Whats your vision of a perfect society?

[greenman]

Choosing politicians by lot, ala jury service seems to me the most practical move that would make a significant difference.

Think of the ten most objectionable people you know, and then imagine them, and more like them, and worse in power. It might make even the current shower seem OK, and that is a tough thing to achieve! (That is apart from complete novices being even more vulnerable than the current mob to manipulation by the permanent ruling class in the form of civil servants, business lobbyists etc)
No, the thing is not changing the people at the top (certainly not for people who might be worse!), but changing the structures and sharing economic and political power out more fairly. How you work towards that is the question....

 

[samk]

Think of the ten most objectionable people you know, and then imagine them, and more like them, and worse in power.

Better to have a random person that might be objectionable than someone warrantied objectionable by wanting to be a politician.

That is apart from complete novices being even more vulnerable than the current mob to manipulation by the permanent ruling class in the form of civil servants, business lobbyists etc

This is at least better than direct democracy, as the random representatives would be able to learn the ropes full time, they probably shouldn't be allowed to vote for a probationary period.

 

[inflatable jesus]

I generally go down the anarchist-communist route, but find the kitchy idea of everyone turning into happy peasants tilling the land a bit off-putting.

I like to think about people being able to spend the time doing the things they really, really want to be doing. Like hanging out with one's family, or playing football three times a week, or learning how to paint, or to cook really nice food or play new instruments, or learning how to make things from wood and metal so some poor bastard in a factory doesn't have to. That's what I want the future to be like.

I think the idea of a extremely short working week with a general trimming down of useless occupations is perfectly acheivable and would do the world a great deal of good.

 

[Random]

Choosing politicians by lot, ala jury service seems to me the most practical move that would make a significant difference.

No, this system would put all power in the hands of the unelected civil service.

 

[Stevil]

I generally go down the anarchist-communist route, but find the kitchy idea of everyone turning into happy peasants tilling the land a bit off-putting.

No anarchist-communist thinks that.

 

[deeplight]

I like the idea of anarcho communism but I worry about how the ideal is to be enforced.

Any enforcement agency by its very nature holds a certain amount of power. And therin lies the problem.

If a society of unenlightened individuals is not policed to protect their freedom from those who would take it I fear there would be some debasing of the ideals of such a society.

If it is though it gives away a certain amount of power which may corrupt certain individuals.

Does anyone have an answer to this problem??

 

[Blagsta]

Why does it need enforcing?

 

[deeplight]

Why does it need enforcing?

Im open to the fact that maybe it doesn't. What happens though, if someone enslaves someone else for their own benifit. Or if people in certain areas keep using currency instead of bartering. Or if currency is used, and people amass alot through blackmarket dealings.

People will always behave in unpreditable ways. Perhaps its naive to think that everyone would conform to anarcho communist ideals if society for the most part embraced them.

 

[TeeJay]

Why does it need enforcing?

Doesn't it need defending against people who try and reintroduce heirarchy and inequality?

 

[sensai]

Here's what I've said before.

"This world is too big and complicated for people to try and run it. We shouldn't base our beliefs entirely on political, religious and social theories. Perhaps if we came to grips with the fact that we can't control this planet, then maybe our views and beliefs would make more sense and we could get one step closer to a peaceful society."

Quarkboy 23/12/2005

 

[deeplight]

I think your right Quarkboy. Control is after all an illusion. Even a tv that was controlled perfectly for years can one day have a power cut. It is then that the wise among us realise that it could have happened anytime, so in fact we never had total control.

Libertarian ideals as noble as they are kind of nullify themselves somewhat when they are enforced. And yet when they aren't enforced they rely on everyone living by them in order to survive.

So many fucking questions!

For what its worth I am a libertarian and do see it as the highest ideal. I just wonder how the fuck we can get there without shitting all over the purity of it all.

The only solution I see is to push awareness of individual rights and the contradictions of governance and power out into the masses as quicky as possible and patiently wait for an attitudinal shift. If we get there great. If we dont then at least we did it right.

 

[Brainaddict]

For what its worth I am a libertarian and do see it as the highest ideal. I just wonder how the fuck we can get there without shitting all over the purity of it all.

I agree. But it's not just how to get there - I can't help seeing any libertarian utopia as something of an unstable equilibrium state. Where that leaves me I'm not quite sure.

The Culture is cool but relies on infinite resources and wise robots. I'm not going to be on the edge of my seat.

 

[deeplight]

I agree. But it's not just how to get there - I can't help seeing any libertarian utopia as something of an unstable equilibrium state. Where that leaves me I'm not quite sure.

The Culture is cool but relies on infinite resources and wise robots. I'm not going to be on the edge of my seat.

Me neither.

I live in faith though and alot of patience. The organic nature of anarchic society means that it really relys on the equilibrum of the individual in order to flourish which I think gives some idea of how far away we are from it.

Empowerment and enlightenment of each person comes first if libertarianism is to flourish because contained therin is the essence of it.

Without the solid foundations of a well rounded enthusiastic populus any effort to create an anarchic society would most likely crumble into dissaray imo.

Resources if shared with compassion and justice are im sure sufficient, so Im not sure they or wise robots are really the issue. All thats really needed is a willingness, compassion, and understanding that presently seems to be lacking around the globe.

The best way forward imo is outside politics. Each of us must grow in awareness and love, spread that, and stay outside the system wherever we can. Eventually when none of the empowered masses are voting due to absolute dissilusion with the government. The dawn of true libertarianism will have risen.

In my view the process has already started. Electoral apathy is a malaise that for the government is not going away.

 

[ViolentPanda]

No anarchist-communist thinks that.

Isn't that the anarcho-primitivists?

Mind you, perhaps ploughs are a bit too much like high technology for them!

 

[Crispy]

The way I see it, fantasy scifi is the only place we'll see a perfect society. Anything in the real world must, by necessity, include some compromise. Whether you're talking access to production, resources, freedom, food, health, water and so on and on, there's always going to have to be a compromise. With so many variables, there probably is no 'perfect' society. Maximum amounts of freedom per person might not allow maximum amounts of privacy per person (for extreme example ). All we can do is proceed experimentally, whether by gradual change or discreet jumps (revolution) and try a different tack if that doesn't work. Kinda like evolution. Planning a perfect society would be like Intelligent Design

 

[deeplight]

The way I see it, fantasy scifi is the only place we'll see a perfect society. Anything in the real world must, by necessity, include some compromise. Whether you're talking access to production, resources, freedom, food, health, water and so on and on, there's always going to have to be a compromise. With so many variables, there probably is no 'perfect' society. Maximum amounts of freedom per person might not allow maximum amounts of privacy per person (for extreme example ). All we can do is proceed experimentally, whether by gradual change or discreet jumps (revolution) and try a different tack if that doesn't work. Kinda like evolution. Planning a perfect society would be like Intelligent Design

True. And after all what fun is perfection if there is nothing left to work towards. The journey is all part of the fun. Something I feel we miss in todays western goal orientatated culture. Perfection is a contradiction unto itself imo as there is always more to attain. Even the highest ideal we can think of can be refined in time.

I do believe however that comprimise is something that comes naturally to enlightened individuals who have developed a sense of justice. And therefore wouldn't impinge on their freedom. Enlightened free would also realise that life is a mirror and would respect privacy where it was valued to them.

It is evolution I agree, but the only place we can start it is within ourselves. After all we cannot give what we dont have.

When we realise that it starts with the individual we also realise that it all comes back to him/her. That is why I look at libertarianism as the concept with the most scope for growth.

 

[merlin wood]

Aa in John Lennon's Imagine will do. And something pretty much like it will be coming your way before not too long.

 

[deeplight]

I live in faith.

 

[kyser_soze]

I do believe however that comprimise is something that comes naturally to enlightened individuals who have developed a sense of justice.

Hmm, so what happens when you as an enlightened individual feel you've compromised enough, and another, equally enlightened individual feels you haven't, can argue convincingly that you haven't and yet you still refuse to compromise?

If you're talking about resource sharing, how long will 'enlightenment' last if resource is scarce?

I agree with you that the journey is the bst bit, and will be an ongoing thing (the idea that you reach a society that just 'stops' because it's so good, fair etc terrifies me because it would die).

However, I personally don't think that the human-animal species is capable of reaching the kind of universally enlightened population we would want. Maybe a human-human society, but then there would probably be aspects of that that the animal part of us would recoil from as being 'inhumane'!

So for me it's up to us to create a tool that removes the resource allocation conflict, and we're back to the wise robots.

 

[deeplight]

Hmm, so what happens when you as an enlightened individual feel you've compromised enough, and another, equally enlightened individual feels you haven't, can argue convincingly that you haven't and yet you still refuse to compromise?

If you're talking about resource sharing, how long will 'enlightenment' last if resource is scarce?

I agree with you that the journey is the bst bit, and will be an ongoing thing (the idea that you reach a society that just 'stops' because it's so good, fair etc terrifies me because it would die).

However, I personally don't think that the human-animal species is capable of reaching the kind of universally enlightened population we would want. Maybe a human-human society, but then there would probably be aspects of that that the animal part of us would recoil from as being 'inhumane'!

So for me it's up to us to create a tool that removes the resource allocation conflict, and we're back to the wise robots.

The comprimise issue you bring up is where a sense of justice comes in. Many of the great anarchic philosophers such as Proudhon and Kropotkin cite a deveoped sense of justice as neccesary for libertarian society to flourish and Im inclined to agree.

The truly enlightened among us realise that to give is to recieve. A society living by these ideals would encounter few if any of the problems you raise.

Enlightnment imo lives outside of resources but only once it is born in a person. Certainly having to scratch about for food and shelter gives people little time for high ideals.

There are Im sure enough resources around the world for people have a decent quality of life if we stop being so wasteful and greedy. It is a remarkably small percentage of the population that own 80% or more of the worlds wealth. Im not sure of the exact figures but im sure someone can fill us in. I remember being very surprised when I saw them a few years back.

The human/animal distinction is something of a moot point when it comes to enlightenment I feel. After all part of enlightenment is acceptance of all parts of ourselves, and a raising of conciousness to a point where we live in the highest image of ourselves. Love and faith imo conquer greed and hatred every time. Besides when society raises itself to the levels we are discussing there will be little to feel such emotions over.

Wise robots are great im sure but I still dont feel they are neccesary. Im sure we will have them one day though. The question of whether or not they're needed comes down to how much faith you have in mankinds capacity for growth. It is good however that humanity stretches itself and what it can do, so long as that serves and empowers all.

 

[sensai]

"Important People" having less jurisdiction over what we can and can't do to ourselves? good or bad idea?

 

[deeplight]

"Important People" having less jurisdiction over what we can and can't do to ourselves? good or bad idea?

I would ask you to define important, but I really dont think that anyone has the right to to tell us what we should and shouldn't do to ourselves. In doing so they limit our capacity for experience and therefore growth.

In the end we have to ask the question what does it achieve?

Freedom underpins everything. Without freedom there is no morality for there is no choice to be moral about.

Control or the illusion of it is a negative. Personal responsibility a positive. Empower people to make the best choices for themselves and they will by their very nature be the best choices for all.

 

[kyser_soze]

The comprimise issue you bring up is where a sense of justice comes in. Many of the great anarchic philosophers such as Proudhon and Kropotkin cite a deveoped sense of justice as neccesary for libertarian society to flourish and Im inclined to agree.

The truly enlightened among us realise that to give is to recieve. A society living by these ideals would encounter few if any of the problems you raise

The assumptions being made here are that everyone can attain these ideals and that if achieved, that the 'enlightened' society would run along those lines.

And that's where my problems have always come in - it's an assumption of cause and effect, nd also one based on some genuinely enlightened persons who think that the sensible thing is for everyone to think as they do on a fundamental level as you describe above.

I also think you underestimate the animal element of the human psyche - the desire to reproduce in the best way for the individual vs. the interests of the group, and the point where the sacrifice of the individual becomes necessary for the groups survival.

The question of whether or not they're needed comes down to how much faith you have in mankinds capacity for growth.

I don't have this faith. The ideas and philosophies that talk of and many other Dead White Men espoused are much like those of Plato and Aristotle - a product of their own cultures and period of history and the limits of understanding of the biological bases for human behaviour.

They are also ideas that, at heart, have been espoused, within different cultures, for millenia - the idea of 'Do unto other as you would have done to you' which is the heart of social justice has existed for 000s of years and in most societies to a degree (and has been subject to sub clauses involving interesting ideas of what constitutes a human being - slavery, those who believe in a different God, being 3/5s of a man etc), yet from my POV all that has happened in history is a succession of increasingly complex, subtle and sophisticated oppressive and coercive hierarchies that have revolved around the abiltity of a small group to be aware enough of social change around it to evolve just enough to allow it to still function (e.g. the transform from feudal to capitalist society - much of the landed gentry and aristocracy was destroyed by this change, the remnants that survived were aware enough to know just how much of their power to let go to keep the 'new' power holders happy, or indeed to osmote into a new form of themselves based around the new distribution of power.

Don't get me wrong here - I don't disagree with the ideas I just don't think we're an evolved enough species either socially OR biologically to achieve this without some physically existing non-human party having a say in how we achieve our basic survival needs and how we distrubute wealth 'fairly' (whatever the fuck that means!!!)

 

[Brainaddict]

Was inspired to post this thread:
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=148011
by this thread.

 

[deeplight]

Don't get me wrong here - I don't disagree with the ideas I just don't think we're an evolved enough species either socially OR biologically to achieve this without some physically existing non-human party having a say in how we achieve our basic survival needs and how we distrubute wealth 'fairly' (whatever the fuck that means!!!)

Neither do I. But that does not mean we wont get there.

What will come first the robot or enlightenment? Who can say?

If its the robot there will still be a need for enlightenment imo. These robots as fair as they might be could still be viewed as a form of oppression distributing resources in ways not agreed on by all individuals. It could be a recipe for disaster if we haven't evolved beyond greed, and it certainly couldn't be called pure libertarianism.

 

[kyser_soze]

If its the robot there will still be a need for enlightenment imo. These robots as fair as they might be could still be viewed as a form of oppression distributing resources in ways not agreed on by all individuals. It could be a recipe for disaster if we haven't evolved beyond greed, and it certainly couldn't be called pure libertarianism.

Read this to see when Crispy, BA and I mention 'The Culture

 

[deeplight]

I read the above link but the only stuff in english was about a language system contained in the book. The rest was in german unfortunately.

I'd need to read more about the book to see where you are all coming from with any real clarity.

 

[Azrael23]

Empower people to make the best choices for themselves and they will by their very nature be the best choices for all.

3-pointer. That there my friends is bare as day truth.

 

[lancer]

William Morris in News From Nowhere paints a perfect picture!

 

[deeplight]

William Morris in News From Nowhere paints a perfect picture!

I heard about that book. Must have a look.

Is that the same William Morris of textile fame of the arts and crafts movement?