# Your ideal society



## Julia (7 August 2012)

I heard what I thought was a great question posed to an interviewee recently:



> If you could create the ideal society, *not knowing what your position in it would be*,
> what would it be?




Anyone up for having a go at this, as an alternative to the ever-repetitive political commentary or the misery of the Olympics?


----------



## disarray (7 August 2012)

benevolent dictatorship. things get done and the people are looked after. just need to sort the succession issue.


----------



## prawn_86 (7 August 2012)

Dunno if it is my ideal as it is has never been tested but i would be keen for proper democracy through the Internet where each issue is voted on or abstained from by the populous. Minimal politicians required


----------



## CanOz (7 August 2012)

prawn_86 said:


> Dunno if it is my ideal as it is has never been tested but i would be keen for proper democracy through the Internet where each issue is voted on or abstained from by the populous. Minimal politicians required




I would agree with something that minimized politicians for sure!

CanOz


----------



## waza1960 (7 August 2012)

A society where business and government treats the individual as you yourself would like to be treated...
 A society where basic needs are looked after first i.e Everyone has proper health care,shelter,food......


----------



## wayneL (7 August 2012)

disarray said:


> benevolent dictatorship. things get done and the people are looked after. just need to sort the succession issue.




It's a nice idea. I have a few friends who dream of such a benevolent dictatorship utopia. Of course in this model society, it is always them who is the dictator. 

In the real world............ I've never been there, but missus lived in Switzerland for a while and claims it is pretty close to what is achievable in real life.


----------



## bullet21 (7 August 2012)

Libertarian/minarchism with Free Market Capitalism


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 August 2012)

wayneL said:


> It's a nice idea. I have a few friends who dream of such a benevolent dictatorship utopia. Of course in this model society, it is always them who is the dictator.



People with a technical background, notably engineers, sometimes tend toward this view. It's a sort of capitalist driven form of socialism to the extent that such a thing is possible. That is, we'll build this, do that and so on in order to make a profit (acknowledging the need to be profitable). The key point however is that "profit" is distributed into jobs created and taxes paid rather than aiming to make an actual $ profit as such. 

The various government energy, roads, railways etc authorities were full of such people and they were pretty much joined at the hip to their associated politicians who shared similar views. Central to it all is that nothing is negotiable - it will be done the most efficient way and that's it, anyone who disagrees had better get out of the way before the road, dam or whatever is built straight over them.

It's not quite the "benevolent dictator" but it's a political train of thought that's not far removed from it. Opposition to this line of thinking, and to specific projects which it produced, gave rise to mainstream environmentalism in Australia and subsequently to the Australian Greens.

Note that I'm not saying this is necessarily ideal, it has good points and bad, just that it did exist on a significant scale within government authorities for many years (primarily those involved in building physical things) and thus has had an influence on Australian life and politics.


----------



## robusta (7 August 2012)

Australia 

We have got it good.


----------



## bandicoot76 (7 August 2012)

a constitutional republic based on jeffersonist libertarianism! anything else eventually leads to tyranny.


----------



## disarray (7 August 2012)

wayneL said:


> It's a nice idea. I have a few friends who dream of such a benevolent dictatorship utopia. Of course in this model society, it is always them who is the dictator.




yeah but the original post says you don't get to pick your position in it  i'm happy to work for a boss who has his head screwed on and a reasonable set of priorities.

i just don't really get into democracy. its like that quote by alexis de tocqueville ...



> “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”




... people aren't trustworthy. sure a person may be cool, but the group dynamic of our species always ends up really skewed in one way or another.

i like the starship troopers model - service guarantees citizenship. 



> And force, my friends, is violence, the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived...... Naked force has settled more issues in history than any other factor. The contrary opinion 'violence never solves anything' is wishful thinking at its worst.




would you like to know more?


----------



## Julia (7 August 2012)

Thanks for interesting responses.

On the 'benevolent dictator' option, how would this person achieve office?
By force?
Elected?
If the latter, how would this actually differ from our present supposedly democratic system?


> Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.




Doesn't the disparate nature of human beings necessarily mean such a person simply couldn't be 'benevolent' to everyone?
Is it really possible to have a society where everyone is really happy with their leadership?

e.g. North Korea, where everyone makes it their life's business to offer homage to the country's leader, a person we would see as having priorities everywhere but the wellbeing of his people.
If you've only ever known such a society, is it entirely feasible that you would genuinely believe you live in a good country?

I guess what I'm trying to get at here is how skewed our aspirational ideas might be as a result of our living in what Robusta describes as an ideal society.

Just considering the huge variation in a population of IQ, genetic and educational variables etc., to me it seems an impossible aim to ever have a society in which every member feels their needs are met.

How does competition fare in this ideal society?

Certainly there are those who will never be up to competing with others?  Is it to always be their lot to hope someone hands them what's left over?

Remember that, for the purposes of this discussion, your ideal society does not offer you the option of choosing your role in it.


----------



## waimate01 (8 August 2012)

Three options:

Benevolent dictator. Maybe it isn't so important who is the dictator compared to the benefits of a clear vision. You certainly don't want to have a no-brain, but dictatorship tends to have a fairly arduous selection process, so only the go-getters find themselves in that position.

Democracy similar to what we have now, but with the difference that you need a license to vote, and need to pass a 1hr test (generic ability, elementary maths, civics). There'd be another license to breed, but that's a different story.

My favourite: the way we currently run companies. A company is a "weighted democracy", where the value of your vote depends on how much skin you have in the game. For a country, the weight of your vote could depend on:
   - the score you got for the license-to-vote exam
   - your assets
   - the amount of tax you paid last year


----------



## prawn_86 (8 August 2012)

waimate01 said:


> My favourite: the way we currently run companies. A company is a "weighted democracy", where the value of your vote depends on how much skin you have in the game. For a country, the weight of your vote could depend on:
> - the score you got for the license-to-vote exam
> - *your assets
> - the amount of tax you paid last year*




Both of the bolded discriminate against poorer or lower income earners.

Why should a nurse or teacher who earns a third what i do yet could be just as smart get less of a vote just because they dont pay as much tax?

I am for a weighted voting system, but more based on population density imo so lower population areas are treated equally


----------



## Surly (8 August 2012)

While not an answer I believe this quote from A Clash of Kings is relevant and thought provoking in this context:

Riddle: "In a room sit three great men, a king, a priest, and a rich man with his gold. Between them stands a sellsword, a little man of common birth and no great mind. Each of the great ones bids him slay the other two. 'Do it,' says the king, 'for I am your lawful ruler.' 'Do it,' says the priest, 'for I command you in the names of the gods.' 'Do it,' says the rich man, 'and all this gold shall be yours.' So tell me- who lives and who dies?"

Varys - "Perchance you have considered the riddle I posed you that day in the inn?"

Tyrion - "It has crossed my mind a time or two. The king, the priest, the rich man-who lives and who dies? Who will the swordsman obey? It's a riddle without an answer, or rather, too many answers. All depends on the man with the sword."

Varys - "And yet he is no one. He has neither crown nor gold nor favor of the gods, only a piece of pointed steel."

Tyrion - "That piece of steel is the power of life and death."

Varys - "Just so . . . yet if it is the swordsmen who rule us in truth, why do we pretend our kings hold the power? Why should a strong man with a sword ever obey a child king like Joffrey, or a wine-sodden oaf like his father?"

Tyrion - "Because these child kings and drunken oafs can call other strong men, with other swords."

Varys - "Then these other swordsmen have the true power. Or do they? Whence came their swords? Why do they obey? Some say knowledge is power. Some tell us that all power comes from the gods. Others say it derives from law. Yet that day on the steps of Baelor's Sept, our godly High Septon and the lawful Queen Regent and your ever so-knowledgeable servant were as powerless as any cobbler or cooper in the crowd. Who truly killed Eddard Stark do you think? Joffrey, who gave the command? Ser Ilyn Payne, who swung the sword? Or . . . another?"

Tyrion - "Did you mean to answer your damned riddle, or only to make my head ache worse?"

Varys - "Here, then. Power resides where men believe it resides. No more and no less."

Tyrion - "So power is a mummer's trick?"

Varys - "A shadow on the wall, yet shadows can kill. And oft times a very small man can cast a very large shadow."

Tyrion - "Lord Varys, I am growing strangely fond of you. I may kill you yet, but I think I'd feel sad about it."

cheers
Surly


----------



## noco (8 August 2012)

If I may Julia, and with great repect to your thread, I would like to add a little bit of humour.

I am going to try and contact one or two Muslim terrorist who are now in heaven after blowing themselves up to find out if it is true that when you go to heaven there will be 14 virgin women waiting for you and you will be able to live in luxury for the rest of your life.

Now that is what I call an ideal society for men only of course for I am not sure if their are many female suicide bombers and what their reward would be!!!!!!!!!!

However, all jokes aside, I believe we already live in an ideal scoiety. Just needs some adjustments here and there so long as we do not go too far to the left. You reap what you sow. Work hard and be rewarded accordingly.If you decde to bludge on society,drink, smoke and gamble, be prepared to suffer the consequences.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (8 August 2012)

I wonder if this would work.

People vote for someone they would like to represent the country - a figurehead.  They can choose anyone they like, so there's no official candidates and no campaigning.  The only campaigning that can be carried out is a single web page - one per person.  Each has the same format.

Votes come in via internet.  Joe Blow gets the highest vote score, and he is asked if he's interested.  If not, go to the next highest vote count until someone agrees.  

The figurehead has considerable voting power in parliament, but can be de-throned at any time, via internet!


----------



## prawn_86 (8 August 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> I wonder if this would work.
> 
> People vote for someone they would like to represent the country - a figurehead.  They can choose anyone they like, so there's no official candidates and no campaigning.  The only campaigning that can be carried out is a single web page - one per person.  Each has the same format.
> 
> ...




The ancient Greeks used to intsill 10 - 20% of their parliments with 'average joes'. Farmers, smiths, traders etc were all selected at random and had to serve the term, much like jury duty. Their jobs and or lands were held and looked after while they served their stint and gave the voice of the people instead of career politicians.

It is a good idea i think


----------



## Gringotts Bank (8 August 2012)

prawn_86 said:


> The ancient Greeks used to intsill 10 - 20% of their parliments with 'average joes'. Farmers, smiths, traders etc were all selected at random and had to serve the term, much like jury duty. Their jobs and or lands were held and looked after while they served their stint and gave the voice of the people instead of career politicians.
> 
> It is a good idea i think




Back when the Greeks were clever!

I've always thought the common person has common sense.  Someone middle class, good intelligence (without being a high IQ nerd), pleasant, outgoing, good general knowledge and problem solving skills, good sense of humour, honest and so on...


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 August 2012)

Julia said:


> e.g. North Korea, where everyone makes it their life's business to offer homage to the country's leader, a person we would see as having priorities everywhere but the wellbeing of his people.
> If you've only ever known such a society, is it entirely feasible that you would genuinely believe you live in a good country?



Get a bunch of 10 year olds and ask them to list the 5 most powerful countries in the world. Practically all of them will place Australia on the list. 

Now try the same exercise with cities but change it slightly to which have the best facilities, the most opportunities etc. Unless they have travelled more than most that age, they will list their own city, or their state capital if they don't live in a city, as one of the best in the world.

Then there comes a point where you grow up and reality sets in. Australia is nowhere near the world's most powerful nation, we're not even on the list. And few would genuinely believe that any Australian city has the world's best facilities or the most opportunity(though they do have their own good points). But if you had never travelled, and had no access to outside media etc, then it's entirely possible that people would think their own country to be good in comparison to others if that's all they are told.


----------



## Julia (8 August 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> Get a bunch of 10 year olds and ask them to list the 5 most powerful countries in the world. Practically all of them will place Australia on the list.
> 
> Now try the same exercise with cities but change it slightly to which have the best facilities, the most opportunities etc. Unless they have travelled more than most that age, they will list their own city, or their state capital if they don't live in a city, as one of the best in the world.
> 
> Then there comes a point where you grow up and reality sets in. Australia is nowhere near the world's most powerful nation, we're not even on the list. And few would genuinely believe that any Australian city has the world's best facilities or the most opportunity(though they do have their own good points). But if you had never travelled, and had no access to outside media etc, then it's entirely possible that people would think their own country to be good in comparison to others if that's all they are told.



Interesting thought and no doubt true.
Would the same, do you think, apply to those brought up in strife-torn countries?
i.e. is the fact that that's all they have known allow them to think simply that this is how life is, especially given levels of education in such countries are likely to be less than eg Australia et al?


----------



## bandicoot76 (8 August 2012)

i heard a good quote recently:

"democracy is 3 wolves and a lamb arguing about what to have for lunch, while a constitutional republic is the same situation but with a well armed lamb disputing the decision"


----------



## bullet21 (9 August 2012)

Surly said:


> While not an answer I believe this quote from A Clash of Kings is relevant and thought provoking in this context:
> 
> Riddle: "In a room sit three great men, a king, a priest, and a rich man with his gold. Between them stands a sellsword, a little man of common birth and no great mind. Each of the great ones bids him slay the other two. 'Do it,' says the king, 'for I am your lawful ruler.' 'Do it,' says the priest, 'for I command you in the names of the gods.' 'Do it,' says the rich man, 'and all this gold shall be yours.' So tell me- who lives and who dies?"




Just started reading A Song of Ice and Fire. I haven't read a series that I've had to force myself to take breaks from, in a long time.


----------



## prawn_86 (9 August 2012)

bullet21 said:


> Just started reading A Song of Ice and Fire. I haven't read a series that I've had to force myself to take breaks from, in a long time.




Have read every book. Pure gold. You have got a lot of twists and turns to come if you have just started


----------



## Ves (9 August 2012)

prawn_86 said:


> Have read every book. Pure gold. You have got a lot of twists and turns to come if you have just started



I read the first 3 books (4 books in Australia if you included the 3rd being split into two) almost a decade ago now.  I thought it was fantastic then as a late-teenager. He took a long time in releasing the next book so I forgot about it.  Re-reading it again now,  up to the 2nd part of the third book, and I think I like it even more  (especially compared to the TV series which I think is very poorly paced and loses much of the subtle characterisation).

It is rare to find a book that is so ruthless in imitating life in the fact that death is our real fate, and there are no consolations. Especially not for favourite characters. He sacrifices continuity in cases (as happens in reality), but the world he creates is so all-encompassing and detailed that it doesn't matter.  

sorry for the off-topic post;  I think the best society that man has seen was the ending era of classical Greece  (about 4th Century BC).  I encourage anyone to read  Kitto's fantastic book  "The Greeks." A period of creation, discovery, art, architecture and philosophy that man never saw again IMO.

A preference for the ideal would be a meritocracy, with either a sole regent head or a small council.  The difficulties have already been discussed.


----------



## white_goodman (9 August 2012)

prawn_86 said:


> Dunno if it is my ideal as it is has never been tested but i would be keen for proper democracy through the Internet where each issue is voted on or abstained from by the populous. Minimal politicians required





sounds like a disaster, mob rule.. democracy in its purest form is akin to gang rape


----------



## white_goodman (9 August 2012)

wayneL said:


> It's a nice idea. I have a few friends who dream of such a benevolent dictatorship utopia. Of course in this model society, it is always them who is the dictator.
> 
> In the real world............ I've never been there, but missus lived in Switzerland for a while and claims it is pretty close to what is achievable in real life.




a system that gives ultimate power to one and relies on picking the 'right' person is doomed to failure... the old marxism would have worked if it wasnt for stalin, fascism would have worked if it wasnt for hitler, the best generally dont rise to the top..

a system where the worst that rise to the top are in a sense coerced (by the voting public) to do the right thing would be better in a minarchist system.


----------



## white_goodman (9 August 2012)

bullet21 said:


> Libertarian/minarchism with Free Market Capitalism




wonder how many other people know who Bastiat is on this forum


----------



## bullet21 (9 August 2012)

white_goodman said:


> wonder how many other people know who Bastiat is on this forum




I'm guessing Bandicoot does, he appears to be a Jeffersonian.


----------



## white_goodman (9 August 2012)




----------



## pixel (9 August 2012)

white_goodman said:


> sounds like a disaster, mob rule.. democracy in its purest form is akin to gang rape




My ideal society would value education more than entertainment; science more than religion; production more than consumption; and every "Right" would be conditional upon a commensurate "Responsibility". 

Can it be achieved? IMO no - unless this were the only society on the planet. Because, people being what they are, there would always be a minority that wanted religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom to enjoy this or that - all on the presumption of some "sacrosanct HUMAN RIGHT". And if they couldn't get it, there would be outside powers that would ostracize such a society and demand their warped brand of "Human Rights" - or else!

That aside, any form of "Utopia" may work for a generation or two - *but ...* 

If you let ordinary people vote their representatives into power, the "ideal" will last only until they find out they can vote themselves a life of "Bread and Circus" - liberty without responsibility. No matter, how well-intentioned the start, how much responsibility is assigned to the Parliament: Once in power, the elected reps will drift towards "all perks, no recrimination". And they will prostitute themselves in order to be re-elected. Hence more "bread and circuses."

The same will happen over time if you enthrone a "Benevolent Dictator". Who decides what is benevolent? Benevolent for whom? And how is succession determined?

Robert A Heinlein had this to say (in "Time Enough for Love")

[FONT=trebuchet ms, Arial, Helvetica]_"Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one    man. How's that again? I missed something."

  "Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million    men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?"_[/FONT]


----------



## disarray (10 August 2012)

pixel said:


> My ideal society would value education more than entertainment; science more than religion; production more than consumption; and every "Right" would be conditional upon a commensurate "Responsibility".




+1

what ever happened to "responsibilities"?


----------



## Sean K (10 August 2012)

Contented happiness: Eudaimonia.

Could probably only start to occur if the world's human population started shrinking.


----------



## Julia (10 August 2012)

disarray said:


> +1



+2 for Pixel's remarks.



> what ever happened to "responsibilities"?



They all belong to someone else apparently.


----------



## white_goodman (10 August 2012)

kennas said:


> Contented happiness: Eudaimonia.
> 
> Could probably only start to occur if the world's human population started shrinking.




the birth rates of developed countries... below replacement.

The eugenics theme i find a little disturbing..


----------



## white_goodman (10 August 2012)

pixel said:


> My ideal society would value education more than entertainment; science more than religion; production more than consumption; and every "Right" would be conditional upon a commensurate "Responsibility".




what type of 'rights' do you refer to?


----------



## bullet21 (10 August 2012)

white_goodman said:


>





White, have you read any of his sons work. I'm reading The Machinery of Freedom at the moment, he is an Anarcho-Capitalist. It's thought provoking, especially if you have a libertarian leaning it may pique your interest.


----------



## white_goodman (10 August 2012)

bullet21 said:


> White, have you read any of his sons work. I'm reading The Machinery of Freedom at the moment, he is an Anarcho-Capitalist. It's thought provoking, especially if you have a libertarian leaning it may pique your interest.





no i only read his blog whenever he updates it, ill give it a look


----------



## gav (10 August 2012)

white_goodman said:


> no i only read his blog whenever he updates it, ill give it a look




The only good thing to ever come from France!


----------



## pixel (11 August 2012)

white_goodman said:


> what type of 'rights' do you refer to?




If you feel the need to ask, you probably won't like the answer:
I balance *every* claimed right by a commensurate responsibility. To mention just a few examples -

The right to procreate balanced by the responsibility to look after your offspring.
The right to an education by the responsibility to make an honest effort to the best of your ability.
The right to express your opinion by the responsibility to respect others' views.
The right to vote by the responsibility to defend the country and respect the constitution.
The right to be elected into any office by the acceptance of being held accountable.
The right to own property by the responsibility towards the broader community.

I know of only one Constitution (there may be many) that includes this noble tenet "Property has obligations; it must be used for the benefit of the commonwealth." But I can't say it's made a difference in the way most Fat Cats of that country keep dodging taxes, let alone support any "worthy causes" but their own greed.


----------



## shag (12 August 2012)

white_goodman said:


> the birth rates of developed countries... below replacement.
> 
> The eugenics theme i find a little disturbing..




well thats good, the planet has been gossly over populated for a century. go back to the 70's even, every nice site wasnt inundated and spoilt with and by humans. this is just one minor obvious aspect of recent human over population.

back then the educated bred for replacement or less only. 
quality, not quantity. if we bugger this planet, we dont deserve to inhabit another.

today at bondi, you wont be able to move for people, like summer, literally....unless the wind blows a few out to sea....


----------



## bandicoot76 (12 August 2012)

here are some good quotes for people to think on:

“The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.” 
― Thomas Jefferson 

“My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.” 
― Thomas Jefferson 

“The Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” 
― Thomas Jefferson 

“Those who surrender freedom for security (safety) will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” 
― Thomas Jefferson 

“A government afraid of its citizens is a Democracy. Citizens afraid of government is tyranny!” 
― Thomas Jefferson 

food for thought!


----------



## CanOz (12 August 2012)

bandicoot76 said:


> “The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations.”
> ― Thomas Jefferson




Perhaps this has not happened to a full extent, but certainly the big banks are now Above the Law.

CanOz


----------



## bandicoot76 (12 August 2012)

how did we ever let the looney-left hijack "liberalism" from truly great minds suchs as these:

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

(not sure what John Maynard Keynes is doing in this list though... he was hardly a libertarian thinker, a bigger statist would be hard to find!)


----------



## white_goodman (13 August 2012)

pixel said:


> If you feel the need to ask, you probably won't like the answer:
> I balance *every* claimed right by a commensurate responsibility. To mention just a few examples -
> 
> The right to procreate balanced by the responsibility to look after your offspring.
> ...




you need a firmer definition of rights, you cant have a right to housing, education, healthcare... in principle you are saying you are demanding by force the fruits of the labour and effort of other people..


----------



## white_goodman (13 August 2012)

shag said:


> well thats good, the planet has been gossly over populated for a century. go back to the 70's even, every nice site wasnt inundated and spoilt with and by humans. this is just one minor obvious aspect of recent human over population.
> 
> back then the educated bred for replacement or less only.
> quality, not quantity. if we bugger this planet, we dont deserve to inhabit another.
> ...




australia is overpopulated? thats interesting, you may be best to avoid fantasizing in environmental or malthusian argmageddon, just because emotional views are repeated often dont make them true. If we do become overpopulated itll be largely attributable to govt intervention, the market system wont allow for overpopulation, the economic laws of scarcity kick in very quickly, whther that be food, oil, water what have you..


----------



## white_goodman (13 August 2012)

bandicoot76 said:


> how did we ever let the looney-left hijack "liberalism" from truly great minds suchs as these:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_liberal_theorists
> 
> (not sure what John Maynard Keynes is doing in this list though... he was hardly a libertarian thinker, a bigger statist would be hard to find!)




id like to mention the left wing of politics, libertarians/classical liberals are the original left, with the aristocracy/conservatives/feudal class being the original right...


----------



## white_goodman (13 August 2012)

bandicoot76 said:


> how did we ever let the looney-left hijack "liberalism" from truly great minds suchs as these:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_liberal_theorists
> 
> (not sure what John Maynard Keynes is doing in this list though... he was hardly a libertarian thinker, a bigger statist would be hard to find!)





he shouldnt be on that list...


----------



## bullet21 (13 August 2012)

bandicoot76 said:


> how did we ever let the looney-left hijack "liberalism" from truly great minds suchs as these:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_liberal_theorists
> 
> (not sure what John Maynard Keynes is doing in this list though... he was hardly a libertarian thinker, a bigger statist would be hard to find!)




Chomsky is on that list too, and he's a Syndicalist.


----------



## pixel (13 August 2012)

white_goodman said:


> you need a firmer definition of rights, you cant have a right to housing, education, healthcare... in principle you are saying you are demanding by force the fruits of the labour and effort of other people..




Agree in principle;
I wasn't saying I recognise them all as rights per se, but they're claimed by many - especially on what you'd call "the original left". I believe it started in the late 1960's that the "loony fringe" claimed rights and liberties without responsibilities; today, their disciples seem to have moved mainstream with more and more well-meaning sympathetic idealists supporting the cause of minorities without practical concerns.


----------



## numbercruncher (13 August 2012)

Currency backed by gold and silver

Abolish RBA

Harsher penalties for violent crimes including reintroduction of death penalty and ban certain crimnals the right to move interstate

Reduce size of military operations in favour of much larger home defence force including coast guard

Remove cumpulsary voting

Abolish negative gearing

Make politicians business interests more transparent

Increase taxes on mega wealthy mining magnates who have permit to take Australias resources

Provide a limited amount of free energy to households ( means tested )

Devise more methods to reward savers and those who invest productive australian businesses

Make home states contribute to the cost of health care of retirees who move to another state

Make it cumpulsaryfor inmates, illegal immigrants and the unemployed to partake in community work

Designate an island where gangs may go to indulge in armed warfare instead of using our streets

Tax bad foods in favour of using that tax to subsidise healthy foods 

Im sure i could dream up more


----------



## wayneL (13 August 2012)

bandicoot76 said:


> how did we ever let the looney-left hijack "liberalism" from truly great minds suchs as these:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_liberal_theorists
> 
> (not sure what John Maynard Keynes is doing in this list though... he was hardly a libertarian thinker, a bigger statist would be hard to find!)




Exactly... when did liberal = socialist?


----------



## OzWaveGuy (13 August 2012)

Looking at the comments here I'm not sure there's much agreement on what the ideal society is supposed to look like. I'm also not sure what's wrong with the current society.

The current "society" is as perfect as you'll find anywhere as it allows anyone to interact within it or outside it and to seek remedy for any injustice.

Perhaps the title of this thread should be something like "do people understand how to leverage society for the benefit of all?"


----------



## sptrawler (13 August 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> Currency backed by gold and silver
> 
> Abolish RBA
> 
> ...




I initially thought, this is a slice and dice post(tonque in cheek) but thought, no it's great to see someone being honest.


----------



## wayneL (13 August 2012)

OzWaveGuy said:


> Looking at the comments here I'm not sure there's much agreement on what the ideal society is supposed to look like. I'm also not sure what's wrong with the current society.
> 
> The current "society" is as perfect as you'll find anywhere as it allows anyone to interact within it or outside it and to seek remedy for any injustice.
> 
> Perhaps the title of this thread should be something like "do people understand how to leverage society for the benefit of all?"




I have an ideal society in mind, however it would require all to have ideals and experiences similar to myself.

But I have observed that some folks are most happy within the confines of an authoritarian society, while others most happy in a liberal/libertarian society.

IOW ones man's utopia is another's dystopia.

I must admit to falling on the side of the Libertarians... but with a clearly defined heirarchy of liberties. Therein lies the potential for Authoritarianism.

Therefore I question the possibility of an 'ideal' society, rather, a balanced society may be a more realistic goal.

Western liberal democracies such as Oz and NZ are generally close to this balance, however I feel the pendulum is slightly on the wrong side of authoritarianism for my liking.

Just my $0.02


----------



## MrBurns (13 August 2012)

Julia said:


> I heard what I thought was a great question posed to an interviewee recently:
> Anyone up for having a go at this, as an alternative to the ever-repetitive political commentary or the misery of the Olympics?




A society where everyone realises that our purpose here on earth is to look after each other - 

Not to see how much money we can make 
Not to have far more than we would ever need
Not to sit comfortably in our heated homes while the old and frail eat cat food in the cold dark because they have no money or support.
Not to allow kids to go without because their parents arent as smart or as lucky as we are.
Not to stop until everyone is looked after and has support of some kind.


----------



## CanOz (13 August 2012)

MrBurns said:


> A society where everyone realises that our purpose here on earth is to look after each other -
> 
> Not to see how much money we can make
> Not to have far more than we would ever need
> ...




+1

If only Mr.B...If only...


----------



## wayneL (13 August 2012)

CanOz said:


> +1
> 
> If only Mr.B...If only...




I read about it once, in the book of Acts. Cheaters got worse than today's murderers... which goes to my previous point.


----------



## sptrawler (13 August 2012)

Giving credit where credit is due.
Giving support to enable the needy to become self supporting.
Giving accolades to those who have become self supporting.
Giving assistance to those who can't become self supporting.
Giving options to those who don't want to become self supporting.


----------



## Julia (13 August 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> Currency backed by gold and silver
> 
> Abolish RBA
> 
> ...



Is this your own list, nc?  All your own ideas?



wayneL said:


> IOW ones man's utopia is another's dystopia.



+1.  Which makes the question the more interesting.



> Western liberal democracies such as Oz and NZ are generally close to this balance, however I feel the pendulum is slightly on the wrong side of authoritarianism for my liking.



Yes.  But perhaps this would change with a change to a liberal government?




MrBurns said:


> A society where everyone realises that our purpose here on earth is to look after each other -
> 
> Not to see how much money we can make
> Not to have far more than we would ever need
> ...



Great ideal.  We probably come closer to this than many other countries.



sptrawler said:


> Giving credit where credit is due.
> Giving support to enable the needy to become self supporting.
> Giving accolades to those who have become self supporting.
> Giving assistance to those who can't become self supporting.
> Giving options to those who don't want to become self supporting.



+1.

Recent responses are much appreciated.  It's like the thoughtful ASF of many years ago.


----------



## wayneL (13 August 2012)

Julia said:


> Yes.  But perhaps this would change with a change to a liberal government?




I don't believe there are any viable liberal (as distinct from the Australian Liberal Party and distinct from the American interpretation of 'liberal') parties in either Oz or NZ.

NZ ACT was the closest, but they self destructed... unfortunately.

However, I find NZ generally more *l*iberal than Oz... and hence happy to be here for the moment.


----------



## CanOz (13 August 2012)

wayneL said:


> I don't believe there are any viable liberal (as distinct from the Australian Liberal Party and distinct from the American interpretation of 'liberal') parties in either Oz or NZ.
> 
> NZ ACT was the closest, but they self destructed... unfortunately.
> 
> However, I find NZ generally more *l*iberal than Oz... and hence happy to be here for the moment.




So what do you call Canada Wayne? Honestly i wouldn't have a clue now..other than the fact that its quite socialist.

CanOz


----------



## wayneL (13 August 2012)

CanOz said:


> So what do you call Canada Wayne? Honestly i wouldn't have a clue now..other than the fact that its quite socialist.
> 
> CanOz




I can't comment definitively as (apart fro having been born there) have only visited briefly.

But my impression is that it is socially liberal and economically statist (IOW socialist).

I have further thoughts, but probably not well informed enough to be comfortable espousing them.


----------



## disarray (15 August 2012)

wayneL said:


> Therefore I question the possibility of an 'ideal' society, rather, a balanced society may be a more realistic goal.




a society can only be as ideal as the people who inhabit it


----------



## Julia (16 August 2012)

disarray said:


> a society can only be as ideal as the people who inhabit it



Agreed.  And their willingness to contribute to it.


----------



## pixel (16 August 2012)

Julia said:


> A society can only be as ideal as the people who inhabit it,
> ... and their willingness to contribute to it.




So, based on the Laws of Averages, we can never attain an ideal state.
Not that anybody should be surprised by that...

However, those of us capable of making small changes can have an enormous impact; 
maybe even start a new trend.


----------



## disarray (16 August 2012)

or you can smooth it all out with a dash of authoritarianism


----------



## nioka (18 September 2012)

Here is someone that has found the ideal society. Copy of a email received today:

"The new breadwinner in Australia :

 Here’s how a doctor explains it:
A woman in her late 20's came to the hospital today with her 8th pregnancy.
She said to me  me "My mum told me that I am the breadwinner for the family."
I asked her to explain.
She said that she can make babies and babies get money from the Government for the family.
It goes like this:
The Grandma calls the Department of child services and Centrelink, and states that the unemployed daughter is not capable of caring
for all of her kids. And they agree, then tells her the children will need to go into foster care.
 The Grandma then volunteers to be the foster parent, and receives a cheque for $400 per child each month. 

Total yearly income: 
$72,000 pa and soon to be more when the 8th one is born, tax-free and nobody has to go to work!

In fact, they get more if there is no husband/father/man in the home!   The brother does not count.

Not to mention free dental treatment, free housing,  free school dinners, free tuition fees at college or Uni, free eye care and glasses, 
free prescriptions and various other benefits...

Total value of all benefits combined probably approaching $120,000 per annum.

That's about my salary as a senior consultant with years of experience and surgical skills in a Melbourne teaching hospital.

Indeed, Grandma was correct that her fertile daughter is the "breadwinner" for the family. 

This is how the politicians spend our taxes.
 When this generous programme was invented in the '60s, the Great Society architects forgot to craft an end date... and now we are 
hopelessly overrun with people who vote only for those who will continue to keep them on the dole.....

No wonder our country is broke!

Worse, our Muslim brothers have been paying attention, and by mandating that each Muslim family have eleven children, they will soon 
replace the voting bloc above and can be running this country in around 12 years.

Are we alarmed yet, is anybody listening?

Please know I am not racist nor am I against Immigration, I just worry where this uncontrolled sort of immigration is going take this wonderful
country. There must be limits and controls in place or in around 12 years or less we will be going to midday prayers at the local mosque. 
That's a simple fact of life my friends. They clearly intend to force that upon us.

 Sincerely, 
Sebastian J. Ciancino - Obstetrician, 
Melbourne Vic
Don't forget to pay your taxes!! 
There are a lot of “breadwinners” depending on you!  

Well?  Is anybody listening??
Do we all have to wait for someone to translate this into Australian? 
ety ( For them at least.):


----------



## MrBurns (18 September 2012)

Is that true or just another beatup to get everyone angry ?


----------



## Julia (18 September 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Is that true or just another beatup to get everyone angry ?



The latter.
Here is the UK version.  Various versions have been circulating on the net for several years.
Fair enough to object to some forms of welfare, but surely it can be done factually and honestly instead of perpetuating rubbish like this.


> 1 The “breadwinner” hoax email
> An example of the e-mail is provided below:
> Only in the UK :-
> The new breadwinner in the family...
> ...



It's of the same ilk as that silly email that did the rounds for years alleging that asylum seekers received in welfare several times the payment given to age pensioners.  All rubbish.


----------



## MrBurns (18 September 2012)

Julia said:


> The latter.
> Here is the UK version.  Various versions have been circulating on the net for several years.
> Fair enough to object to some forms of welfare, but surely it can be done factually and honestly instead of perpetuating rubbish like this.
> 
> It's of the same ilk as that silly email that did the rounds for years alleging that asylum seekers received in welfare several times the payment given to age pensioners.  All rubbish.




Yeah thanks Julia I thought as much.

I think the truth is probably damning enough without concocted tales.


----------

