Your ideal society

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?

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

Click to expand...

I would agree with something that minimized politicians for sure!

CanOz

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......

disarray said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Libertarian/minarchism with Free Market Capitalism

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Australia

We have got it good.

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.”

Click to expand...

... 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.

Click to expand...

would you like to know more?

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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.

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!

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.

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!

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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...

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?

Click to expand...

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.