Let’s say that an asteroid hits the Earth, wipes out 90% of the human race, or an all-out nuclear war leaves the world in disorder - in the reigning chaos, however, things happen that eventually put YOU in charge of EVERYTHING, and you become the sole ruler of the world… Now you have a chance to create your own social order, to mould the world as you think it SHOULD be… What would be your version of a perfect world? How would you make it perfect?
Shouldn’t this be in Social Science?
Just yesterday, I was thinking of asking this same question. MY version;
What LT has named “Mutualism” (a balance of mutual concerns for all parties). In order to establish that mutual agreement, the actual base needs of life must be addressed as well as the issues of joy/happiness/pleasure.
I think it can be all addressed best under a Constitution that is a little like that of the original USA (but without the loopholes). To understand exactly why it must fit a particular form requires an understanding of the true needs and joys of life. Unfortunately, that seems to be the hold up preventing people from already doing it. After those needs are studied, a hardline substructure allows for the fruitful and joy promoting amendments to be added.
The end result, by my study was a government that is almost non-existent. Instead small groups of 10-75 people formed their own constitutional organization. Every small group has the same substructure, but all amendments are determined independently by each group. This allows for extreme diversity in life styles with each group taking care of its own needs as it sees fit. An extreme liberal group can exist right beside an extreme conservative group without conflict. The substructure of constitution is enforced by a group that does nothing but enforce constitutional agreement and has no other authority (the anti-cancer monitor). This constitutional, anti-cancer method can be enforced by other interesting means, void of military interventions.
The end global structure is that of a “democratic aggregate of republics” - very small republics.
It is critically important that the substructure (the fundamental constitution) be exactly right, else the tiniest flaw (as with all governments) will allow for corruption (the cancer). My effort at such a constitution is posted; Constitution of Rational Harmony. The strategy behind it is a very long story. It has been installed in a small group in Oregon a few years ago, but they were only 6 weeks from disbanding due to funding, so it never really got started.
The strategy that we call “Life” is the fundamental issue. Each life is a constitution and in my version of governing, each constitution is a life. They each are designed to automatically learn and develop under their own rule and at their own pace. I believe the strategy involved, much like that of life itself, is the strongest possible against disharmony, distrust, and corruption from outsiders, insiders, or from natural disaster. I don’t think you can get any better in form than life itself.
The process of life that requests such a constitution is;
Clarify, Verify, and Remember the Hopes and Threats that inspire the Maximum Eternal Joy.
To accomplish that with a group requires many commonly understood efforts tied together in ways very similar to the human body as well as the original US Constitution (but much smaller and many more of them). Political Science nor Religion could ever challenge the design with anything better.
plant, eat.
I dont believe the physical world can be perfect at least in the sense that everything go’s the way you believe it should, though many people seem to not truly understand what is best for them. The universe seems to demand balance Chaos and Order , these mysteries and challenges we face give us purpose. If this scenario were to happen though , if I understand the question (sole ruler) this would make me a Dictactor, Emperor, Philospher king etc. though I believe in every goverment the people are the state the leader simply leads as a unifying force. The first concerns would be sustenance and Order, assign the citizens to there appropriate roles (Farmers, Builders, Artisans, Caretakers,Warriors,Tutors). Create laws and guidelines to encorage just behavior, offender would be rehabilitated rather than simply punished, extreme offenders (unjust killings, Child rapists etc) would be executed to eliminate their detriment to themselves and the state as a whole.
For governance I would Gather a group of honest advisors frome there respective occupations to ensure that I hear the the people concerns of the classes in the state (I use the word classes as a state of occupation not as a hiearchy of power) in the State In the Times where I cannot personally oversee the works being done. It is in education that I would see much of the way the future of the state will be. It would of cousre teach Mathamatics, Science, Literature, Physical education (Much more Thouroughly, my citizens will unlock the potentials of there bodies through gymnastics, martial arts, and parkour) and of course Philsophy will be taught to students of all ages to encourage citizens to become wise rather than just intelligent. Unity and diversity would be encourage I would not wish to lead a group of xenophobes, loyalty to the state would be encouraged but blind obediance would be strongly discouraged challaeges to the order of things with either eliminate the flaws in the system of government or strenghten the belief in them. Cultural festivals would also be encourage to allow all citizens time to relax frome there constant duties to the state. To go much deeper into this topic I believe would require a “Republic” type of book so I am satified with my explanation as of now I look foreword to any criticisms I may receive so I may explain my state much more specifically.
Well, it belongs there too, but i was thinking of examining the philosophical side first, with respect to Plato’s ideal State and his governing philosophy - once we know the philosophical principles of the new order, the rest is just “grunt-work”…
Socrates and Plato favourized aristocracy, for example, so would your goverment be a democracy, refined democracy, oligarchy or something new?
Jacob’s idea is also not without merits - may i just add: plant, eat - woman, screw brains out! 
Leave for an indefinite period. Watch while people displayed their philosophies. Return and dispose of those whose philosophy did not engender a society reflecting my philosophy.
Which is…?
Whatever I think is perfection. ‘I’ can stand for ‘anyone’.
But what good will that do? Various people have various versions of perfection, but not all of them can work in the long run. If there’s a design flaw in it, it will crash the whole system, just like in a nuclear war scenario, which, btw, is far from impossible. Take democracy, for example. It follows the premise that all people are qualified to make decisions that concern all - that’s a design flaw, because it contradicts everything that we know about biology and evolution. Most people are incapable to rule their own lives, much less the state. I think that in order to construct a perfect social order it has to be “constructed” as less as possible, i.e. adherent to human primal nature, harnessing it’s power to it’s own ends, instead of repressing it. History and criminal courts teach us that repression doesn’t work. Is there a thing that does?
Good? Perfection? These are controversial value words.
You asked ‘how’- about methodology, not evaluation.
Philosophy requires careful thought and expression.
Then, I believe mine to be “something new”. It amounts to a “democratic aggregate of micro-republics” wherein every member has direct opportunity to literally change the entire world almost over night, merely by presenting a philosophically sound idea overlooked or not yet considered. It causes reasoning to become more learned and well embedded into average life.
I see a lot of similarities between this and what I would do. The first decision to be made would be the allocation of land to each of the above groups. Each piece of land capable of sustaining the life of those who live directly on the allocated land, limiting the need for trade between the republics. The next step would be setting up rules between each adjoining republic; there would be no need for a central government of any sort as each group only needs to solve problems with neighbouring groups and are free to negotiate there own methods for dispute resolution.
Along with all this I would dismantle all forms of mass transport, communication and production. Each person lives within the group and land they are born and learns to live accordingly. In the end, hopefully I just fade away to my own group.
It contradicts what many think they know about biology and evolution. Evolution has produced a species that has a unique means of survival- and virtually no chance of survival without it. It has no inbuilt means of natural defence, no rapid flight from predators, no inbuilt means of predation, such as claws, sharp teeth or venom. There is little or no hope for an isolated individual of the species. It has an opposed thumb allowing it to grasp objects, the capacity for vocalisation, but above all, intelligence, which, provided that individuals co-operate, permits groups of them to survive and even flourish. Yes, Homo sapiens. Because this species survives only by co-operation of all members, the basis of its existence is the contribution of all, and democracy is the natural expression of that basis. Evolution has not made for a wide difference in characteristics or roles within species, either in the billions of years before H. sapiens arrived, or since that time, when mankind has for much the greater proportion of time been a hunter-gatherer or agrarian. Only very recently did humans form hierarchical societies, which exploit a majority, are usually in constant flux and are inherently unstable.The few societies presently hierarchical are not expected to remain so indefinitely.
In practice, not all members of a human society have the same influence. One reason is that some are children. Another is that, among adults, some have lived longer, or have seen more experience, and are able to contribute with greater wisdom and usefulness. But there is no reason to believe that a minority of the older members should be those who take the decisions- unless they are assigned that role by consent of the whole adult membership. That is known as modern democracy.
Democracy is now reckoned by most to be the most stable form of government, and is in any case the form best reflecting the evolution of the human species.
“Design flaw” assumes teleology. In the sense of efficiency, a devolved power system is inefficient, and a design flaw. However, for robustness a strict hierarchy (ideal for efficiency) is extremely brittle. All systems have design flaws under some circumstances and in some contexts; there is no perfect social order, at least without absolute environmental control.
People biologically unable to make informed decisions are in most countries disallowed from voting. That people can’t be bothered or choose not to be informed is another matter. But evolution is irrelevant, as voting rights have nothing to do with natural selection.
Upon reading this and your blog on Constitutional of rational harmony, I must say it is very well thought through and promising indeed. i just have a few questions, What would prevent this small states to join together and form bigger states and the disband? Why would anyone pay taxes to substantiate anothers persons lifestyle that they do not agree with, conservatives and communist?
I believe you have dealt with this by saying that we should mold peoples behaviour to be more rational, is this possible? If so why and how or are you just being hypothtical?
You must be aware that often pleasure is based on trivial things, material possesion or substances that trigger a desired response, (drugs, food, ect.) Since resources are depleting this would mean that at some point basing the goverment on these things is going to inevitably lead to a struggle of resources. Also on the same note if you maintain capitalism as a economic model, you are going to experience the same booms and busts that the curent system is, since every decision would be made to maximize profits, (pleasure). In the busts the republics will inevitably detached from the central goverment, and refuse to pay taxes among other things to other states that do not follow their system. This would be done rather easily since their is no concrete idea of goverment.
Having said this it is very good idea of goverment and would certainly last longer than demosophy but in crises small republics will be predisposed to leave the central goverment for all of them will accuse other republics lifestyles for their demise.
I don’t know of ANY society without hierarchy.
Co-operation and hierarchy are not mutually exclusive. Wolves are highly cooperative, which can be seen every time when a pack of wolves hunts - they each know what to do and when, some are decoys whose job is to distract the prey and in the meantime others flank the target animal and soon they overpower it and nobody gets hurt (except the prey). Democracy can exist only if it has hierarchy, otherwise - it’s an anarchy. There’s one expression that i’ve heard being used: “…elected by popular vote.” Is the popularity of an idea an evidence of it’s reasonability? Shouldn’t that be reason? And another thing, what happens when a quick decision is needed? Without hierarchy everybody would debate and argue over petty details like headless flies and when they finally agree - it’s too late… Consequences follow and only limited (if any) results can be achieved… Case in point - NATO intervention in Lybia…
You know very few that are hierarchical.
Ask Aung San Suu Kyi about that.
The key to all of it (and life) is that they each must have exposed reasoning for all they choose to do. That means that if they chose to do it, they had a reason that they not only have documented, but it is up for debate at all times. So if there is some valid reasoning as to why they should NOT do whatever and that reasoning can be shown to be truly more rational (which can be done in most cases due to the Resolution Debating process), the alternate motion passes.
The point is that no matter what “they” choose, they merely have to have legitimate rationale for choosing it. Every choice is about rationality. And if they do, then there must be a good reason for doing it.
Is there a valid reason as to why they should? Just introduce whatever the reason, and it either stands up to rational criticism or it doesn’t. Again, the key is Resolution Debating (wherein logic is supervised for form, not truth value). If high level taxation stands up to reason, then everyone has reason to stand up for it. If it doesn’t then no one has reason to do it. If you want everyone to do your idea of good, then you had better have a damn good foundation for your case.
An even better concern is that even if all of the wrong choices are made, like a seed up-righting itself, through time each group learns through its documenting and updating through reasoning. Reasoning builds upon itself.
This “molding” happens automatically, without effort. Even right now as you discuss with me, you are learning toward being more rational than you were already. The mere obligation to use rational or logical argument to defend an issue, causes the person to learn how to do it better and be more beholding to it. People become more intelligent merely by being involved.
The question is about how any such struggles are to be handled. Are they to be by conflict, hidden agendas, and deceptions, or are they to be about rational, open, honest thought?
The current economic problems are entirely due to hidden efforts to use people against their will and having to maintain false incentives.
But regardless of what happens, again, the question is merely are you more in favor of hidden, deceptive politicking, or open rational debate (not political debate)?
Is there better reason to do it that way or a different way? Which ever way has the more rational argument behind it… has the more rational argument behind it. Why would you want to do the less rational thing?
Accusations become pointless unless they can be rationally substantiated and lead to a more rational change. IT is hard to not think in the old political ways, but remember everything is dependent on coming up with actual rationale for doing it. And if it really has better rationale than any other idea proposed, why wouldn’t you be doing it? The alternative is always that you do what is less rational - more foolish.
But in addition, just imagine that you, right now, have some 20 people with whom to collaborate for all of your needs and theirs. You and they are restricted to logically/rationally supporting any decision made for the group. The ideas of what to do can be anything from anywhere. They merely must prove themselves before rational criticism against an incumbent idea. Do you honestly think that you are better off on your own amongst a nation of millions where things are controlled by passion politics and secretive agendas that you cannot even track and might or might not be to your favor?
The Constitution of Rational Harmony allows everyone to have substantial family support and the opportunity to switch families if you simply cannot see eye to eye with their reasoning. And every child can see exactly what the reasoning was for everything their parents and grandparents did (and are doing).
The alternatives are to continue to be merely a human asset for other people’s effort to be wealthy and powerful at your expense in hopes that they have more use for you than your replacement.
Of course, everyone on this forum is in favour of rational debate but I doubt the majority of people are. And this is one of the problems philosophers since Socrates face when trying to devise a system for organising human society, they always refer back to the rational mind of humans as though it is a given. But lets face, it humans are irrational creatures capable of rational thought, not the other way around. The rational thing for a philosopher to do would be to devise a system that best uses the irrationality of humans to come to a rational outcome. Or devise a system that only allows rational thought.
It is the rational that creates the irrational. I would give the benefit of the doubt to people being at first un-rational.