Don't just say "liberal" or "libertarian" or whatever, be specific.
There will be a basically two-tiered society.
The "lower" class would be that of people living on small 10-15 acre plots of land farming biointensively (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biointensive_agriculture). What'll happen is that people will get machines and 2-3 acres for subsistence, and the rest of their land would be used for feeding the diets of city dwellers.
The "upper" class would consist of scientists and technologists living in cities. La boheme would reside here, too. On the outskirts of the cities, life would be mostly uncontrolled, but the central city will be like a giant monastery, one that does not even allow alcohol.
Most people in the "middle" class of today's society, the legions of shopkeepers and office workers and other white collar parasites, would be forced out into the countrysides to till the soil and live productive lives free of unwanted social interaction. They'll get all the entertainment and information services that are available today. They'll even be able to visit the cities, they just probably won't be able to live in them.
Not liberal, not libertarian, but I could get rich selling what you're smoking.
You could get rich selling technocracy? Then there is hope, after all.
The nerd wet dream.. Who will do the laundry from the massive wet dream when you wake up?
The society you describe is very similar to the one my Mormon brother envisioned as the Millennial existence. There will never be an ideal society because there are so many versions of what is ideal.
Some general principles can be derived, though. Such as keeping useless fools at arm's length, which is what the farms are for. The useless eaters have to go somewhere, after all. It may as well be a place where they can actually do something.
Then again, the "centers of power" really don't have to be physical. They can very easily be online communities.
What motivation do these useless people you mention have to actually till more of the land than they need to provide their own food? Also, wouldn't large amounts of small farms be massively inefficient when the it comes to producing food? Also are you sure all the people suddenly relegated to farming duty are going to consider this deal 'ideal society' as well?
And which side of the divide would you be on?
When reading your description, I just think 'hunger games'.
Quote from: "Plu"What motivation do these useless people you mention have to actually till more of the land than they need to provide their own food? Also, wouldn't large amounts of small farms be massively inefficient when the it comes to producing food? Also are you sure all the people suddenly relegated to farming duty are going to consider this deal 'ideal society' as well?
Your last sentence Is spot on. Utopian societies can be an society that works to 100% efficiencyminnthe theoretical model to which it is forwarded. You can have a utopian democracy of pure equal rights, or you can have a utopian dictatorship and so on.
The key point is that this kind of state would be an evolved platform (probably wouldn't even be a state as we know it), and one living within the boundaries of that system wouldn't even recognize it as utopian. It would just 'be'.
Forcing, or delegating, contradicts that evolved process.
I'd join the rebellion in that society. Get me some armed UAV's and fly them through the cities.
I remember reading that small scale farming is more efficient per acre than large scale farming, it's just less efficient on a time input basis.
And our current system is running on borrowed time/money, it's based on constant inflation and government support. It's the only way we can pretend that 80% of the jobs should even exist. Remove the Fed,, and the small scale farms will e look like utopia.
Any system that arises to rebuild the current one will be fascist in every important sense, so if I help put down the "reconstruction" effort, I'll be an anti-fascist force. Which isn't to imply that our system isn't already fascist (//http://www.cracked.com/article_20322_6-ways-companies-are-secretly-screwing-job-applicants.html).
The farms will have to come first, or at least co-evolve with the technocrats.
Near absolute enlightened monarchy with a few constitutional limits for things like free speech, privacy, due process, and reasonable government transparency. (protected by a fairly powerful constitutional court) Most day to day tasks run by highly educated bureaucratic class. The ruling monarch is not born, but is actually a clone that is raised by the current monarch as his own child.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"Don't just say "liberal" or "libertarian" or whatever, be specific.
There will be a basically two-tiered society.
The "lower" class would be that of people living on small 10-15 acre plots of land farming biointensively (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biointensive_agriculture). What'll happen is that people will get machines and 2-3 acres for subsistence, and the rest of their land would be used for feeding the diets of city dwellers.
The "upper" class would consist of scientists and technologists living in cities. La boheme would reside here, too. On the outskirts of the cities, life would be mostly uncontrolled, but the central city will be like a giant monastery, one that does not even allow alcohol.
Most people in the "middle" class of today's society, the legions of shopkeepers and office workers and other white collar parasites, would be forced out into the countrysides to till the soil and live productive lives free of unwanted social interaction. They'll get all the entertainment and information services that are available today. They'll even be able to visit the cities, they just probably won't be able to live in them.
Wow, just wow. So much wrong, where to begin.
Firstly, there is no ideal of basic rights in your "vision", a rather Orwellian one to be frank. Reminds me strongly of both
The Animal Farm and
1984 as well.
Secondly, this rather communistic view works fine in small scale operations, such as "The Farm" in Tennessee, or the "Hog Farm" in California as well. However, such communes do not work well on a large scale. They exist solely on the cooperative effort of everyone involved. This "two tier" society you propose will only lead to those of privilege and those of poverty, the latter who will always want what the other has. Such a society would only breed contempt and subterfuge, and require an enormous police state to maintain. To be frank, this reminds me very strongly of socialist communism, an already failed experiment.
Lastly, human beings have always had some form of authority, ie government. Whether its our current Constitutional Republic here in the US, or an elders council as found among ancient peoples. Human beings are not machines, we are individuals, with ideals and opinions that vary widely, even with ideologies and societies as well. This is why a form of g'ment, whatever it may be, is crucial, critical, even natural for us. Even the communes mentioned above have some form of governing authority within the group.
Sorry, but I do not see this working in any form in today's society, not without heavy military intervention and forced redistribution of wealth and location, followed not only by an intrusive police state but civil wars and resistance movements as well.
Quote from: "Colanth"Not liberal, not libertarian, but I could get rich selling what you're smoking.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"The nerd wet dream.. Who will do the laundry from the massive wet dream when you wake up?
Disagreeing with the OP's is one thing, but as his post is properly-worded, he's willing to elaborate on things, he isn't being argumentative and he doesn't spam the forum with silly threads, in fact, he generally creates interesting ones, he at least deserves proper replies in my opnion.
I am also guilty of giving sarcastic or silly replies to spammers/idiots/trolls etc. but the OP isn't one of these.
There has never been or ever will be any "perfect" society, because "perfect" is a bullshit word and is as hollow as the logic of people who ascribe to it as ever being possible.
Most stuff Zara mentioned in his OP is already happening. It won't lead to an ideal society, but there will be less middle men in the future, we've been seeing this happening for two decades now.
@Zara: are you familliar with the concept of frugal innovation?
QuoteAnd our current system is running on borrowed time/money, it's based on constant inflation and government support. It's the only way we can pretend that 80% of the jobs should even exist.
This I'm willing to believe. The problem is that we're needing less and less people to work to maintain output. The main problem is that we define "resources to live with" as "amount of useful work done", which is a definition that assumes there's always more useful work to be done than people who can do it.
And that won't be the case much longer, and we'll either have to find a new way to define how many resources people get to live with, or we're going through a revolution or other uprising soon as people start realising that there aren't any jobs and they're going to starve unless something changes.
Doesn't mean the proposed solution is a good idea though, because it's not.
QuoteWhat motivation do these useless people you mention have to actually till more of the land than they need to provide their own food?
If they made enough food to sustain themselves and stayed the fuck out of everyone else's way, they'd be a billion times more helpful than they are now. But on top of that: if they don't provide for the system, who will fix the AC when it breaks? Who will fix their machines? Try farming more than 1-2 acres without machines.
The natural tendency of all living things is to make life easier for themselves and for everyone else. The only thing that can cause a living thing to stray from this formula is religion/ideology.
QuoteIf they made enough food to sustain themselves and stayed the fuck out of everyone else's way, they'd be a billion times more helpful than they are now.
Yeah but the people in the cities would still starve to death.
QuoteThe natural tendency of all living things is to make life easier for themselves and for everyone else. The only thing that can cause a living thing to stray from this formula is religion/ideology.
Bull. The natural tendency of living things it to make life easier for themselves, and if you're lucky, for what they consider their packmates, which usually stretches (if you're lucky) to the city borders. It's only an exceptional breed of person that cares for everyone else.
Quote from: "Bibliofagus"Most stuff Zara mentioned in his OP is already happening. It won't lead to an ideal society, but there will be less middle men in the future, we've been seeing this happening for two decades now.
@Zara: are you familliar with the concept of frugal innovation?
How so? The elite are living in the suburbs, leaving the cities largely to the poor. And the latter are hardly moving en mass to the farms either.
Quote from: "Bibliofagus"Most stuff Zara mentioned in his OP is already happening. It won't lead to an ideal society, but there will be less middle men in the future, we've been seeing this happening for two decades now.
@Zara: are you familliar with the concept of frugal innovation?
The problem at least in the west, is that sure, it can create less workers and more machines, but what happens to the economy when the bulk of the people have no money to purchase the things they make?
I have no problem with innovation that makes life easier, but it should never come at the cost of creating more poverty just so fewer people can get richer.
Quote from: "Brian37"Quote from: "Bibliofagus"Most stuff Zara mentioned in his OP is already happening. It won't lead to an ideal society, but there will be less middle men in the future, we've been seeing this happening for two decades now.
@Zara: are you familliar with the concept of frugal innovation?
The problem at least in the west, is that sure, it can create less workers and more machines, but what happens to the economy when the bulk of the people have no money to purchase the things they make?
I have no problem with innovation that makes life easier, but it should never come at the cost of creating more poverty just so fewer people can get richer.
There's no way to prevent the latter thing from happening. An intelligent (re?)distribution system, centralized or distributed, is the only way.
To create a massive migration of the poor to the collective farms, you have to create livable spaces, which can be done fairly easily, and you have to cut off/trim urban welfare programs.
Quote from: "AxisMundi"Quote from: "Bibliofagus"Most stuff Zara mentioned in his OP is already happening. It won't lead to an ideal society, but there will be less middle men in the future, we've been seeing this happening for two decades now.
@Zara: are you familliar with the concept of frugal innovation?
How so? The elite are living in the suburbs, leaving the cities largely to the poor. And the latter are hardly moving en mass to the farms either.
Growing your own food and producing your own energy is getting more popular in my country. And it has for quite some time.
the ops perfect society sounds a lot like Pol Pots vision for Cambodia. If I remember right that didn't turn out so well
That's because he didn't have the expertise to make it work. The US isn't the same as Cambodia in terms of infrastructure and agricultural know-how.
If wireless internet used the frequencies that are now reserved for radio and TV, we'd all have free Internet that broadcasts as far as 3g and can go through walls and hills. This would make all other forms of communication technology obsolete. The FCC even has a plan to open source some of the frequencies freed up by the move from analog to digital TV broadcasts. So the people of the countryside would have even more entertainment and communications than people of the city do now.
Quote from: "Brian37"Quote from: "Bibliofagus"Most stuff Zara mentioned in his OP is already happening. It won't lead to an ideal society, but there will be less middle men in the future, we've been seeing this happening for two decades now.
@Zara: are you familliar with the concept of frugal innovation?
The problem at least in the west, is that sure, it can create less workers and more machines, but what happens to the economy when the bulk of the people have no money to purchase the things they make?
It´ll adjust. One thing is sure, the economy will never dissapear as long as people are around.
Quote from: "Brian37"I have no problem with innovation that makes life easier, but it should never come at the cost of creating more poverty just so fewer people can get richer.
Emphasis added in my original response.
Look, I´m not saying it´ll be an ideal society, but this stuff is actually happening. Simple workers are getting access to more and more sophisticated tech... and they put it to use. This will impact the way society is organized.
QuoteIf wireless internet used the frequencies that are now reserved for radio and TV, we'd all have free Internet that broadcasts as far as 3g and can go through walls and hills. This would make all other forms of communication technology obsolete. The FCC even has a plan to open source some of the frequencies freed up by the move from analog to digital TV broadcasts. So the people of the countryside would have even more entertainment and communications than people of the city do now
I doubt that all those poor and useless people will move out of the city and try to eek out a living on 2-3 acres or even 15 acres just to get a better internet connection. I doubt that your upper class folks will all want to live like monks either. I think you will have to use a lot of force to make this happen. Maybe kill off a third or a half of the population of the country and the rest will fall in line. You don't want to move out to the country we'll kill you . A perfect society indeed
There have been any number of attempts at Utopian societies over centuries. Any around now? Call me a cynic, but I don't see a scenario where any society can agree enough to create one. countries like Sweden or Denmark come close, and if you're looking for a model, start there. But good luck. I still don't see it as feasible.
We are getting a bit closer to a post scarcity society, at least for smaller goods. We reached it information wise years ago with the advent of home broadband. 3D printing is going to bring psychical objects into the same realm as file sharing.
QuoteI doubt that all those poor and useless people will move out of the city and try to eek out a living on 2-3 acres or even 15 acres just to get a better internet connection.
They'll do it for a better, more steady food supply. The farms will be the new welfare program.
QuoteI doubt that your upper class folks will all want to live like monks either.
Fair nuff, you either help the poor or you hurt the rich. It's very difficult to do both, try as the leftists might.
I doubt it. In fact, most of them probably don't even know how to be a farmer. Nor do they care to become one.
Right, because gentrification doesn't exist.
Poor people can easily be convinced to leave the cities when the economic conditions do not allow it, or when incentives exist for them to move elsewhere. This is true of people in general, but doubly so for the poor.
Right now, there is no system in place to help them migrate to rural areas. If they moved there now, I do not doubt that they'd be just as fucked as people in Pol Pot's Cambodia. But if they built small cottages and gave them training and equipment and infrastructure, the story would be different.
Your seemingly ultra-expensive method of moving people to the small farms might deal with the first problem, but I don't see how it deals with the second. Most of these people already have jobs that they either like or don't care to leave.
It's not expensive if it pays for itself.
Small scale farming is multitasking from dawn to dark. You don't plunk somebody down on a farm and let them figure it out. You need to be a welder, a carpenter, know animal husbandry, plant cultivation, crop cycles, veterinary skills, how to read the weather, mechanic and how to drive various farm equipment from tractors to big trucks. And any number of little jobs in between, not to mention not be bothered by wading in shit all day or mind the smell.
A Utopian society has never worked and it never will.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"It's not expensive if it pays for itself.
That's the word from a guy measuring in money and investments. Now try measuring in the physical resources and manpower required to get this stuff working.
Biointensive farming has higher yields per acre, no chemical inputs, lower water usage, and improves the quality of the soil faster than nature does. It sounds too good to be true, but universities have done studies on it. The only thing it uses more of is labor and time, and the assumption is that we'll be using people who have all the time in the world.
I grew up with farmers. I worked on farms. "Biointensive" doesn't mean shit when the harvester breaks down, or hoof and mouth hits your stock. Small farms are labor intensive because, as I said, mechanization costs bucks. Labor costs bucks. Everything is funded by debts to be paid against future yields in the field or from stock production, or dairy yield or whatever. Farms go under for unpaid debt, unforeseen weather events, stock and produce price changes (often done by wall street in futures markets) and so on. A heavy yield in the wrong crop can ruin a farm as bad as a poor one. A basic tractor costs thousands of dollars and have to be kept running for decades to pay back the cost. Then throw on the cost of the accessories- plow discs, harrows, snow plows, and so on. And that is just a tractor, not to mention trucks, carts, fencing etc. Adapting to new technology costs, even if there is an eventual payback. You don't see people happily running out to start small farms on a mass basis. there is a reason.
To OP:
What exactly are your aims in bringing about this new order?
As interesting as the concept is, and fun to examine, the reality, in my very humble opinion, is we would need a massive global plague to do the job we would not do on our own. To many of "our" society is unwilling to work to the extreme that you would suggest. Small farming is very hard labor and without a very good "kill-off" we would have too many that we would probably have to find a nice way to kill off or we would simply end up with a communistic society near the unhinged stage with very pissed off workers.
Quote from: "aitm"As interesting as the concept is, and fun to examine, the reality, in my very humble opinion, is we would need a massive global plague to do the job we would not do on our own. To many of "our" society is unwilling to work to the extreme that you would suggest. Small farming is very hard labor and without a very good "kill-off" we would have too many that we would probably have to find a nice way to kill off or we would simply end up with a communistic society near the unhinged stage with very pissed off workers.
Thank you. I was going to say basically the same thing. An ideal society would only work with a much reduced population, imo.
What happens to university professors?
A 100 sq foot plot takes 10 hours of labor to prepare and can provide all the food one person needs, assuming there are 4 harvests, like down south. After that, it only takes 30 minutes of upkeep per day to hold off the weeds. So with 2 hours of labor per day, anyone could grow enough to easily feed themselves, and then some.
Sounds a little like Maoism, so I will assume that the educated class will be in the fields for reeducation.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"A 100 sq foot plot takes 10 hours of labor to prepare and can provide all the food one person needs, assuming there are 4 harvests, like down south. After that, it only takes 30 minutes of upkeep per day to hold off the weeds. So with 2 hours of labor per day, anyone could grow enough to easily feed themselves, and then some.
:-s
you'll need to provide some back up for that. A ten by ten bedroom plot can provide all the food? How? Can it be stored without refrigeration? Salted? I need some more for this. Don't wanna come out and say BS, but it is very close.
edit; as a gardener, I can take care of a 10 x 10 plot in about 5 minutes.
Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "zarus tathra"A 100 sq foot plot takes 10 hours of labor to prepare and can provide all the food one person needs, assuming there are 4 harvests, like down south. After that, it only takes 30 minutes of upkeep per day to hold off the weeds. So with 2 hours of labor per day, anyone could grow enough to easily feed themselves, and then some.
:-s
you'll need to provide some back up for that. A ten by ten bedroom plot can provide all the food? How? Can it be stored without refrigeration? Salted? I need some more for this. Don't wanna come out and say BS, but it is very close.
edit; as a gardener, I can take care of a 10 x 10 plot in about 5 minutes.
In the book I have, that's exactly the claim they make.
edit: nvm, it's around 1000 sq feet. Not exactly tiny, but still quite small. It's estimated to cost like 5 hours a week.
The system is as follows:
Dig up the first 12 inches and put it in the row that was just displaced. For the first row, put the soil in buckets and fill in the last row. Then, using a spading fork or U-bar, disturb the 12 inches below. This will loosen up and aerate the soil to a depth and degree that normally is not possible.
A lot of care is taken to use companion planting, nitrogen fixing plants, and compost-producing plants, coupled with plants that produce a lot of calories per square foot.
There are some fine details to fill in, but this is the gist.
And the Khmer Rouge did a LOT more than make people flee to the countryside. According to Wikipedia,
QuoteThe Khmer Rouge systematically destroyed food sources that could not be easily subjected to centralized storage and control, cut down fruit trees, forbade fishing, outlawed the planting or harvest of mountain leap rice, abolished medicine and hospitals, forced people to march long distances without access to water, exported food, embarked on foolish economic projects, and refused offers of humanitarian aid, which caused a humanitarian catastrophe: hundreds of thousands died of starvation and brutal government-inflicted overwork in the countryside. To the Khmer Rouge, outside aid went against their principle of national self-reliance.
I don't think anybody alive is crazy enough to do something that drastic and arbitrary.
Quote from: "Jmpty"What happens to university professors?
The scientists will be in charge of the government, I'm thinking something like Foundation, where everything's controlled by a massive computer and a cabal of computer scientists and mathematicians.
I'm not quite certain what'll happen to the Women's Studies and African American Studies professors, their ideas only really have relevance in the context of modern corporate society. "Affirmative action" doesn't really have much meaning if there aren't any corporations. A lot of them already grow their own vegetables, anyway. :D
Quoteedit: nvm, it's around 1000 sq feet. Not exactly tiny, but still quite small. It's estimated to cost like 5 hours a week.
So 5 hours a week per person? That means you can support about 8 people on a 40 hour work week. Assuming that many people are too young or too old to till the fields, or living in the city, that means you're going to have a pretty low farmers to food ratio compared to what we have now.
Considering that we'll still need as many people as we have now to build machinery, store, distribute and prepare food, build new houses, do research, run basic government services, educate new people, provide entertainment and do all the other things that are required to operate a high people density country, that might become problematic. We're probably going to have to shut down a lot of features that we're currently used to because we need more people who currently have jobs to perform to become farmers.
And this is even assuming that farmers only have to tend to crops, they have much more stuff to do around the farm that will add to their 40 hour workload, so it's probably more reasonable to say that each farmer can support about 6 people. That's most likely just a little bit more than their own family (assuming 2 plots per farm, they could support about 12 people, which probably includes themselves, three kids, and at least one grandparent; basically you can support 1 city family per farm family. That means to support a city like New York (with 10 million inhabitants) you'll need about 1.5 to 2 million farms built around it.
If the system had zero redundancy the way you suppose, there wouldn't be any unemployment. Then factor in the very real possibility that most people produce at most 1/2 the optimal rate, which is a hilariously generous estimate, then factor in all the redundant "job creation" done by the government and unions and Wall Street, and then planned obsolescence and industrial sabotage and inefficiencies from shoddy engineering.
China's going through a labor shortage, but the thing is, their machines and management are so inefficient they need 10 times as many people to do half as much work as we do. Face it, the price system is finished, or it would be, if it didn't cripple itself so artfully.
Cute how you think that your system would not have the same redundancy that the current one does.
If you get rid of planned obsolescence, then you'd probably have to make 1/2 as much product, AT MOST. Decentralized quality control, like Yelp but peer-to-peer, would solve this. So that's one 2x multiplier of efficiency.
Then you add in statistical process control and advanced inventory management like Kanban, which time and time again has been shown to dramatically increase quality and productivity and decrease costs with minimal rework of design. This is at least 1.5x, but that's very conservative.
Using software inspections and competitive engineering in the style of Tom Gilb would allow the vast majority of the failed software and engineering projects to actually succeed, which is at least another 2x multiplier of efficiency.
Then add in some kind of AI control system like Cybersyn (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn) to detect irregularities like high absenteeism and fiscal corruption. This thing allowed 200 strikebreakers to do the work of 40,000 striking truckers, delivering food where it was needed. Let's call this a 4x multiplier of efficiency.
So you have 2x1.5x2x4=24. I know that this looks like magic, but keep in mind that Cybersyn was built in the 70's, and that statistical process control was what allowed Japan to make the best products in the world less than 5 years after World War 2 wiped out their industrial base. And this is without Taylorist shop management and projected improvements due to automation and artifical intelligence demand prediction.
Right. 100 square feet for one person. Sounds good, assuming a vegetarian diet. A cow, one, requires from 2-5 acres, depending on the forage. Add three people, a typical family. Want pork? Add more acreage. Want to produce food for someone other than the 4? Acreage. Try to harvest hay off of 5-10 acres with a scythe. You need machinery. You need barns for animals, sheds for equipment, feeders, extra feed in case your crop yield is poor, and so on. Farming is all about covering the contingencies, because they are endless.
If you live on a biointensive source for your people on a strictly vegetarian diet, well and good. Assuming a consistent water supply, good planning and not relying on nature to provide rain and not having to worry about any adverse weather, fine. But once you scale up past the initial subsistence farming, is where the problems lie. You can't have a society devoted entirely to individual subsistence farming, unless you are talking a very small scale, limited population society. Which is what aitm and I both stipulated. Utopia only works with a small group that is completely on the same page philosophically and every other way. Like I keep saying, Utopia has been tried many times in history, and I know of no case where it worked. I'd be happy to see an example if you have one.
The perfect society is a mixture of the worst of fascism and communism, and is built around oppression and discrimination? I have a hard time believing this thread is serious.
I think in order to even begin such an endeavor the population would have to be addressed. I don't think a system is capable without drastic reduction in, shall we call it, the "useless factor"....oh, interesting side thought, but what do we do with the severely disabled and mentally unstable? Soylent green??? :/
QuoteI think in order to even begin such an endeavor the population would have to be addressed. I don't think a system is capable without drastic reduction in, shall we call it, the "useless factor"....oh, interesting side thought, but what do we do with the severely disabled and mentally unstable? Soylent green??? :/
They go on the farms. They farm/fish, or they die. They can wander all they want, they might even make it back to "civilization." It doesn't matter. The default response to any kind of bullshit will be sending people to a farm. The prison population would be a fraction of what it is now.
And we don't even have to violently destroy corporate society, our recent experience is that it can not survive without support from the central bank. If we refuse to support the central bank, then it will fall all on its own.
Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"The perfect society is a mixture of the worst of fascism and communism, and is built around oppression and discrimination? I have a hard time believing this thread is serious.
This.
QuoteThe perfect society is a mixture of the worst of fascism and communism, and is built around oppression and discrimination? I have a hard time believing this thread is serious.
I've posted paragraph after paragraph, link after link. I'd like to think you can do better than this.
If we keep the current system, either we'll have mass unemployment, or we'll have full employment and constant, repeated crises of overproduction and underproduction. Our ecosystem and especially our financial system can not sustain too much of this.
I know this sounds like Marx, but Marx didn't have the computer technology we do today. This by itself would be enough to guarantee success, IMO.
And Pol Pot didn't allow people to own land, or anything. The farmers, on the other hand, would be living the survivalist dream if they play their cards right.
It actually sums it up quite well. You have a communist economic system, where everyone who you deem "useless" is opressed by being dumped on a farm where they will either grow food or die, regardless of what they wanted to do with their life.
The least you could do, if you're serious, is admit that it's what your personaly perfect society is built around.
In our current system, you get a job, or you die, or you go on government assistance and help destabilize the system. In my system, you get a job or you get your own plot of land in the countryside and the opportunity to eat better than 90% of corporate citizens do now. We'll even give you guns to hunt with/defend yourself.
There will always be a working class, unless we get some super-computer that controls a robot army to do everything for us. And even a transhumanist like me would not trust that.
QuoteIn our current system, you get a job, or you die, or you go on government assistance and help destabilize the system. In my system, you get a job or you get your own plot of land in the countryside and the opportunity to eat better than 90% of corporate citizens do now.
In our current system,
you get a job. In your system,
the system sends you to a farm. That's where the "opressive communist" part is coming from.
Where did I say that there would only be farmers and technocrats? We'll still need service workers, industrial workers, and middle managers. It's just that technology will necessarily cut down on the # of those last 3 classes that are necessary/useful. And it won't be a smaller # of people working the same hours, we'll have more people working less hours. The load will be more evenly distributed, and people will be less stressed. I think the farmers will provide the baseline for minimum# of hours worked to prevent class conflict. Which is basically the system they had in Imperial China, where the hierarchy was government officials -> Farmers -> artisans -> merchants.
The farmers won't just get farms. They can live in villages, if they like. If they're particularly productive, they could be given CNC mills and workshops and equipment. We just won't support the 20th century city in its current form. It is very inefficient. And like the collapse of the corporate system, this decline is not something we'll have to precipitate by force. In fact, it is usually government economic policies that have
forced rural citizens to move to the cities. Lenin instituted collective farming to push peasants into factory work, this is giving a landing pad for when the march of science closes down their job.
And you haven't come up with any solutions to this:
QuoteIf we keep the current system, either we'll have mass unemployment, or we'll have full employment and constant, repeated crises of overproduction and underproduction. Our ecosystem and especially our financial system can not sustain too much of this.
All complaints and no solutions. People say that's a stereotype of revolutionaries, but it seems that counter-revolutionaries are the same way.
This post shifts considerably from the one you opened with. Which means you're either really bad at explaining your goals, or you simply have no idea what they are.
QuoteAnd you haven't come up with any solutions to this:
You never asked for our own solutions, you just came here to present your own.
QuoteWhere did I say that there would only be farmers and technocrats?
I never said that's where we'd go. I just said you're forcing people to go to the farms, which is exactly what you've been pushing; sending all the "useless" people to the farms.
The free market has never cared about the "useless" people, and it never will. Neither does the government, for that matter.
QuoteYou never asked for our own solutions, you just came here to present your own.
Waaaahhh my first post "set the tone" waaaaaah.
If you want to say something say it.
And the basics haven't shifted from my original post, I've just filled in the gaps more. Sort of. Mostly, I just put things in a historical context.
I don't really care to discuss my vision for a better future, nor do I need to in order to show you that your solution is pretty shitty.
And it's true that the free market doesn't care about the useless people (nor do I) but that doesn't mean you can just force them to go to work on a farm. (Or expect them to actually do much work; they're labeled useless for a reason)
So yeah; your solution is worse than our current system, since the current one at least doesn't force people to do something against their will.
QuoteSo yeah; your solution is worse than our current system, since the current one at least doesn't force people to do something against their will.
No, it just makes them live next to criminals in lead-painted housing or imprisons them at massive expense.
QuoteAnd it's true that the free market doesn't care about the useless people (nor do I) but that doesn't mean you can just force them to go to work on a farm. (Or expect them to actually do much work; they're labeled useless for a reason)
If they do enough to feed themselves, fine. If they don't, fine, they're stuck in the middle of the woods and they can't get out.
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteIn our current system, you get a job, or you die, or you go on government assistance and help destabilize the system. In my system, you get a job or you get your own plot of land in the countryside and the opportunity to eat better than 90% of corporate citizens do now.
In our current system, you get a job. In your system, the system sends you to a farm. That's where the "opressive communist" part is coming from.
I don't think that's what he is saying. I think he's saying that our free market is going to 'send*' people to farm and be self providing to an ever increasing degree. And actually that is quite an optimistic, 'free' and prefferable scenario, considering the alternatives.
*Just like it is going to 'send' people into care for the elderly in Holland.
Which is better than forcing them to live on a farm.
Quote from: "Plu"Which is better than forcing them to live on a farm.
Agreed. But I don't think he said that anybody is going to force anyone.
The economy will do it.
We won't have to "force" you to move to the farm, people will just stop helping you if you become too much of an asshat. There'll be a massive bureau where anyone can walk up and get a farm. Nowadays, people tolerate useless douchebags because they're afraid they won't be able to make it if everyone stops helping them. This won't happen with a safety net.
It'll be like the Night's Watch, except you're not in it for life, and you don't have to take a vow of chastity or fight monsters.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"QuoteThe perfect society is a mixture of the worst of fascism and communism, and is built around oppression and discrimination? I have a hard time believing this thread is serious.
I've posted paragraph after paragraph, link after link. I'd like to think you can do better than this.
If we keep the current system, either we'll have mass unemployment, or we'll have full employment and constant, repeated crises of overproduction and underproduction. Our ecosystem and especially our financial system can not sustain too much of this.
I know this sounds like Marx, but Marx didn't have the computer technology we do today. This by itself would be enough to guarantee success, IMO.
And Pol Pot didn't allow people to own land, or anything. The farmers, on the other hand, would be living the survivalist dream if they play their cards right.
It's fascism, not communism. Sure it steals some concepts from communism, but fascism is about the right people and the wrong people, i.e. the strong and the weak, the useful and the useless. Communism, at least in theory, was about everybody being equall. In practice communism meant that everyone was equally fucked, save a small upper class. Fascism is more about how everyone who isn't useful are even more fucked than in communism, but if you can be useful and conform you got a chance.
Your idea appear to be fascism, plus a slight communistic "support net" of fucked useless people. Huge class differences + an imposing system. But hey, communism and fascism are so similar that there's no real reason to differniate them, they are both fucking evil and lead to hate, depravity and destruction: As demonstrated time and time again.
Your system is one of the most anti-perfect systems I've seen.
And sure,
I got a better solution. It's called mixed-economy. The best of capitalism and socialism. You get the free market that generate jobs and income, and then socialism that ensures that capitalism doesn't fuck up or leave anyone behind, potentially creating non-free market sectors and state monopolies in certain businesses, preferably new ones so that people aren't pushed out of a job, in order to generate income and improve living conditions. This system is already functioning wonderfully in many countries, including my own, though it can always be improved and made better.
Currently we don't have the technology or resources to make society perfect, besides perfection is in the eye of the beholder, and is a pretty unreasonable goal. However we can certainly try our best to make the best society possible for the most people possible, where people can be able to live and be as free as currently possible - and then improve these conditions whenever resources and technology allows for us to do so.
But I can tell you one thing, oppressing large groups of people has been demonstrated to NEVER be the solution - unless you want a society that eventually will collapse.
QuoteAnd sure, I got a better solution. It's called mixed-economy. The best of capitalism and socialism. You get the free market that generate jobs and income, and then socialism that ensures that capitalism doesn't fuck up or leave anyone behind, potentially creating non-free market sectors and state monopolies in certain businesses, preferably new ones so that people aren't pushed out of a job, in order to generate income and improve living conditions. This system is already functioning wonderfully in many countries, including my own, though it can always be improved and made better.
So the financial crisis didn't happen? Debt and unemployment isn't spiralling out of control? Gas prices aren't rising arbitrarily? News to me.
And sooner or later, pretty much everybody will get "pushed out of a job." It's not "capitalism," it's the march of science and technology. Producing more with less, less people, less input, less waste. There's no way to prevent this unless you murder every engineer, scientist, and industrial manager and burn every book.
Right now, the common solutions are
1. Survivalism. This is what libertarianism and anarchism are in a nutshell.
2. Centralization.
My solution combines the best of both worlds.
My reasoning with regard to the ruralization of the city folk has little to do with a fascist hatred of the weak and a lot more to do with recognizing that there aren't very many truly productive things you can do in a city. Farming, industrial work, military service, all these things are impossible within city limits without widespread destruction. That's why the urban poor stay poor, because the industries that thrive in cities, services, government, and corporate bureaucracy, will not employ them.
My in laws lived through the very thing you describe, in Mao's China. I have family members who were sent to the countryside for reeducation. No good came of it, and they learned from their mistakes, and are still learning. What you are describing is something out of a dystopian science fiction novel, and that's where this idea should stay.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"So the financial crisis didn't happen?
Only to a very low degree and for a short period of time in my country, and this was caused by the lack of socialistic control and oversight of the free market in other countries, such as the US. With proper regulations it would never have happened.
QuoteDebt and unemployment isn't spiralling out of control? Gas prices aren't rising arbitrarily? News to me.
Nope. I'm sorry you live in fucked up America though. You have an America-centric view and appear utterly uninformed about the rest of the world. America can hardly be called mixed economy, they have some slight socialistic elements, but far too few to avoid disasters. You seem to think that just because the system in America is fucked up you must install communism/fascism. This is ignorant beyond belief.
QuoteAnd sooner or later, pretty much everybody will get "pushed out of a job." It's not "capitalism," it's the march of science and technology. Producing more with less, less people, less input, less waste. There's no way to prevent this unless you murder every engineer, scientist, and industrial manager and burn every book.
Incorrect, you simply create new markets and train people provide different services. Production/manual labour will obviously need less and less people, but there are more more friggin markets than that FFS. How can you ignore service, IT, etc? HOW? Seriously ...
QuoteRight now, the common solutions are
1. Survivalism. This is what libertarianism and anarchism are in a nutshell.
2. Centralization.
My solution combines the best of both worlds.
Centralization is to a large degree perfectly ok, survivalism on the other hand is batshit, and your arguments are built on such laughable fallacies that none of this needs to be up to consideration at all.
QuoteMy reasoning with regard to the ruralization of the city folk has little to do with a fascist hatred of the weak and a lot more to do with recognizing that there aren't very many truly productive things you can do in a city.
Why not?
QuoteFarming, industrial work, military service, all these things are impossible within city limits without widespread destruction. That's why the urban poor stay poor, because the industries that thrive in cities, services, government, and corporate bureaucracy, will not employ them.
Why can't industrial work and military service be in the city? I know you try to explain, but your explanation is nonsensical. Farming on the other hand needs space, but having people fend for themselves is dumb. People will be just as poor if you throw them on a plot of land where they can't even get meat, nor earn money ... #-o
If you want to steal from communism at least make a structuralized farming network so that what they produce will be for everyone and some can raise animals, other can grow vegetables, etc. and everyone can enjoy the spoils.
Nobody has to go to the farm unless they murder somebody or something. It's where people will go when they have nowhere else to go.
QuoteOnly to a very low degree and for a short period of time in my country, and this was caused by the lack of socialistic control and oversight of the free market in other countries, such as the US. With proper regulations it would never have happened.
What is your country? Iceland? Somewhere in Northern Europe?
Quote from: "zarus tathra"What is your country? Iceland? Somewhere in Northern Europe?
Close, Norway. Though our mixed economy our government own large parts of our oil industry, securing them far, far more funds than ever needed to stop the collateral damage from America's economical system. If you guys had done the same you guys would have been much better off. Or better yet: If you guys had been smart enough to have heavily regulated and controlled Wall Street, there probably wouldn't have been any financial crisis at all.
And if you started using more socialistic ideas, programs, and maybe even got the government to both regulate and take part in the free market, as well as having certain monopolies, your situation would also have been much better. It's not too late to fix your system.
Did the Northern European countries that didn't have oil do as well?
But yeah, international finance is the plague.
QuoteDid the Northern European countries that didn't have oil do as well?
The Netherlands doesn't have any oil and it seems to be holding up fairly well. Things are getting more expensive, and some more people are out of work, but nothing really horrible so far. We're pulling out of the economic crash again right now. We'll probably be back to old levels in a few years.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"Did the Northern European countries that didn't have oil do as well?
But yeah, international finance is the plague.
I'm not up to date on all NE countries, but the Scandinavian countries are doing quite well.
It's also very easy to get the state profit from the market other than oil. Say you legalized marijuana, but had a state monopoly meaning that all the money, save salaries, went to the state. (Of course in America the simplest solution would just be to decrease the ridiculous military spending).
The ideal state should be closer to a non-profit organization with the purpose to secure the safety (including financial safety) and freedom of the citizens.
But let me lay out the basic foundation of a good mixed economy system - which I believe is the best currently available system:
- The free market is allowed to thrive, but is regulated to a responsible degree.
- Taxes ensures the redistribution of wealth, securing capitalism as the people will always have the funds to buy.
- The government takes part in the free market, either by having their own companies or investing in safe businisess. They may also have monopolies that ensures them a solid profit.
- The profits from taxes and business endeavors will, aside from being redistributed, be used to build infastructure, make important services as cheap as possible - if not free and otherwise improve the lives of the citizens.
That's the key, in very simple and broad strokes. Norway got some stuff to fix and improve too, but we are doing really well, and would do so even without the oil. Mixed-economy is well tested and has been proven to be a great success. Anything remotely close to what you're suggesting has failed miserably.
Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"QuoteFarming, industrial work, military service, all these things are impossible within city limits without widespread destruction. That's why the urban poor stay poor, because the industries that thrive in cities, services, government, and corporate bureaucracy, will not employ them.
Why can't industrial work and military service be in the city? I know you try to explain, but your explanation is nonsensical. Farming on the other hand needs space, but having people fend for themselves is dumb. People will be just as poor if you throw them on a plot of land where they can't even get meat, nor earn money ... #-o
Military service needs guns and space to exercise. Industrial work creates noise and pollution.
QuoteIf you want to steal from communism at least make a structuralized farming network so that what they produce will be for everyone and some can raise animals, other can grow vegetables, etc. and everyone can enjoy the spoils.
Collective farms are acceptable, I just figured that people who hate society would rather be survivalist.
Quote(Of course in America the simplest solution would just be to decrease the ridiculous military spending).
There are a lot of things in the US that cost more than the military. Welfare, social security and medicare, and education all cost more. Which is insane, in retrospect.
Quote from: "Plu"So yeah; your solution is worse than our current system, since the current one at least doesn't force people to do something against their will.
Do people voluntarily pay taxes? You're from the Netherlands, right? I could be wrong, but I believe that the income tax rate there is over 50%. If you are required to pay and penalized if you don't, then you're being forced to do something against your will. You're essentially working half the year to pay taxes whether you want to or not. Some would say that's akin to slavery. I think the OP's solution is fascist and extremely oppressive, but the current system isn't a whole lot better, in your country or mine.
I pay roughly 25% tax here in the US, have no choice where the money goes, and can go to jail if I refuse to pay. I have helped fund wars that I completely disagree with and contributed to programs that I believe oppress other people. My choice is to pay for these things or go to jail.
Keep in mind: I see the farm as an alternative to prison as well as welfare.
Quote from: "Jack89"Quote from: "Plu"So yeah; your solution is worse than our current system, since the current one at least doesn't force people to do something against their will.
Do people voluntarily pay taxes? You're from the Netherlands, right? I could be wrong, but I believe that the income tax rate there is over 50%. If you are required to pay and penalized if you don't, then you're being forced to do something against your will. You're essentially working half the year to pay taxes whether you want to or not. Some would say that's akin to slavery. I think the OP's solution is fascist and extremely oppressive, but the current system isn't a whole lot better, in your country or mine.
I pay roughly 25% tax here in the US, have no choice where the money goes, and can go to jail if I refuse to pay. I have helped fund wars that I completely disagree with and contributed to programs that I believe oppress other people. My choice is to pay for these things or go to jail.
Point taken, although there's a difference between being forced to perform a specific activity and simply knowing that some of the work you do is for the benefit of everyone. It's a bit like food; everyone has to eat but you get to pick how, when and where. Likewise everyone pays taxes, but you get to pick how you earn the money to pay for them.
(And yeah, close to 50% for the above average incomes. I'm at 40% or something like that myself.)
Who says anybody's being forced? It's just an option that's open to everyone. I never really planned to force anyone.
Quote from: "Jack89"Quote from: "Plu"So yeah; your solution is worse than our current system, since the current one at least doesn't force people to do something against their will.
Do people voluntarily pay taxes? You're from the Netherlands, right? I could be wrong, but I believe that the income tax rate there is over 50%. If you are required to pay and penalized if you don't, then you're being forced to do something against your will. You're essentially working half the year to pay taxes whether you want to or not. Some would say that's akin to slavery. I think the OP's solution is fascist and extremely oppressive, but the current system isn't a whole lot better, in your country or mine.
I pay roughly 25% tax here in the US, have no choice where the money goes, and can go to jail if I refuse to pay. I have helped fund wars that I completely disagree with and contributed to programs that I believe oppress other people. My choice is to pay for these things or go to jail.
Tax is 100% voluntary. If you don't want to pay, just leave. Settle in Somalia, or another wonderful society without taxes. Tax is the same as rent. The simplest analogy is that you like in an appartment building where the people who live there vote for privileges they want, such as people washing the floor, a janitor to take care of repairs, etc. And what the collective decides you got to be part of paying for even if you don't want to pay for it- as long as you want to live there. If you don't pay you are getting a free ride and exploiting everybody else by getting the same privileges without paying for them. Equally everyone who lives in a country with infrastructure owes the state simply for having a roof over their head. Nothing would have been possible without a state. You would not have been able to earn money or live in any kind of proper conditions (by modern standards).
Tl:dr: You are free to pick your landlord/country, but if you want any kind of proper living conditions you got to pay. If you refuse to pay you are stealing benefits, hence why you can face jail time.
As for the high taxes, Americans fail to realize that the paycheck in Northern European socialist countries are ludicrously high. What's left after those, say 50%, for the average worker is much, much more than the average American could dream of getting. (At least here in Norway). The high income is actually a social agreement of sorts, i.e. you will get a huge income, but a huge chunk goes to the state so that we can keep as much money as possible in the system, fuelling and securing capitalism. This, in turn, let's us continue to keep our high income, which is I believe 2nd or 3rd in the world.
Quote from: zarus tathra
You ignored my point of mixed economy being a great solution, while your fascist/communistic dictatorship won't work at all.
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteDid the Northern European countries that didn't have oil do as well?
The Netherlands doesn't have any oil and it seems to be holding up fairly well. Things are getting more expensive, and some more people are out of work, but nothing really horrible so far. We're pulling out of the economic crash again right now. We'll probably be back to old levels in a few years.
What happened to the North sea?
And we've got the gas in Slochteren.
Furthermore we are the country that is doing the worst in Europe. We actually managed to have a recession while our main trading partner Germany is on the rise. While our exports are up.
QuoteFurthermore we are the country that is doing the worst in Europe.
I wasn't aware we were suffering through a 50% unemployment rate like Greece?
But I guess it's true that we have some natural gas still, I forgot about that. Not an awful lot though, I think.
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteFurthermore we are the country that is doing the worst in Europe.
I wasn't aware we were suffering through a 50% unemployment rate like Greece?
True. My point stands however. The Netherlands are a bad example of an ideal society. And a bad example of an economy that is doing good as well.
Quote from: "Plu"But I guess it's true that we have some natural gas still, I forgot about that. Not an awful lot though, I think.
It´s mostly gone. ´Invested´ in taking care of current bills.
But it is and was a substantial part of the national income.
QuoteTrue. My point stands however. The Netherlands are a bad example of an ideal society. And a bad example of an economy that is doing good as well.
I'd never claim it to be ideal, that's for sure.
Perhaps we're suffering more than I've noticed, though. (which, I guess, makes me lucky)
Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"Tax is 100% voluntary. If you don't want to pay, just leave. Settle in Somalia, or another wonderful society without taxes. Tax is the same as rent. The simplest analogy is that you like in an appartment building where the people who live there vote for privileges they want, such as people washing the floor, a janitor to take care of repairs, etc. And what the collective decides you got to be part of paying for even if you don't want to pay for it- as long as you want to live there. If you don't pay you are getting a free ride and exploiting everybody else by getting the same privileges without paying for them. Equally everyone who lives in a country with infrastructure owes the state simply for having a roof over their head. Nothing would have been possible without a state. You would not have been able to earn money or live in any kind of proper conditions (by modern standards).
Tl:dr: You are free to pick your landlord/country, but if you want any kind of proper living conditions you got to pay. If you refuse to pay you are stealing benefits, hence why you can face jail time.
As for the high taxes, Americans fail to realize that the paycheck in Northern European socialist countries are ludicrously high. What's left after those, say 50%, for the average worker is much, much more than the average American could dream of getting. (At least here in Norway). The high income is actually a social agreement of sorts, i.e. you will get a huge income, but a huge chunk goes to the state so that we can keep as much money as possible in the system, fuelling and securing capitalism. This, in turn, let's us continue to keep our high income, which is I believe 2nd or 3rd in the world.
Exactly this. The argument that 'taxes are against our will' is a stall right from the bat becuase, aside from what you rightly point out, tax legislation is not written in stone and can be changed. Also, taxes are not simply a way of siphoning money and storing it away for the accumulated wealth of the executive, it is, assuming a decent but imperfect political system, for the benefit of those who pay into it (and those that can't afford to pay for it).
Certain taxes are also a way of distributing wealth. Again, the system doesn't even have to perfect to see that higher income earners and larger corporations are taxed more to supplement improved services for those at the bottom who are more likely to need them (education, healthcare and so on). If we're going to talk about perfect societies (which is unrealistic), I'd rather have this system working faultlessly than the one outlined in the OP.
But it's all academic, because we have to work with political paradigms that
can exist within the realms of reality and the distribution of information as it evolves (which leads to another discussion about evolution vis revolution and which is preferable. I know where I stand).
One thing I find inspiring is the idea of decentralized networks of small production shops. This site (//http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com/) is great site on how this will work. They show all kinds of examples of small groups of skilled craftsmen outproducing massive, hyperspecialied machines, and of big business failing to compete with small business and having to rely on government. You're seeing this happen in China now, where the police are "cleaning up" street-side tailors because they compete with large shops, even though these tailors are REALLY efficient and skilled and will have a perfect replica of a piece of designer clothing in like 15 minutes.
Japanese companies used this model of lean manufacturing to own North America's car industry; there's no reason to think this model wouldn't flourish almost everywhere else.
Quote from: "Jack89"I pay roughly 25% tax here in the US, have no choice where the money goes, and can go to jail if I refuse to pay.
Your vote is your way of choosing what your tax money gets spent on. No, you can't actually specify precisely what your tax money is spent on, but you contribute to the wealth of the overall group, and this is used to benefit the collective group by your elected leaders.
We do pay more tax in Western Europe inc. the Netherlands, but we can also vote for whoever we want without a two-party system, and income distribution is far more fair here, and nobody is denied access to food, water and healthcare. We also have higher education systems that are either free or heavily subsidised, allowing even the poorest people in the country a means of being highly successful if they work hard enough and are talented enough.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with having to contribute to the running of a society which gives you pretty much everything you've got. All things considered, the Netherlands really is a great place to live compared to the majority of the rest of the world.
Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"Tax is 100% voluntary. If you don't want to pay, just leave. Settle in Somalia, or another wonderful society without taxes.
No, it's coercive. Think about it.
Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"Tax is the same as rent. The simplest analogy is that you like in an apartment building where the people who live there vote for privileges they want, such as people washing the floor, a janitor to take care of repairs, etc. And what the collective decides you got to be part of paying for even if you don't want to pay for it- as long as you want to live there. If you don't pay you are getting a free ride and exploiting everybody else by getting the same privileges without paying for them.
False analogy. When you rent an apartment, at least when I do, you agree to the terms of the lease before anything happens, and sign a lease to seal the deal. That's voluntary.
Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"Equally everyone who lives in a country with infrastructure owes the state simply for having a roof over their head. Nothing would have been possible without a state. You would not have been able to earn money or live in any kind of proper conditions (by modern standards).
You sound very patriotic and trusting of your government. I think you also give your government too much credit and people too little.
Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"Tl:dr: You are free to pick your landlord/country, but if you want any kind of proper living conditions you got to pay. If you refuse to pay you are stealing benefits, hence why you can face jail time.
Whatever the positive aspects of taxation may be, and I'm sure you can find many, it doesn't change the fact that taking something from a person who rightfully earned it and giving it to someone else is stealing. It's immoral and unjust. A case of the ends justifying the means.
It's also a classic Nozick vs. Rawls debate that people can't seem to agree on.
Quote from: "SilentFutility"Quote from: "Jack89"I pay roughly 25% tax here in the US, have no choice where the money goes, and can go to jail if I refuse to pay.
Your vote is your way of choosing what your tax money gets spent on. No, you can't actually specify precisely what your tax money is spent on, but you contribute to the wealth of the overall group, and this is used to benefit the collective group by your elected leaders.
We do pay more tax in Western Europe inc. the Netherlands, but we can also vote for whoever we want without a two-party system, and income distribution is far more fair here, and nobody is denied access to food, water and healthcare. We also have higher education systems that are either free or heavily subsidised, allowing even the poorest people in the country a means of being highly successful if they work hard enough and are talented enough.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with having to contribute to the running of a society which gives you pretty much everything you've got. All things considered, the Netherlands really is a great place to live compared to the majority of the rest of the world.
You can also stand for election. If people think your ideas on taxation and the distribution of wealth are worth something, then they'll vote for you (again, variations on perfection of the system in place).
But I agree with your post 100%.
Quote from: "Jack89"Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"Tax is 100% voluntary. If you don't want to pay, just leave. Settle in Somalia, or another wonderful society without taxes.
No, it's coercive. Think about it.
In no way, manner or form could it be considered coercive. I'll give you that if you steal from society the criminal that won't pay taxes will be coerced to jail/pay, but that's just like any other criminal.
Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"Tax is the same as rent. The simplest analogy is that you like in an apartment building where the people who live there vote for privileges they want, such as people washing the floor, a janitor to take care of repairs, etc. And what the collective decides you got to be part of paying for even if you don't want to pay for it- as long as you want to live there. If you don't pay you are getting a free ride and exploiting everybody else by getting the same privileges without paying for them.
False analogy. When you rent an apartment, at least when I do, you agree to the terms of the lease before anything happens, and sign a lease to seal the deal. That's voluntary. [/quote]
It's a very accurate analogy, your attempt to dismiss it is wrong and laughable. Note that you do not need to pay taxes before you start working. It's voluntary to work, just like it's voluntary to rent - but without an income, or without a roof over your head you may be fucked. There is no difference here. Just like you may hunt for an appartment to rent, you can hunt for a country to live in.
The main complication will be language, which may cause restriction, but my analogy is as close as it can get. When you decide to live in a country you agree to follow their laws, it's that simple. If you don't like their laws leave. Staying in your country is voluntary. It may be expensive to move, but it may also be expensive to move from your parents to an appartment.
QuoteQuote from: "La Dolce Vita"Equally everyone who lives in a country with infrastructure owes the state simply for having a roof over their head. Nothing would have been possible without a state. You would not have been able to earn money or live in any kind of proper conditions (by modern standards).
You sound very patriotic and trusting of your government. I think you also give your government too much credit and people too little.
Patriotism is nonsense, and I get that you, presumably an American, would have issues with trusting government as yours has been shown to suck. But aside from some complaints I think my government is doing a fine job, and with proper supervision from the people I expect them to continue to do so. The people is the government, crediting the government is crediting the people. The agreement to work together, create laws and a socialistic welfare state (in our case) is the reason why we have essentially anything good in our lives - because without it there's chaos, very little can be done and the strong exploit the weak - like in your (presumed) country I'm afraid.
QuoteQuote from: "La Dolce Vita"Tl:dr: You are free to pick your landlord/country, but if you want any kind of proper living conditions you got to pay. If you refuse to pay you are stealing benefits, hence why you can face jail time.
Whatever the positive aspects of taxation may be, and I'm sure you can find many, it doesn't change the fact that taking something from a person who rightfully earned it and giving it to someone else is stealing. It's immoral and unjust. A case of the ends justifying the means.
This is so off the mark it's ridiculous. No, the opposite is stealing, sir (or ma'am). The government has a claim on your money. You owe them for everything they have done for you. You owe them for even having a job. For living in a relatively safe town. For creating an envirement where stores, businesses, roads, banks, etc. can exist. You are living on their grounds and you must pay for your privileges and stay. It's payment for privileges used or available to you. Not paying taxes is refusing to give the government what they rightfully has a right to, i.e. stealing. Taking money the government has earned as your employee can not be considered stealing by any stretch of logic.
Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"This is so off the mark it's ridiculous. No, the opposite is stealing, sir (or ma'am). The government has a claim on your money. You owe them for everything they have done for you. You owe them for even having a job. For living in a relatively safe town. For creating an envirement where stores, businesses, roads, banks, etc. can exist. You are living on their grounds and you must pay for your privileges and stay. It's payment for privileges used or available to you. Not paying taxes is refusing to give the government what they rightfully has a right to, i.e. stealing. Taking money the government has earned as your employee can not be considered stealing by any stretch of logic.
OK, I suppose you're entitled to your opinion. Have a nice day.
I'm pretty sure you never use roads, the police, hospitals, public education, or any of the other hundreds of things your government provides? Unless you wish to argue that using them without paying for them isn't considered stealing?
Quote from: "Jack89"Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"This is so off the mark it's ridiculous. No, the opposite is stealing, sir (or ma'am). The government has a claim on your money. You owe them for everything they have done for you. You owe them for even having a job. For living in a relatively safe town. For creating an envirement where stores, businesses, roads, banks, etc. can exist. You are living on their grounds and you must pay for your privileges and stay. It's payment for privileges used or available to you. Not paying taxes is refusing to give the government what they rightfully has a right to, i.e. stealing. Taking money the government has earned as your employee can not be considered stealing by any stretch of logic.
OK, I suppose you're entitled to your opinion. Have a nice day.
I'd like to hear you argue your case. Can you dismiss my arguments or provide counter arguments that would back your case?
Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"Quote from: "Jack89"Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"This is so off the mark it's ridiculous. No, the opposite is stealing, sir (or ma'am). The government has a claim on your money. You owe them for everything they have done for you. You owe them for even having a job. For living in a relatively safe town. For creating an envirement where stores, businesses, roads, banks, etc. can exist. You are living on their grounds and you must pay for your privileges and stay. It's payment for privileges used or available to you. Not paying taxes is refusing to give the government what they rightfully has a right to, i.e. stealing. Taking money the government has earned as your employee can not be considered stealing by any stretch of logic.
OK, I suppose you're entitled to your opinion. Have a nice day.
I'd like to hear you argue your case. Can you dismiss my arguments or provide counter arguments that would back your case?
You don't seem willing to listen to opposing arguments, so I really don't want to get into it. If you are interested, look at John Rawls' books, "A Theory of Justice." I disagree with his theory, but appreciate his genius. Opposing his argument is Robert Nozick who wrote "Anarchy, State and Utopia." Also brilliant. Simply put, Rawls advocates utility and redistribution of wealth, and Nozick thinks individual rights are more important. I was introduced to both of them in a university political philosophy class. I'm biased toward Nozick, because I think rights of the individual are most important.
They're both difficult to read if you not into philosophy, but there are a ton of Rawls vs. Nozick summaries on the web. If you're interested.
The tax choice argument has very little to do with Rawls or Nozick. In fact, it's a reductio ad absurdum argument. It's not about some philosophical dilemna, it's a very practical matter of requiring people to pay for the upkeep and protection of the country in which they live, and to provide a safety net for anyone who may need it. We all benefit from the taxes we pay.
Quote from: "Jack89"Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"I'd like to hear you argue your case. Can you dismiss my arguments or provide counter arguments that would back your case?
You don't seem willing to listen to opposing arguments, so I really don't want to get into it.
I seem unwilling to listen to opposing arguments? Why? I've heard you out, haven't I? What I am unwilling about is to accept your unsopported radical-libertarian dogma that does not stand scrutiny on face value. Or rather, you have yet to convince me of your assertions as I don't currently find them logically sound. I also find them to contradict reality.
You made your case, I listened and offered counter arguments. How can you then say I'm unwilling to listen? Unwilling to believe non-supported dogma without solid arguments, evidence and logic, yes. But I'm hearing you out. You are the one seemingly afraid to listen to others as it might damage your world view.
Don't send me to some book(s) like the christians do. Support your arguments. Maybe they aren't as hollow and wrong as I so far have found them to be. so far. If you can support your case on evidence and logic I find solid I will obviously change my opinion on this.
Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"Quote from: "Jack89"Quote from: "La Dolce Vita"I'd like to hear you argue your case. Can you dismiss my arguments or provide counter arguments that would back your case?
You don't seem willing to listen to opposing arguments, so I really don't want to get into it.
I seem unwilling to listen to opposing arguments? Why? I've heard you out, haven't I? What I am unwilling about is to accept your unsopported radical-libertarian dogma that does not stand scrutiny on face value. Or rather, you have yet to convince me of your assertions as I don't currently find them logically sound. I also find them to contradict reality.
You made your case, I listened and offered counter arguments. How can you then say I'm unwilling to listen? Unwilling to believe non-supported dogma without solid arguments, evidence and logic, yes. But I'm hearing you out. You are the one seemingly afraid to listen to others as it might damage your world view.
Don't send me to some book(s) like the christians do. Support your arguments. Maybe they aren't as hollow and wrong as I so far have found them to be. so far. If you can support your case on evidence and logic I find solid I will obviously change my opinion on this.
Not him, but the link I posed at the top of this page really supports a libertarian system. They talk about how the Japanese auto industry, which relies on networks of small, independently owned shops and small inventories, defeated the American auto industry, which relies on large bureaucracies and massive machinery churning out low-quality cars that can't compete. If the anarcho-capitalist model can work in the car industry, which has the rare distinction of both being mass-production and incredibly complex, then there's no reason to think it won't work in a lot of other industries.
An example he gives is of Emilia-Romagna, which is a province of Italy that's like the 3rd richest in the country. If every region of the world was like it, then humanity would be very wealthy indeed.
First of all the system you've been argueing for is fascism+communism, it has nothing to do with libertarianism. I've certainly never heard of a libertarian "system" with a decided and fixed upper class of scientists running a dictatorship ... Kinda contradictory. :/
I also don't see how efficiency of smaller companies would support libertarianism. If this is a successful model in the free market it could, like you say, (probably) flourish anywhere else, and this model could be useful under or within any system (save one putting them down).
QuoteFirst of all the system you've been argueing for is fascism+communism, it has nothing to do with libertarianism. I've certainly never heard of a libertarian "system" with a decided and fixed upper class of scientists running a dictatorship ... Kinda contradictory. :/
They can coexist, like bacteria flourishing within the human body. It's your Western hubris that says that one language and one habit must dominate absolutely. There will be the cathedral, and there will be the bazaar. If the cathedral becomes useless and corrupt, it will be allowed to decay until it becomes useful again.
A free countryside in which all may roam and farm to their heart's content is a better check on tyranny than democracy can ever be. Likewise, if the city elders are efficient and visionary enough, people will voluntarily migrate to the cities to support the cause.
QuoteI also don't see how efficiency of smaller companies would support libertarianism. If this is a successful model in the free market it could, like you say, (probably) flourish anywhere else, and this model could be useful under or within any system (save one putting them down).
It's because they support the idea that decentralization is feasible and even superior. If you think too much in terms of baroque, overly particular ideologies and not in terms of more fundamental concepts, you will always get uselessly stuck on labels.
QuoteA free countryside in which all may roam and farm to their heart's content is a better check on tyranny than democracy can ever be.
I'm pretty sure that most of the free countrysides where people may roam and farm to their hearts contents are in some of the worst nations in the world for a reason, considering you decided to firstly make it a "law of the jungle" type of place, and then decide to send the murderers and serious criminals there. I'm not sure what you think is going to happen, but "peaceful farming" is only going to be a small percentage of it.
Quoteworst nations in the world
If people want to live like that, I feel they should be free to. Your life and your death is your own and no one else's. This is especially true of the wilderness.
I don't think anybody wants murderers and other criminals to be given land next to them and free reign to do whatever they want. In fact, I don't even think anybody wants to live in your proposed wilderness. It sounds like a horrible place to live.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"If people want to live like that, I feel they should be free to. Your life and your death is your own and no one else's. This is especially true of the wilderness.
The main problem with your plan is that it just won't work unless a large enough percentage of the population wants to farm. If they don't, you have to force them, or you have to come up with a different form of society.
And most people won't want to.
Here's the thing: human civilization is not, and has never been, and will never be, self-sufficient. It has always depended on people working in the mines, fishing at sea, or tilling the fields. None of your "non-aggression principle" or "social justice" or "muh property rights" or "consent of the governed" bullshit will ever change that.
Here's the other thing: that doesn't make a society that forces people to do something they don't want and possible makes them worse off than they are now "perfect" by any meaning of the word. And none of your claims will change that, either.
"Society can never be perfect therefor you should overlook all the terrible stuff in my perfect society"
(//http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/36550147.jpg)
Any (ideal) society is tempered by experience of the preceding societies.
Quote from: "zarus tathra"You could get rich selling technocracy? Then there is hope, after all.
The outline of a 2-tiered populace in the OP has
nothing to do with technocracy. Technocracy is basically, in principle, going towards a technological solution to societies management and issues.
I agree with you that using -isms for expounding ones position is futile and hardly creates a discourse on the ideas behind them, something libertarians/anarchists/whatever are guilty of with all their us-vs-them mentality that serves only to obfuscate discussion away from genuine issues that can be discussed, instead of throwing labels around.
Anyways, in my ideal society, I'll try to take into account human nature and how stuff works and explain and formulate my ideas.
---
First some labels to start from and work from; a society based on a chimera of a technocratic republic.
Instead of votes, government representatives are based on competence. This doesn't necessarily mean every head-of-state and representatives would be engineers and scientists. It would mean they would have to prove their competence to even be considered for government office. Also, managing and using something isn't the same as designing it, so the representatives would most likely be well-versed in management & political theory. Although I don't see why someone that is both that and a scientist couldn't take office, they might as well manage a nation better, that have a good understanding on how it works at the seams of that management. I'm fully aware this would create a ruling intellectual elite where stupid people are left out of government ... all the better, I think.
There should be some stop-gaps for consolidation of power, to prevent centralization and oligarchy, so dividing the power up into separate entities would be necessary in the system of governance. This the republic aspect of this nation. Representatives of the people would be able to put forward legislation or changes to the who governs with a foundational claim that the ones currently in power have made a bad management decision based on evidence and argumentation, instead of just vetoing stuff they disagree with. So a representative for argumentation would be one entity. Majority rule would be another one, i.e. voting system. A council who is comprised of elected and experts (that have proven themselves via competence test) could be yet another, and so on. The idea is that there are groups of electoral representatives alongside experts in several distinct groups that have influence over one anothers decisions towards some form of maxim decision, like a peer-reviewed journal of sorts.
Instead of money, everything would be calculated into basic units of energy exerted; Joules. Everything from how much a power plant produced to how much chemical energy is produced from crop yields. All this would be dispensed according to their input to everyone through a system of energy certificates based on that overhead calculation of the energy production. Where people work and how much they produce themselves would be according to their input. Someone really productive would reap more than someone producing less than them, this is just to give incentive really, but ideally input and what energy people get to use in goods & services should be, ideally, equally distributed. But we can assume that would hardly ever be the case and I think also someone putting more effort deserves to reap more.
Secondly, trade would be entirely bartering, no centralized currency other than what valuables/goods/service/land/whatever they decide to trade, that would be between the traders. This is probably the biggest flaw in my vision for an ideal state, since hoarding of what can be considered wealth is possible. My solution is a tad socialistic; lending from again the previous paragraph energy production, energy certificates would be the basis of how much you're legally allowed to own relative to your energy input. This would take supervision and policing of who owns and produces what. This bureaucratic way of solving this might be troublesome though, better would be to automate this somehow, I'm sure some technological checks for population energy input and ownership would be possible.
Education & knowledge in such a nation, or any nation for that matter, is paramount for its operation and prosperity. Scientific pursuit and the application of the scientific method would be, well, bluntly put, glorified above all else venues of human activity. Schools, universities, libraries and free access to information are cornerstones to such a nation. Because of this teachers and professors would actually find themselves in quite a lot of influence of the shaping and indirect controlling of the upper tiers of government (because of the formalization of competency tests and evaluation). Academic at the surface, this should be left to a peer-reviewing process, a council of scientists and experts who have proven their worth in their respective field of study. I know this sounds like foxes guarding the hen house, but I can't shake my faith in the integrity of scientists despite being only human.
Ethical & value considerations; far from being just another field of study, I think values should be studied. The way I see it, there are ethics & values which are separate from scientific knowledge. It might be shown that this is hogwash and that ethics and values are reducible to properties and understood through science. I don't know. Anyways, philosophical thought regarding ethics and values should have a prominent place I think.
[continued later]
OP's perfect society makes no sense. Who cooks? Who cleans? Who manages the city water? Who produces goods and wares? Who transports the goods and wares? Who operates the power plant? Who builds the cities? Is it all robots? If it's all robots, why do we need farm hands? Can't the robots do that? Is everyone just a scientist whose needs are attended to by robots? What motivation do they have to keep doing science? Are the robots making them do it? Sounds like the setting of a sci-fi horror film to me.
I'm going to give an example of where OP's society will fall apart (or in my opinion, improve.)
One thing that this society will not be able to go without is mining. Natural resources are a hugely important part of any society, and there is always high demand. Individual miners will be 100% useless. Most of them won't know what it is they need to be mining. Uranium, copper, salt, iron, aluminum, zinc, lead, and many more are all pretty vital, and it's doubtful that one guy could both identify and mine them. Most modern mining operations require massive machinery and expensive equipment. Dozens of miners will be needed for any individual operation, as well as a handful of engineers to make sure nobody gets killed. Then they'll need somebody to sell their haul, and it would be a hell of a lot more profitable to hire a salesman than to try to do it themselves. They'll probably need multiple salesmen if it's a big enough operation. Then they'll need somebody to handle the money, an accountant. They'll also need somebody to be in charge in order to deal with any disputes that come up. Suddenly, we're back to roughly the same set up we have today. Now who do you suppose needs who more, the scientists in the city, or the miners who provide the raw material the scientists need just to do their jobs? And that's not even going into the factories that will be needed to process those raw materials into something useful. More accountants, more salesmen, more non-farming working class, and only a handful of scientists.
Now say one mining outfit makes enough money to start opening new operations. Should each location have its own set of accountants and salesmen, or would it be more efficient to open a corporate location, filled with the office monkeys you seem to want to rid the world of? And this corporate location, would it be in the middle of nowhere, or a place with lots of residential space and potential hires, such as a city?
Can you see yet why your idea is total bologna? Even if your idea of super skilled craftsmen works for lower maintenance industries, there are massive sectors of any basic economy that require huge companies and a massive workforce. Your cities would need to house these people, because there sure as hell aren't going to be even close to enough scientists to actually inhabit the things.
For each individual to have the same vision of a perfect society, we would have to be so homogeneous that we would doubtfully have the variation and adaptability to survive as a species.
We can never agree on a perfect society, so that we might have a society at all.
To me, a combination of equality under the law with the freedom of individuality is what we should strive for. Even people that agree with those words will disagree on what they really mean, and how to make it happen. After another 1,000 years of human history, I hope the people alive then will have better ideas than I do. Human culture is a process, and all ideas are improved upon or discarded. All societies eventually fail. That is progress.
...or maybe something with virtual reality machines... and slaves...