Ideal Society Fleshed Out

NOTE: Because this thread has gotten long and I hope to see it continue, don’t be discouraged by the long reading. By all means, skip all the posts and say your piece if you must.

I want to see this thread further developed. I’ve seen this kind of question posed in all sorts of places and styles. I’d like to see it fleshed out more. Because I believe that . . .

The common public has a better chance of developing an intelligent model of a society for us to work toward more than a common capitalist government does. Governments are there to take popular ideals and enforce them. Their ability to develop new society becomes a problem of treachery against their constitution, and they thus become stagnant.

So why leave it to government to “come up with answers”? Please add more. To better flesh things out . . .

Pose us a rule. A law, or a common encouragement, that would help form your ideal society. Defend it. How is it enforced? Why is it good?

If this thread gains any interest, I’ll post.

This is an imagination thread. We needn’t stonewall options.

popular idea… 49.9% slavery…


Actually one of the better forms of self governing occured in the old west.

With Federal and State Governments so far out of reach people had to rely on each other. Money was rarely used, Barter was done for the most part. As far as policing. Well, hollywood over dramatized the vigilante. For the most part vigilante courts were honest. Civic issues were resolved quickly and money was spent wisely. No one had the time nor the cash to waste. People knew each other and helped out.

Now why this won’t work now? Too many people concentrated in one area.

You would actually have to decentralize humans for this to work. Shift populations. you could offer incentives to move into areas. You could limit the number of people per square mile. Groups can barter between other groups. Give each group a product to produce. Set up groups so that each group has what direct neighbors need.


But was the old west really a more ideal society?

Are we certain it wasn’t infested with paedophilia, war, slavery, and full parental power over children at a whim?

I suppose there was more freedom in terms of escaping an oppressor and simply living your own life without seeking authorities to facilitate the choice. There was also a lack of drugs, pollution, and machinery invading private life.

As you say, wheather it’s a good thing or not, the possibility is hardly available today.


Is that a serious consideration? Because I’d like to consider this in terms of our biological future.

There are certainly evolutionary biologists that theorize a future “higher” and “lower” class much like the Orwellian Time Machine future. A class of higher intellect, tall, empathetic creature. And a class of short, instinctive, busy-worker. Nature organizes itself in classes all the time, why shouldn’t we?

But then, why even have anything reaping any benefit of the freedom to be useless? Why not enslave everything, specialized in its task and kept busy to perpetuate the life machine. Something like the cruelty of nature (whom creates animals just for them to reproduce and die, to further the selfish gene), but a perpetual symbiosis which does away with the inefficiencies of carnivores and territorialism. Just life designed to maintain the whole.

no, that design is to keep the elite few in control of the rest… doesn’t work…


Um Gai It does not have to be exactly like the old west, and yes by our standards there was pedophilia. 13 year old girls married old men in their late 20s and above, Families encouraged this for multiple valid reasons.

Well you did have one or two range wars and slavery was more in the South, Keep in mind it cost money for slaves, a good mule or ox were cheaper easier to maintain, they provided fertilizer, did more work at a fraction of the cost as a bonus, should they die you could actually eat a mule or ox.
parental power over a child, hm welll now you could say that, since the families tended to stay together and it was imparetive to have a leader.

Oh and they did kick the kid’s butts if they sat on their beds playing tic tac toe instead of watering the truck garden and weeding… Seems reasonable to me though, since going to the local grocery store was a hard dangerous two day trip.

Seriously though as a model it is by and large a better form. Once people become just a sea of faces then people stop caring. If those faces have known identities then you care.

I don’t think that you and I would agree about the nature of an ideal society.

“Pose us a rule”: Before anything else, you’ve gotta gnomicide the subverts.

Your Enemy


“oh the humanity…”



I think one answer to your riddle is the observation that no common public has developed a successful society that surpasess a modern day capitalistc society (which frankly, is all I know first hand).
Yet you believe they have a better chance? That seems odd. Is that a faith-based belief? (yikes!)

You may find that the average Joe does not agree with you on what is “good”, or desireable, even if they do agree in their actions. Self-contradictions are easily had by the common public. They may honestly belief you’re right, but then fight you to the death on it.
Or thrown gnomes at you. Or something equally random.


Oh god the gnome dreams and nightmares tonight! Thanks Imp. Do the Godfathe thing and stick that in bed with someone while they sleep. :evilfun:

Well then don’t stagnate the issue into simple animosity. Why do we disagree? What is the alternative you have? I don’t want agreement. I want models and examples. Let’s hear them.

I’m assuming gnomiciding subverts is similar to saying removing the “bad” human beings from society? I don’t mind hearing extremism. To those with a bad taste for extremism, just consider: Perhaps if the Nazis had argued their plight first there would have been more opportunities to identify poor reasoning to them and end the war. What do I know? What if it’s the “bad” people whom have won?

How so? Certainly, modern day capitalistic society is the dominant culture. Anything can be the dominant culture. That doesn’t make it the only successful culture in history. There certainly were successful communisms or even partial anarchisms. Maybe they weren’t “the right way” and maybe they didn’t remain the strongest. But for a time, they all worked.

Everyone- don’t sell yourself short believing that the way things are is the only way, and that some god-like science above you is figuring out the answers and you couldn’t possibly have any alternatives. Sciences, including social sciences, thrive on the common people coming up with new ideas to throw into the mix. Come on, don’t be shy. Should people create a million purple monkeys to fly our planes? Should we allow sentient toasters? Don’t be terrified of sounding ridiculous. You don’t have to desparately bury your opinion in facts. Give us ideas. The possibilities are endless.


I have always wondered if we could have done things well if we hadn’t attained any of the technology in genetic engineering or in computer sciences. We would always have to think for ourselves. We would always have to rely on whom we are instead of thinking that one day we’ll just re-engineer everything. Maybe we hurled ourselves into a technological confusion because we developed the technology before we could tap the potential to develop ourselves socially. What if we were left with just the early nineteenth century? Maybe more mechanical inventions, but no transistors no genes. It is certainly true that we once could more easily value humans around us.

God only knows that.

Ostensibly, it seems as though you dismiss “war” out-of-hand as something incongruous with ideal society. (“Are we certain it wasn’t infested with paedophilia, war, slavery, and full parental power over children at a whim?”)

In 1986 my father was posted to Guatemala City.

I understood nothing of this at the time, but 1986 was a hall-mark year for Guatemalans; the Army had soundly defeated the indigenous rebels; and in response to this, the Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca merged with a legititate political party: Partido Guatemalteco del Trabajo. Though it was not until ten years later that the war officially ended, it was in 1986 that the URNG began to lay down their arms and seek political legitimization.

We resided in an apartment in Zona 4. Being a young boy, after classes I often explored the south end of Guate around the Parque Centro América. This was in no way dangerous in the late afternoon. One such afternoon I discovered a construction site that was actually the skeleton of an abandoned hotel; this is today the Howard Johnson. In the rear was what was a large swimming pool, though in 1986 it was more of a slough. As it was secluded and shaded, I often sat by the pool and skipped chips of concrete on the water. One afternoon another boy, a local, a Mayan, named Efraín ducked into the back.

Efraín had only one arm. I never asked how he lost it, but the end was crumpled with Keloid scars, so obviously it was not a birth defect. Although we could barely communicate, (I attended an American school), for what ever arbitrary reason, my heart went out to Efraín. He was incredibly happy and busy despite his impoverished and lame condition. For a week we skipped concrete chips together and climbed around in the dilapidated hotel. After that I never saw Efraín again.

Efraín and ten million other Guatemalans lived cheerfully against the Repression. But when I have since re-visited Guate and walked again around Zona 4 and the Parque Centro América and up to the Howard Johnson Hotel; I didn’t see cheerfulness; I saw a hopeless country with a third-world per capita income of four-thousand dollars annually.

The URNG ought not to have lain down their weapons and surrendered to Chiquita. Not only have the indigenous Guatemalans resigned themselves to poverty and exploitation --but then these facts are nothing --worst: they have ceased to struggle. War is happiness.

The conventional wisdom is: “war” is bad --hell even. But a minority have seen the beauty of “war”. Maybe even this minority was never really exposed to the horror of “war”, never suffered “war”. None-the-less this minority saw a spark of life in “war”, something innocent, something pure and clean and hopeful. And how can you shake a notion like this out of somebody’s head? (Eng.-Gk. notion-γνώμη (gnomi).)

It just grows up, God only knows why. Once somebody gets this notion into their head, it doesn’t matter what the U.N. statistics say, it doesn’t matter about counciling, it doesn’t matter about bill-boards, it doesn’t matter what everyone everywhere says, a polemophile (Eng.-Gk. war-πολεμώ (polemo)) could never be happy in a peaceful society. A society without “war” could never be ideal for him.

I would even imagine, that if there ever were an ideal peaceful society, that “war” lovers would spontaneously occur: maybe it is genetic memory, or maybe sitting by some fenny pool, these individuals catch a sidelong glimpse of the simple and gross beauty and happiness that can be found in “war.”

Why wouldn’t a polemophile feel animosity? At some point even the most naïve or happy-go-lucky polemophile sees that the whole world frowns on him. And so he declares a personal war against the peaceniks.

You are probably right about that, I think though that the severe concentration of humans in one spot leads to problems in the social structure. If we could spread people out that would go a long way to ending some severe problems.

I lived in huge cities most of my life and a couple of small cities now the country… The attitudes and problems of a city do not exist as much in the country. People can get know each other. In a city you become overwhelmed with faces and bodies tighlty packed. So you ignore them and their needs.

Example; the behavior of people in the nearest city here Vs. People that live in the country during a quick mart robbery…

In the city people don’t know the clerk nor know each other, its a situation where you think of yourself first and only. Now in the country when an idiot tries to rob a quick mart, people know each other and they know the clerk. The robber often does not stand a chance in hell of getting away or robbing. Not to mention customers out here nearly always are armed with various implements, that are considered tools but, easily used as weapons. People out here tend to protect and help each other, because they know each other. In a city, they don’t.

That is just one example. the crux of it is knowing each other.

Spreading the population out into small communities can benifit society in so many ways. The Governing of these communities becomes personal not uncaring like in a city. If a kid screws up out here, they get a discipline lesson, are taught better and kept with in the folds of the community. In a city, kids screw up, they land in the system, becoming disposable unwanteds. They grow up to be just that.

capitalism says that you cannot change the hearts of man with force, so you have to have the good hearted people buy what is right. But government law says when you go against other peoples rights, you lose your own rights.

The flaw in capitalism is the conflict of interrests. Greed vs good intentions. You cannot just simply tax the rich to gain socialistic values,… for these taxes would just be passed onto the consumer. But you could create a polution tax,… where polution is paid for at the time of the sale of the polutant. This tax would pay for garbage disposal, recycling rewards, and anti-polution research. Thus allowing money as a representation of our planitary obligations. … Secondly you could allow consumer reports on-line magazine to expand. Thus people would be promted to buy products on a logical basis of prioreties. My prioreties would be practicality (ie long lasting), then value,… then facial (witch could be easily doctored at home). Then maybe you could save money by buing straight from the manufactuer, instead of middle men. Thus greatly reducing cost of living by practicality. But… another idea would be small buisness getting educated on the products for the nieve consumer. Small buisness would make demands from the corperations in order to gain trust of the consumer. Thus small buisness could have a medium of education utalizing the internet. This would eliminate corperate store fronts of buying whole lines of products to get a deal. A car salesman could then buy only energy efficiant cars from every automobile manufacture. But this idea would require more checks and bounderies then the other.

The problem with government and law (go against other peoples rights and lose your own),… is that you have to protect the rights of the manufacture. Corperations core problems is that CEO’s have an incrediably short job life span. They are required to be reduced to cut throat tactics to stay on top. Saving a penny per product saves them millions. Then long term product lifespans are greatly reduced because of ignorance. Who knows witch penny saving technique will junk out an entire product that no one can fix. Yet the biggest cost of living expence is your home. They used to say spend about 1/4th of your income on your living quarters. Now they say spend at least half on your housing. Living on credit is a double edged sword. People should be taught to not max out their credit,… but live cheaper, and pay off the loan like you did max it out. But credit companies cannot make money unless you are in debt,… and the longer the debt the better for the credit company. Thus compramizes are made all the time in the name of a buck.

PS buying the same product more often costs more then buying longer lasting products (constantly tax the poor, and get it from the rich in extravigent lump sums). It’s twice as hard to make a buck, as saving a buck (thus is the rule of a corp.).

This would be a good internal society, but what about defense against other countries?

I like this idea by the way, I’m just questioning how well it could hold up to things.

Actually you would still have a central federal government. But it would be restricted. It would only deal with outside threats and diplomacy. A federal military would still have to be maintained of course. No internal laws can be made by the federal Govt’ they may suggest and put it up to a public majority vote, but they cannot declare an internal law.

Limiting a central Goverment keeps people caring for the future. You don’t have a heavy hand over your head, you remain in control, this encourages people to interact with their local governing establishment.

for starters , the ideal society would be de-void of any religion what so ever.

and the belief in our own Being , Our Humanity , paramount.

Now things get interesting, the of to.

I’m glad you explained why you found disagreement, because it’s funny that I could liken a peacenik. Now that I understand your argument -war has credibility in its own right- then why not portray some social order that would foster such a philosophy?

I’ve made several posts about my position on this sort of matter. It’s certainly not a peaceful one. I believe that cruel acts deserve cruel consequence. There are certainly people to rehabilitate, people that want to be psychologically improved from their cruel tendencies, but not left alone by the belief that all cruelties are some sort of cognitive accident. I’ve always found a lack of legitamecy in “forgiveness.” Problems can be vindicated, or solutions justified. I don’t see anything to forgive.

In manners of people reducing themselves to nothing when they lack war, I think there’s a sociological factor in that sense. Human beings were not born to be peaceful. They have instincts and psychological needs that go beyond happy-go-lucky pacifism. I don’t think anyone would challenge the idea that “peace” is simply not human nature. But people generally do agree that there is necessity for a level of cooperation which ensures that a typical community can uphold a typical quality of life indefinetely (or for a very very long time).

In modern day, I don’t think the exploding population can look forward to anything other than clustered megacomplexes dedicated to preserving their life, and a sudden drop in our luxurious lifestyles to pure frugality . . . or else massive genocide that lacks destruction of natural and technological resources for a much smaller, vibrant community that’s content not to spread like a plague

In summary, we can have war. But not on the massive scales that military budget seems to drool for today- with nuclear holocaust potentially at a fingertip. And we may as well have massive population control if we want any freedom to spread out at all.

Am I assume that you mean there is a conflict of interest between the buyer and the seller? In a free market, a buyer and seller would not enter into trade unless the trade was in each of their own interests to do so. Trade is how wealth is created.

How is it greed versus good intentions? Isn’t greed the motivating factor in production? Aren’t we all chatting online thanks to the greed of those who created everything necessary for us to be doing so? How is greed bad? Why is greed a ‘sin’?

Greed IS good intentions.