Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Assuming you created a society, what political philosophy would you use and why?

Or would you create one of your own? If so, what would it be like?

My ideal society would be one of Market Anarchy.

Originally posted by Bardock42
My ideal society would be one of Market Anarchy.

*opens mouth*

*closes mouth*

Actually kinda hard to beat that. I'll put a vote in for Benevolent Facsim though.

Originally posted by Advent
Assuming you created a society, what political philosophy would you use and why?

Or would you create one of your own? If so, what would it be like?

The political philosophy i'd use would be to encourage every man woman a child, no matter the ilk, to commit to all and especially the most effective forms of public service for the betterment of human and land. I wouldn't force it on them as an obligatory statue but remind them that it is their birthright.

I'd severely penalize corruption (ending slaps on the wrists for the rich) and consolidate bureaucracy so that red tape isn't an issue. I'd aggressively encourage business ethics and make it taboo to commit any wrongdoings of that type. I'd also encourage corporations to serve as beacons and examples of benefiting society and land being that they singularly have the most resources. Again. Not by force. Nature will force then to do so though. They'll see how other corporations benefit from benefiting society and will follow suit. There's more and i know my vision sounds socialist and utopic but i see my society seamlessly meshing all there economies (comm. socialist and capitalist) into a nice well oiled machine unlike what we have now, that benefits everyone involved and not just the top few.

technocratic anarchy

Absolute Theocracy...with a population of about 200 like minded people.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Absolute Theocracy...with a population of about 200 like minded people.

You just described a cult.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Absolute Theocracy...with a population of about 200 like minded people.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You just described a cult.

I was thinking the Vatican...but...the point stands.

liberal socialism {if u can call it a POLITICAL, and not economical philosophy} citizens can own private property for personal satisfactio etc, but thet can not TRADE with private property that they own.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I was thinking the Vatican...but...the point stands.

Broke my chair . . .

Lower chamber: Democracy
Upper chamber: Meritocracy
Monarch representing constitution.

Constitution:

1. No one shall take anyone's right to live
2. No one shall force anyone to do something against their will
3. No one shall steal anyone's money, property, or anything else they earned.
4. Anyone can be a member of government
5. Monarch must only represent the connstitution
6. Government, Millitary etc. shall be subjects to Monarch and Constitution
7. All criminals shall be rehabilitated only! How they are rehabilitated, is up to the rehabilitators.

(applies to everyone: members of government as well as citezins and the monarch)

That's a draft anyway.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Broke my chair . . .

Sudden Weight Increase?

Originally posted by lord xyz
1. No one shall take anyone's right to live


When is someone alive?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
When is someone alive?

depends, is a person the cells that compose their body or the experience inside the head

Originally posted by lord xyz

7. All criminals shall be rehabilitated only! How they are rehabilitated, is up to the rehabilitators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bernardo

Originally posted by inimalist
depends, is a person the cells that compose their body or the experience inside the head



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bernardo Exactly. He hasn't murdered again since his release. (Or his wife, anyway).

Originally posted by lord xyz
1. No one shall take anyone's right to live

No abortions!

Originally posted by lord xyz
2. No one shall force anyone to do something against their will

Abortions for everyone!

Originally posted by inimalist
depends, is a person the cells that compose their body or the experience inside the head



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bernardo

That is why I am asking him...

Originally posted by lord xyz
Exactly. He hasn't murdered again since his release. (Or his wife, anyway).

dude, no

karla homolka wasn't rehabilitated, she got out on a plea bargain and remains an embarassment to the Canadian justice system.

even if she doesn't kill or rape again, she poses an unreasonable threat to the population. That people keep giving her picture to the media probably helps prevent that as well.

oh... homolka drugged her sister to let bernardo take her virginity... remember, she wasn't rehabilitated, she played the justice system.

and she has an ECE degree.

Originally posted by inimalist
dude, no

karla homolka wasn't rehabilitated, she got out on a plea bargain and remains an embarassment to the Canadian justice system.

even if she doesn't kill or rape again, she poses an unreasonable threat to the population. That people keep giving her picture to the media probably helps prevent that as well.

oh... homolka drugged her sister to let bernardo take her virginity... remember, she wasn't rehabilitated, she played the justice system.

and she has an ECE degree. What do you suggest to avoid people playing the justice system.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No abortions!



Abortions for everyone! This goes to the argument, foetus' don't have the right to live, and I agree, since they're life is dependant on the mother, therefore it's actually the mother's decision.

Localism, in a small rural town. Everything is locally produced and locally consumed. That's what makes a good, stable, functioning economy.

Originally posted by Stealth Agent
Localism, in a small rural town. Everything is locally produced and locally consumed. That's what makes a good, stable, functioning economy. Maybe stable and functioning, good...I don't know.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Maybe stable and functioning, good...I don't know.

outside the influence of the demoralized america, kept with good homeley traditions. A small society where everybody pretty much knows who everybody else is by first name.

Originally posted by Stealth Agent
Localism, in a small rural town. Everything is locally produced and locally consumed. That's what makes a good, stable, functioning economy.

what about communities that lack certain fundamental resources?

like, there ain't a coal mine or oil field in my neighborhood.

Originally posted by Stealth Agent
outside the influence of the demoralized america, kept with good homeley traditions. A small society where everybody pretty much knows who everybody else is by first name. Again, it wouldn't be an economy that would offer you much. It might be functioning and it might be stable, but you would have to give up so many luxuries it would be hardly enjoyable for anyone that lived in a modernized country.

Meritocracy.

Or benevolent dictatorship. I'll be Dear Leader.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Maybe stable and functioning, good...I don't know.

Depends...is inbreeding good or bad?

Originally posted by Stealth Agent
outside the influence of the demoralized america, kept with good homeley traditions. A small society where everybody pretty much knows who everybody else is by first name.

And last name, because it'll take about 150 years for them to all be one big family.

My political philosophy would be true communism. Communism isn't actually a bad thing, it's just that nobody thinks it can be done. But if it COULD be done, the world would sure be different.

A general misconception is when people think communism or socialism, they think state communism or state socialism. Very different.

Dictatorship.

But I'd tell everyone its Democracy.

Originally posted by Advent
Assuming you created a society, what political philosophy would you use and why?

Or would you create one of your own? If so, what would it be like?

Egalitarian hunter-gatherers.

I hope you all will excuse me for being cliche, but capitalism for economics and democracy as your political philosophy seems to be the best, and history backs this up.

Overall I think a benevolent dictatorship could be better, except that there isnt really anyone who I would trust with the job. Except perhaps myself .

^capitalisn has only succeeded with huge nations who have the power and resources to STEAL the resources of the world to fill in the holes for the extravagances/lazyness of its citizen in creating resources/raw material.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^capitalisn has only succeeded with huge nations who have the power and resources to STEAL the resources of the world to fill in the holes for the extravagances/lazyness of its citizen in creating resources/raw material. Which ones?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^capitalisn has only succeeded with huge nations who have the power and resources to STEAL the resources of the world to fill in the holes for the extravagances/lazyness of its citizen in creating resources/raw material.

Steal? I was under the impression that we(the U.S.) and other capitalistic nations pay for our goods?

I was under the impression that the US is only marginaly capitalist.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I was under the impression that the US is only marginaly capitalist.

Officially the U.S. has a capitalist mixed economy. So yes it does borrow some other principles from other economic philosophys but it is mostly capitalist. Or atleast that was my impression, Im no expert on this kind of stuff so I could be wrong.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Officially the U.S. has a capitalist mixed economy. So yes it does borrow some other principles from other economic philosophys but it is mostly capitalist. Or atleast that was my impression, Im no expert on this kind of stuff so I could be wrong. Well, a country with a government spending of over 3 trillion a year and the highest per capita spending on national healthcare.

Nah, not really.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, a country with a government spending of over 3 trillion a year and the highest per capita spending on national healthcare.

Nah, not really.

Well you have to take into account that we also have the most GDP aside from the EU by a huge margin, even during recession. Your right that the U.S. does borrow some principles from socialism, though you would be hard pressed to show that the U.S. was on the whole more socialist as opposed to capitalist.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Well you have to take into account that we also have the most GDP aside from the EU by a huge margin, even during recession. Your right that the U.S. does borrow some principles from socialism, though you would be hard pressed to show that the U.S. was on the whole more socialist as opposed to capitalist. Sure, it's just not really capitalist. It's a weird monstrous ideology mish-mash.

theres a nice quote "resources are not made without labour". putting simply, with the way the economy works globally, does the american public labour in the creation of RESOURCES{not useless luxuries} which can PAY for its rather nice average living standards when compared with the wrest of the world? simply, no. unfair market practices{due to large political/military sway in the world}, funding instability throughout the world and then using it to STEAL resources out of the area{itself or through one of the agressor groups/puppet governments, etc} or simply bargaining on the basis of military support etc{saudia etc} or employing foreign extremely cheap labour{or illegal immigrant labour}- good examples- africa/central asia/iraq/afghanistan etc. among other things, helps PAY for america's economy, and leaves the wrest of the third world poorer and more chaotic. i do not beleive CAPITALISM is responsible for the significantly nicer lifestyles of people in america{there are otherexamples though of countries doing the same}.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
theres a nice quote "resources are not made without labour". putting simply, with the way the economy works globally, does the american public labour in the creation of RESOURCES{not useless luxuries} which can PAY for its rather nice average living standards when compared with the wrest of the world? simply, no. unfair market practices{due to large political/military sway in the world}, funding instability throughout the world and then using it to STEAL resources out of the area{itself or through one of the agressor groups/puppet governments, etc} or simply bargaining on the basis of military support etc{saudia etc} or employing foreign extremely cheap labour{or illegal immigrant labour}- good examples- africa/central asia/iraq/afghanistan etc. among other things, helps PAY for america's economy, and leaves the wrest of the third world poorer and more chaotic. i do not beleive CAPITALISM is responsible for the significantly nicer lifestyles of people in america{there are otherexamples though of countries doing the same}.


Yeah, but you have no idea what you are talking about.


You also, for some reason, say things like "wrest".

^why open your mouth when you have nuthing valuable to add? pure cynicism i guess? or a heigtened sense of your place in the world maybe? youre wrong either way, so it doesnt matter.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^why open your mouth when you have nuthing valuable to add? pure cynicism i guess? or a heigtened sense of your place in the world maybe? youre wrong either way, so it doesnt matter. I did not actually open my mouth when typing that.

And it's because you posted something stupid in a very stupid way.

^or sumthing that a stupid person can not accept. as i said, either way, it doesnt matter to sum1 who can not understand a parallel or a non literal analogy.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
theres a nice quote "resources are not made without labour". putting simply, with the way the economy works globally, does the american public labour in the creation of RESOURCES{not useless luxuries} which can PAY for its rather nice average living standards when compared with the wrest of the world? simply, no. unfair market practices{due to large political/military sway in the world}, funding instability throughout the world and then using it to STEAL resources out of the area{itself or through one of the agressor groups/puppet governments, etc} or simply bargaining on the basis of military support etc{saudia etc} or employing foreign extremely cheap labour{or illegal immigrant labour}- good examples- africa/central asia/iraq/afghanistan etc. among other things, helps PAY for america's economy, and leaves the wrest of the third world poorer and more chaotic. i do not beleive CAPITALISM is responsible for the significantly nicer lifestyles of people in america{there are otherexamples though of countries doing the same}.

No offense intended, but your post is rather hard to read. And alot of it begs proof. It is true though that many American corporations exploit the underdeveloped nations, however that isnt the fault of Capitalism...the corporations themselves are morally corrupt. And if the underdeveloped countries actually had a solid government with a working economy than they wouldnt be exploited as easily.

Besides I wasnt arguing about which type of economy is the most morally righteous. Socialism would probably win in that kind of debate. I was arguing about which economy can bring the most prosperity to its people. And looking at early Mercantilism, all the way up to modern day America, the use of Capitalist principles have proven essential to a healthy and prosperous economy. Infact I cant recall of any nation that has abandoned the principles of Capitalism and remained stable for long periods of time.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I did not actually open my mouth when typing that.

And it's because you posted something stupid in a very stupid way. Bit pernickety are we?

corporation are a central part of capitalism and exist because of it. and that part about the underdevelped countries having a stable economy, is, well, unbeleiveably wrong. its like saying, "well, if you were stronger, you wudnt have gotten raped". the blame isnt on the victim.

as i said, the kind of economy which can bring most welfare is liberal socialism{i.e. people can own private property but cant TRADE with it}. and the whole point was to show that the success atributed to CAPITALISM, is more due to stealing to fill in the gaps in the economy, as opposed to the benefits, capitalistic practices bring.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
corporation are a central part of capitalism and exist because of it. and that part about the underdevelped countries having a stable economy, is, well, unbeleiveably wrong. its like saying, "well, if you were stronger, you wudnt have gotten raped". the blame isnt on the victim.

as i said, the kind of economy which can bring most welfare is liberal socialism{i.e. people can own private property but cant TRADE with it}. and the whole point was to show that the success atributed to CAPITALISM, is more due to stealing to fill in the gaps in the economy, as opposed to the benefits, capitalistic practices bring. That's ridiculous. Where do they get the property from? Who gets better property than others?

And you didn't "show" anything. You just said something, that is untrue.

property, they get from the government, which owns everything.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
property, they get from the government, which owns everything. And who gets the better property and why?

you BUY propert based on what you earn, which is based on the labour you put in to the government. property isnt merely DISTRIBUTED.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
you BUY propert based on what you earn, which is based on the labour you put in to the government. property isnt merely DISTRIBUTED. But you can't sell that property again? What about loans? Who decides how much a property is worth? And what if two people would like the same property.

Is this about all forms of property or only real estate?

its about PRIVATE property. not just real estate. were talking ownership rights here, not the real estate business. on real state, specifically, compromises can be reached depending on who applied for the property first, and ofcourse, the government can decide how much a location is worth. loans would be a possibility{albeit not encouraged in socialism} from the state bank owned by the government, personal loans would be more illegal than anything. and yes, you MAY sell that property back to the government or perhaps sell it to another person for the SAME price you initially bought it for{or lesser for sumthing like a car} and inform the government, since people cant trade, there are no PROFITS which can be made and hence no money which one can make without putting in the labour to earn it. this also finishes inflation so selling off any private property to another person can NOT gain you a profit even if it is in mint condition or the type of property that doesnt devalue with time{as opposed to sumthing like a car i suppose which is devalued} and ofcourse, since such transactions have to be reported to the government, it can be made sure that no1 has netted a PROFIT. basically, people have to work for what they earn, but can still have the satisfaction of personal ownership of private property{which is absent from traditional communism, where the government owns EVERYTHING which you posess} without having the drawbacks of capitalism which come from trading{and hence, earning money without putting in the labour}. its called liberal socialism, and is a concept brought into light {from my own personal knowledge} greatly by bertrand russel.

This sounds great. A benevolent dictatorship built around a Meritocracy would be an interesting and potentially outstanding form of government. However, what is said above is pretty correct, I wouldn't trust that many people to have the power of a dictator, excepting of course myself. And even then I'd be pretty paranoid.

On a less serious note, a society built around Survival of the Fittest or Tyler Durdens concepts would also be an 'interesting' place to live.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
its about PRIVATE property. not just real estate. were talking ownership rights here, not the real estate business. on real state, specifically, compromises can be reached depending on who applied for the property first, and ofcourse, the government can decide how much a location is worth.

How would people make money? Managers in specific. Or entreperneurs as we know them now. Actually how would anyone make money...and who would decide how much...and what gets sold to whom?


Originally posted by leonheartmm
loans would be a possibility{albeit not encouraged in socialism} from the state bank owned by the government, personal loans would be more illegal than anything. and yes, you MAY sell that property back to the government or perhaps sell it to another person for the SAME price you initially bought it for{or lesser for sumthing like a car} and inform the government, since people cant trade, there are no PROFITS which can be made and hence no money which one can make without putting in the labour to earn it.

How would it be "private property". It's just like paying one large fee for renting a house. Or anything.

Also, how would taxes work. And would the government be the only employer?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
this also finishes inflation so selling off any private property to another person can NOT gain you a profit even if it is in mint condition or the type of property that doesnt devalue with time{as opposed to sumthing like a car i suppose which is devalued}

So you can only lose money through private property, not gain? ****ing ridiculous.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and ofcourse, since such transactions have to be reported to the government, it can be made sure that no1 has netted a PROFIT. basically, people have to work for what they earn, but can still have the satisfaction of personal ownership of private property{which is absent from traditional communism, where the government owns EVERYTHING which you posess}

As would be in your system, just that you arbitrarily call it "private property".

Originally posted by leonheartmm
without having the drawbacks of capitalism which come from trading{and hence, earning money without putting in the labour}.

With drawbacks you mean the immense advantages we gained in the last 200 years through some of the principles of free market economics, I assume?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
its called liberal socialism, and is a concept brought into light {from my own personal knowledge} greatly by bertrand russel.

Woah, don't slander Bertrand Russell with your bogus communism. Prove that he supported such idiocy.

as in managers in certain industries? well they do their job, work, manage and direct people's workload and in doing so, facilitiate the process of resource creation{which requires labour in itself and is hence, a sort of resource itself} which they are paid for. enterpreneurs are different from managers, be specific in what ur asking.

the government would be the only employer, yea. and it isnt like paying one large fee to RENT the house, when your the one who actually own and has all rights to it which the government CANT take away. also, the property would belong to you and your immediete family so its not like it will go back to the government if you die. taxes would work in the same way that they have always worked, you buy sumthing or make some money by labour and a part of it is taken by the government to provide public facilities to you.

r u stupid?! no, infact your not making much sense. you can SPEND money on buying whatever kind of stuff you LIKE from the government. you just cant EARN money without working for it, the way businessmen do {i.e. buy sumthing, then sell it for a higher price, easily seen in the real estate business}

no i dont, you pay for sumthing, then its YOURS, "NOT" the governments. any land, property/car/house/gadgets that you have bought are YOURS, and the government posesses no right over them, other than stopping you from TRADING them with sum1 else. basically, anything you need to posess for PERSONAL satisfaction, you can own, but if your intentions are to not utilise it personally and infact use it to earn money for which you didnt put in labour, THEN the government stops you.

no by, drawbacks, i mean people earning the limited resources available without putting in the work to desrve them, and as a result, the amount of resources available to the people who DO labour to produce them, getting thinner. its like the concept of printing fake money. since money represents resources, one who prints fake money, gets RESOURCES at his hand which he didnt labour for, and as a result, the moeny in the hand of the blue collar workman is devalued{hence, diminishing the resources that he had for personal use}. thats basically what the stock market represents. buying and selling at{usually} higher prices to get more in your pockect when you didnt actually change the product or contribute anything in the world as far as USEFULLNESS goes. basically, the drawback of resource ineficiency/demotivation for labourers and unfair distribution of recources.

please, dont pretend you know much about bertrand russel, if u did, u wudnt think capitalism was as nice as you do. and yes he most definately did say that this kind of liveral socialism was what he thought the best kind of economic/political system, other than his ideological utopia of anarchism. i read it a while ago and even though i have most of his books, its gonna take a while to find it again.

Originally posted by Darth Exodus
This sounds great. A benevolent dictatorship built around a Meritocracy would be an interesting and potentially outstanding form of government. However, what is said above is pretty correct, I wouldn't trust that many people to have the power of a dictator, excepting of course myself. And even then I'd be pretty paranoid.

On a less serious note, a society built around Survival of the Fittest or Tyler Durdens concepts would also be an 'interesting' place to live.

Yeah a meritocracy has always been an interesting idea to me. But the problem remains of what a proper criteria would consist of. Intelligence tests? Intelligence is only one factor in good leadership. And accurately determining the moral integrity of an individual would be nearly impossible. Still....I dont suppose that it could be more flawed than letting the ignorant masses decide our leaders.

Also Capitalism is pretty much survival of the fittest on an economic scale. If you mean complete survival of the fittest with no laws, well.... that would be rather brutish wouldnt it?

Yeah, I had the idea of evaluations based to a number of applicable attributes, but then the concept would fall to curruption without a really strong leadership.



This shouldn't really be a problem provided carefull monitoring. Plus this would be no more problematic than it is in modern society. And anyway, sometimes morals really do hold you back, as long as the person doesn't harm society, it shouldn't be that bad.



Yeah!! Some agrees with me!! Take that public opinion!!!



Interesting though. But yeah, I'd be dead by now if that was the case.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Yeah a meritocracy has always been an interesting idea to me. But the problem remains of what a proper criteria would consist of. Intelligence tests? Intelligence is only one factor in good leadership. And accurately determining the moral integrity of an individual would be nearly impossible. Still....I dont suppose that it could be more flawed than letting the ignorant masses decide our leaders.

Or be our leaders . . . or really do anything at all. Still you have to accept that they're there and give them some sort of hole to dig themselves into before the purgings begin.

My ideal society? Tha means what I want above everyonne else. I am too egotistical to change and yet too accepting to outright ignore other beliefs. So in my ideal society I'd make what I believed law and outlaw everything else. That way in my ideal soceity I'd have peace of mind.

That's all I really want. Everything else is up to my underlings.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
as in managers in certain industries? well they do their job, work, manage and direct people's workload and in doing so, facilitiate the process of resource creation{which requires labour in itself and is hence, a sort of resource itself} which they are paid for. enterpreneurs are different from managers, be specific in what ur asking.

the government would be the only employer, yea. and it isnt like paying one large fee to RENT the house, when your the one who actually own and has all rights to it which the government CANT take away. also, the property would belong to you and your immediete family so its not like it will go back to the government if you die. taxes would work in the same way that they have always worked, you buy sumthing or make some money by labour and a part of it is taken by the government to provide public facilities to you.

r u stupid?! no, infact your not making much sense. you can SPEND money on buying whatever kind of stuff you LIKE from the government. you just cant EARN money without working for it, the way businessmen do {i.e. buy sumthing, then sell it for a higher price, easily seen in the real estate business}

no i dont, you pay for sumthing, then its YOURS, "NOT" the governments. any land, property/car/house/gadgets that you have bought are YOURS, and the government posesses no right over them, other than stopping you from TRADING them with sum1 else. basically, anything you need to posess for PERSONAL satisfaction, you can own, but if your intentions are to not utilise it personally and infact use it to earn money for which you didnt put in labour, THEN the government stops you.

no by, drawbacks, i mean people earning the limited resources available without putting in the work to desrve them, and as a result, the amount of resources available to the people who DO labour to produce them, getting thinner. its like the concept of printing fake money. since money represents resources, one who prints fake money, gets RESOURCES at his hand which he didnt labour for, and as a result, the moeny in the hand of the blue collar workman is devalued{hence, diminishing the resources that he had for personal use}. thats basically what the stock market represents. buying and selling at{usually} higher prices to get more in your pockect when you didnt actually change the product or contribute anything in the world as far as USEFULLNESS goes. basically, the drawback of resource ineficiency/demotivation for labourers and unfair distribution of recources.

please, dont pretend you know much about bertrand russel, if u did, u wudnt think capitalism was as nice as you do. and yes he most definately did say that this kind of liveral socialism was what he thought the best kind of economic/political system, other than his ideological utopia of anarchism. i read it a while ago and even though i have most of his books, its gonna take a while to find it again.

This sounds a little like John Rawls "justified Inequality". I.e. salary and employment are justified by two prcepts.

1. Everyone is treated equally, in that all decisions must be made on the basis that everyone is rational and equal.Any one who is rational will not abide with having less than some one else, therefore they will act accordingly to the others in the community.

2. Salary is monitored and up held by the Sovereignty/ Government, and dispatched in accordance to how beneficial ones job is to society. In other words one earns more by helping others. A Brain surgeon earns more than a bank manager, as they are serving the community in a greater way. Dispensation of salary must made in accordance with the first precept. One cannot justify a greater salary if it does not treat every persons a rational equal.

IMO this is the only system that could work in achieving a Globalized state. Of course it would require a revolution of some kind to retake gain control the economy and resources of the state in question.

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
1. Everyone is treated equally, in that all decisions must be made on the basis that everyone is rational and equal.Any one who is rational will not abide with having less than some one else, therefore they will act accordingly to the others in the community.

But people clearly aren't all equal and aren't all rational.

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
2. Salary is monitored and up held by the Sovereignty/ Government, and dispatched in accordance to how beneficial ones job is to society. In other words one earns more by helping others. A Brain surgeon earns more than a bank manager, as they are serving the community in a greater way. Dispensation of salary must made in accordance with the first precept. One cannot justify a greater salary if it does not treat every persons a rational equal.

Okay, this I like but how would the level of benefit be judged?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But people clearly aren't all equal and aren't all rational.

Better education brought on by the system, will hopefully help people attain the latter. Divergence in ability is countered, because the more capable are given jobs with higher responsibility. They earn more while simultaneously aiding the community.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Okay, this I like but how would the level of benefit be judged?


Haven't read the entire book yet, but this is definitely the tricky bit. How do you rank beneficiary of ones job. Who should earn more a teacher who is responsible for the lives a set amount of pupils, or a footballer who effects more people but is only benefiting the state aesthetically ?

Originally posted by Bardock42
My ideal society would be one of Market Anarchy.

Thank God you don't run the world.

My ideal society is where the earth and it's biodiversity come first/

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
My ideal society is where the earth and it's biodiversity come first/



Hippies should be sent to Mars to die !

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt


Hippies should be sent to Mars to die !

Don't worry. At the rate we're going it won't be long before the Earth starts to resemble Mars.

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
Don't worry. At the rate we're going it won't be long before the Earth starts to resemble Mars.

Fine ... as long as we have remnants of our intelligence as a species after we have all died out, (maybe for aliens to find) i don't really care. Im a real supporter of John Stuarts Mill's claim that its better to be socrates unhappy than a pig who is happy. In other words, our intelligence and the accomplishments we have achieved through this (no matter how destructive) make it all worth while. Its not that we our going to be judged badly . In the end I couldn't give a flying **** about whether or not life will carry on after we die out, what matters is that people are around to debate whether or not its all been worth while.

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
Thank God you don't run the world. Isn't that a fallacy in terms?

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
Fine ... as long as we have remnants of our intelligence as a species after we have all died out, (maybe for aliens to find) i don't really care. Im a real supporter of John Stuarts Mill's claim that its better to be socrates unhappy than a pig who is happy. In other words, our intelligence and the accomplishments we have achieved through this (no matter how destructive) make it all worth while. Its not that we our going to be judged badly . In the end I couldn't give a flying **** about whether or not life will carry on after we die out, what matters is that people are around to debate whether or not its all been worth while.

How arrogant can you get? Without all other living things we wouldn't be here. We evolved from some of those other life forms you don't give a crap about. That humans can debate stuff is pointless. If we maintain a healthy world in the end it's better for us as a species. I fail to see how millions of Chinese making cheap crap, or Muslims waging jihad, or whether Warren Buffett makes a gazillion dollars, really matters in the end at all. If humans died out completely but bacteria survived evolution would continue eventually probably giving rise to another intelligent species. But if humans kill the earth completely, then the earth is done, and nothing will ever come of it again.

I think you overestimate the power of human destructiveness mr. gloom

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
How arrogant can you get? Without all other living things we wouldn't be here. We evolved from some of those other life forms you don't give a crap about. That humans can debate stuff is pointless. If we maintain a healthy world in the end it's better for us as a species. I fail to see how millions of Chinese making cheap crap, or Muslims waging jihad, or whether Warren Buffett makes a gazillion dollars, really matters in the end at all. If humans died out completely but bacteria survived evolution would continue eventually probably giving rise to another intelligent species. But if humans kill the earth completely, then the earth is done, and nothing will ever come of it again.

The thing is arrogance is a human emotion, something that will no longer exist without ourselves.

You can go on about arbitaryness and hardship of life, is but in the end all people have experienced happines and enjoyment at some point. There are very few beings out there who would have chosen non-existence over their comparative hardship of their lives. And your examples of explotation of the masses by the minority is jus at sophisticated take on natural selection. Condemming humanity because of your subjective perspective on suffering, doesn't really make sense. Struggle and suffering are an intrinsic part of nature, without it you cannot have any form of contentment. If i have everything i desire, i won't desire anything further. There won't be any forms of frustration and satisfaction, just stagnation.

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
The thing is arrogance is a human emotion, something that will no longer exist without ourselves.

You can go on about arbitaryness and hardship of life, is but in the end all people have experienced happines and enjoyment at some point. There are very few beings out there who would have chosen non-existence over their comparative hardship of their lives. And your examples of explotation of the masses by the minority is jus at sophisticated take on natural selection. Condemming humanity because of your subjective perspective on suffering, doesn't really make sense. Struggle and suffering are an intrinsic part of nature, without it you cannot have any form of contentment. If i have everything i desire, i won't desire anything further. There won't be any forms of frustration and satisfaction, just stagnation.

I'm not condemning humanity, not at all, we most definity are part of this world. But we do have to remember where we came from and why we are here (and no, it's not because some magical diety put us here)

Lets put things in perspective

The earth is roughly 4.6 billion years old.
Simple life (algae and some single celled organisms) first appeared between 1.5 and 2 billion years ago.

Complex life (multi-celled organisms) approximately 600 million years ago.

Mammals first appeared about 180 million years ago.
The first primates 55-60 million years ago
The first hominids 5-6 million years ago
Modern humans about 100,000 years ago
Humans developed agriculture 10,000 years ago
The first signs of true civilization only around 5,000 years ago.

So, even though we have only been around a hundred thousand years or so and our civilization far less ,the earth is MUCH older and rich in biodiversity for many times the length we've been here, biodiversity without which we could have never been
It's sad that we are such poor stewards of the very thing that gave rise to us, the earth. We should use that very intelligence and civilization you keep spouting about to take care of the only home we have. And rich biodiversity indicates that home would be healthy, sadly...it isn't.

Originally posted by inimalist
I think you overestimate the power of human destructiveness mr. gloom

Whatever you sayjawdrop

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
Thank God you don't run the world.

That's my point.

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
I'm not condemning humanity, not at all, we most definity are part of this world. But we do have to remember where we came from and why we are here (and no, it's not because some magical diety put us here)

Lets put things in perspective

The earth is roughly 4.6 billion years old.
Simple life (algae and some single celled organisms) first appeared between 1.5 and 2 billion years ago.

Complex life (multi-celled organisms) approximately 600 million years ago.

Mammals first appeared about 180 million years ago.
The first primates 55-60 million years ago
The first hominids 5-6 million years ago
Modern humans about 100,000 years ago
Humans developed agriculture 10,000 years ago
The first signs of true civilization only around 5,000 years ago.

So, even though we have only been around a hundred thousand years or so and our civilization far less ,the earth is MUCH older and rich in biodiversity for many times the length we've been here, biodiversity without which we could have never been
It's sad that we are such poor stewards of the very thing that gave rise to us, the earth. We should use that very intelligence and civilization you keep spouting about to take care of the only home we have. And rich biodiversity indicates that home would be healthy, sadly...it isn't.

But you are giving value to things that will have no value unless their is higher consciousness perceiving them. In comparison its like an artist creating his masterpiece and then hiding in fear that it may get ruined, and then committing suicide in the process out of fear he may also will too. Without any one there to give value to the art work, its just an arbitrary mixture of chemicals that hold as much value a as a turd or any other composition of chemicals. We allocate value to existence, not the other way round.

In other words, if we are all dead there will be nothing to asses the value of what survives. If we die and everything else goes with us, its not going to matter because without us its just a arbitary arrangement of matter. Biology is only complicated and beutiful, because we interpret it as such. The matter itself doesn't know that its beautiful or complex, it just exists.

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
But you are giving value to things that will have no value unless their is higher consciousness perceiving them. In comparison its like an artist creating his masterpiece and then hiding in fear that it may get ruined, and then committing suicide in the process out of fear he may also will too. Without any one there to give value to the art work, its just an arbitrary mixture of chemicals that hold as much value a as a turd or any other composition of chemicals. We allocate value to existence, not the other way round.

In other words, if we are all dead there will be nothing to asses the value of what survives. If we die and everything else goes with us, its not going to matter because without us its just a arbitary arrangement of matter. Biology is only complicated and beutiful, because we interpret it as such. The matter itself doesn't know that its beautiful or complex, it just exists.


Well, I guess we're not on the same page at all, I guess I'll just go to mars and die.

Libertarian Socialism.

Originally posted by Prabhodh
Libertarian Socialism.

Originally posted by Prabhodh
Libertarian Socialism.

Ah yes the old standby of completely self-contradictory economic theories.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Ah yes the old standby of completely self-contradictory economic theories.

don't tell Noam Chomsky though...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Ah yes the old standby of completely self-contradictory economic theories. The apposition of all forms of inequality and oppression?

Originally posted by lord xyz
The apposition of all forms of inequality and oppression?

lol, no, we are talking about a type of socialism here

Originally posted by lord xyz
The apposition of all forms of inequality and oppression?

Through the us of arch-conservative radicalism.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, no, we are talking about a type of socialism here The misconception of socialism hits anyone these days.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Through the us of arch-conservative radicalism. I don't believe the means are stated.

Originally posted by lord xyz
The misconception of socialism hits anyone these days.


I live in a socialist nation, BTW

I don't understand how something can both be for freedom and in favor of increasing that which the government has a monopoly over.

or are you talking about socialism where there is no central force designed to control the distribution of resources?

Originally posted by inimalist
I live in a socialist nation, BTW

I don't understand how something can both be for freedom and in favor of increasing that which the government has a monopoly over.

or are you talking about socialism where there is no central force designed to control the distribution of resources? Non-state socialism.

You know, anarcho-communism like society.

It's crazy that when people hear socialism they think Soviet Union, China or Eastern Europe. Even with a word like Libertarian on the front of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Originally posted by lord xyz
Non-state socialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

.................
Originally posted by Prabhodh
Libertarian Socialism.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Ah yes the old standby of completely self-contradictory economic theories.
Originally posted by inimalist
don't tell Noam Chomsky though...

..............

Originally posted by lord xyz
You know, anarcho-communism like society.

It's crazy that when people hear socialism they think Soviet Union, China or Eastern Europe. Even with a word like Libertarian on the front of it.

Originally posted by inimalist
or are you talking about socialism where there is no central force designed to control the distribution of resources?

"state", "community", "moral principle", without private ownership central power is required for resource collection and allocation.

Libertarian socialists put their hopes in communal ownership (don't confuse state with society), municipalities, citizen's councils -- non-bureaucratic ways.

Citizen councils would seem to defeat the purpose of having either socialistic or libertarian ideals.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Citizen councils would seem to defeat the purpose of having either socialistic or libertarian ideals.

I meant workers council... my bad. For self management.

Originally posted by Prabhodh
Libertarian socialists put their hopes in communal ownership (don't confuse state with society), municipalities, citizen's councils -- non-bureaucratic ways.

so, as I said, some form of central authority which takes individual's product of labour and redistributes it.

If you can't own what you make, I don't really see that as freedom :/

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
But you are giving value to things that will have no value unless their is higher consciousness perceiving them. In comparison its like an artist creating his masterpiece and then hiding in fear that it may get ruined, and then committing suicide in the process out of fear he may also will too. Without any one there to give value to the art work, its just an arbitrary mixture of chemicals that hold as much value a as a turd or any other composition of chemicals. We allocate value to existence, not the other way round.

In other words, if we are all dead there will be nothing to asses the value of what survives. If we die and everything else goes with us, its not going to matter because without us its just a arbitary arrangement of matter. Biology is only complicated and beutiful, because we interpret it as such. The matter itself doesn't know that its beautiful or complex, it just exists.

And you're still wrong

Originally posted by Doom and Gloom
And you're still wrong

Woah ... that wasn't Rhetorical ... not all .

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
Woah ... that wasn't Rhetorical ... not all .

Yeah, I tried going to Mars and dying but it didn't work.

Originally posted by Advent
Assuming you created a society, what political philosophy would you use and why?

Or would you create one of your own? If so, what would it be like?

I'd create a reosource based economy and end the monetary system like the one indicated by the "Venus Project" creator.

I'd be a better bet for mankind.

I would make vigilantism lawful. Someone did you harm, then you have the right to kill their whole family.

Haruhism

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/wikiality/images/0/09/Haruhi_obey.jpg

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I'd create a reosource based economy and end the monetary system like the one indicated by the "Venus Project" creator.

I'd be a better bet for mankind. I would agree. Because the inevitable fall, connected with the deaths through starvation and many, many other problems would create such a strong, unshakable faith in Capitalism for so many generations to come that humanity would live in absolute peace and prosperity for centuries.

/chuckle

A form of social democraticism, I would assume. Key principles would be:

1. Complete separation of Church and State; no religious influence in political decisions whatsoever. All decisions are based upon scientific rationalism rather than faith.

2. Equalized opportunity is ensured via progressive taxation. This is because the government grants one integral services that you might not even be aware of, and, to put it simply, taxes are the price we must pay for civilization- everybody has a contribution to pay for the larger society and function towards the greater good. The wealthy are capable of paying more while still being capable of surviving, and thus they should be taxed more- it is better to shift the strain of taxation upon the people who can take it than placing it upon the middle class, who cannot. Humans are, by their very nature, social creatures, and that has to be nurtured and developed due to its economic and societal efficiency.

It will not be a communist society, however- hard work will be rewarded. However, in order to make sure that people who do succeed in life do so because of their individualistic merit rather than because of chance and societal favoritism, than equal opportunity must be ensured- lest people born to the rich will have a far easier time of staying rich and becoming more rich due to factors that they, themselves, did not control. It is the hypocrisy of economic rightists: they claim to support individual self-reliance, but yet they enable a system to be created that enables people to succeed not based on their actual attributes and personal merit.

3. The government must adopt the approach of the 'collective for the individual', and must understand that the part of the human psyche that is controllable is direct societal influence. Therefore, changing societal influences changes the individual- while the component of free will exists and should be acknowledged, it is a random variable that cannot be itself changed.

4. The government will be more concerned with preventing crime than punishing it, which means alleviation of the psychological causes for criminality is infinitely more important than punishing those whose actions have already taken place. It is more efficient and more just.

5. Because everything we have is derived from the planet, and because of the deaths and ramifications of harming the environment, than protecting it is a highly important priority- even if it comes at the expense of yet another private jet for some CEO. Chief problems are global warming and the less-spoken problem of overpopulation: make tax reforms to discourage having more than two children and provide further sex ed and family planning programs in order to make sure that we focus upon the idea of 'quality over quantity' and seek to deter population explosion, both internally and externally. The problem is thus: supplies are limited. More people = more demand. This means that supplies will cost more. This, in turn, means that the average standard of living will be reduced and that there will be more poverty and starvation- and we are not will to do that, correct? For that reason, if we wish to effectively maintain our current standard of living, than we must lower or keep the population in the way it currently is: which means that having more children should stop being glorified, because that simply harms society rather than assists it.

6. Keep abortion legal and grant gays universal adoption and marriage right. Hell, legalize all forms of sex- and that includes prostitution.

7. Begin with legalizing marijuana and, if that is not sufficient, legalize all drugs: enable people to do as they desire with their own individual body, but make the health risks of these drugs very well-known and ensure that the drugs that are sold are hygienic. It will grant more freedom, reduce organized crime, help fight terrorism, assist the economy, etc. I do not believe that drugs cause violence; they can trigger it, but they, themselves, are not the actual cause of it.

8. Universal health care. Now.

9. Keep gun control laws, but don't actually ban them. It simply does not work and will not work.

10. Adopt a foreign policy that is engined by diplomacy: do not engage in a war unless it is absolutely necessary and all possible alternatives to it have been explored, and, except in extreme cases, act internationally and with distinct cooperation with the world. It opens multiple possibilities and enables to come to more efficient solutions, and ultimately leads toward a better world- cooperation and coordination between countries is integral. Acknowledge that blowing up countries is not humanitarian, by any stretch of the definition, certainly when there are always other solutions available and that finances that are exclusively spent upon healing rather than destroying will always lead towards the saving of more lives.

Support trade and globalization, but maintain environmental and working standards in this agreement. Encourage countries to become more benevolent and more democratic by giving them a logical incentive and a reward for it, rather than blowing them up if they do not agree.

11. Execute Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coutler, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'reily.

I understand that this is a utopian fantasy that will probably not, realistically, ever come to pass, but, hey, this thread isn't for realistic propositions, eh?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I would agree. Because the inevitable fall, connected with the deaths through starvation and many, many other problems would create such a strong, unshakable faith in Capitalism for so many generations to come that humanity would live in absolute peace and prosperity for centuries.

Until that collapses from the inside out due to corruption and creates a similarly utopian communist state.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Until that collapses from the inside out due to corruption and creates a similarly utopian communist state.

It's a neverending cycle of utopias.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I would agree. Because the inevitable fall, connected with the deaths through starvation and many, many other problems would create such a strong, unshakable faith in Capitalism for so many generations to come that humanity would live in absolute peace and prosperity for centuries.

I didn't quite understand.

or are you being sarcastic..

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
4. The government will be more concerned with preventing crime than punishing it, which means alleviation of the psychological causes for criminality is infinitely more important than punishing those whose actions have already taken place. It is more efficient and more just. No matter the prevention taken, there will always be anomalies. Punishment should still be a large factor, albeit secondary.


Originally posted by Master Crimzon
7. Begin with legalizing marijuana and, if that is not sufficient, legalize all drugs: enable people to do as they desire with their own individual body, but make the health risks of these drugs very well-known and ensure that the drugs that are sold are hygienic. It will grant more freedom, reduce organized crime, help fight terrorism, assist the economy, etc. I do not believe that drugs cause violence; they can trigger it, but they, themselves, are not the actual cause of it. I just don't see how allowing powerful narcotics to have an acceptable place in every day society will promote either healthy living or a suitable place to live.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
11. Execute Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coutler, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'reily. I'd like to add Barbara Walters to that list.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I just don't see how allowing powerful narcotics to have an acceptable place in every day society will promote either healthy living or a suitable place to live.

Legalized drugs can be quality controlled, restricted and given proper education about. Illegal drugs are totally at the whims of the dealers and available to everyone.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I just don't see how allowing powerful narcotics to have an acceptable place in every day society will promote either healthy living or a suitable place to live.

drug legalization is not "allowing" someone to do anything

making drugs illegal does not stop anyone from using them

none.I would give everybody a holodeck and replicatorso they could live out theire ervy fantasy.the holodeck would also provide them sustenace so they could stay in their dream.The population would obviously die out.but at least they won't die painfully,and for the moment the population is alive,it would be a perfect society.

Originally posted by gobstakid777
none.I would give everybody a holodeck and replicatorso they could live out theire ervy fantasy.the holodeck would also provide them sustenace so they could stay in their dream.The population would obviously die out.but at least they won't die painfully,and for the moment the population is alive,it would be a perfect society.

That's a really stupid system. With holodecks and replicators you have a post scarcity economy. You'd be able to redefine economic and society completely.

I can't believe I never noticed this.

Originally posted by inimalist
drug legalization is not "allowing" someone to do anything

making drugs illegal does not stop anyone from using them "Allow" is a general term. Making drugs legal doesn't dissuade people who don't care about their effects from using them. That was 3 months late, but there ya go.



Originally posted by gobstakid777
none.I would give everybody a holodeck and replicatorso they could live out theire ervy fantasy.the holodeck would also provide them sustenace so they could stay in their dream.The population would obviously die out.but at least they won't die painfully,and for the moment the population is alive,it would be a perfect society. So... you're retarded?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I can't believe I never noticed this.

"Allow" is a general term. Making drugs legal doesn't dissuade people who don't care about their effects from using them. That was 3 months late, but there ya go.



So... you're retarded?
I said it would be a good plan.besides,the only good utopian govt. would be a benevolent dictator ruling a 1984 style facist dicattorship

Utopia? Who wants that shit? Gimme some chaos and carnage to spice things up a bit. And after it's all done, gimme a philosopher king.

A blend of Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism with a free society.

Direct Democracy

Originally posted by Liberator
Direct Democracy

Is that really feasible in a society with more than 50 people in it?

One in which all actions are voluntary, and no obligations are owed to a collective.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
One in which all actions are voluntary, and no obligations are owed to a collective. Isn't that the complete opposite of what a society is?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Isn't that the complete opposite of what a society is? Is it? I thought that most definitions of "society" only denotes interdependence and cooperation, both qualities that can exist without coercion.

j7M-7LkvcVw

I think that socialism and communism are both great philosophies, but I would need certain uncontrollable conditions to make an ideal society. For instance, I would need a bond of trust that would make sure that no one would manipulate the system as it has been manipulated in the past. Both are very easy to manipulate. Second, I would need lots of wealth to begin with because it takes a long time to get the "money wheel" turning under either of those. If these conditions were met, my society would be ideal for me. Unfortunately, in modern society, the first condition has been proven nearly impossible in the modern world. One power-hungry bastard is bound to ruin it for everybody, and setting up countermeasures against it would make me the power-hungry bastard, so my ideal society couldn't exist in the real world. Ah well, I've still got imagination land.

Originally posted by Amazing Vrayo!!
I think that socialism and communism are both great philosophies, but I would need certain uncontrollable conditions to make an ideal society. For instance, I would need a bond of trust that would make sure that no one would manipulate the system as it has been manipulated in the past. Both are very easy to manipulate. Second, I would need lots of wealth to begin with because it takes a long time to get the "money wheel" turning under either of those. If these conditions were met, my society would be ideal for me. Unfortunately, in modern society, the first condition has been proven nearly impossible in the modern world. One power-hungry bastard is bound to ruin it for everybody, and setting up countermeasures against it would make me the power-hungry bastard, so my ideal society couldn't exist in the real world. Ah well, I've still got imagination land.

You do realize that communism is fundamentally antidemocratic and the closest application of it in the real world resulted in a situation so horrific that it's the only event involving systematic mass murder other than the Nazi and Armenian genocides to be officially known as a "holocaust", right?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
You do realize that communism is fundamentally antidemocratic and the closest application of it in the real world resulted in a situation so horrific that it's the only event involving systematic mass murder other than the Nazi and Armenian genocides to be officially known as a "holocaust", right? yeah, but im pretty sure you just read my first sentence, because I said that I know it doesn't work in the real world, but if there was peace, and trust between all members of my society then it would be fine.

Since there is nothing sacred about humanity and since free will is an illusion, I would create a society of castes based on transhumanisim.

Immortal genius philosopher kings would be at the top while specially bred stupid people that have a shitton of children to serve as free slave labor at the bottom. Designed to desire only to serve their betters, they would exist in a constant state of bliss.

The smart, tall and beautiful elites would be able to rule and satisfy their desire to control the castes below them and not suffer the annoying drawbacks of rebellion. There would probably be other castes for differently specialties, with everyone in each caste bred to desire nothing but what they are designed to do. It would be like a machine, with each cog doing its part and loving it. In this way, everyone would be equal since everyone would be happy.

Oh and all religions would be abolished and disposed of. The word god would be stricken from memory, save for perhaps among the elites.

would you then have a quarantined zone where "savages" could live, or did you learn your lesson from the book?

Originally posted by Autokrat
Immortal genius philosopher kings would be at the top while specially bred stupid people that have a shitton of children to serve as free slave labor at the bottom. Designed to desire only to serve their betters, they would exist in a constant state of bliss.

If you have the ability to achieve transhumanism slave labor would be terribly inefficient.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
would you then have a quarantined zone where "savages" could live, or did you learn your lesson from the book?

You mean a Brave New World? I've never read it actually.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you have the ability to achieve transhumanism slave labor would be terribly inefficient.

Sure, but then who would the elites rule over to make themselves feel good? Out of all the castes they would be the only ones with any real "independent" thoughts and egos that would need satisfying. I suppose you could just have self sufficient transhumans that use AI and robotics for any production necessary. Anything sub par or deviant could just be disposed of, limiting the surplus population.

Originally posted by Autokrat
Sure, but then who would the elites rule over to make themselves feel good? Out of all the castes they would be the only ones with any real "independent" thoughts and egos that would need satisfying. I suppose you could just have self sufficient transhumans that use AI and robotics for any production necessary. Anything sub par or deviant could just be disposed of, limiting the surplus population.

Just modify the "elites" to be permanently happy too, they'd never know the difference.

Originally posted by Amazing Vrayo!!
yeah, but im pretty sure you just read my first sentence, because I said that I know it doesn't work in the real world, but if there was peace, and trust between all members of my society then it would be fine. True communism involves the breakdown of all hierarchical relationships, including the family. I do hope you know I was referring to "Democratic Kampuchea".

Originally posted by Darth Jello
True communism involves the breakdown of all hierarchical relationships, including the family. I do hope you know I was referring to "Democratic Kampuchea". I'll admit I didn't. At this point in my life, I'm more of a learner than a knower, but now I do now what the democratic kampuchea was so thank you.

They were very functional. If you need to build homes and you have a deficit of lumber but a surplus of human bones, use what you have.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
They were very functional. If you need to build homes and you have a deficit of lumber but a surplus of human bones, use what you have. HAHA

Originally posted by Darth Jello
They were very functional. If you need to build homes and you have a deficit of lumber but a surplus of human bones, use what you have.

When you run out of potatoes but like to **** like bunnies, eat babies!

They also proved that the differences between a public school and an extermination camp can be purely cosmetic.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
They also proved that the differences between a public school and an extermination camp can be purely cosmetic.

I\ve suspected this for years....

I know, aren't you glad Pol Pot's dead?

Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
But you are giving value to things that will have no value unless their is higher consciousness perceiving them. In comparison its like an artist creating his masterpiece and then hiding in fear that it may get ruined, and then committing suicide in the process out of fear he may also will too. Without any one there to give value to the art work, its just an arbitrary mixture of chemicals that hold as much value a as a turd or any other composition of chemicals. We allocate value to existence, not the other way round.

In other words, if we are all dead there will be nothing to asses the value of what survives. If we die and everything else goes with us, its not going to matter because without us its just a arbitary arrangement of matter. Biology is only complicated and beutiful, because we interpret it as such. The matter itself doesn't know that its beautiful or complex, it just exists.

Hum.. that's funny. Do human being have value in and by themselves? Regardless of how others evaluate them? Are they not chemicals too?

The beauty and value you find in human intellect and its achievements is entirelly subjective, just like the value he places in the existence and agency of other organisms. The value you place in other people's lifes is equally subjective as well.

Of course, you could claim that humans can atribute value to themselves, so if a man values his own life, maybe that's enough for you to claim that it has value. But the thing is, the fundamental value we atribute to our own lives is self-preservation instinct. And even bacteria value themselves in this sense. You only see subjectivity and agency in human individuals and you link it to intellectual capacities, that is nonsense. To illustrate this: a mentally defective man who is too stupid to learn how to talk can still allocate value to his own life and so can dogs, plants and single cell organisms. This is self-evident through self-preserving behavior, even if they have no way of understanding how or why they do it, even if they have no minds or conscient sensations at all. We don't want to live because we're smart.

The respect for the existency and agency of other entities comes from empathy that we acquired through evolution. It is no more obejective to feel it for people than to feel it for trees.

By the way, the separation of humans and other living organisms into distinct ontological classes has little to no basis in biology.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
True communism involves the breakdown of all hierarchical relationships, including the family. I do hope you know I was referring to "Democratic Kampuchea". Wrong. even when the breakdown of all forms of hierarchy is considered in anarchist and communist thought, and it isnt necessarilly, it only refers to all forms of coercive hierarchy, not voluntarilly adhered to hierarchy. Extinction of the family isn't a part of the overhealming majority of communist or anarchist theories and practices, if any.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
You do realize that communism is fundamentally antidemocratic and the closest application of it in the real world resulted in a situation so horrific that it's the only event involving systematic mass murder other than the Nazi and Armenian genocides to be officially known as a "holocaust", right? Define democracy and define communism. What you are referring to is soviet-like state socialism, which most anarchist call state capitalism.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
My ideal society is where the earth and it's biodiversity come first/ kudos to you sir. I believe the way to go about that is green anarchism.

Totalitarian dictatorship state.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Totalitarian dictatorship state. Would that be a green totalitarian state?

Originally posted by 753
Would that be a green totalitarian state?

Well yes, since there wouldn't be room for bickering around it - if scientific resources confirms it is the best for everyone and everything, dictator implements it, there won't be too much room for arguing.
You'd get seriously fined, though, if you break any such laws.

A very Prolife and Conserve society would be my idea.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
A very Prolife and Conserve society would be my idea.

How can you build an entire political philosophy on being pro-life?

By forcing it I guess.I never said I would be a kind ruler lol!Jk I would be.

One man, one vote.

I'm the man, and I get the vote!

(with apologies to Terry Pratchett)

I would instigate a system where everyone who has ever annoyed me will be put to death.... this will reduce the population to only two people... neither of whom will be me.....