Your idea of an ideal society?

[hyena]

horror.

 

[Taliesin]

Ok, then for-life imprisonment with extremely-harsh conditions and severe torture sessions every other day. Believe me: this might sound extreme, but when you're likely to spend the rest of your life being tortured like that and being underfed but still kept alive just for stealing a few hundred/thousand/million bucks or raping someone you'll think twice before engaging in crime for a living.

I believe that the ideal society would work against the causes of such behaviour, make it less profitable to indulge in crimes, educate people better, give them alternatives. Usually, criminals are victims of situations where different things play together, the less likely you make each of the factors, the less likely you make it for them to play together, thus "creating" your criminal.
Also, I find it apalling how easy you jump to harsh treatments and even torture. A society that tolerates or approves of torture is per se not ideal. Ever.

I sincerely fail to see the relevance of that to this thread.

The relevance is that you are doing now exactly what you were afraid of in the other thread. You are forcing your views on your poor citizens. Im sure you're convinced religion is evil and misguides people and all, but that doesnt give you the right to tell anyone what to believe in.
You were afraid some doctors would keep a patient locked away until he had accepted their ideal behaviour, that unless he conformed and submitted himself to them and to society, he would be regarded as sick and would be kept under severe medication, yet here you are doing exactly the same. You tell people what is right and what is wrong, lock everyone away who dares to object (=preach and practice religion as before) and you're not even seeing what the consequences would be, nor how you violate your own ideas.
You say research should be free, patents hinder free science, well the same goes for society. Poeple need to be able to do their own personnal research as well and that includes all the mistakes.
You see, Im against forbidding Nazi parties for example, because they can be a great indicator for what goes wrong inside your society. It's the same with religion or anything else, if suddenly all your citizens start to worship some weird cult, maybe the fault doesnt lie with them, but with the values you teach and present, or your educational system. People need to be free and at this point, I fail to see how you could justify taking so many freedoms from your citizens and make them follow your "laws", it just wont work.

Im seriously wondering what kind of concept you have for your basic citizen, it's as if for you they were nothing but plants, or cones. It's like rahvin said, people have needs, desires, people have a certain nature. You cant just take their freedoms away and their religion, tell them what you expect from them and expect everything to run smoothly.
Your system is nothing but a patchwork of incoherent ideas and thoughts, it's a mess man.

I mean, I can see myself discuss things like the death penalty, or the effects of banishing religion. We may have interesting discussion about some of the points you present, but the way you put your ideas together it just doesnt add up

 

[King Chaos]

yeah I'm just not convinced. I say either Aldous Huxley everything up and have people given preordained roles at birth or Palahniuk this shitty plannet and go primal.

 

[Magrathean]

I believe that the ideal society would work against the causes of such behaviour, make it less profitable to indulge in crimes, educate people better, give them alternatives. Usually, criminals are victims of situations where different things play together, the less likely you make each of the factors, the less likely you make it for them to play together, thus "creating" your criminal.

I don't understand. First you're saying that a mix of factors acting together creates criminals and then you're saying that making those factors less likely to act together will create criminals.

Also, I find it apalling how easy you jump to harsh treatments and even torture. A society that tolerates or approves of torture is per se not ideal. Ever.

A society without crime is pretty close to my definition of 'ideal'.

The relevance is that you are doing now exactly what you were afraid of in the other thread. You are forcing your views on your poor citizens. Im sure you're convinced religion is evil and misguides people and all, but that doesnt give you the right to tell anyone what to believe in.
You were afraid some doctors would keep a patient locked away until he had accepted their ideal behaviour, that unless he conformed and submitted himself to them and to society, he would be regarded as sick and would be kept under severe medication, yet here you are doing exactly the same. You tell people what is right and what is wrong, lock everyone away who dares to object (=preach and practice religion as before) and you're not even seeing what the consequences would be, nor how you violate your own ideas.

I see you've chosen to ignore the part of my post on which i admitted that encouraging atheism was wrong. And yes, preaching is bad, since (for the nth time) it allows for some people (preachers) controlling others (faithful/believers). And no religious practices would be forbidden (except maybe those which involve violation of rights, like the treatment muslim women receive), only public religious places (which involve preachers controlling believers and taking money from them) would.

You say research should be free, patents hinder free science, well the same goes for society. Poeple need to be able to do their own personnal research as well and that includes all the mistakes.
You see, Im against forbidding Nazi parties for example, because they can be a great indicator for what goes wrong inside your society. It's the same with religion or anything else, if suddenly all your citizens start to worship some weird cult, maybe the fault doesnt lie with them, but with the values you teach and present, or your educational system. People need to be free and at this point, I fail to see how you could justify taking so many freedoms from your citizens and make them follow your "laws", it just wont work.

Oh, they (nazi parties) wouldn't be forbidden. And, again, no belief would be prohibited, no religion would be illegal. How many times do i have to say this?

Your system is nothing but a patchwork of incoherent ideas and thoughts, it's a mess man.

I mean, I can see myself discuss things like the death penalty, or the effects of banishing religion. We may have interesting discussion about some of the points you present, but the way you put your ideas together it just doesnt add up

Why didn't you say just this from the beginning so i could skip your posts and answer the more relevant questions (i.e. the ones which haven't been answered already n times before)?

I say either Aldous Huxley everything up and have people given preordained roles at birth

Brave new world is a criticism, not a proposal. You can't tell people what they'll be in their life because maybe they don't want to do that. That's like some german system i heard about (i don't know if it's true or not, but maybe Tali can shed more light on this) where kids are told from middle school what they'll be based on what subjects they're good at. That's inhuman.

or Palahniuk this shitty plannet and go primal.

So much for science, technology and communities of more than one hundred individuals.

 

[King Chaos]

So much for science, technology and communities of more than one hundred individuals.

Yeah but what the fuck has technology gotten us? It's nice to have the intraweb, and 700000 channels, but it's not gonna last, and I'd gladly trade in my oven and microwave for some flints and dry wood if it meant we could preserve our plannet. We should have thought more carefully about what all our technology was gonna do before we went and did it. And you know there's a huge war around the corner. I don't know how it's gonna be fought, but world war 4 is gonna be fought with sticks and stones (yeah, Einstein said that, not me). Termites have the right idea. If god is god of anything he's god of the termites. And we're all off to hell.

Brave new world is a criticism, not a proposal. You can't tell people what they'll be in their life because maybe they don't want to do that. That's like some german system i heard about (i don't know if it's true or not, but maybe Tali can shed more light on this) where kids are told from middle school what they'll be based on what subjects they're good at. That's inhuman.

Brave New World isn't a criticism. One of the most radical things about it is that Huxley explores the pros of a society built on those radical guidelines. I grant it's sick and twisted and there's no freedom involved what-so-ever blah blah blah... but basically, no one's actually complaining. And those that do are whisked off to tropical islands to become genius' and share their output with each other. He sort of covered all angles. A variation on his theme is probably more neccesary. For instance: give everyone a number based on their performance mentally, physically and emotionally. Male and Females can only hang and mate with familiar numbers. 25-30s would be the "politicians"... or people of the people, what have you... and their children would inherit their status in a chain. 1-5s would either be slaves, taxi drivers or would be slaughtered for their skin, either as fine cuisine (for 25-30s) or as an original and expensive type of leather which would be used in trade etc. all other numbers would be mediocreish people... Job importance and general freedoms hightening with the number of course. The death sentence would be a Vonnegot Idea, and it would be offered to people who commit any type of offence... even such as litter... a big fat hook, which is stook through your gut, and you're left in the middle of town to die slowly and rot. Mating with a number outside of your class will also get you on the hook, as well as all other crimes, petty or heinous. Fear the hook. Profanity is allowed though as long as it is with no harmful intent to a fellow human. You'll be free to follow your own religious ideas if you are a number above 15. Below fifteen, you are prohibited to follow a belief system, for your own good more than anything. I like to think I'd be a 20. I'd be an artist, and I'd meet another artist. We'd fuck like bunnies in a teepee all day and our children will worship Termites. termite hills pwn pyramids and world trade centers. We haven't got shit on termites.

And as for the German school thing... We have the same thing here. Fucking retarded kids who just fuck up everyones learning day get carted off to do a plumbing apprenticeship or something. And smart kids get put in higher sets than dumb kids, and are offered a wider range of study activities. So what? kids with more potential have that potential because they are not mindless druggy rapists like 75% of most kids around here.

 

[Magrathean]

Yeah but what the fuck has technology gotten us? It's nice to have the intraweb, and 700000 channels, but it's not gonna last, and I'd gladly trade in my oven and microwave for some flints and dry wood if it meant we could preserve our plannet. We should have thought more carefully about what all our technology was gonna do before we went and did it. And you know there's a huge war around the corner. I don't know how it's gonna be fought, but world war 4 is gonna be fought with sticks and stones (yeah, Einstein said that, not me). Termites have the right idea. If god is god of anything he's god of the termites. And we're all off to hell.

Yes, and it's just going to get worse and worse. And countries will have civil wars at the same time they're fighting their WW 84677836857468, and big organizations/corporations will finally resort to sabotage and terrorism instead of clean market competition, and religions will be fighting their own wars against each other and drag whole countries with them, and countries won't know where to turn their heads to because they'll be fighting famine/etc, lack of resources, civil wars, international wars, terrorism, and religious fanatics at the same time. And eventually the planet will become inhabitable and we'll all die. And i don't think humanity will live to see the day 01/01/3000. But so what?

Gav's post​

Yes, that would be a functional society too, but i bet it would get more criticism by Tali&co. than mine because it is more inhuman. Did you read 1984 by George Orwell? That's another functional society like the one you mentioned, but people weren't too happy with the system.

And as for the German school thing... We have the same thing here. Fucking retarded kids who just fuck up everyones learning day get carted off to do a plumbing apprenticeship or something. And smart kids get put in higher sets than dumb kids, and are offered a wider range of study activities. So what? kids with more potential have that potential because they are not mindless druggy rapists like 75% of most kids around here.

But at least they're given an opportunity to choose. You're saying that people would have their careers/jobs determined depending on their status number and they'd have no possibility of dedicating their life to something else.

 

[Misanthrope]

@Undocontrol: First of all your ideas are not radical at all, not that it has anything to do with the merit they might have, but if I understood you correctly it derives alot from Comunism.

Second, I thik you have to stop for a moment and address Taliesin concerns because he makes a strong point: Imposing comunism in the name of freedom is contradictory and self defeating. Comunism was never thought to be something that should be dictated, its only a logical conclusion of Socialsm but it MUST be a conclusion people willingly take.

Thats why I think is an interesting paradox: Equal opportunity cannot be dictated directly by a goverment without being inherently flawed, yet allowing people to chose would never end in equal opportunity since people would always seek their own best interest instead of the interest of the collective, and even if the majority choses a collective interest they would be imposing it to the minority and for that goverment is needed so Comunism is not realized, and so on and so on.

 

[hyena]

Oh, they (nazi parties) wouldn't be forbidden.

but, from another post of yours:

Finally, all kinds of political campaigns would be forbidden.

...i conclude that we're talking of nazi parties in the 'hey, let's go to the nazi party downtown tonight, it's going to rock!' sense.

i want to go to a nazi party too!

 

[Magrathean]

@Undocontrol: First of all your ideas are not radical at all, not that it has anything to do with the merit they might have, but if I understood you correctly it derives alot from Comunism.

Yes, i'm somewhat of a communist. I'm the "official" commie of the board, as far as i know. And i just mentioned the "radical" thing because the unrevised version had one idea which would have earned me much flaming.

Second, I thik you have to stop for a moment and address Taliesin concerns because he makes a strong point: Imposing comunism in the name of freedom is contradictory and self defeating. Comunism was never thought to be something that should be dictated, its only a logical conclusion of Socialsm but it MUST be a conclusion people willingly take.

I agree; systems shouldn't be imposed, they should be chosen. Maybe i should have mentioned this, but the first step i'd take would be to try to educate all people (and not impose my ideas on them, just make them think; i'm talking about people who never went to school or who went but didn't pay attention). I believe that this would lead to some nice intelligent debate (such as the one we're having here). And then my proposal for a system would be the one i mentioned.

Thats why I think is an interesting paradox: Equal opportunity cannot be dictated directly by a goverment without being inherently flawed, yet allowing people to chose would never end in equal opportunity since people would always seek their own best interest instead of the interest of the collective, and even if the majority choses a collective interest they would be imposing it to the minority and for that goverment is needed so Comunism is not realized, and so on and so on.

Well, i've heard time and tme again that pure communism can never be applied, but it doesn't need to. I believe that if educated + smart + morally-conscious people start debating possible systems they will eventually reach a conclusion and make a civilized choice based on what's best for the society and not for themselves.

 

[Dark_Silence]

I don't understand. First you're saying that a mix of factors acting together creates criminals and then you're saying that making those factors less likely to act together will create criminals.

Wrong understanding! He said that if you reduce those factors, it will also reduce the number of criminals (because the factors cant interact with each other, and if so, it will reduce the chance for someone to become a criminal)

 

[Taliesin]

I see you've chosen to ignore the part of my post on which i admitted that encouraging atheism was wrong.

I didnt ignore it, you asked why it was relevant, so I explained it again, since you had failed to see the point, and still fail to see it.
The relevance was your attitude and still is, the way you approach people and impose your system on society. But Im not gonna explain it a third time.

I agree; systems shouldn't be imposed, they should be chosen. Maybe i should have mentioned this, but the first step i'd take would be to try to educate all people (and not impose my ideas on them, just make them think; i'm talking about people who never went to school or who went but didn't pay attention)

People are educated already, or at least as educated as it gets. If some still decide not to pay attention at school, they'll end up with a very low salary or none at all, if that still isnt motivation enough, then nothing will be.
If people still indulge in organized crime, then you may want to wonder what the set of morals is you teach and live, or what their alternatives to such a life would be. Of course low salaries for those people would kinda encourage crime, because it would pay off far better, but someone who takes the path of secondary education and does his a-levels 5 or 10 years later would be 100 times happier about it, and a bright example to his kids, too.
So just as you say that systems shouldnt be imposed, paying attention at school shouldnt be imposed either, everyone should choose for themselves what is right or wrong for them. Of course society has the right to decide whether they tolerate such behaviour, but then again, if he decides a low salary in the end is worth it, who are you to tell him different?

I hope you see now how you force your views on your citizens and how I cant accept that, how it is just the opposite of what I understand by an ideal society

 

[rahvin]

So you'd rather live in a society that doesn't progress as much as it could because it would rather allow its citizens a few more luxuries/rights/freedoms and thus be left behind in terms of prosperity?

on the contrary, i'm convinced any society reaches its highest degree of progress - and ultimately its end - the fastest when the struggle of the many to achieve what the few have (not only material possession: knowledge, safety, and what have you) is not dormant.

Besides, you accuse me of ignoring a few rights and all of you are ignoring the right of everybody to be an equal at birth.

ah, but that's because i think that at birth everybody is only equal in the sense that they have a sanctimonious right to jack shit.

see, i believe that the rights of an individual stem from - and here i'm paraphrasing the words of a band, which i know may sound childish - the years of blood and sweat of his/her fathers and forefathers, and the individual's own efforts. they're not in any shape or form given to the individual by a superior entity, be it the state or deity of choice. it's ok for the community to establish rules with the purpose to contain the possibility that, in cases of extreme unfairness, pre-existing circumstances affect society to the point of making it impossible to live in it, but it's not ok for the community to plan a distribution of rights whatsoever, with the intent of fostering progress and other dubious "betterments".

Besides, such limitations might induce a bit of unhappiness in the beginning, but when people see that they avoid the senseless and unjust inequality that exists in today's societies they're bound to become happy again (and even happier than people are today).

aside from seconding hyena's horror - i'd rather be hanged by my thumbs than take part in this society of yours, so chalk me down as one of those who, pre-lobotomy, feel unhappy and oppressed by your regime - i have to point out that this seems to me the limit of this thread and not of your theories. i mean, i like this thread - and much praise to dark silence for adding a smart topic in the sea of games - even though i'm not motivated to post about my ideal anything at the moment. still, ideal is a tricky word in that we don't know how strict in terms of reality the boundaries of these theories can be. maybe my ideal society is one where we are pure beams of light striving to rejoin the sun. if you postulate that people will at some point change their nature and appreciate cavorting in the meadows instead of looking at porn on line, well, yes, your objection is sound. what you have described above will happen if you say so.

 

[Misanthrope]

i believe that the rights of an individual stem from - and here i'm paraphrasing the words of a band, which i know may sound childish - the years of blood and sweat of his/her fathers and forefathers, and the individual's own efforts. they're not in any shape or form given to the individual by a superior entity, be it the state or deity of choice. it's ok for the community to establish rules with the purpose to contain the possibility that, in cases of extreme unfairness, pre-existing circumstances affect society to the point of making it impossible to live in it, but it's not ok for the community to plan a distribution of rights whatsoever, with the intent of fostering progress and other dubious "betterments".

But you see thats the problem with the capitalist model: Private property only encourages unfairness, should the job of the state be decide what is extremely unfair and what is kinda unfair but acceptable? Can you honestly support a goverment that embraces unfairness and unequal opportunities just because its not extremely unfair?

By allowing individuals to accumulte wealth beyond their immediate needs you also bring forth fundamental flaws of the human condition in which his egoism does not let him see beyond himself, and that extends to his property, and his family. And no, dont try to say there can be a fair moderation because there is no such thing as an incorruptible person to lead or an effective system to keep rulers in check. Everyone in this life is just looking out for themselves and you cant possibly hope to say "I can come up with a system to keep their egoism under control". It has never happened and it will never happen and that is a fundamental flaw which ultimately prays most political system but this is particulary true on Capitalism since it encourages unfairness and selfish individualism.

 

[Taliesin]

I still fail to see why personal property is such a fundamental flaw. I do think it's perverted that people like Josef Ackermann are being paid millions of euros every year and at the same time, fire thousands of people. Or even worse in cases like Bill Gates, but at least he's giving much to charity.
In my opinion, most people couldnt care less how many millions or billions anyone is being paid though, as long as they have enough for their own. The thing is, Im sure the money is there, just look at Mittal Steel offering 25 billion dollars for Arcelor, or the Deutsche Bank, making 800 million euros per year and still firing 6400 people, or GlaxonSmithClyne buying Gilette for almost 60 billion dollars. The money is there, but in order to rise the stock value, they still fire people, and with everyone fired, there comes a huge amount of money the state has to pay as well as a lot of money missing in the countrie's inner cash flow, money that's not being reinvested in order to create or keep workplaces.

So let me just follow up on that thought for a second
If people (especially people who arent paid much, say up to 1500 euros) were paid more, we may be able to solve several of societie's big problems. I believe that crime stems partially from parents not having enough time for their children, the father being gone all day, working his ass off for a shitty salary. The mother stays at home, is constantly stressed out because of the kids, the housework and the constant lack of money. So every time the children are at home they either see their parents yelling at each other or get yelled at themselves. So what choice do the children have other then to hang around outside, wasting their time in stupid people's company? What could they possibly gain from this situation?
But were the father paid more, he may work less and have more time for the kids, or work the same and get more money, or a little of both, either way the family would be less stressed and far better off.

Maybe that's put a little too simply, but I believe it's true in its essence.

 

[Magrathean]

People are educated already, or at least as educated as it gets. If some still decide not to pay attention at school, they'll end up with a very low salary or none at all, if that still isnt motivation enough, then nothing will be.

So just as you say that systems shouldnt be imposed, paying attention at school shouldnt be imposed either, everyone should choose for themselves what is right or wrong for them. Of course society has the right to decide whether they tolerate such behaviour, but then again, if he decides a low salary in the end is worth it, who are you to tell him different?

Sure, but then those people shouldn't be allowed to vote, as they know nothing or next to nothing as far as academic stuff goes.

I hope you see now how you force your views on your citizens and how I cant accept that, how it is just the opposite of what I understand by an ideal society

I think i did force a few things (which might be wrong, granted) but you're twisting my words so it seems that everything i say is being imposed. Then again, i was always told i was paranoid.

on the contrary, i'm convinced any society reaches its highest degree of progress - and ultimately its end - the fastest when the struggle of the many to achieve what the few have (not only material possession: knowledge, safety, and what have you) is not dormant.

And that is good healthy competition, but when it gets to the extreme it has gotten to in our current-day societies (again, all this caused by capitalism) the poor/ignorant/unsafe stop caring because they realize that they'll never reach what the rich/knowledgeable/safe have. And then progress stops. And, again, i would quote Misanthrope's post if it didn't mean filling mine with one too many quotes.

see, i believe that the rights of an individual stem from - and here i'm paraphrasing the words of a band, which i know may sound childish - the years of blood and sweat of his/her fathers and forefathers, and the individual's own efforts. they're not in any shape or form given to the individual by a superior entity, be it the state or deity of choice. it's ok for the community to establish rules with the purpose to contain the possibility that, in cases of extreme unfairness, pre-existing circumstances affect society to the point of making it impossible to live in it, but it's not ok for the community to plan a distribution of rights whatsoever, with the intent of fostering progress and other dubious "betterments".

Why not? It is much more inhuman to let different individuals be born and raised in different economical/social/whatever statuses (sp) and suffer the ineptitude or enjoy the good judgment of their parents without them being even indirectly responsible for any of that.

In my opinion, most people couldnt care less how many millions or billions anyone is being paid though, as long as they have enough for their own.

If people (especially people who arent paid much, say up to 1500 euros) were paid more, we may be able to solve several of societie's big problems.

But you can't possibly come up with enough money to pay everyone millions or "enough", so one millionaire means many poor people. And capitalism only encourages this, widening the gap more and more and more endlessly and uncontrollably (not that capitalists want to control it anyway, of course).

 

[Taliesin]

Sure, but then those people shouldn't be allowed to vote, as they know nothing or next to nothing as far as academic stuff goes.

Err what? What does that have to do with anything? I expected the sentence to finish with "... as far as politics are concerned" and was about to say that basically, you had a quite valid point, but what does "academic stuff" have to do with anything? So only people with diplomas are allowed to vote? Or do you want to invent the Voting License, in the vein of the driver's license?
The thing is, deep down inside, the fact that I have as much to say about who's gonna govern my country as any stupid suburb lowlife (sshh, Im using that as an image here) makes me wanna bite my own ass, but there's just no way to measure "political education" or "political maturity" or whatever you wanna call it, even the Voting License is severly flawed, because some people get to decide whether someone gets to vote or not, or how many votes he gets, a decision that's always highly subjective and thus unacceptable.

I think i did force a few things (which might be wrong, granted) but you're twisting my words so it seems that everything i say is being imposed. Then again, i was always told i was paranoid.

Yea, you get defensive easily, but Ive learned not to let that bother me if the subject is interesting

But you can't possibly come up with enough money to pay everyone millions or "enough", so one millionaire means many poor people.

Im not talking about millions, Im only talking about several hundred euros, maybe like 500 for families with incomes around 1500 euros. That would be a factor of around 1,2 - 1,5, of which Im sure would already make a great difference for those people.
Also, the ever-widening gap between rich and poor in capitalism is not directly a flaw of capitalism itself. Of course capitalism sets the conditions and makes it possible, but in my opinion, good organization, good unions should be able to make a great difference there. In my opinion, there are many people who've lost their jobs because their unions were badly organized or even non-existant, so of course if no one fights for their interests, they get screwed over. That's not a flaw of capitalism itself, but one of the sides of human nature.

 

[La Rocque]

but, from another post of yours:
...i conclude that we're talking of nazi parties in the 'hey, let's go to the nazi party downtown tonight, it's going to rock!' sense.
i want to go to a nazi party too!

Here's a song for Your party:
'Dancing with the Fuhrer' by Crack the Sky

 

[Taliesin]

On a sidenote, the standard literature for my electrotechnics class was written by 3 people, one of which goes by the family name Führer, and as he is mentioned first, the prof and his little helpers always refer to the book as "the Führer", like "In the Führer, page 123, you'll find a table showing.. blabla"
Yesterday we actually had a look at the poor guy's first name.. it's not Adolf, but Arnold. Talk about mean parents

Here is a picture if you dont believe me

 

[Misanthrope]

In my opinion, most people couldnt care less how many millions or billions anyone is being paid though, as long as they have enough for their own.

But at the rate money goes to the hands of the few priviledged property owners they will stop having enough for their own and then realize why: Current capitalist systems doesnt necessarily allows people for the possiblity to adquire capital since money makes money, it tends to concentrate in the hands of the few that can have it.

So demanding higher salaries wouldnt be simply enough and we are already seeing this: as soon as companies have the opportunity they move their operations to underdeveloped countries to cut costs on salaries. You need to understand the simple fact that people cannot be trusted to look out for anything other than their best interest even at the expense of others. And Capitalism and private property, regardless of the limitations and protectionsit aspects they try to incorporate, only encourages people to just be selfish and screw others for personal gain.

Since we're talking ideal societies this is directly contradictory of an ideal society: it polarizes people and creates a hostile enviroment in order for people to survive which only encourages more and more negative tactics and keeps escalating. Encouraging greed can work on paper to make economies "stronger" but in reality its only stronger for the few priviledged %0.5 of the population that seizes control of the entire economy since they cannot be trusted.

So asuming an Ideal society of people with a strong enough moral conciense not to use the tools all too readily available for them to feed their greed at the expense of others is not an ideal society. An ideal society would be one that works around the limitations of humans, not one that hopes they will just go away cause people will suddenly wake up and have a moral conscience.

Thats not ideal thats juts naiive.

 

[rahvin]

Private property only encourages unfairness, should the job of the state be decide what is extremely unfair and what is kinda unfair but acceptable?

yes, i think so. actually, the point of view should be that the job of the authority is to decide whether something unfair is immediately disruptive for the whole community, and call that extremely unfair. i wasn't suggesting applying a label based on feelings or morals other than those based on what can destroy a community.

And no, dont try to say there can be a fair moderation because there is no such thing as an incorruptible person to lead or an effective system to keep rulers in check.

there probably cannot be, i agree, but this is why a model is ideal. when it comes to striving to achieve fair moderation or striving to achieve an anti-capitalist state, i'd rather strive to achieve the former, all the while knowing that neither is an actual possibility.

And that is good healthy competition, but when it gets to the extreme it has gotten to in our current-day societies (again, all this caused by capitalism) the poor/ignorant/unsafe stop caring because they realize that they'll never reach what the rich/knowledgeable/safe have.

so try to mend the failures of modern day societies, instead of promoting throwing away the baby with the bathwater.

Why not? It is much more inhuman to let different individuals be born and raised in different economical/social/whatever statuses (sp) and suffer the ineptitude or enjoy the good judgment of their parents without them being even indirectly responsible for any of that.

i disagree that it's inhuman, and i disagree that they're not going to be (partly) responsible for what they'll end up achieving. if you look at it that way, it's also inhuman to castrate the desire of the parents to provide their kids with a better economical and social status. if passions are human, you can't pick and choose the ones you like and call them worth preserving. besides, the state leveling down their privileges is also a burden that these kids have done nothing to deserve.