What's your ideal society?

[Parodite]

I was thinking of a new thread where people can dump their ideas about "ideal society". Ideal not as an utopia but the nuts and bolts of it economically, socially, politically.

With ideal I mean a society that has a future by keeping what works.. and by replacing what has become dysfunctional (or that simply expired in a rapidly changing world) with something better suited to the present reality. An "ideal" society is able to adapt and evolve, but it could also be one that hardly changes over time.

Socially and culturally people may also have ideals, or at least preferences. Where everybody is a demopublican or a republicat, predominantly of religion a/b or c, or a liberal.. or atheist, or vegetarian. Or where there is as much diversity as possible; the more the merrier. Where most people agree on most, or where most disagree on almost everything. Or something in between. A society not bigger than 100.000 people.. or a society where size doesn't matter; all is relative anyways.

I have only two things on my wish-list for the Netherlands:

1. Direct democracy where you vote on issues rather than parties and persons.
2. Our social security system being replaced with a guaranteed basic income for everyone, for instance via a negative income tax as once proposed by Milton Friedman.

[manolo]

Parodite,

I consider myself a socialist libertarian. Before you all fall over laughing, the idea is that we each have the maximum personal freedom in keeping with everyone getting enough to eat. OK, it's a hard call but that's how I'd like it.

Alex.

[Parodite]

Parodite,

I consider myself a socialist libertarian. Before you all fall over laughing, the idea is that we each have the maximum personal freedom in keeping with everyone getting enough to eat. OK, it's a hard call but that's how I'd like it.

Alex.

I like the term, socialist libertarian, and I am one too. But then comes the question of the nuts and bolts to make it work.. the role of government, free market etc. Socialism and communism so far have failed because too much power went to a centralized gvt that by nature becomes a cancerous bureaucracy addicted to exerting power over others. Same is true of course of for instance the US oligarchy where less and less people own more and more of the cake and money buys legislation. Libertarianism wants to avoid any type of monopoly to dominate society.

[Nonc Hilaire]

I think we are destined to rotate though a cyclic synthesis of governmental types. The problems come from the nature of man and our vices, and I don't think there is a governmental ideology mankind cannot pervert.

But since that is a bit of a cop-out, sign me up for socialist libertarianism too. I think a choice between work or eat meagerly is as motivating as eat or starve, and maintains an ethical standard.

[noddy]

i dont believe for a millionth of a second that endo and parodite's definitions of liberal socialist would last beyond the initial rallying cry, so in that spirit -i believe in an illiberal captialist dictatorship that forces people to get on with their own lives and solve problems at community levels rather than act like children and cry to central governement.

[kmich]

Ideal society as response to what challenge?

Societies organize around their contemporary challenges which largely directs their collective organization and these are in constant evolution. How much insight and creativity they bring to this process will determine their success or failure. Societies are a process in this way, not a fixed creation, so no, singular “ideal” society is possible.

Nevertheless, if history is any guide, societies succeed by their cooperative efforts, not by adolescent libertarians trudging off to their respective caves to seek their respective self-interests. Whatever the case, leadership and concentrations of power will arise in response to challenges, and only an informed and active citizenry who can place their common purpose over their private requirements can effectively challenge such concentrations to keep them honest and effective. Along those lines, I would consider myself a classic, Aristotelean conservative that places a wise and informed civic virtue as paramount:

“A city is said to be unanimous when men have the same opinion about where their interest lies and choose the same action in common. Bad men cannot be unanimous any more than they can be friends, since they each aim at getting more than their share of advantages; In labour and public service they fall short of their share, and each wishing advantage for himself criticizes his neighbour and stands in his way. If people do not watch closely the common weal is soon destroyed. The result is a state of faction, all wiling to compel another, but unwilling themselves to do what is just. (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, IX.6.)

[noddy]

its a pleasant thought to argue for a wise and coherant high culture kmich, however i cant really even fathom how one could bring such a thing to be in modern western politics.

i would need more historical examples of this happening without a cleansing slaughter of the "other" before i could contemplate it - in my sense of western history and pacific history its always a slaughter.

you betray your prejudices quite a bit with "adolescent libertarians" .. maybe they are trying to avoid the slaughter, each to their own wot wot?

[kmich]

its a pleasant thought to argue for a wise and coherant high culture kmich, however i cant really even fathom how one could bring such a thing to be in modern western politics.

i would need more historical examples of this happening without a cleansing slaughter of the "other" before i could contemplate it - in my sense of western history and pacific history its always a slaughter.

It Is not about "high culture," it is about collective cooperation and purpose. There are examples, many imperfect: the Danish resistance to the Nazis, the transition from Apartheid South Africa, the civil rights movement in America, the response to famine after WWI, and to the collapse of Europe after WW 2 in the Marshall plan, and so on. I don't what alternative there is to civic virtue other than a resigned citizenry to slaughter and tyranny as everyone grabs what they can for their own interests. Self interested social fragments are easily manipulated and played by unscrupulous power.

you betray your prejudices quite a bit with "adolescent libertarians" .. maybe they are trying to avoid the slaughter, each to their own wot wot?

You are right, I am prejudiced. Libertarians rest lazily on the social constructions of rule of law and social structures grown through the struggles of their ancestors working together over the centuries in that project. It is easy to fatuously talk about a libertarian world where everyone is for themselves to their success or failure in such secure conditions. If you really want to experience the real deal, go to central or sub-Saharan Africa and try it out. I have been there many times. It is every man and women for themselves and for their tribes according to their abilities without government regulation or interference. You may like it, wot wot?

[noddy]

its a pleasant thought to argue for a wise and coherant high culture kmich, however i cant really even fathom how one could bring such a thing to be in modern western politics.

i would need more historical examples of this happening without a cleansing slaughter of the "other" before i could contemplate it - in my sense of western history and pacific history its always a slaughter.

It Is not about "high culture," it is about collective cooperation and purpose. There are examples, many imperfect: the Danish resistance to the Nazis, the transition from Apartheid South Africa, the civil rights movement in America, the response to famine after WWI, and to the collapse of Europe after WW 2 in the Marshall plan, and so on. I don't what alternative there is to civic virtue other than a resigned citizenry to slaughter and tyranny as everyone grabs what they can for their own interests. Self interested social fragments are easily manipulated and played by unscrupulous power.

im struggling too see all these through the same lens in the context of cohesive societies overcoming social fragmentation, the danes are a highly exclusive mono culture, the south africans just spat out the white minority and europe is as fragmented mess of self interested tribes as it ever was.

you betray your prejudices quite a bit with "adolescent libertarians" .. maybe they are trying to avoid the slaughter, each to their own wot wot?

You are right, I am prejudiced. Libertarians rest lazily on the social constructions of rule of law and social structures grown through the struggles of their ancestors working together over the centuries in that project. It is easy to fatuously talk about a libertarian world where everyone is for themselves to their success or failure in such secure conditions. If you really want to experience the real deal, go to central or sub-Saharan Africa and try it out. I have been there many times. It is every man and women for themselves and for their tribes according to their abilities without government regulation or interference. You may like it, wot wot?

who ancestors, white man ? why should my asian or pacific relatives give a hoot about christian legal history ? by what rule do they submit to that history ?

what is the terminology that lets these multiple culture co-exist and be happily indifferent to the differences ?

no platitudes or smarmy insults please, this is real to me, i can see my country seperating into its multiple cultures and the best i can hope for is the indifference of liberal acceptance, your insults and extremist examples are light on details.

[YMix]

You are right, I am prejudiced. Libertarians rest lazily on the social constructions of rule of law and social structures grown through the struggles of their ancestors working together over the centuries in that project.

I definitely agree with this. However, most (all?) such ideologies begin as fixes to the society and, hence, can be reduced to "If we did this, things would be so much better". Little thought is usually given to what happens after the fix was applied and to how society would adjust to it. In this respect, radical libertarians are the new socialists/communists, promoting a new miracle cure from within prosperous societies.

[noddy]

we need a different word for "lets other from different backgrounds live out their lives with dignity" if libertarian means somalia to ya all.

stuffed if i know what we are talking about.

[manolo]

But since that is a bit of a cop-out, sign me up for socialist libertarianism too. I think a choice between work or eat meagerly is as motivating as eat or starve, and maintains an ethical standard.

Nonc,

I think you have it spot on. "Work or eat meagerly...eat or starve." There is not much overall economic difference in these outcomes but the idea sits on the crux of a political divide. There are people who would put their lives on the line for a side of this distinction.

Alex.

[Simple Minded]

I going to avoid the fluffy political/ideological/psychological labels (cause we won't be able to agree on what they mean for very long ) for the moment and only deal with finance. I would seek to eliminate hidden costs with simple publication.

1. Transparent labeling of taxes for services. Every product and service that you buy has the taxes printed on the price label. If a gallon of gasoline costs $3.00 and $0.50 is taxes used to build/maintain roads, that is obvious to all consumers. School taxes, etc. everything is itemized to enhance public awareness.

2. This year's governmental expenses are based on last year's tax revenue minus 10%. Like normal humans, before they can spend, governments should first raise the cash. Want to spend money to solve problem X? OK, this year you collect the money, next year the spending to solve problem X starts. This would end the plunder of those who are too young to vote. The 10% can be the emergency fund. How to keep everything from becoming an emergency expenditure? Good question.

3. Labeling of efficiency in government spending. Assume government is 50% efficient to keep the math easy. To get $10 of health care or pavement to the final user, government must collect $20 in taxes from society. Administrative costs and end user costs will be printed on labels and bills to also enhance public awareness.

You used to see signs in NY that said "Your tax dollars at work. This bridge costs $15,230,781."
It would be interesting to see 40% paid by the state of NY, 10% paid by the state of CT, 8% paid by the state of MD, 20% paid by the state of CA, etc. on the same sign.

It would be interesting to see what effect the above would have on the Robin Hood/Free Lunch mentality that currently afflicts the Western hemisphere.

[Enki]

Parodite,

I consider myself a socialist libertarian. Before you all fall over laughing, the idea is that we each have the maximum personal freedom in keeping with everyone getting enough to eat. OK, it's a hard call but that's how I'd like it.

Alex.

I more or less agree with this.

The devil is in the details though. Freedom is about the ability to make decisions. The more resources you own, the more decisions you have the power to make. A world where the vast majority of people are fed but have absolutely no power of free choice isn't desirable either.

[Mr. Perfect]

we need a different word for "lets other from different backgrounds live out their lives with dignity" if libertarian means somalia to ya all.

stuffed if i know what we are talking about.

I would say that you are hitting it on the head here noddy. The complaint you are addressing here is based on a false binary attribution to libertarianism, that is that you can only choose between libertarian anarchy and unlimited government.

Libertarianism, Conservatism and the US Founders were/are interested in limited government, that is that by abstract morals that government of any kind has no moral right to engage in certain activity. That government has a right to do certain things and not others. Government with a limit. Not a false binary.

Libertarians are no more or less lazy concerning the civilizing efforts of our ancestors than any other group. They/we would simply like obamacare repealed, options to get out of entitlements and disastrous public schools and so forth.

Nothing really radical about it.

[Mr. Perfect]

Parodite,

I consider myself a socialist libertarian. Before you all fall over laughing, the idea is that we each have the maximum personal freedom in keeping with everyone getting enough to eat. OK, it's a hard call but that's how I'd like it.

Alex.

I more or less agree with this.

The devil is in the details though. Freedom is about the ability to make decisions. The more resources you own, the more decisions you have the power to make. A world where the vast majority of people are fed but have absolutely no power of free choice isn't desirable either.

Socialism has caused more people to starve to death than any other system in the world. Only famines compete. Socialism doesn't even feed anyone, they steal food from capitalists, take a cut and occasionally give a little tiny amount to the poor and then pat themselves on the back as if they created it.

None of you have claim to libertarianism. The foundational authors of that movement are the US Founders, and people like Goldwater, Hayek, Friedman and even Ayn Rand who socialists despise. If we start to print their thoughts and ideas here very quickly none of you will want to have anything to do with them.

Socialism is the antithesis of libertarianism. What you are all trying to say is you want single payer and you want sex and drugs, and you cloak it under libertarianism. Single payer is the antithesis of libertarianism. Libertarianism is the reduction of about 75% of current government.

You guys are selling the equivalent of "Creationism Science."

Just be honest and say "I want single payer and any other redistributionist schemes I desire, if I feel like I want someone else's money I can go get it, but I also want sex and drugs" and just be honest about it.

[noddy]

the ideal society has fewer authoritarians and more beer.

[noddy]

http://theopenbudget.org/

i get sick of pointing out just how little our "socialist" system spends on social security, im perfectly happy for my tax to keep going on that, ill focus on the other 90%

[Parodite]

Just pointing out that social security is more than giving out checks to people who are able to work..but don't because a) there is not enough work available, or b) they are too lazy (or are happy with an absolute minimum). Non-working people also include children (social security usually provided by their parents), the elderly, the sick, the handicapped.

I like it that libertarianism is now also becoming a more fluid concept. I consider myself one in terms of limited gvt, but Mr.P. considers me a European socialist.

[Mr. Perfect]

http://theopenbudget.org/

i get sick of pointing out just how little our "socialist" system spends on social security, im perfectly happy for my tax to keep going on that, ill focus on the other 90%

We have to point out over and over that indeed almost no socialism goes to the poor. 75% of government doesn't even begin to touch the poor. It's mostly demographic Ponzi scheme bribes and vanity projects that are completely unnecessary.

Most everyone is ok with some help to the poor and indigent, problem is socialists never get around to it.

If we want schizoid labels I propose capitalism with a modest welfare benefit.

[Mr. Perfect]

Just pointing out that social security is more than giving out checks to people who are able to work..but don't because a) there is not enough work available, or b) they are too lazy (or are happy with an absolute minimum). Non-working people also include children (social security usually provided by their parents), the elderly, the sick, the handicapped.

I like it that libertarianism is now also becoming a more fluid concept. I consider myself one in terms of limited gvt, but Mr.P. considers me a European socialist.

Anyone who supports single payer is a socialist and no libertarian whatsoever.

[Parodite]

Just pointing out that social security is more than giving out checks to people who are able to work..but don't because a) there is not enough work available, or b) they are too lazy (or are happy with an absolute minimum). Non-working people also include children (social security usually provided by their parents), the elderly, the sick, the handicapped.

I like it that libertarianism is now also becoming a more fluid concept. I consider myself one in terms of limited gvt, but Mr.P. considers me a European socialist.

Anyone who supports single payer is a socialist and no libertarian whatsoever.

Whats single payer?

[Mr. Perfect]

Socialized Medicine.

[Parodite]

Socialized Medicine.

And social security by means of an unconditional basic income for all using negative income tax?

[manolo]

Socialized Medicine.

Mr P,

I don't always agree with your posts, but I like these words.

Alex.