, legally speaking.

4. As with the principle of property, all industries would be socialized. Keep in mind the state is controlled by a true democracy of the working peoples. All revenue made in the state will go to the state, and only the state will fund any and all activities within the state, by the people's will.

5. The only entity existing within the state that could be recognized as an "army" would be the collective of local militias, all sponsored by the state.

Every historical conflict has been a result of class antagonisms. Such conditions as I have outlined (and if you are wondering, they are not original. They have a name associated with them) would predictably eliminate any distinctions of hierarchical class.

It is a doctrine based only on one thing: people having concern and care and interest in the wellbeing of their neighbors.

There is no such thing as tradition, only innovation. There is no such thing as "religion", everyone's spiritual beliefs are kept to themselves. Instead of aiming to sustain it's existence, as if in struggle for survival, the society, now in a peaceful context, directs all of it's efforts towards other much better things, especially science & technology, as well as art, and education, discovery, general social progress.

This is a very crude outline, and I have left much out, but this is the general conclusion reached when you apply Darwinism to the study of human history, and it's name is communism.

[singo]

This is a very crude outline, and I have left much out, but this is the general conclusion reached when you apply Darwinism to the study of human history, and it's name is communism.

Very fine in theory, unfortunately it is a theory that fails to take in one crucial fact. The bastardyness of people. Given that people are inherently, well, gits, any society needs to take this into account and, thus far anyway, no-one has found a way to work a collectivised society work without someone who missed the point abusing the system and becoming a tyrant, and technically the system is based on theft. Which isnt very nice.


How would I do It? Damned if I know, every time I think about something like this I end up going too far in what I would do and recoiling from it.

Governmental system? Fuck knows.

Actual policies I am clearer on, but without a system at the top its a bit irrelavent, because there is no way of implementing them.

Thinking about this one now. Watch this space.

[Toucan]

1. Private Property is abolished.

2. True Democracy
How could this happen, are you going to vote to give up your property?
I know I won't. These two concepts could never co-exist within a single society. You are free, but you are not free to own your own home?
We work to improve our lives, we like to express individuality in where and and how we live. These are the primary driving factors in a strong work force.

Would you really like someone to tell you where to live and where to work? Telling you what to think as well?
If you are in one company's (or governments) care for that long, what and how much propaganda might they be feeding you?

True democracy can only work with freedom. Freedom means you have the right to choose where to live and where to work.

[Oblongato]

I remember this discussion, 124167, and I fear I know what what to expect, especially when you posted it in red. ;)

But hey, looking forward to it.

For starters, please say why stupid and/or uninterested people should participate in government.

And how would you deal with those opposed to the non-competitive ideology of your ideal state?

*******************

Probably, my post in the the other society thread was more relevant to this discussion, because I assumed a far larger society than Prozerran was referring to. I've included it again here with small changes:


My first requirement would be to make the society's government secular. Only when all are equal under a set of logical secular principles would it be possible to have anything like freedom of religion (or freedom of lack thereof) without excluding or favoring any group. (And all organizations and companies that make a profit would be taxed on that profit. Churches would only be able to avoid taxes if they complied with stricter not-for-profit standards with caps on administrative costs.)

It should be a meritocracy with objective, national standards of measurement.

I would stick with democracy, but would restrict voting rights to those citizens who took a voting qualification test covering the structure of government. (To avoid discrimination, courses would have to be available free of charge to bring anyone interested up to the point where they could pass the test.)

I would also establish a nationwide public schools network funded entirely by the federal government and inspected to maintain national standards everywhere in the country (even in places like West Virginia). Private schools and schooling would be forbidden, and every pupil would be required to attend the public schools. The power of local communities to influence curriculum would be eliminated.

I would not go with free-market capitalism as it is currently practiced. I would put tariffs on imports from countries that do not maintain the same environmental and worker safety standards as my ideal country. For this purpose, it would, unfortunately, be necessary to set up a department which worked together with other countries to determine their compliance with environmental and worker safety standards in order to determine the tariffs for their imports. The tariff system should give an advantage to countries with safety and environmental standards that meet or exceed the standards of my ideal country. Countries with very low environmental or worker safety standards would be penalized using tariffs, making their products less competitive. The idea being to establish real, fair competition.

The state would be a constitutional democracy with certain elements of the constitution protected from change. Other portions of the constitution would be amendable, but this would be more difficult than with the U.S. constitution.

[mranderson]

Every historical conflict has been a result of class antagonisms. Such conditions as I have outlined (and if you are wondering, they are not original. They have a name associated with them) would predictably eliminate any distinctions of hierarchical class.

It is a doctrine based only on one thing: people having concern and care and interest in the wellbeing of their neighbors.

There is no such thing as tradition, only innovation. There is no such thing as "religion", everyone's spiritual beliefs are kept to themselves. Instead of aiming to sustain it's existence, as if in struggle for survival, the society, now in a peaceful context, directs all of it's efforts towards other much better things, especially science & technology, as well as art, and education, discovery, general social progress.

This is a very crude outline, and I have left much out, but this is the general conclusion reached when you apply Darwinism to the study of human history, and it's name is communism.

Every historical conflict was the result of population pressure. Even the crusades. And what happened to the USSR who practiced communism... oh yeah that's right, it didn't work out to well for them. I thought darwinism was the belief in natural selection where the strongest survive.

And don't get your hopes up on people helping others out...

(Haven't had much time to work on my government but I'll get on that.)

[Icarus]

Very fine in theory, unfortunately it is a theory that fails to take in one crucial fact. The bastardyness of people. Given that people are inherently, well, gits, any society needs to take this into account and, thus far anyway, no-one has found a way to work a collectivised society work without someone who missed the point abusing the system and becoming a tyrant, and technically the system is based on theft. Which isnt very nice.

If people are such inherent bastards, how then has come into being ideas such as civil rights, constitution, government being held accountable to the people, racial equality, religious toleration, scientific inquiry, even the development of technologies to preserve ourselves?

How could this happen, are you going to vote to give up your property?
I know I won't. These two concepts could never co-exist within a single society. You are free, but you are not free to own your own home?
We work to improve our lives, we like to express individuality in where and and how we live. These are the primary driving factors in a strong work force.

Would you really like someone to tell you where to live and where to work? Telling you what to think as well?
If you are in one company's (or governments) care for that long, what and how much propaganda might they be feeding you?

True democracy can only work with freedom. Freedom means you have the right to choose where to live and where to work.

Freedom is often misused. People like to play with it's definition. "Freedom" in its crudest form is not something I advocate.

Straw man. I said nothing about telling people how to work or where to live.

@ the bold: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain


For starters, please say why stupid and/or uninterested people should participate in government.

And how would you deal with those opposed to the non-competitive ideology of your ideal state?

One huge thing I forgot to mention is that in my society, borders are seen as useless, arbitrary, and detrimental. Thus, whatever borders are accepted are only those accepted by the neighboring countries. People who do not agree with the tenets of our state would be free to leave, without any legal process due within our state.

Uninterested people will play a passive role in government, which is fine.
Stupid people would expectedly not gain enough popularity in a society enlightened enough to free itself from classes.

Both categories, if members of the proletariat, have the collective right of all humans to administrate in their government. This is because the state rules over them. If you were to leave them out, this would create an artificial hierarchy. Under my beliefs, this is unacceptable.


The state would be a constitutional democracy with certain elements of the constitution protected from change. Other portions of the constitution would be amendable, but this would be more difficult than with the U.S. constitution.

Why is this? Don't you think certain historical contexts call for different structures of law? Say in a time of crisis, maybe a war, or an economic depression. What kind of amendments would be protected from change?

[singo]

Right, one thing, and I was trying not to wade into this thread overmuch until I had a coherent societal plan type thing.

Will people please stop generalising about conflicts and the reasons for them, neither of those statements (all wars started because of either population pressure or class conflict) is true. There IS no catch all "reason" for conflict, but if you must have one, money, power and influence are a closer match to reality.

[Toucan]

Straw man. I said nothing about telling people how to work or where to live.
Say what?
4. As with the principle of property, all industries would be socialized. Keep in mind the state is controlled by a true democracy of the working peoples. All revenue made in the state will go to the state, and only the state will fund any and all activities within the state, by the people's will.

If all activities are chosen by the state on a democratic level the end result would be absolutely no freedom of choice for minority groups. What if you don't like to do what the majority wants to do? What if you would like to do some thing else? You don't have any where to live, you don't have anywhere to work and you are left out of society.

[Icarus]

What do you mean by not do anything anyone else wants to do?

And by activities I meant things a government normally funds, such as the new industries in it's hands, especially scientific research, as well as things like education and healthcare. They aren't going to vote on what you will wear on what day of the week, if that's what you're thinking.

[SolidSamurai]

Heh, no offense but from all your half-baked ideas on political science, none of these attempts at organisation would actually work.

How about a society where cocaine is not only illegal but is valueless, because the government somehow ran its value into the dirt despite the demand for it to be transformed into crack for the diet of crackheads everywhere? It simply makes no sense.

Another thing I find funny is how we all of a sudden started calling ourselves 'human racial members' instead simply 'people'. We think of 'humans' as cruel, etc. But what are humans? Humans are just people. They're the only people who can actually THINK so what the hell does that mean? Surely aliens are alot like us from what proof we've had of intelligent life so far, so why should we complain at all?

EDIT: Also, no one's responded to my thread on nanites yet, so I'm a little huffy.

[mranderson]

It doesn't matter if the government tells you what to wear. They control the job which in turn controls the way you dress. And don't forget the government controlling industries might result in a loss of competiveness, and maybe lower the standard of living for those people if they have no competition.

It's all great, and all but what happens when people want to make more money? They'll leave the country, and go somewhere else where they can make more money. What will you do than? Stop them and lock them up? Interested to see how you'd stop this. Pay them more? How would that happen in a socialistic society though? What happens if you have to fill jobs that are less choice? Fill the gap with less desirables? Remember you'd be filling the government in with the United States population give or take twenty years. Interested to see your response on this.

But samuari brought up an interesting subject... What would happen if the government cut off all illegal substances? Crazy riots? People get jobs, and work? Another thread entirely though :(

[Oblongato]

One huge thing I forgot to mention is that in my society, borders are seen as useless, arbitrary, and detrimental. Thus, whatever borders are accepted are only those accepted by the neighboring countries. People who do not agree with the tenets of our state would be free to leave, without any legal process due within our state.

And here I believe your state would fail. (mranderson has already said some of this, but here's my two cents as well.)

Your state would not recognize the human desire to acquire things. Here and there you will find people who do not necessarily make a focus of acquiring things, but personal possessions are a form of security that I believe most people will choose, given the choice.

The second problem is that your state would not recognize status and hierarchies. The simple fact is that some people in a society are more important than others. A society cannot function without some sort of hierarchical structure, and such a structure tends to be self-sustaining, resulting in classes. A doctor, for example, is better able to prepare his/her children for a career as a doctor than is a person in another field. A person who has attended the most respected university has inside knowledge on how to get his/her children into that university. Of course, you could leave the system open from a legal standpoint in order to allow in the occasional prodigy, but then you basically have the same system that exists in the U.S. today. Also, social status, being another form of security, is something most people will not willingly part with.

Third, I will again argue that it is human nature to do something only if it is rewarded. Personal satisfaction is a form of reward, but most people desire rewards far greater than that. They wish to achieve power and acquire possessions.

The gist is that for the reasons mentioned above, most of your citizens would leave your country for any country in which the system offered the things missing from yours by definition. Those who remained would be those who have no interest in controlling the course of their own lives and who wished to abdicate all decision making to the state. This would likely render your state totally unable to compete with other systems, economically, or militarily.

Uninterested people will play a passive role in government, which is fine.
Stupid people would expectedly not gain enough popularity in a society enlightened enough to free itself from classes.

Are you suggesting then a hierarchy of popularity?

Both categories, if members of the proletariat, have the collective right of all humans to administrate in their government. This is because the state rules over them. If you were to leave them out, this would create an artificial hierarchy. Under my beliefs, this is unacceptable.

Yet this assumes in a sense that all opinions have equal value. In a meritocracy those able to make the best decisions would be the ones to make the decisions. Are you suggesting that your state would not be a meritocracy, at least not politically?

Why is this? Don't you think certain historical contexts call for different structures of law? Say in a time of crisis, maybe a war, or an economic depression. What kind of amendments would be protected from change?

Yes, new historical contexts call for new structures. Which is why it should be possible to amend certain elements of the constitution. At the same time, however, the core principles of the constitution must be protected from the whims of the present day. For example, a commitment to a secular government. I would argue that only a secular legal system can preserve an environment that support religious (or non-religious) freedom. Secularism, therefore, I would anchor in as an immutable cornerstone of the state. Other things should probably be left open for change, if the current generation really sees it as necessary. Free speech is an area where some adjustment would likely be necessary due to the rapid development of information technology and the complexity of the concept of libel.

[Icarus]

It doesn't matter if the government tells you what to wear. They control the job which in turn controls the way you dress. And don't forget the government controlling industries might result in a loss of competiveness, and maybe lower the standard of living for those people if they have no competition.

There is no competition. None. Industries are monopolized and handed to the government, which by transitive property is controlled by the citizens.

It's all great, and all but what happens when people want to make more money? They'll leave the country, and go somewhere else where they can make more money. What will you do than? Stop them and lock them up? Interested to see how you'd stop this. Pay them more? How would that happen in a socialistic society though? What happens if you have to fill jobs that are less choice? Fill the gap with less desirables? Remember you'd be filling the government in with the United States population give or take twenty years. Interested to see your response on this.

I wouldn't stop it. It's not our right to force people to live in a certain place. Those who want to participate in my society can and shall, the others may do as they please.

People are so diverse. There are plenty of very hardworking, smart, dedicated people, and they will naturally drift towards the more difficult jobs. Others who are more lazy will probably fail school and naturally drift towards the jobs they are qualified for. [/quote]


Your state would not recognize the human desire to acquire things. Here and there you will find people who do not necessarily make a focus of acquiring things, but personal possessions are a form of security that I believe most people will choose, given the choice.

Don't generalize. There are plenty of people who are content with how they live, and don't need to make more and more money.

I believe they would choose it too. That's why they would leave my state. I would only expect honest enlightened people to give up their property.

The second problem is that your state would not recognize status and hierarchies. The simple fact is that some people in a society are more important than others. A society cannot function without some sort of hierarchical structure, and such a structure tends to be self-sustaining, resulting in classes. A doctor, for example, is better able to prepare his/her children for a career as a doctor than is a person in another field. A person who has attended the most respected university has inside knowledge on how to get his/her children into that university. Of course, you could leave the system open from a legal standpoint in order to allow in the occasional prodigy, but then you basically have the same system that exists in the U.S. today. Also, social status, being another form of security, is something most people will not willingly part with.

How does communism not recognize it? If anything it allows the stronger participants of society the means to utilize their talents to the fullest, this is because communism levels everything, everyone is giving an equal fair shot at contributing to society.

The whole purpose of communism is to eliminate artificial hierarchies and reconcile natural ones.

again, the question was "how would you organize a society?" not "what would be a popular form of society?", so whether the people you are familiar would agree with it is irrelevant.

Third, I will again argue that it is human nature to do something only if it is rewarded. Personal satisfaction is a form of reward, but most people desire rewards far greater than that. They wish to achieve power and acquire possessions.

Contributing to society is reward. Living in a place where things such as art and science is at the forefront of the governments budget is a reward. Living in a place where everyone is politically, economically, and socially equal is a pretty nice reward.

again, to argue that humans have a "nature" is ridiculous because various humans have done various contradictory things over the course of history.

The gist is that for the reasons mentioned above, most of your citizens would leave your country for any country in which the system offered the things missing from yours by definition. Those who remained would be those who have no interest in controlling the course of their own lives and who wished to abdicate all decision making to the state. This would likely render your state totally unable to compete with other systems, economically, or militarily.

Here's what you're forgetting: capitalism has victims. I'm going to assume you live in a developed country. If you went to my home country of bolivia, talked to the people on the street, the politicians, the workers, the youth, they will all speak ill of the capitalist system because it has raped them for quite a while. Other populations, such as those on the african continent, are similar.

You're also forgetting the decisions of the state are that of the people, due to democracy, so citizens don't leave decision making to the state as you put it.

Are you suggesting then a hierarchy of popularity?

There are stupid people and there are smart people. Naturally, leaders attract a following. If stupid people spout stupid ideas, chances are people won't listen and/or won't follow.

Yet this assumes in a sense that all opinions have equal value. In a meritocracy those able to make the best decisions would be the ones to make the decisions. Are you suggesting that your state would not be a meritocracy, at least not politically?

Every individual has an equal amount of power politically, but just like in our familiar republics, people discuss things. Ideas are thrown around, bills proposed, issues are researched, etc. No, it's not a meritocracy.

[Ragnarox]

Contributing to society is reward. Living in a place where things such as art and science is at the forefront of the governments budget is a reward. Living in a place where everyone is politically, economically, and socially equal is a pretty nice reward.

again, to argue that humans have a "nature" is ridiculous because various humans have done various contradictory things over the course of history.

Perhaps because different humans have different perceptions of what a "reward" is there may be humans who do not recognize what you state to be a "reward". Most individuals who do not feel that they are being properly "rewarded" will most likely leave the society you propose (which, your society gives them absolute freedom to do so) but some will remain, and attempt to change the environment which surrounds them rather than move to another. Consequently you would see the emergence of demagogues as in a democratic society, a leader will need as many people as they can get their hands on.

Also, if this is true, then to argue that humans have a "nature" is anything but ridiculous because it is simply a different reaction to stimulus, which such reactions are natural.

There are stupid people and there are smart people. Naturally, leaders attract a following. If stupid people spout stupid ideas, chances are people won't listen and/or won't follow.

There is no universal law for stupidity and different people will judge based on their personal convictions who/what is "stupid" and what is "smart". People will be attracted to different leaders, align themselves with different schools of thought because they will have different opinions. Consequently, a "stupid" demagogue will attract "stupid" people (although they would consider themselves "smart") and you will witness the formation of factions, yeah, the ones Madison warned us about.

[SolidSamurai]

There is no universal law for stupidity and different people will judge based on their personal convictions who/what is "stupid" and what is "smart". People will be attracted to different leaders, align themselves with different schools of thought because they will have different opinions. Consequently, a "stupid" demagogue will attract "stupid" people (although they would consider themselves "smart") and you will witness the formation of factions, yeah, the ones Madison warned us about.

When it comes down to it, people will usually, if forced to, end up judging stupidity based on a level of achievement of whatever measure the populace draws up.

[Oblongato]

There is no competition. None. Industries are monopolized and handed to the government, which by transitive property is controlled by the citizens.

Without a competitive impulse, I suspect your state will be unable to compete.



I wouldn't stop it. It's not our right to force people to live in a certain place. Those who want to participate in my society can and shall, the others may do as they please.

People are so diverse. There are plenty of very hardworking, smart, dedicated people, and they will naturally drift towards the more difficult jobs. Others who are more lazy will probably fail school and naturally drift towards the jobs they are qualified for.

And almost all of them - the hardworking, the smart, the hardworking and smart, the lazy, the lazy and smart, the lazy and stupid, the hardworking and stupid (the smart and stupid? - strike that) - will gravitate towards material rewards (which I would argue represent security and/or status, the desire for which I would argue belongs to human nature).

And besides that, who will naturally gravitate towards trash collection or mining (unpleasant and/or dangerous careers)? How will these jobs be any better under communism than under capitalism? Who will take your offer to voluntarily give up his property and collect trash in your ideal state? It sounds to me as if you will have a very sparsely populated state without trash collectors or miners.

No one will "drift towards" unpleasant or dangerous jobs. Just as under capitalism, only some people will be able to do the jobs they want, others must be "motivated" to take such jobs: "do it or don't eat," for example.


Don't generalize. There are plenty of people who are content with how they live, and don't need to make more and more money.

When they shop, do they try to get the best/most for their money? By this simple act they would be creating competition. And we all know where competition leads... The bakery that bakes the best bread is sold out fast. The lousy bakery gives its bread to pig farmers. The impulse already exists from both the supply and demand side to:

- raise the price of good bread
- pay more for good bread
- increase the production of good bread
- increase production efficiency for good bread
- collect a reward for making better bread
- close down the lousy bakery

Or are you suggesting that content people will buy the bread from the lousy baker?

Behavior that creates and supports competition is so widespread that I believe you will have a very difficult time find people whose behavior is compatible with a non-competitive society.

I believe they would choose it too. That's why they would leave my state. I would only expect honest enlightened people to give up their property.

You have an interesting definition of honest and enlightened... For most people, I think you will find, giving up their property (to the state, no less) would not be enlightened, but stupid.

How does communism not recognize it? If anything it allows the stronger participants of society the means to utilize their talents to the fullest, this is because communism levels everything, everyone is giving an equal fair shot at contributing to society.

The whole purpose of communism is to eliminate artificial hierarchies and reconcile natural ones.

You haven't said how you propose to give the children of non-doctors the same chance as the children of doctors of becoming doctors, i.e. you have not said how you will avoid the development of classes resulting solely from circumstances.

You have also not said what you will do if 50% of your population wants to work as artists. Obviously, a society cannot support so many artists; someone has to do the work that supports the survival of the society. How will you decide who the artists are without competition? Who will make the decision?

again, the question was "how would you organize a society?" not "what would be a popular form of society?", so whether the people you are familiar would agree with it is irrelevant.

You have already acknowledged that your borders would be open and that anyone who wanted to leave would be free to do so. I assumed that the proposed society would have to work. If yours was not popular, and people were free to leave, it would not work.

Contributing to society is reward. Living in a place where things such as art and science is at the forefront of the governments budget is a reward. Living in a place where everyone is politically, economically, and socially equal is a pretty nice reward.

I get the impression people would not be free to decide on their own reward, which is possible in capitalism. Instead, they would have to accept as their reward the virtues of the state. Few people (OK, none) I have met would freely choose such things as their sole reward.

again, to argue that humans have a "nature" is ridiculous because various humans have done various contradictory things over the course of history.

My definition of human nature: what humans do.

I argue there are two basic motivations for human behavior:

- we do something because we want the reward for it.
- we do something to avoid something we do not want.

There are many, many examples of people doing something for a material reward. There appear to be very few people who are not at all interested in material rewards (and your society would practically eliminate material rewards).

You don't have to call this phenomenon human nature if you don't want to. But do you dispute that it is, on the whole, accurate?

Here's what you're forgetting: capitalism has victims. I'm going to assume you live in a developed country. If you went to my home country of bolivia, talked to the people on the street, the politicians, the workers, the youth, they will all speak ill of the capitalist system because it has raped them for quite a while. Other populations, such as those on the african continent, are similar.

Don't mistake capitalism for corruption. Corruption has its victims. Capitalism does not necessarily victimize anyone if the legal system in the country has established a set of basic individual rights. In the U.S., for instance, it is possible (not necessarily easy) to improve yourself, get a better job and improve your situation (i.e. to pursue happiness). Those raped by Bolivian corruption should talk to the Chinese about capitalism, which is gradually pulling that country out of poverty and establishing it as a major world power.

You're also forgetting the decisions of the state are that of the people, due to democracy, so citizens don't leave decision making to the state as you put it.

Yes, true, as long as they don't vote to establish individual property rights or overturn any basic communist principles.

There are stupid people and there are smart people. Naturally, leaders attract a following. If stupid people spout stupid ideas, chances are people won't listen and/or won't follow.

Every individual has an equal amount of power politically, but just like in our familiar republics, people discuss things. Ideas are thrown around, bills proposed, issues are researched, etc. No, it's not a meritocracy.

And of course no charismatic leader would arise to manipulate the stupid and use this power basis to corrupt the government. This is where I believe it is a good idea to establish minimum standards for anyone wishing to take part in the political process. I believe it hurts the system when easily manipulated stupid/ignorant/apathetic people decide the results of elections. An (objective) minimum standard would ensure that each decision maker would would at least understand the significance of the decision being made.

[singo]

talk to the Chinese about capitalism, which is gradually pulling that country out of poverty and establishing it as a major world power.


And involves the shooting of anyone who disagrees.


Right, anyway here goes, my perfect society (grab the AA guns, it needs shooting down :P)


Well, having taken a quick look at the inherent flaws in democracy (taking "democracy" to mean any vaguely democratic system, so no-one is to point out there has never been a democracy) the obvious one is the flaw we see almost constantly, especially around election time.

Basically, a democracy starts going downhill about the time that people realise that they can vote themselves money out of the national treasury - even at the expense of the long term workings of the country in question. Think overly expansive welfare programs, not the minimal safety net that was envisaged when Bismark first floated the idea of welfare.

So, soon after this happening, the obvious result is, eventually, recession and a loss of the countries competitiveness internationally. (this is purely conjecture, but it seems plausible). Usually a recession serious enough leads to a dictatorial bid for power (see 1930-33 Germany for the obvious case study)

Okay, democracy is clearly unsatisfying IN THE LONG TERM as it has no stability/longivity.

The other option is, basically, dictatorship of one form or another. People being people, this is also clearly unsatisfactory as the maintaining of power at all costs becomes the overriding objective of whoever is being the dictator. EVEN IF they are a benevolent dictator - after all, a benevolent dictator is going to want to stay in power at all costs too, just think how much good they can continue to do from this position. Lying to yourself is easy.

Now, both these have their flaws (okay, sorry for being patronising, but I am following this chain of though from the VERY beginning to the VERY end) and any government of any sort has to be one of the other, surely?

Not really, "hybrid" governments have not really been tried before, a half and half compromise has traditionally been a point on the way from a democracy to a dictatorship, but is there any way to KEEP a society at that half and half point? Marrying the good points from democracy to the good parts of dictatorship?

I think so. The obvious things that a dictatorship needs are checks and balances (for obvious reasons) and a way for one leader to suceed another without a civil war. I am going from the dictatorship end of this problem because it is much easier to take bits form a democracy without taking other bits as well.

Checks and balances? possibly the best one here is a combination of an unalterable constitution and a strong police force that does not take its orders from the government. The constitution, although unalterable would be minimal (as everything but core rights and principles need changing over time), enshrining such things as freedom from oppression and the right to a fair trial etc. This would be enforced by a police force NOT answerable to the government per se, actuallly, that doesnt sound quite right, a government that is answerable to the police and thus, the law.

A true "police state" But what keeps the police from becoming the new power in the land and taking control? The fact that the police are civilians, not a paramilitary force. They will not be trained or encouraged to kill except in the direst circumstances, and their limits will be strictly controled by that unalterable constitution. And given their job, only people that really BELIEVE in that constitution will be in the police force. Getting said constitution into the status of borderline holy writ is not that difficult, look at how strongly Americans feel about their constitution. It should also be remembered that most people will shy away from torture and repression unless there is orders backed by threat that come down from above. This system removes the threat - the worst that can happen is a sacking. There would be an independant commission set up to monitor the acts of the police that would place its reports in the public domain, making it practically impossible for the higher-ups in the police force to set up a clandestine bid for power.


Now, the method of sucession? Not hereditary, although that would be the easiest way. History has shown that if a ruler in that sort of system dies without an heir there tends to be a war. This is undesireable. Simply move the next highest authority in the dictator's cabinet (everyone needs advisors, and trying to run the country without advice, usually being a symptom of paranoia and impossible anyway, would be against the law) up one step. Everyone else moves into the space above. The bottom cabinet place would be filled by a high-ranking member of the civil service.

Now, given that the govenrment is effectively prevented from acive repression the stability this system should provide would be conductive to good civil development - economic, technological and social. As such, the country would continue to advance across the board. The necessity for this system of government and the absence of a vote reaching to the top (elections will be held for local authorities) will be explained in schools as an effort to head off the tendancy for people to think "hang on whats was wrong with [insert other govenrmental system here]". This question needs to be answered to avoid potential revolution, which helps no-one.

[Oblongato]

should talk to the Chinese about capitalism, which is gradually pulling that country out of poverty and establishing it as a major world power.


And involves the shooting of anyone who disagrees.

Erm, they had that before they had capitalism. ;)

But regarding what you say are the flaws of democracy, the point is that the people get basically what they choose, the idea being that no one is stupid enough to vote his country down the toilet. This hasn't worked as well as it might have, but it has worked a whole lot better than it could have, too.

Corrections do take place all the time when people become aware that they have headed down the wrong path. I'm convinced it's an education problem, primarily. In European democracies we have seen countries reform their systems with some success or great success (Netherlands, U.K., Sweden, Germany to some extent). The changes to the system required, and got, political support. There is evidence, therefore, that democracies can rescue themselves from the brink of ruin.

Another check on the form of corruption you mention is the fact that it hurts those who do not benefit, creating a motivation to make such dealings transparent. The balance of interests of different parties in a transparent system (and here there is still much to be done) should keep things more or less on the up and up.



Dictatorships can be successful, as we have seen in China, or less successful. But the trend in a dictatorship seems towards an increasingly disenchanted public that creates constant pressure, openly or subversively, to overthrow the dictator. Democracy, by placing a large amount of power in the hands of the people, basically takes away the person to blame. If people are dissatisfied (and I mean truly dissatisfied, not just cranky because life isn't perfect), then they can, and have, thrown the bums out. In most democracies the citizens get a chance to do so every few years.

I cannot imagine citizens anywhere saying no to democracy and yes to power shared by a dictator and the police. By the way, who would choose the members of the police force?

In any case, it might also make sense to look at how fast democracy is spreading in the world compared to the dwindling number of dictatorships. This suggests that democracy works better.

[mranderson]

Well Singo about your whole "successor" of the cabinet advisors that I'm confused about. Sure a leader should have advisers, but than what happens when that president is no longer the president and the senior cabinet member takes over. Advisors, and cabinet members should be specialized, but that inherently limits their view to other opinions? What happens when there is a recession, and you were a foreign advisor or an interna affairs advisor? And promoting them to Head Honcho would make them biased with their views thinking that they know best. It is so easy to lie to yourself :)

But another problem with your society is that they can only elect local officials... so if there is a problem that comes to them from the national level you might have a break off of a group, and than the police group come in and bust their chops. Than everyone gets mad at the police etc, etc. So than another question is how you choose the national leaders, and advisors? From the institutions? But test scores and grades don't always reflect the person. Not to mention the education of people in certain areas (Achoo, the south, achoo). You'd eventually have a shift in state from state depending on the extent of local officials, and differences in opinions. But than what happens when the national leader takes the choice of one state over another? And how would you stop the police from invisible black bagging? And apparently you'd have a military from... or else China will shoot you for disagreeing :)

No need to shoot your plane, it's already crashing. If you want more flaws I can get around to them later in a more coherent manner.

[singo]

Well Singo about your whole "successor" of the cabinet advisors that I'm confused about. Sure a leader should have advisers, but than what happens when that president is no longer the president and the senior cabinet member takes over. Advisors, and cabinet members should be specialized, but that inherently limits their view to other opinions? What happens when there is a recession, and you were a foreign advisor or an interna affairs advisor? And promoting them to Head Honcho would make them biased with their views thinking that they know best.

Heppens in EVERY system, or are you seriously suggesting that simply being elected makes you a jack-of-all-trades?


But another problem with your society is that they can only elect local officials... so if there is a problem that comes to them from the national level you might have a break off of a group

Doesnt happen now, why should it in this model?



So than another question is how you choose the national leaders, and advisors? From the institutions? But test scores and grades don't always reflect the person. Not to mention the education of people in certain areas


No test scores dont always reflect the person, but they are the best measure that isnt entirely subjective, so it will do for now. And under this system funnily enough a national curriculum will be NATIONAL. So after a few years the education wont be a problem.


You'd eventually have a shift in state from state depending on the extent of local officials, and differences in opinions. But than what happens when the national leader takes the choice of one state over another?

Well, "states" per se would not exist, the local governmental unit I had in mind was significantly smaller than a state. And loyalty to hometown or county or whatever would hopefully be a thing of the past once you had worked your way up from lower civil service to ruler.


And how would you stop the police from invisible black bagging?

That would be the commission who are making pretty much EVERYTHING the police do public.


And apparently you'd have a military from... or else China will shoot you for disagreeing

A military goes without saying.


No need to shoot your plane, it's already crashing.

Crashing? It hasnt taken off yet.


And for the record, my ideas as to how a country should be run change pretty much every week. I am pretty much in favour of the current system, simply because it works and changing things as important as the basic structure of society is bloody dangerous. However, if youve got a sandpit, you can afford to play around and see.

[Icarus]

Without a competitive impulse, I suspect your state will be unable to compete.

We don't wish to compete.

And almost all of them - the hardworking, the smart, the hardworking and smart, the lazy, the lazy and smart, the lazy and stupid, the hardworking and stupid (the smart and stupid? - strike that) - will gravitate towards material rewards (which I would argue represent security and/or status, the desire for which I would argue belongs to human nature).

That is because all of the hardworking people you know live in a capitalist system, where the only motive to work hard is to make money.

Take that away, then what motive is there for people to work hard? Materialistically, none. And those people will probably leave the state, which is what's desired in the immediate. The only reason for a person to work hard is to contribute to his fellows, which is an honest reason, and it would be these people that would flock to our state. That is what's desired in the immediate.

And besides that, who will naturally gravitate towards trash collection or mining (unpleasant and/or dangerous careers)? How will these jobs be any better under communism than under capitalism? Who will take your offer to voluntarily give up his property and collect trash in your ideal state? It sounds to me as if you will have a very sparsely populated state without trash collectors or miners.

I know plenty of people who would. How do you think jobs which yield a smaller profit margin attract workers? Everyone will want to work.

No one will "drift towards" unpleasant or dangerous jobs. Just as under capitalism, only some people will be able to do the jobs they want, others must be "motivated" to take such jobs: "do it or don't eat," for example.

You only receive the benefits of the state if you do work, and if your skills aren't extraordinary, chances are you'll have a not so extraordinary job.

When they shop, do they try to get the best/most for their money? By this simple act they would be creating competition. And we all know where competition leads... The bakery that bakes the best bread is sold out fast. The lousy bakery gives its bread to pig farmers. The impulse already exists from both the supply and demand side to:

- raise the price of good bread
- pay more for good bread
- increase the production of good bread
- increase production efficiency for good bread
- collect a reward for making better bread
- close down the lousy bakery

Or are you suggesting that content people will buy the bread from the lousy baker?

What? why are you applying capitalist logic to a communist society? Not only that, but an archaic one, too. The food industry in this day and age isn't as watered down as competing bakers on the same street. Food comes from large economic organizations with elaborate branches meant to accommodate one another with levels of management to regulate everything. A communist system would place all management everywhere in the hands of the democratic state.

Behavior that creates and supports competition is so widespread that I believe you will have a very difficult time find people whose behavior is compatible with a non-competitive society.

The purpose of my society is not to make money. Again, the question wasn't "what would make a popular society" but "what would make the best society".

You have an interesting definition of honest and enlightened... For most people, I think you will find, giving up their property (to the state, no less) would not be enlightened, but stupid.

Every large-scale conflict in human history has been based upon unequal distribution of wealth, property, and political freedom and power. From the tribal wars of the classic era to the religious ones of the middle ages to the imperialist conquests of the 19th and 20th centuries to the modern day military conflicts such as iraq.

What people have done over and over again is have faith in reform of the incumbent system. The greatest changes to society have been done when the traditional institutions had been completely overturned (French revolution, neolithic revolution, the protestant reformation, industrial revolution, etc.)

So only a peoples who are truly dedicated to a better society would engage themselves in a system entirely different from the traditional ones in place.

You haven't said how you propose to give the children of non-doctors the same chance as the children of doctors of becoming doctors, i.e. you have not said how you will avoid the development of classes resulting solely from circumstances.

Yes I have. If there is no such thing as a wealthy and a poor, and if education is regulated entirely by the state and is free (but difficult), any child who works hard can become anything they wanted.

You have also not said what you will do if 50% of your population wants to work as artists. Obviously, a society cannot support so many artists; someone has to do the work that supports the survival of the society. How will you decide who the artists are without competition? Who will make the decision?

hahahaha that's ridiculous "what if 50% of your population want to work as artists"? Sure I can pose ridiculous circumstances too. What if a new strain of bacteria merged with a virus and killed all life on the american continent?

An important facet of my society is that art is not a business. CD's, paintings, books, etc. are priced entirely on tax, as with everything. Artists do not receive money for their art, and being an artist isn't recognized as a job. Art is something to be made as a hobby, secondary to your more direct contributions to society.

You have already acknowledged that your borders would be open and that anyone who wanted to leave would be free to do so. I assumed that the proposed society would have to work. If yours was not popular, and people were free to leave, it would not work.

define "work"

I get the impression people would not be free to decide on their own reward,which is possible in capitalism. Instead, they would have to accept as their reward the virtues of the state. Few people (OK, none) I have met would freely choose such things as their sole reward.

@the bold: Sure, if you're born in the right place of the right color to the right parents. Tell that to the workers of singapore, laos, honduras, vietnam, china, sri lanka, and any population who has been on the darker end of capitalism for the past few decades.

And you do realize that people in my society are indeed paid, right?

My definition of human nature: what humans do.

I argue there are two basic motivations for human behavior:

- we do something because we want the reward for it.
- we do something to avoid something we do not want.

There are many, many examples of people doing something for a material reward. There appear to be very few people who are not at all interested in material rewards (and your society would practically eliminate material rewards).

And there are many examples of people doing things for non-material rewards. I'm not going to argue with you when you're going to assume an entire species, the most powerful species known, works like a mechanical clock on the individual scale. Not everyone is as money hungry as you and your friends. Not everyone needs a material reward.

Don't mistake capitalism for corruption. Corruption has its victims. Capitalism does not necessarily victimize anyone if the legal system in the country has established a set of basic individual rights. In the U.S., for instance, it is possible (not necessarily easy) to improve yourself, get a better job and improve your situation (i.e. to pursue happiness). Those raped by Bolivian corruption should talk to the Chinese about capitalism, which is gradually pulling that country out of poverty and establishing it as a major world power.

Capitalism implies and leads to corruption. You're looking at things through a very narrow glass. Why do you think developing countries are constantly exploited? Because they don't have the resources and existing industry to compete economically with other nations. How are they to attract business to bring resources into their countries? This situation automatically gives capitalists a huge advantage over every underdeveloped nation with a breathing workforce.

And of course no charismatic leader would arise to manipulate the stupid and use this power basis to corrupt the government. This is where I believe it is a good idea to establish minimum standards for anyone wishing to take part in the political process. I believe it hurts the system when easily manipulated stupid/ignorant/apathetic people decide the results of elections. An (objective) minimum standard would ensure that each decision maker would would at least understand the significance of the decision being made.

Corruption is not something exclusive to communism.

Again, a population who gives their properties to a state would govern how that property is used with democracy. Whatever is in the people's interest will be done, whether you agree with it or not. The state is supposed to make everyone happy, not just you.

[Oblongato]

Actually, since you acknowledge that your ideal society will not try to complete economically (and therefore also not militarily) with other societies and will allow anyone who wishes to leave, I have few remaining objections to your comments, and you've answered most of my questions.

If your society is not attacked from the outside and has sufficient resources to survive, it could perhaps work, albeit on a small scale. (Because I don't believe you will get too many volunteers.) It would be interesting to see how generations succeeding the first group of volunteers would turn out. Would their education teach them the virtues of their home system or would they be lured by the material wealth of the outside world? (I assume you would have a free press / uncensored internet where such information on the outside world would be available.) I see interesting parallels to the Amish, only with the state serving as "religion".


Every large-scale conflict in human history has been based upon unequal distribution of wealth, property, and political freedom and power. From the tribal wars of the classic era to the religious ones of the middle ages to the imperialist conquests of the 19th and 20th centuries to the modern day military conflicts such as iraq.

Not sure I can agree here. I would agree that in most (but not all) conflicts it is a factor, maybe even an enabling factor. But the basis? Debatable.

What people have done over and over again is have faith in reform of the incumbent system. The greatest changes to society have been done when the traditional institutions had been completely overturned (French revolution, neolithic revolution, the protestant reformation, industrial revolution, etc.)

So only a peoples who are truly dedicated to a better society would engage themselves in a system entirely different from the traditional ones in place.

I see territory as the initial problem in the case of your society; first, you would be splitting a population, "allowing" those who do not agree to go. It almost seems your society would need a large piece of unsettled territory if the revolution is to be bloodless.

Yes I have. If there is no such thing as a wealthy and a poor, and if education is regulated entirely by the state and is free (but difficult), any child who works hard can become anything they wanted.

My point was that the children of experts in any profession get a significant head start if they wish to work in those careers just from early exposure. A farmer's child has higher hurdles in the way of becoming a doctor simply because he/she is not exposed to that life from the start. I would argue there would be a natural tendency towards "hereditary" skills, although others would not be excluded if they really wanted it. This is what we already have to some extent in the U.S., however.

hahahaha that's ridiculous "what if 50% of your population want to work as artists"? Sure I can pose ridiculous circumstances too. What if a new strain of bacteria merged with a virus and killed all life on the american continent?

An important facet of my society is that art is not a business. CD's, paintings, books, etc. are priced entirely on tax, as with everything. Artists do not receive money for their art, and being an artist isn't recognized as a job. Art is something to be made as a hobby, secondary to your more direct contributions to society.

Ah, I misunderstood. ;) I think that is a very reasonable approach towards art in society. Actually, this is what I would like to see happen in capitalist society. Individuals now have the technology to make and disseminate their own work over the Internet, making the music industry as it exists today virtually obsolete, in my view.

On the downside, society would probably have to do without the so-called "great" works of art, which could probably only be created by individuals able to devote all of their time to such pursuits.

And what of "crossover" art, aesthetics in architecture, for example. How would the aesthetic component of what is essentially a "necessary" profession be handled?

define "work"

Compete ;)

@the bold: Sure, if you're born in the right place of the right color to the right parents. Tell that to the workers of singapore, laos, honduras, vietnam, china, sri lanka, and any population who has been on the darker end of capitalism for the past few decades.

And you do realize that people in my society are indeed paid, right?

I refer to the fact that in China the increased productivity brought by capitalism has, for example, largely eliminated starvation in that country. I am certainly not arguing, however, that there are no problems. (Take environmental destruction, for example.)

Paid, yes, but with practical limits on what there is to buy. Suffice it to say that material options are limited.

Capitalism implies and leads to corruption. You're looking at things through a very narrow glass. Why do you think developing countries are constantly exploited? Because they don't have the resources and existing industry to compete economically with other nations. How are they to attract business to bring resources into their countries? This situation automatically gives capitalists a huge advantage over every underdeveloped nation with a breathing workforce.

Corruption is not something exclusive to communism.

I would argue that human beings tend towards corruption, regardless of the system, and any society must fight a constant battle on this front. Perhaps the volunteers who form your state would really be less likely to become corrupt. Still, I believe your state must have in place the means to combat corruption should it arise nevertheless.

Again, a population who gives their properties to a state would govern how that property is used with democracy. Whatever is in the people's interest will be done, whether you agree with it or not. The state is supposed to make everyone happy, not just you.

Since we are talking about volunteers, OK.

[mranderson]

Well Singo, I'm going to start working on my organization again. I see you won't be a strawman though, and be defeated with simple arguements. To that I give you props.

So now I shall argue again. My arguement with the officials that specialized would be that they are narrow minded. Its not that I'm saying that they need to be a jack-of-all trades to be leader, but when you pass the national economics test with one hundred percent you're going to believe you can fix everything with that, and narrow your field of thought to your specialized field. How do we stop war? Economics (embargos etc.). How do we vote? Economics. (Through advertising, campaigning, and financial sauve.)

And my comment about the invisible black bagging is a catch-22. What happens if people are black bagged, and it isn't reported even though you have an organization set up specifically to stop that? You have to admit it could happen. A loaded gun per se.

And the people need to be involved with national decisions. That's why people still vote in presidential elections, they get a sense of control when they elect the ruler, and feel they can still change it in the next elections. Without it, it's more likely they will revolt.