Your ideal society

zxcvbnm

The Nobody
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
2,070
Location
nowhere
As there is the thread about "optimization", I want to give other society models an opportunity as well, to balance things.

Tell me, what kind of a society would be your ideal society?
Requirements:
1) it must be achievable on our Earth (and elsewhere where humans live) taking its problems into account
2) it must be logically consistent, and take human factors into account without requiring significant über-humanity in the sense of compassion or such
 
Fifty and I are ceremonial monarchs but FredLC secretly controls everything.

Indeed. The one thing that even Fred wouldn't be allowed to tamper with*, though, is a $5,000,000,000/yr budget for Garry Denke to do research on Stonehenge.


*I'm not sure this measure would be necessary, though, as surely Fred could see the huge benefits that would be had by such a research endevour.
 
A liberal society where personal social freedoms were maximised and economically a strong wealfare state, where no one is poor. Aka you can get rich, but poverty is eliminated. Oh and eco-friendly of course!

Thats just a short version really, straight to the point!
 
Indeed. The one thing that even Fred wouldn't be allowed to tamper with*, though, is a $5,000,000,000/yr budget for Garry Denke to do research on Stonehenge.


*I'm not sure this measure would be necessary, though, as surely Fred could see the huge benefits that would be had by such a research endevour.
It wouldn't be neccessary, but it would be a wonderful gesture for us to highlight the importance of his work.

That's one of the ceremonial things we'll do, present people like Denke and Plot with research grants.
 
CSA sans slavery. The Constitution was darned similiar to the USA constitution, but with reinforced States Rights.
 
How ideal? Am I allowed to suggest major societal changes and revolutions in the nature of thought? Post-scarcity economies? Widely available nanotechnology, immortality and other supertechnology? The Singularity? Or am I limited to essentially writing a set of laws and handing them to a time traveller who takes them back ten years to get them implemented by the present date?
without requiring significant über-humanity in the sense of compassion
Am I allowed to train special people from birth to be über-compassionate or über-whatever, like the Guardians who help run a good society in that one Greek guy's books whose name I forget?
 
I would like to think all men do what they believe is best for others (note this does not extend to all women). However, I have suspected many of being corrupted by their lack of accountability. Consequently, all men (and women) must be ultimately answerable to me!! :D

However, as your absolute rules, I would do my utmost to get away with doing as little as possible and allow you great freedom to do your best for others.

I hope you enjoy being ruled as much as I will enjoy ruling you. Best of luck!
 
Agrarian, like Ecofarm said, with me as benevolent dictator. (Suprsingly, this may come true, so it is totally realistic...):lol:
 
Inspired by a statement in the thread on the deaths of famous persons, I am pleased to present you with a society in which fame dictates life expectency! :D

The famous people have clearly had their shot at power and wealth and must give way to the young and unknown. By ridding the world of famous people, we will have more space for younger generations and consequently undercut many arguments in favour of abortion!

In this way, the famous will live on in manuscripts and the young will have a chance to do the same. Isn't this a glorious equality? :D
 
My ideal society would be one were there is free ice cream for all, and no world hunger, which might be solved using my free ice cream plan, patent pending. :goodjob:
 
Society should be decentralized (to the point where a community is completely self-goverened). The decentralized government must be made of all people able to communicate in the community. These people make decisions by the democratic process in which the highest majorty agrees with the decision. The two types of decisions it is allowed to make will be:
1. Whether or not a person (in the community) intentionally has, or is, or eminently will be causing harm and what to do about it. Harm is defined as anything that inhibits a persons ability to do something other than inhibit someone elses ability to do something (the primary way is offering of incentives and other forms of authority). Also harming is inflicitng emotional, physical, mental damage. The established authority is the only entity that can legally offer incentives to counter harm. If there is a situation were it is physically impossible for one to not harm another than the authority must attempt to reduce the harm as much as possible.
Also harm is taking away the produce of another person/groups production without their (un-incentived) consent. Also harm is not allowing natural resources to be shared fairly (the authority decides fairness).
2. Whether to include a new member to a community or not.
 
Direct democracy, but with a secret police to eliminate stupid people.
 
Aka you can get rich, but poverty is eliminated

Pie in the sky. There is always going to be poverty unless everyone has exactly the same amount of everything.

And I do mean everything.
 
As there is the thread about "optimization", I want to give other society models an opportunity as well, to balance things.

Tell me, what kind of a society would be your ideal society?
Requirements:
1) it must be achievable on our Earth (and elsewhere where humans live) taking its problems into account
2) it must be logically consistent, and take human factors into account without requiring significant über-humanity in the sense of compassion or such

A society where women would enjoy men wandering around naked and wanting to touch their private areas as well.

That's the world I'd like to someday live in.
 
Top Bottom