What Would Be Your Ideal Society?

[Makhno]

I'm not really sure if this is the best place to put this, but I guess it could come under philosophy, so . . .

My ideal society would be one without government, without the state(s), no war . . . the means of production owned by workers, fair distribution of wealth and no religion etc . . . pretty much a split between anarchsim and socialism.

It's quite utopian, but might as well aim high.


That would be my first day leading the invisible dictatorship, latter I'll get started on the real draconian stuff.

 

[jkille]

hmm, if there's no government, who's going to distribute the wealth? not to mention run the schools, run the police, make laws, etc.

And what if some people in your society aren't doing as much as others? will they get as much wealth as the ones who are working harder?

Now when you say "no religion", are you saying you're not allowing people to believe what they want to believe?

 

[jallman]

My ideal society would be one of order and individual responsibility. I would want a peaceful but secure society that focused strongly on technology and philosophy. My society would have a zero tolerance approach to violent crime and I would want my people to live in happiness without fear of their government. Being a realist, I know that it would take some rather counterintuitive measures to make this happen. I can go into the particulars if you like, but something along the lines of your reference to draconian measures. :mrgreen:

 

[Obama08]

My society would have a zero tolerance approach to violent crime and I would want my people to live in happiness without fear of their government

You can’t have a zero tolerance approach to violent crime and have people not be afraid of the government...
You need to install something like "eye for an eye" or somehow make the people understand what's going to happen if you’re a criminal.
Creating this fear of government will make people behave.

In my society we would have very little crime specifically because of a strong government that scares people to the point where they'll behave.
I would advocate strong social programs in which everyone was pretty equal on the lines of social class.
There would be science and intelligent thinking over any sort of religion. Religion would be banned from society.
I would legalize certain drugs including marijuana and mushrooms.
In fact I would have places like CVS selling only pure weed with no harsh chemicals or any sort of weird crap put into it.
There would be a pretty similar system of Democracy that we have here.
You would be free except for the fact that your salary will be controlled, or in other words the government will own the jobs. There would be no record Exxon Mobile profits in my society….unless they want to give most of it to programs benefiting the common good.

 

[jallman]

You can’t have a zero tolerance approach to violent crime and have people not be afraid of the government...
You need to install something like "eye for an eye" or somehow make the people understand what's going to happen if you’re a criminal.
Creating this fear of government will make people behave.

Oh but you see...I believe there are ways to engineer a society and herd the people's meditations and personal convictions gently but absolutely. I think you guys are too quick to ban religion from the society. You are too quick to abandon the useful qualities of a universal religion that is supported by the government in return for the religion endorsing the government with "divine" credibility. If the laws of the government are in bed with the laws governing the soul, then there is twice the influence not to commit an infraction.

I also don't equate fear of punishment with fear of the government either. Besides, are those who pose harm to others within a society really part of that society anyway? Those who are part of the social order still have nothing to fear from their government...they only seek shelter in its protection.

 

[Obama08]

You are too quick to abandon the useful qualities of a universal religion that is supported by the government in return for the religion endorsing the government with "divine" credibility. If the laws of the government are in bed with the laws governing the soul, then there is twice the influence not to commit an infraction.

But technically we could take the "what’s right and what’s wrong" moral lessons from religion, but just leave out the whole idea of "god".
A lot of times people make themselves so good and so pure specifically because of an inner fear with god. A fear that says they will not be worthy of being with him if they're not perfect little well behaved confessors.

 

[jkille]

There would be a pretty similar system of Democracy that we have here.

Don't you see the contradiction in having a democracy in which only yourself has decided what drugs are legal, if religion is allowed, etc? which makes me think...

In my perfect society, everyone would carry the same basic set of principles and beliefs as me.

 

[Obama08]

Don't you see the contradiction in having a democracy in which only yourself has decided what drugs are legal, if religion is allowed, etc? which makes me think...

Yeah I guess but I don't want a body of individuals to vote of proposed legislation....and I also want a high court and an executive office...

Maybe I wouldn't have Democracy in my world...
Probably something similar to communism....Or a friendly totalitarian rule over my people.

 

[alphieb]

I'm not really sure if this is the best place to put this, but I guess it could come under philosophy, so . . .

My ideal society would be one without government, without the state(s), no war . . . the means of production owned by workers, fair distribution of wealth and no religion etc . . . pretty much a split between anarchsim and socialism.

It's quite utopian, but might as well aim high.


That would be my first day leading the invisible dictatorship, latter I'll get started on the real draconian stuff.

Dream on, lets be realistic......without government comes violence and chaos, without states comes no union and wouldn't last long on a small scale, without war comes no freedom....etc..nuff said. Your proposal is absurd.:roll: How old are you? My guess is adolescents.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

My ideal society would be one without government, without the state(s), no war . . . the means of production owned by workers, fair distribution of wealth and no religion etc . . . pretty much a split between anarchsim and socialism.

I think my ideal is very nearly the opposite of yours.

In my ideal, there would be many states and many governments. The government formed by my people would be noble and just, and would promote the nobility and the strength of my people. The means of production would be operated according to technocratic principles, for the benefit of every citizen-- and would hopefully require little enough time that we could focus on better things.

There would be religion, as many different religions as man could invent, and they would co-exist or make war upon each other as each saw fit. My religion would be widespread and vibrant... but not dominant, except within some small communities.

And there would be war in my ideal. There would be many little wars-- border skirmishes and privateering-- and every few decades a great war would engulf the planet and change the face of nations. There would be no terrorism and no genocide... wars would be fought by soldiers and militia, and the worst that civilians need fear would be stray fire and property damage.

There would be a place for everyone in society, and everyone would have the chance to take their place.

 

[jallman]

But technically we could take the "what’s right and what’s wrong" moral lessons from religion, but just leave out the whole idea of "god".
A lot of times people make themselves so good and so pure specifically because of an inner fear with god. A fear that says they will not be worthy of being with him if they're not perfect little well behaved confessors.

It is misguided to criticise or perhaps to reject religious beliefs as "popular delusions" or comfort blankets for the insecure, etc. On the contrary, it can be argued that objectively examined, religions have social, economic, and cultural payoffs.

1): The social payoff : Belief in a benevolent god and the reward of a spiritual afterlife that depends on good behaviour, gives authority to an absolute moral code which encourages social cohesion and quietism, and reconciles the irrational masses to their fate. By-products should include peace and security with less crime and "immorality", and a desirable curb on irregular conduct.

2): The economic payoff : An increase in employment created by the building of churches, temples, meeting houses, watchtowers, etc., together with the manufacture of ecclesiastical costumes and religious artefacts. Perhaps if the clergy were employed as salaried officials of the state (with apprenticeships for young would-be preachers), a useful number of potentially idle members of society could be enticed off the dole and enrolled into the priesthood.

3): The cultural payoff : There would be an increase in aesthetic activities - with more church music, rituals, processions, religious dancing, curious sermons, sacred festivals, and holidays etc.

The "educated elite" of course would be expected to "go through the motions" and dissemble a pious belief in the "truths" of the state religion. This would be a necessary dissimulation in order to maintain the public credibility of religious faith. Privately, the usual scepticism, cynicism, and atheism would continue to characterise the attitudes of the ruling class.

 

[Makhno]

Dream on, lets be realistic......without government comes violence and chaos, without states comes no union and wouldn't last long on a small scale, without war comes no freedom....etc..nuff said. Your proposal is absurd.:roll:

Is that so? . . . well, it has worked in the past though, albeit not for long (not due to it self-destruction, usually because of outside forces; anarchist Catalonia, Ukraine etc.)

without war comes no freedom

What do you mean by that?

Jkille Now when you say "no religion", are you saying you're not allowing people to believe what they want to believe?

I'm saying that they just wouldn't, remember this is my ideal society . . .I think "no religion" is pretty unatainable.

 

[Edify_Always_In_All_Ways]

My ideal?

I would not ban religion, but churches would certainly be taxed as much as any other place.

My society would have short (no more than a year) jail terms for nonviolent first offenses perpatrated against non-minors, with far harsher sentences for additional crimes.

Marijuana would be legal in the home, and smoking would not- secondhand marijuana smoke is rare.

Abortion would be legal up to the fifth month, but hopefully unnecessary because of universal access to contraceptives. All medical and scientific advances would be vigorously pursued.

Every citizen would be issued a government cell phone, with upgrades available at a price.

Children would have mandatroy education to high school graduation, with a splitting-up into intellectual and vocational pursuits after 8th grade. There would be no national testing.

The public transportation system would be world-class, and all private vehicles would run on electricity or solar energy (or feet).

In my perfect world, no vendettas of any sort would be pursued, and all of the energy of the people would be focused positively.

Health care would be universal, and the welfare system would be well-funded.

We would be neutral in all wars not affecting us.

Guns would be banned.

It would be as close to a nonviolent, utopian society as I could attain, with no one angry at any others. Thst is my goal.

 

[tryreading]

It is misguided to criticise or perhaps to reject religious beliefs as "popular delusions" or comfort blankets for the insecure, etc. On the contrary, it can be argued that objectively examined, religions have social, economic, and cultural payoffs.

1): The social payoff : Belief in a benevolent god and the reward of a spiritual afterlife that depends on good behaviour, gives authority to an absolute moral code which encourages social cohesion and quietism, and reconciles the irrational masses to their fate. By-products should include peace and security with less crime and "immorality", and a desirable curb on irregular conduct.

2): The economic payoff : An increase in employment created by the building of churches, temples, meeting houses, watchtowers, etc., together with the manufacture of ecclesiastical costumes and religious artefacts. Perhaps if the clergy were employed as salaried officials of the state (with apprenticeships for young would-be preachers), a useful number of potentially idle members of society could be enticed off the dole and enrolled into the priesthood.

3): The cultural payoff : There would be an increase in aesthetic activities - with more church music, rituals, processions, religious dancing, curious sermons, sacred festivals, and holidays etc.

The "educated elite" of course would be expected to "go through the motions" and dissemble a pious belief in the "truths" of the state religion. This would be a necessary dissimulation in order to maintain the public credibility of religious faith. Privately, the usual scepticism, cynicism, and atheism would continue to characterise the attitudes of the ruling class.

This is what some of the Founding Fathers thought too, that religion was useful for our country. It kept the masses more in line than they would be without it. Not that Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al, being Deists, didn't believe in a God, but He was thought a Being that created everything, and then took no further action for the most part.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

I think my ideal is very nearly the opposite of yours.

In my ideal, there would be many states and many governments. The government formed by my people would be noble and just, and would promote the nobility and the strength of my people. The means of production would be operated according to technocratic principles, for the benefit of every citizen-- and would hopefully require little enough time that we could focus on better things.

There would be a place for everyone in society, and everyone would have the chance to take their place.

All good.

There would be religion, as many different religions as man could invent, and they would co-exist or make war upon each other as each saw fit. My religion would be widespread and vibrant... but not dominant, except within some small communities.

Religious freedom is good for the free market of ideas, and philosophy. Providing that no one claims truth, or declares violence against unbelievers a virtue. That couldn't be tolerated in my ideal society.

And there would be war in my ideal. There would be many little wars-- border skirmishes and privateering-- and every few decades a great war would engulf the planet and change the face of nations. There would be no terrorism and no genocide... wars would be fought by soldiers and militia, and the worst that civilians need fear would be stray fire and property damage.

See this is where I take issue. Why is conflict ideal? In my idea of a perfect world, no one would aspire for dominance because that would make one a target. And any act of aggression will be met in kind by the entire global (or universal) community.

Life will be spent working to promote the economy, our knowledge of the natural universe, rational discourse and liberty, and the exploration of outer and inner-space. Involving the colonization of all habitable planets.

In my Utopian future. There would also be no censorship or prohibition of any kind.

 

[HumbertHumbert]

This is a difficult question to give a proper answer to. My ideal society would probably be led by a right wing president. Chosen by the people. Individual responsibility would be strongly encouraged, people would have much more personal freedom to make decisions in their own life. Health care would be private BUT with exceptions. Taxes would be low if not non-existant and no one would care about other people's personal business. In terms of religion people would be able to choose. I would want to live in a somewhat Christian society but without the Jesus/Bible says part, instead it would be loosely based on moral opinions about life. Religion wouldn't be a big part of the society as a whole, churches would be rare and priests would exist more as people to get advice from. Monarchy would be abolished but we would all read about it in history books. School would be much more free in terms of what you want to study, you wouldn't have to take classes that you didn't want to take et cetera.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Religious freedom is good for the free market of ideas, and philosophy. Providing that no one claims truth, or declares violence against unbelievers a virtue. That couldn't be tolerated in my ideal society.

One source of conflict is as good as any other. As long as the religious militants are not dominant, are not immune to reprisal, and do not resort to terror, they are fulfilling a valid role in my ideal; they are serving as enemies, both to my allies and to other militant sects.

See this is where I take issue. Why is conflict ideal?

Because creation and growth require destruction and death. For instance, to build strong muscles, I need good nutrition and rest... but the muscles do not actually grow until they're damaged. Bones are hardened by allowing them to recover from repeated impacts.

In order for an organism to grow strong, it must face resistance. For a species to evolve, it must have its weakest members culled. A society is no different, and my ideal society must always be seeking to grow stronger and to evolve-- and to promote those within it to do the same.

Note that I am not suggesting total war, or that conflict is the greatest activity. There is a need for times of relative peace, and for every people to have the chance to rebuild and refresh themselves. There is a need for cooperation, and scholarship, and industry. However, the pursuit of these things cannot allow us to grow soft-- and periods of warfare often lead to great resurgences in these fields.

Life will be spent working to promote the economy, our knowledge of the natural universe, rational discourse and liberty, and the exploration of outer and inner-space. Involving the colonization of all habitable planets.

Yes, absolutely. All of these are the pursuit of growth and improvement, in different fields of human endeavor. They are all noble pursuits, and societies and individuals alike should take great pride in their acheivements within them.

 

[jallman]

One source of conflict is as good as any other. As long as the religious militants are not dominant, are not immune to reprisal, and do not resort to terror, they are fulfilling a valid role in my ideal; they are serving as enemies, both to my allies and to other militant sects.



Because creation and growth require destruction and death. For instance, to build strong muscles, I need good nutrition and rest... but the muscles do not actually grow until they're damaged. Bones are hardened by allowing them to recover from repeated impacts.

In order for an organism to grow strong, it must face resistance. For a species to evolve, it must have its weakest members culled. A society is no different, and my ideal society must always be seeking to grow stronger and to evolve-- and to promote those within it to do the same.

Note that I am not suggesting total war, or that conflict is the greatest activity. There is a need for times of relative peace, and for every people to have the chance to rebuild and refresh themselves. There is a need for cooperation, and scholarship, and industry. However, the pursuit of these things cannot allow us to grow soft-- and periods of warfare often lead to great resurgences in these fields.



Yes, absolutely. All of these are the pursuit of growth and improvement, in different fields of human endeavor. They are all noble pursuits, and societies and individuals alike should take great pride in their acheivements within them.

I am glad to see that someone else has a realistic and pragmatic perception of the world...