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.

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.