Pick Your Society...

To all of those that have bitched about every single point I've made in any given thread, I pose this idea to you.

I'm not asking what type of society you would necessarily like to live in yourself, because that's a rather double-edged answer for a lot of you I'd imagine, being that this board is mainly leftist.

So... Build your ideal society, as honestly as possible. What type of people would you want in your society? What type of government? What style of economy? Would you want productive members in your society, or people that simply live off of the efforts of others? Would you want the government to control every aspect of peoples' lives, or do you actually value freedom? Free enterprise, the biggest eliminator of poverty in the history of mankind? Or fascism... I'm sure most of you liberals are already bitching that my questions are too black and white. So you pick your grays. Make your ideal society.

Have at it... I hope it's not too much to ask for some actual honest responses here.

Centrist capitalism economics with a fascist military force. (no 'real' police, saves money to have'em pull peacetime yanno.)
Hey you didn't say it had to be POSSIBLE.
basically lazy people get whacked in the ass by a ruler, stupid and/or religious people are forcibly integrated and kept a close eye on, but the average person can be more carefree than a drugged up transhumanist hippy. Oh and scientists will need to run objective experiments on illicit drugs to determine safe amounts, and then allow responsible usage.
About the religious people thing, I would eventually want my state to remove monotheism no matter the cost, and either swing towards a polythiest or totally secular community.
Economically, anything goes, so long as the benefits can be shown to outweigh the cost in ecological damage. (say animal testing and uranium mining goes, but unneeded plastic packaging on items is replaced with wooden boxes or reusable tins)
Oh yeah since there seem to be a bunch of them on here...If you're a Leninist, you're free and clear. Any other commies get drummed into infantry and sent on suicide missions. Of course, I don't imagine there'd be much of either, I assume they'd rather live somewhere less hostile to them.
The only socialized thing we'd have would be basic medical care, but it would be hella strict. Only contraceptives get handed out without question, everything else needs say two medical reviews, and maybe even a psychiatric evaluation, for those people that like only thinking they're sick. Everything else would be like an average commodity, hospitals trying to give better care for less to stay in business.
Media: Anything goes, but sensationalist tabloids will have to put up with getting raided and torched to the ground every now and then, as I don't believe in lawsuits resulting in monetary awards (unless yer a dioty thief). Nothing censored at all, population should be able to police itself.
I'm kinda drunk right now so this isn't as ironed out as I would want, but it represents a good idea of how I'd work it.
Unrelated, but I killed my nation on nationstates because that place got boring, though for 7 months it hovered back and forth between only two 'ideals,' Inoffensive Centrist and Capitalist Paradise. Don't really know what an amalgation of those two would be called.
last note, just thought of this. Suicide encouraged as option #3 for depression, because emo music sucks hardcore. Writing music is #5, under self-imposed seclusion. 1&2 being happy pills and sex of course, in no particular order.

>>2
lots of problems there but you're drink so w/e

A society where food is grown/produced by robots run on renewable fuel sources that do no/minimal damage to the environment. Maintainance is done by other robots. They're pretty much self-sufficient. The food is provided for free to everyone. Shelter is provided for free, although it won't be anything spectacular. Want something better? Do it yourself. People that grow fat, lazy, and diseased because of the freebies get no help. Likewise if you do things to harm yourself like smoking, drinking, drugs, etc, you are free to do it, but you don't get medical help. Otherwise medicare is free. Of course we won't have doctors studying their brains out (unless they want to...) for no pay. Robots will again do this work. People with the passion to discover, create, invent, live will do so for that passion, not for money. Because this human trait seems to be rare innovation will be slow... but than again, the world has never been in a situation where everything is provided for them. With all those people having nothing to do it might just spur innovation.

Are there laws? Yes. Very strict ones. One strike and you're either deported to someplace like the US or executed depending on the crime. Of course the justice system will not be swift in deliberating the accused. Immigration rules are extremly tight. Countries that wish to join this ideal country must surrender unconditionally. Manditory voting of the populace of the surrendering country is conducted to see how much they really want to be part of the ideal country. If it is less than 80% it is rejected. A trial period of 50 yrs is initiated to fully intergrate the surrendering country.

... é__è

'Kay...

my system of choice is Islamic, based on the laws and principles set forth in the Qur'aan. (not to be confused in any way with 'a government as demonstrated by any of the majority Muslim countries in existance today').

Major points of interest:

relatively few laws -- what laws there are are general enough to apply to any number of situations.  no need to read through books and books of legal text full of indecipherable lawyer-speak.  anything that is not forbidden is considered permissible.

accessibility of laws -- the Qur'aan would be readily available to everyone, and the government would promote it's teaching whenever feasible, often through establishment of regular prayer services.

freedom of belief -- non-muslims are allowed to live according to their own laws insofar as they don't interfere with the rights of muslims.  these non-muslims are taxed in exchange for being protected by the state.

low taxes -- muslims would pay a fixed flat rate tax on their wealth, which is to be used primarily for the needy or the military.  there would be no other socialized programs, unless funded by alternate means.  non-muslims would be taxed according to what the government deems fair.

... -__-'

I wipe my ass with the Qumran. It is an evil book and it's followers are deluded. Islam needs to go!

HI I ASK PEOPLE TO HONESTLY EXPLAIN THEIR IDEAL CONCEPTS OF SOCIETY SO I CAN MAKE FUNNY FACES AT THEM BECAUSE I AM RIGHT AND THEY ARE STUPID

>>9
What's your point?

I like Islam because in subordinates women:}

>>7
i forgot where i was and assumed there might be intelligent people willing to accept different political ideas with an open mind, and discuss accordingly in a mature manner.  then i realized i was in /newpol/.

my bad.

A classless society where everyone is actually equal.  Most essentials will be totally free; medical care, education right up to the doctorate level.  The economy would be among the most productive in the world, and there would be no poverty or discrimination.

Wait, I just described most of europe.  BANG AMERITARDS

>>13
Impossible, due to the pre-dispositions of bix noods.

-everyone voluntarily abandons organized religion.  The ethos of religion is supplanted by an ethos of secular humanism.

-everyone voluntarily consumes less and breeds less.

-an effective world government is established.  Its role is to preclude war along certain pretenses, based on the premise that enough people want peace to support a government which has this shape.  So, what I have in mind is a society of Earth, not of a particular nation.  In order for this to be tenable, however, certain prerequisites include a decline in organized religion, and the ability of member states to 'participate'-i.e. low internal corruption, cultural shifts, etc.

-enough people turn their attention to the new project that we can work on the big problems: controlling disease, preserving the very specific human 'freedom' that it pleases us to preserve, generating art and culture, and getting off this rock and going elsewhere.  The project is 'humanist'.  Humans are the best.  Why not?  We only have other animals to be concerned with, in a genuine ethical sense.  In order to make a judgement on an alien civilization, we would first have to encounter it and see what is like.  Until that happens, yay us.  If the encounter is happy, yay us, and yay them.  Even if humanity is done in by some unseen natural cause or chance, unanticipated in all the science, it is a NOBLER death than that met with jihad or Christians fucking up our environmental policy (which they are.  I have the documents) for something that they can never truthfully say (and can only emotially appeal to) as existing.  The nobility of the suspension of judgement is one component of my society.

-Homeless people, or lazy fucks unwilling to work, are shuffled into well-policed homeless shelters-basically motels, with spartan meals (which become possible and quite feasible without a great social strain with the preservation of technology and the decline in population).  They are surrounded by employment information and are periodically kicked from spot to spot.  Crime itself is greatly decreased (if not eliminated) by the mere fact that everyone is working or provided for/watched over, as per depopulation.

please don't reply 'that's impossible'.  It's my pipedream, in exactly the way that you have yours.  The method of an actual reconstitution of society is to see what everybody else wants (more or less), and to try to realize it.  (unless a despot shapes reality, something which is not wanted).  Idealism guides practice in various ways. 

>>2 sounds like nazism without any of the bad stuff.
Could he be related to this guy?
http://www.geniebusters.org/

>>13
Uh, there's no poverty or discrimination in Europe, and it's one of the most productive economies in the world? What planet are you from? And look up the definition of the word "free."

>>15
Brave New World, anyone?

Egalitarianism would be an important principle. All decision making would involve those who are affected by the decision. If the decision only affects yourself, you'd be the sole decision maker. If it affects your family or neighbourhood, the respective members of those groups would make the decision. If it affects everyone, it would be a global decision.

In the material realm, everyone would have basically the same amount of wealth. An arbitrary credit system would probably be necessary in order to measure things like supply and demand so that we can make economic decisions. Everyone would be granted the same basic income affording a decent living, but there might be exceptions (e.g., group living arrangements might require more credits, jobs requiring extraordinary risk or great effort might pay more, hermits and tribesmen might need and therefore voluntarily do with less, etc.).

Provided we can technologically get rid of what society agrees are undesirable jobs, I see an open society where people are free to pursue their own interests. Artists, scientists, intellectuals, athletes... every kind of imaginable pursuit would be supported and facilitated. Those who don't want or are unable to work won't be forced to. They'll still be provided for. There will be no jobs that accord power over others. If supervisory duties are needed, they could be on a rotating basis; in any case, supervisor does not imply a higher rank.

If we can't come up with the technology to get rid of undesirable jobs, we can either pay more or rotate the jobs. I think we'll be able to come up with technical solutions, especially when we are all equally responsible and can no longer rely on a pool of exploitable labour. Also, the definition of an undesirable job is not obvious. If everyone receives approximately the same income, some people would still be auto mechanics simply because they enjoy and are fulfilled by doing valuable work. Remember that this is an egalitarian society -- no one would look down on you based on what you do. Our auto mechanic has as much say as anyone else in society.

Housing, basic food, healthcare and education would be equally and freely provided for everyone. The storehouse of human knowledge would also be free: technological resources, books etc. The goal is to enable people to invest in themselves and to create conditions for desired outcomes; maybe we would decide to pay bonuses to those who study and improve themselves (medical students will eventually be providing a valuable service in our free healthcare system). The ideal is free contributions to society according to ones own inclinations and talents.

In a society where you aren't forced to sell your labour to survive, I'd imagine that people would still have motivations to work, whether selfish ones like getting recognition or altrustic ones like serving society (which are not mutually exclusive). People would do scientific research because they are curious and they want to help society. People would run restaurants because they enjoy cooking and serving people. People would produce art to exercise their creativity and to entertain. And so on.

Access to the media would be egalitarian. There would be real public discourse between ordinary citizens. There would be more diversity and more discussion. This echoes earlier conceptions of the internet (i.e. freenets etc.). There won't be media celebrities churning out propaganda and experts serving elite interests (there will be no more elites, so experts will be consultants to the general population who will collectively make decisions).

Freed from the contraints of making a profit and with open access to resources, there would be a greater diversity of content in culture, arts and entertainment. There would be a greater variety of local talent, instead of mostly mass-marketed products. Movies would probably be less escapist and more reflective. The shallow and violent entertainment we have now is, among other things, designed to take people away from the miseries of their lives; in a world without the anxious competition, people may not need such opiates -- in any case, it would be up to people to decide, like everything else.

There would be no government per se, but there will be social structures and institutions which facilitate individual pursuits. The social structures are tentative and subject to the will of all the people affected by them. Freed from exploitative capitalism, and aided by society, indivdual pursuits will naturally benefit society as a whole.

This sad, sad "egalitarian" view of the world scares me to no end. The very fact that anyone even thinks this way scares me. These people don't truly value freedom. They don't truly value any concept of the individual. I dare say they don't truly value their own lives... How exactly do you plan to make everyone "equal"? Why would you WANT everyone to be "equal"? It's a fact, not everyone values life the same. So why should everyone get the same out of life? Very few people manage to realize the importance of their own life to themselves, and those are the people that truly drive society... Not you sad sacks of crap and your "egalitarian" nonsense. And that's what it is. Total and complete nonsense. You have no concept of what it really means to be a human being if you buy into this crap... Mister >>18, I don't whether to pity you, or simply put you out of your misery, because you must really suffer to live in such an ignorant and sad view of existence.

20 GET.

'don't +know whether'
I must be getting senile, my grammar is slipping. :B

They don't truly value any concept of the individual.

No, it's just that you can't grasp that it's possible to be an individual and a member of a community. Either/or amirite?

Anyway, since this is obviously ad hominem season: John is a fuckwad who wouldn't know reason if it gang-raped him in a back alley. His world consists of ZOMG AYN RAND FAP FAP FAP blah blah blah blah blah, and pretending he's in a knot with some gay animal while camping world4ch.

Seriously, shut the fuck up with your annoying conceit. You started the thread, criticise all you want, but the moment you start calling names I'll be happy to fuck up another of your wank parades.

You're sorry? Eat me, faggot.

>>21
You haven't fucked up a single one of my wank parages. All I hear from you is how much of a moron you think I am. I haven't seen a single intelligent rebuke to any philosophical point I've made in any thread. So try me.

Sure you can be an individual in a fucking community. MY POINT IS ... that people want to whine about feeling like nothing more than a brick in the wall, and I hate hearing that type of attitude.

>>21
Wait a minute if I liked Ayn Rand's stuff does that mean my views should be similar to John's... ... I feel sick.

>>21
Hey, I liked her stuff too, but that doesn't mean I agree with John. Quite the contrary, as you can see.

>>22
You wanna bet I haven't? LAWL!

My ideal society is the one where everyone named John keeps their pretty little trap shut.

>>25
I bet it is.

>>24
Well? Have at it. I still don't see you explaining how objectivism is wrong. All I see is rhetoric, which, contrary to what some far-left professor 'taught' us in critical thinking, is not a good persuasive argument technique.

My favorite society is where I could masturbate in public- especially in front of young children.

>>27
Wh-- ...

>>17
Look at finland.

!O_O---8===D~ <--- i am cum in man sphincter
   || ||

ZWARAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARUDO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>30
Look at Finland.

>>31
This is why you are sad and alone.

>>30
... xD
Wait, what?

>>33
Look at Finland.

>>34
What about Finland? ¬_¬

>>35
Look at it, you fucking tool

>>36
Okay, what about it? No need to get hostile there, buddy... ¬_¬

>>37
Second, I'm not >>17...
... Or >>30, for that matter. -_-;

Finland is the top economic performer in the world, and they are completely socialist.  I SEE A CORRELATION!

>>39
Why are you trying to defend a system of government that allows no private property and no real opportunity to achieve more than any other sad sack on the street? Set up a country of nothing but robots and what would you expect it to do but perform better? Who gives a flying fuck about Finland... Individuality means nothing to a people that would let themselves be governed in such a manner...