yet Joker you have become a slave to the Elk :wink:
an ideal society is here on Earth. all thoughts are expressed although I perfer NO violence , more respect , dialog and Reason
in the Future the ability to settle on a planet where only your philosophy pervails and shows its pros and cons in the short and long term and the humble addmittance of its cons . and to not put to death , jail , put any suffering by those in power upon any being by manipulation by those in power to the common to inflict any harm , physically , mentally , sexually , or emotionally. absolutely
further the ideal society on a planet which
promotes individulaism , wealth , not at the sacrifice of those brought into a position of less opportunity , charitable , encourages positiveness towards ones being , Human Being , selfness but balanced with Humanity , law with Humanity , ideas , respect and dignity , absence of any religion other than
the belief in our on being>Humanity , Reason , and survival of Humanity above all.
I often think about the ideal society. It’s sort of a dream I have - to someday establish a new and better civilization than what we have. (I said “a dream”… I know it’s not very realistic.) It’s the theoretical solution to our problems. I called it “Volia,” which means “freedom” in Russian.
Here are my thoughts on the way Volia should be organized:
There should be many more government subdivisions than there are now. In US, the smallest governing entity is the municipal corporation, or else, the township (or county in some states). But even these local systems are not enough for all of the governed to feel like politics is a major part of their life.
I’d like to see cities subdivided into neighborhoods, neighborhoods subdivided into localities, and localities subdivided into communes. The communes should be no bigger than a city block if it’s in the city, and include no more than, say, eight households if it’s in the country. Such subdivisions will naturally vary in number from place to place.
I have more ideas concerning borderlines and other territory-related matter, but for now, I’ll leave it at that.
Now, all these subdivisions seem to only complicate things. But I think on the contrary, they will actually simplify government. The type of government could be called a “heterarchic republic.” Republic, because it would still use a system of representation. But the system would be radically different from the one we’re used to. The only person you will be able to “elect” is your household leader. The household leaders will make up the council responsible for initiative and debate regarding decisions that will affect the commune. These household leaders will also be able to elect a commune leader, that will be a part of a second council - the locality council. Thus, there would be many levels of representation.
Here’s another radical break-off from a regular republic: decision-making would NOT be democratic… Rather, mutual agreement would be the only way to implement changes. But the obvious problem with this - complete stagnation due to stubborn individuals not willing to give up their position - is actually naturally solved by the constituent structure of the Volian government. Because even a single household has governmental power over itself, only the household members have to agree. In fact, the only occasion the upper-ladder councils would even be needed for is for changes in policy that inevitably affects their entire domain. (“Domain” is the term I seleted to mean “all the people represented by the council.”) For example: matters related to public services that serve the entire city, like the waterworks, or the electric company. For any issues that will not necessarily affect the entire population, the decision has to be made only on the level of government whose domain it would affect. Thus it would be possible, under this system, to have a household in which pot is legal and another household in the same commune in which pot is not legal.
The cornerstone of this system is it’s “heterarchic” nature. The power-ladder would stem from each individual, instead of power being at the hands of just a few at the top and imposed upon the governed individuals. It would not be possible, under the Volian government system, for any decision to be made in just one council meeting. After an issue is initiated, the council members all have to explain the issue to the lower-level council that elected them, the members of which would have to explain the issue to the even lower councils that they had come from, etc… Basically, every individual in the domain affected by the issue will have to know about it and make up their mind about their position regarding it, and debate among each other in case of disagreements, until everyone is of the same mind… Then the decision is finally made.
Yes, this means that decisions would take longer and longer to make the larger the influenced domain is. But there would be fewer and fewer such decisions to make as you go up the constituency ladder, considering that all the issues that only affect the smaller domains individually will never have to be agreed upon by the larger domain.
The reason I’d prefer this government to the one we have is that it solves the biggest problem of democracy - the disregard of the minority. And do you see why I named it “Volia,” the word meaning “freedom” in Russian? Because under this structure, everything that affects you would be completely up to you. This civilization would foster agreement between people, because only agreement can guerantee freedom for everyone. In fact, the only way to become a citizen of any Volian commune, would be to first agree with everything that’s been decided prior to your induction. Even children would have to go through the learning and understanding of everything they’re about to commit to before they can be treated as citizens. You’re free to disagree - if you do, you can “challange” the decision in subject, and state your reasons. These reasons would be diligently considered, and if recognized as valid reasons, the whole issue would be re-sparked, and re-discussed. Agreement is everything.
Yes, I realize there are a lot of problems with this system, but considering how many solutions it grants, I think it’s worth trying to figure out how to solve those problems before dismissing the idea entirely. And, although I said in the beginning that it’s pretty unrealistic, there actually is a possible way: to start with just one commune and then expand.
Well… that’s pretty much my idea of the ideal society.
Comments?
[I editted the original post slightly for clarity.]
…then I’ll be taking an early retirement: as of now. 
What in the hell are you all taking about?
Harem.
Why is it the ideal?
If I have to explain, you wouldn’t understand.
What kind of behaviors would be encouraged?
What kind do you think?
What kind discouraged?
Well, philosophizing for one…
What would be protected?
Exactly what you’d guess: the sanctity of carnality.
How would humans relate to one another?
Horizontally, but at other orientations as well.
To other animals?
No. The Moslems are right about this. “I draw the line.” ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh_My_Darling,_Clementine )
To the objective, shared physical environment?
The usual sweeping, dusting and washing of the floors and linens would be sufficient.
Is it reasonable to strive for this ideal society?
Of course not.
Why or why not?
Does this need explaining?
How would humans think?
Just very little.
What would their ideals be?
Three times in a row?
How would this ideal society be maintained?
It would not exist to start with, so maintaining it is moot.
What are the goals of this society/lack of society?
See above.
Sounds great!
Can I have hot males in my ideal world, though?
In Utopia Retirement Continent you can have anything you want. 
Man can never escape the biological imperative the truest original form of this earth.
Anything? 
yes Humanity can . how far back shall we go Joker ? to when Humanity was a vegatarian , first learned to walk , let alone hunt. it is convenient to go back into Humanity’s history , when they were just a Hunter, but go back far enough before they learned HOW to make a spear etc they must have been vegatarian. how else could they survive ? were they scavengers?
the line you have drawn is your own but not deep enough
matthatter, maybe it’s a good time for you to add some regulation to this hypothetical.
Surely, “Utopia” strays from your definition of “ideal society.” It’s maybe a soceity reasonably within human reach that we’re discussing, which remains within certain personal ideal confines.
As tentative suggests, I don’t think you can describe drastic changes and still be realistic (well- okay, drastic changes that aren’t already poised to come, anyway). So maybe the question is more realistic if we . . . say . . . have several billion dollars in our sway- and it includes the power to dupe spies into rigging elections or the likes.
I think crime and war are two concepts we’re almost forbidden to imagine as nonexistent or even minimal. Eliminating those are just as complex and uncertain as eliminating all disease. But you could surely, say, fund your own country. A good example of a country that just kind of flit into existence by imagination and rare opportunity is sealand.
In that case… I’d be surrounded by the hottest guys on the planet, spend hours in the gym, and party all night.
…then go back to the Utopia Retirement Continent: for a well-deserved nap 
Utopia: the ultimate ideal society…? Therefore wishing for utopia is a valid choice, and one we can all freely make - I choose utopia everytime, and constantly live it in my head (far better than being amidst a mundane society of normal folk…)
Crime and war are factors from a dissatisfied society - you figure the rest out!
As the global population pressures keep building it is also the only survival choice. And since evolution is based on that basic principle, the environment will eventually force us to manage the planet more equably - whether we like the ideal of egalitariansm or not.
Mostly the result of neglectful parenting and the demise of the basic family value of meticulous sharing.
Ideal society: Kant’s Kingdom of Ends - Duh. 
Man’s imagination is what seperates him from nature as I have come to know in the last couple of days.
Nature always remains pure and eternal even when humanity becomes extincted off this earth by it’s own wretched means I am sure.
I was thinking cheerleaders but I believe we have similar ideas.
A/S/L ? 
Hello 
Utopia: the way to go…
Please elaborate: I do not know what that means… 