Thread: Ideal Society

Originally Posted by bobobo55585

I know it's been 3 months since the last person commented, but I figured I might as well throw my hat into the ring, whatever that means.
A perfect society is where there is a place for everything and where everything has its place. The world runs like a tightly wound, well oiled machine. Sure, it could cause a minor reduction in personal freedoms, but which is truly more important: Liberty or Security??? Yes, both is best, but Liberty cannot breed without Security and Stability coming first.
My new world would value one thing over all else: Productivity. Labor is the virtue of existence. To quote a certain good book, only by the sweat of your brow shall you get bread to eat.
The job is the center of one's lifestyle. In ancient times, this would be similar to a caste system. In modern times, however, in which machines take over almost all manufacturing jobs, people could work on a higher level; a more intellectual level.
Government is minimal. The goal of the government is to create an environment in which maximum productivity can be reached, which requires order. I don't want to call it a dictatorship, it could easily be a democracy. However, democracy can beget bureaucracy, which limits productivity. It needs a streamlined process: 1 elected National Director (who is the head of government) and his advisers as the executive branch, a unicameral legislature, but I can't figure out what to call it. The basic idea is model the government in a similar way to a business. Transparency is important to the process to prevent corruption. Corruption would stagnate the process, thus hampering productivity.

Well let me ask you this, what can the government do to 'improve' voluntary exchange? I would say, nothing. Voluntary exchange happens because both parties desire what the other has more then what they are giving up therefore there is mutual benefit to each. You cannot make something 'more productive' in such a situation given that these preferences are subjective. Also I see this undertone of Randism in what you are saying. Why is work a 'virtue'? If you are true to this idea then you should become a luddite, for the more strenuous the work, the more virtuous and I think you infer that virtue is a positive thing. Another thing I see is that you value productivity as the highest pinnacle. I shall make a suggestion to you to see how highly you actually value this thought. In the 18th century, Jeremy Benthem came up with an idea which he called the 'Panopticon.' It is very much like a prison except it doesn't just take in criminals. A set minority of individuals would reside here and be under constant fear of observation by the security guards in the middle of the room. They would never know when they are being watched and from sun up to sun down they would reside in their rooms, working on a certain job. They wouldn't be allowed to leave, have little free time and would work toward providing goods for the majority of those outside the panopticon in order so that they might buy them at a discount. Now my question to you, is this a good idea? Should the 10% of society be forced to work in these conditions in order to benefit the 'productivity' of the 90%? If not, then there is something higher then productivity that should be brought forth.

I'm not suggesting something like the Panopticon. I mean, under utilitarian grounds, it's the greatest good for the greatest number, but I think that is simply not a good thing to do. Although, people in prisons these days are very unproductive. They're mostly just sitting around. Prisoners are a good source of low-cost labor. Hang on, I sound weird when I say that.
Still, it's a bit unfair. OK, I guess there is one thing higher than work, and that's that everyone starts on equal ground. You get out of life what you put in, no more, no less. Everyone gets the same education chances, everyone has a right to be considered for any job, anyone can run for office or vote, et cetera. After all, if some children started out with fancy trust funds and others start with nothing, how can they possibly be equally productive?
Also, I'm not sure you quite understand what being productive is. Simply, you've got to be making something. Not necessarily something real, or making something with your hands, but something, be it anything from computer chips to canned goods to firearms (although hopefully firearms wouldn't be necessary) to farm equipment to robots to intellectual property such as books, movies, TV shows, etc. But there are lots of unproductive jobs that don't produce anything of value: managers, marketers, consultants, motivational speakers, etc.
For voluntary exchange, the government can ensure that the deal is legitimate, as in that both sides are being truthful about what they are exchanging. Take the simple act of grocery shopping. Say you buy a can of beans. You can't look inside the can until you purchase it, so how can you be sure that the can is, in fact full of beans? Yes, it sound distrustful and improbable, but this is just an example. Take a more likely example: Buying stocks. If you give your money to a stockbroker and tell him to buy certain stocks, what would stop him from pocketing your money and not purchasing any stocks? The government, that's who.
I don't know what a luddite is, but just because work is more strenuous does not make it more virtuous. If you do back breaking labor that has no real purpose, your work isn't virtuous, it's wasteful. If you do a relatively easy job that creates a lot, then it's virtuous. Virtue is not based on how hard you work, but whether your work has purpose. And purpose is important.

Originally Posted by bobobo55585

I'm not suggesting something like the Panopticon. I mean, under utilitarian grounds, it's the greatest good for the greatest number, but I think that is simply not a good thing to do. Although, people in prisons these days are very unproductive. They're mostly just sitting around. Prisoners are a good source of low-cost labor. Hang on, I sound weird when I say that.

Well they are unproductive because they aren't scared into working. You need only threaten them and you can see an increase in production. If some were to get out of line then you can sacrifice them for the greater good.

Originally Posted by bobobo55585

Still, it's a bit unfair. OK, I guess there is one thing higher than work, and that's that everyone starts on equal ground. You get out of life what you put in, no more, no less. Everyone gets the same education chances, everyone has a right to be considered for any job, anyone can run for office or vote, et cetera. After all, if some children started out with fancy trust funds and others start with nothing, how can they possibly be equally productive?

Why are you getting all touchy-feely with egalitarianism. We're talking about the common good here. Of course there will be some outcast, some unproductive, but again, we have the panopticon! Just throw them in there. Have I gone ad-absurdum enough? The idea that you can have equal opportunity is ludicrous on its face. It assumes that everywhere, everyone will have the same thing. Natural geography alone makes this impossible for what if my neighbor has a gold mine and I don't, then what? What if I'm born with one arm instead of two? Are we going to chop off everyone's arms to have equal productivity? And what if I don't feel like working on Friday's? Does everyone get a Friday off? Now onto the topic of utilitarianism. It is a farce. You cannot quantify the utility of each individual and therefore cannot accurately say what is and isn't better for the most amount of people.

Originally Posted by bobobo55585

Also, I'm not sure you quite understand what being productive is. Simply, you've got to be making something. Not necessarily something real, or making something with your hands, but something, be it anything from computer chips to canned goods to firearms (although hopefully firearms wouldn't be necessary) to farm equipment to robots to intellectual property such as books, movies, TV shows, etc. But there are lots of unproductive jobs that don't produce anything of value: managers, marketers, consultants, motivational speakers, etc.

No, I don't think you understand what production is. Do you think there are companies out there just producing things for no purpose? No. They make products in order to sell them to individuals who need the products. So just 'making anything' is a rather naive view which also doesn't take into account a service market.

Originally Posted by bobobo55585

For voluntary exchange, the government can ensure that the deal is legitimate, as in that both sides are being truthful about what they are exchanging.

If either side were trading then both sides would naturally ensure they are getting what they desire. For those situations in which they don't, there can be court systems.

Originally Posted by bobobo55585

Buying stocks. If you give your money to a stockbroker and tell him to buy certain stocks, what would stop him from pocketing your money and not purchasing any stocks? The government, that's who.

Well thank god the government never takes our money and refuses to deliver on the promises. Dodged a bullet there.

Originally Posted by bobobo55585

I don't know what a luddite is, but just because work is more strenuous does not make it more virtuous. If you do back breaking labor that has no real purpose, your work isn't virtuous, it's wasteful. If you do a relatively easy job that creates a lot, then it's virtuous. Virtue is not based on how hard you work, but whether your work has purpose. And purpose is important.

All action has a purpose. So hooray, everything is virtuous!

Perfection

• One world government.
• One master race.
• One unified goal.[Space exploration]
• Selected breeding.
• No religion.[Spiritual understanding is welcomed/encouraged.]
• One spoken language.
• Global karaoke ever Friday night.

There are a large number of governments.
Taxes are non-compulsory and are used as a trade to obtain a citizenship of one's choice, (ctizenships also being voluntary.)
Political borders are no longer used.
Money is used as a symbol for production.
People receive the value of their own production, (in money,) and are able to use it how they please.
Despite personal liberty and the lack of ground for people to interfere in the lives/economic decisions of another barring voluntary invitations of governments to enter someone's life via citizenship by choice, legal retaliation for crimes would be possible taking an O.W.Holmesian approachmaking victimless crime a thing of the past.
Technology would be advanced enough or else the market efficient enough that producing as much/a bit more than one consumes is fairly easy.
Private charity and public demand towards basic social services demanded of governments would take care of the basic needs of those truly unable to produce.

This is the ideal society to me. I also think that it could, theoretically, be achieved. Perhaps not in my lifetime, though.

Laughing Man, I agree with most of what you are saying. Value, after all, is determined solely by the market: what people will pay. Labor theory is such a crock that any competent businessman should see the flaws. But what I fail to see is how the Panopticon is Randian at all. It is as contrary to Objectivism as it is to Libertarianism.

Originally Posted by Rakkantekimusouka

LOL, this brings back memories of ol' Oathie, when he was just a wee wizard...

Ahem, anyway...

The ideal society would be, of course, true Communism; socialism. And in an ideal world, it would work. In the real world, unfortunately, most nations are too large to support it in the long run, if at all, and have falled to the grip of Totaliterianism, which is NOT Communism by any freaking stretch. Not the way Marx envisioned it. No, to construct a true Marxist Communist society, one would need to create a nation of ten people on a small island. Frankly, I'd pay to see that, or take part in some sort of demonstration.

Sweet Red Dreams!

Why of course?

Originally Posted by DuB

That's not what I've heard and read. Do you have a source for this? A book, essay, anything?

While the actual lifespan was by no means longer (35-40 years could be taken as an average), the sum total of leisure time was probably greater if we use modern hunter gatherers as a surrogate. While this will certainly not matter for somebody with satisfying work (that sort of bleeds into leisure time), it most certainly does for someone that doesn't have that luxury and, I think that we can take it as a fact that most people do not.

So essentially the claim that hunter gatherers have longer life spans, while far from true literally, does have some essence of truth to it.

The fact remains that the hunter gatherer life style is both the most efficient and egalitarian way to organize a society. It's also worth saying (even if obvious) that it does come with it's own downsides and could not sustain our current population.

I suppose that to describe my ideal society, I would have to describe my desires.

I want to live in a bamboo tree house with the people that I care about living in other tree houses close by. I want to hunt, fish and grow my organic food in the community garden. I want to be able to walk for two hours on a trail to get to the monorail that can take me to within a two hour walk of anywhere in the world in two hours (that is, I don't ever want to be more than six hours away from anywhere in the world). I also want a fair amount of time on the community supercomputer to run any simulations or crunch through any other calculations that I might be interested in. And of course, I want my laptop to access the internet. I would be willing to go to live in a city and work in a factory making laptops, supercomputers or other necessary goods for six hours a day for two (maybe three) months out of the year.

The city (like all cities) would be based around a university and people would take more pride in the mathematicians that were at that university than what its football team scored in the last game.

If I were to end up not living in the tropics then I would just substitute a house built into the sun-facing side of a hill for the bamboo tree house.

Well, I don't need much. A society where Kennedies, Lennons, Gandhis and LKs don't get killed would be enough.

Originally Posted by bobobo55585

My new world would value one thing over all else: Productivity.

If "productivity" you mean working an 8 to 5 job with mundane repetitive meaningless routines, then may your little world fall apart and collapse under its weight

Of all the good things in the world to hold as the most important, you choose productivity? Come on. How about the sanctity of life? How about self-expression? How about diversity?

Originally Posted by bobobo55585

The world runs like a ...machine.

A good reason why an ideal society is so hard to achieve; your ideal sounds like a horrible dystopia to me.

Originally Posted by juroara

If "productivity" you mean working an 8 to 5 job with mundane repetitive meaningless routines, then may your little world fall apart and collapse under its weight

Of all the good things in the world to hold as the most important, you choose productivity? Come on. How about the sanctity of life? How about self-expression? How about diversity?

Well, it is just practical. IF you consume something, someone has to produce it. It may as well have been been you. But that is assuming that this is about the ideal society within achievable means, if it is totally theoretical I may change my society just a bit.

If you believe that the ideal originates outside the mind of man, you are mistaken.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

If you believe that the ideal originates outside the mind of man, you are mistaken.

That's an interesting statement. Care to elaborate?

Originally Posted by spockman

Well, it is just practical. IF you consume something, someone has to produce it. It may as well have been been you. But that is assuming that this is about the ideal society within achievable means, if it is totally theoretical I may change my society just a bit.

Capitalism today is already riding on productivity. Our capitalistic society is by no means ideal. Forests and rainforests being clear cut for merchandise is productivity. Fresh water being polluted by synthetic chemicals to treat our crops, is for productivity.

Productivity doesn't care about the environment, or the happiness of human beings, which btw is very dependent on nature. There is plenty of research showing that lack of trees, lack of natural green, and lack of fresh air can make people depressed.

Point is, we already have a system based on productivity. Productivity is important.

But it doesn't come before the sanctity of life

I'm not sure how you can have a *debate* in this thread since the very idea of an 'ideal' is totally subjective. It's like asking "What is your ideal burger?" Unless you want to bust out Platonic Forms that would allow a certain burger to have more 'burgerness' than other burgers, then it's all just gut feeling and opinion.


So in that case...my ideal society would be the one in which all governments are focused on fullfilling my wishes, science is devoted to keeping me alive for as long as possible, and everyone is soley concerned with my happiness. Sounds good to me!

Originally Posted by Velzhaed

I'm not sure how you can have a *debate* in this thread since the very idea of an 'ideal' is totally subjective. It's like asking "What is your ideal burger?" Unless you want to bust out Platonic Forms that would allow a certain burger to have more 'burgerness' than other burgers, then it's all just gut feeling and opinion.


So in that case...my ideal society would be the one in which all governments are focused on fullfilling my wishes, science is devoted to keeping me alive for as long as possible, and everyone is soley concerned with my happiness. Sounds good to me!

Man, you would get so much action!

Originally Posted by spockman

Man, you would get so much action!

Duuuuuude. You have no idea. I'd be up to my elbows in bitches, yo!!!

Originally Posted by spockman

That's an interesting statement. Care to elaborate?

The environment of man is that which man learns from and learns to master, however, what is responsible for what man does is his own mind. You can put a monkey in a palace, but it will treat it exactly as it does a zoo.

To improve the lot of man is to teach mind-craft, which is something most have no desire to learn, nor are capable of understanding.

Example, most descriptions of Utopia's are the worst possible situation to put man in because of the blatant ignorance of the author about simple facts. Just like the digestive system, the judgmental system is an environmental acquisition system--a system with specific work to do. Now we do not make a utopia for the digestive system by refraining from eating--nor can we establish a utopia for the mind by removing the need for individual human will. When this is understood, it will be seen how horrible these so called utopias really are.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

The environment of man is that which man learns from and learns to master, however, what is responsible for what man does is his own mind. You can put a monkey in a palace, but it will treat it exactly as it does a zoo.

To improve the lot of man is to teach mind-craft, which is something most have no desire to learn, nor are capable of understanding.

Example, most descriptions of Utopia's are the worst possible situation to put man in because of the blatant ignorance of the author about simple facts. Just like the digestive system, the judgmental system is an environmental acquisition system--a system with specific work to do. Now we do not make a utopia for the digestive system by refraining from eating--nor can we establish a utopia for the mind by removing the need for individual human will. When this is understood, it will be seen how horrible these so called utopias really are.

So, what, rather than use our minds to alter our situations use our situations to train our minds?

As far as the utopia thing, for me what it essentially boils down to is a lack of compulsory rule. So some people want to try out communism? Great. People want to live like wild animals? Whatever. The 'system' should facilitate this without robbing from people to mantain said lifestyle. Privatized governments is the moral way to keep up an establishment.

Privatization shifts the ideal goal of the governing body from the good of many to the good of few. Some might say that this is where are so called public government is at now, but I would argue that most of our governing bodies are as private as there has ever been, barring outright empirial dictatorships and feudal lordships in history. Our laws are essentially dictated by corporations and special interests that have the money to buy the votes that they want, especially now that congress has lifted the restrictions on corporate campaign contributions in the USA. An ideal society would require a more effective public trust to keep priorities focused on only those things that are in the common good.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Privatization shifts the ideal goal of the governing body from the good of many to the good of few. Some might say that this is where are so called public government is at now, but I would argue that most of our governing bodies are as private as there has ever been, barring outright empirial dictatorships and feudal lordships in history. Our laws are essentially dictated by corporations and special interests that have the money to buy the votes that they want, especially now that congress has lifted the restrictions on corporate campaign contributions. An ideal society would require a more effective public trust to keep priorities focused on only those things that are in the common good.

True capitalism would give absolute economic freedom and disallow people from making laws that govern how you live your life outside of you inviting them to, (accepting citizenship to an establishment, violating the rights of another, etc.) Ideally, if you didn't like how the government or corporatism affected your life you could remove youreself from it and ignore laws that gave people an advantage over you. You wouldn't gain the benefits of public services and legal protection- but either someone else would offer security that you preffered or you could live off of your own merit. Current government, indeed any government that limits the free exchange of money, (pretty much meaning any governemtn since they are just about all compulsory taxers,) is an anti-capitalistic body. Laws that benefit corporations and not individuals? Those is anti-capitalist.

Establishment with compulsory tax is going to naturally lean towards an emphasis on pleasing corporations and the rich, which is wrong. This is because the establishment, using our society as an example, can bank on the tax dollars of the middle/lower class, (with the exception of those far enough into the lower tax they don't truly pay taxes.) Whether we are pleased with the product government offers or not they have a monopoly and we have to purchase those goods. (The governments product is security and law. That is all government is- an entity which fills a demand. For some reason, though, it is looked at as a magic thing that is immune to the laws of an economy where poor product kills a company.) Why please us too much if they get our money either way? Instead, they can look to corporations and lobbysits. Taht is money they have to work to get since they may or may not recieve it.

There is more money in the tax dollars of those that are not super rich than those that are. If government was privatized, emphasis would shift on pleasing the biggest market with the most amount of moeny to gain, (of course cost of pleasing that market is a serious factor.) But if a governmetn focused on protecting a company at the cost of the citizens, what is to keep those citizens from leaving that government- making it less powerful and giving the corporations less of an appeal to work with that government?

On the good of the many vs. the good of the few- I naturally agree that the good of many is ideal. YouTube - Spock Logic The Needs of the Many Now the goal of a private government would be profit so the owners/stockholders fo a government would benefit greatly should the government suceed, but why not? To gain enough citizens to be a profitable and large government, those citizens are getting something from their citizenship a product that to them is worth whatever they are paying in taxes. This is solid production and the framers of that production should gain from their good product.

Privatization of government is the only system which gives the power to the people assuming those people are producers. Even a system that gives power to the average citizen it is power granted them not power that inherently belongs to the average citizen. Paying a governmetn is the most direct system of government and the only one that does not rely on force theory. If belonging to a public trust is involuntary, what gives the establishment who governs that trust the right to force membership on everyone else living within a political border? It is not the virtue of the market and free exchange of production/ideas or else taxes would be voluntary. Governments may be fairly benevolent or cruel but the only principle that gives them their authority is force theory. They have enough guns/resources to impose laws on other people and so they impose them. Might makes right in any public establishment.

Thievery is forcing a trade on someone that they don't want- 'Your money for your life.' or 'Give us protection money and we won't illegaly muscle you out of business.' Taxes are no different. It is not a voluntary trade between two willing parties- so how can it be defined as anytthing else? The ideal soceity is based on freedom from crooks, not further enslavement to them.

Your ideal ignores the actual reality of privatizing previously public government functions, like;

monetary control (the fed has reduced the value of the previously public but now private dollar by 95% over the last 96 years.)

Water control (see documentary, Blue Gold or look up the bolivia water privatization)

Public Safety (perhaps you've heard the story of the house in TN that private fire fighters watched burn to the ground because the owner hadn't paid his $75 dollar subscription fee that month)

Etc. Etc. Etc.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Your ideal ignores the actual reality

Which is why it is an ideal. I do think, however, that the basic principles of my ideal could be implemented. However, some modifications would have to be made to make it practical.

To me, an ideal is one that could conceivably work; otherwise it is not ideal, it is only fantasy.

All I'm saying is that 'privatization' does not really get to the fundamental of your ideal situation. Fundamentally, the ideal is that everyone would have the common good in mind. If that were true, it wouldn't matter if government was private or public or whatever. We could have a king in that situation and it would still be ideal, arguably more so because a King that truly has the best interest of everyone in mind can make the right decisions based on honest aid from advisers and act quickly no matter what the situation, without a bloated bureaucracy to support financially.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

To me, an ideal is one that could conceivably work; otherwise it is not ideal, it is only fantasy.

Like I said, I believe that the essence of the thing could work given ideal circumstances leading up to it's implementation. But the way I would like it to occur, which would be a natural development from social anarchy, probably wouldn't work. Also Pretty much, the infrastructure of privatized government as well as any privatized social services would have to be set up perfectly during the gradual decrease of government, without a true anarchistic transitionary period. Also, pretty much everyone would have to understand the new type of society and how to keep it in check/understand the method of choosing one's government and the basic legal implications involved plus they would have to be comfortable enough not being told what authority to fall under to take initiative in choosing which government to 'purchase' just as they purchase the rigth insurance or whate-have-you. So there would be more political intelligence demanded of people. And the general populace would have to agree on at least the core principle of how governments should work, (that is without compulsion or theivery,) even if everyone disagreed on how those governments best operate.

If all of those qualifiers were true then I think it would work. Those are 'ideal' circumstances but that is what we are talking about, correct?