57 replies to this topic

[Cryptkeeper]

I'm thinking of ways to not make everyone happy but to keep the tensions of the various differences between people ie class race sex generally things that do not endanger others do not hurt or cause pain but yet other s who may say different due to there beliefs and there the only ones who would suffer in this society. but coming from a completely open minded and outside perspective they don't.

form a societies guidelines and structure which will accept these small differences for what they are. here is some of my ideas

1 never force these or any other beliefs you have on someone that will not help us form this society.
2 allow others to freely express there views without fear of various things such as political correctness or repercussions so long as they don't harm others.
3 regardless of your beliefs affiliation past perspective everyone is essentially the same only with different views and experiences
4 there will be conflict it is not a perfect society there never will be but working through these conflicts with open mind and heart will stop it from going too far
5 Sufficient education for all starting with the basics then advanced training to your chosen field
6 Proper resource management
7 all scientific research will be funded but it will be regulated to prevent unwise use of resources and possible harm from said research

feel free to reword or change these rules or add your own i will periodically look through these and find ones i like either add them or change mine note: just becuase I don't agree with your rule and don't add it doesn't mean its wrong and if need be you can explain it.

all tho this is more sociology then it is philosophy the two sciences have a lot in common

Edited by Cryptkeeper, 02 September 2008 - 15:40.

[Shirou]

Those four rules of yours are actually pretty political ideals..

[Dauth]

Aftershock, on 1 Sep 2008, 22:24, said:

Those four rules of yours are actually pretty political ideals..

I disagree, they are social ideals and politics will merely be the means to this end, if we discuss the ends and ignore the means I can see no reason why this couldn't be a very interesting thread.

[Rich19]

Cryptkeeper, on 1 Sep 2008, 21:46, said:

how can we help form a society which accepts these small differences for what they are.

Remove the people from it.


People have been trying to create a society that lives in harmony for thousands of years. They failed.

[Cryptkeeper]

Rich19, on 1 Sep 2008, 16:52, said:

Cryptkeeper, on 1 Sep 2008, 21:46, said:

how can we help form a society which accepts these small differences for what they are.

Remove the people from it.


People have been trying to create a society that lives in harmony for thousands of years. They failed.

in a way your right but history indeed shows people haven't made it happen so far and i didn't say perfect harmony by any means

and yes forget the means I'll edit my post to make sure it doesn't become political and just talk about social ideals

[Pav:3d]

@rich: lul /thread

If you somehow manage to remove "money" and all forms of it from this society, then that is a huge step

edit: i am just too slow of a poster

Edited by P4v3d, 01 September 2008 - 22:45.

[CommanderJB]

Rich19, on 2 Sep 2008, 7:52, said:

People have been trying to create a society that lives in harmony for thousands of years. They failed.

Does that mean we shouldn't try, though? The Western world at least has already pretty much got rid of some of the biggest impediments; health and aristocracy, we just need to spread it around. Then we can start working on nations.

[The Wandering Jew]

First things first, read carefully this post.

It is hard to achieve, almost an impossibility. Why?

1. Tradition approves all forms of competition.

We humans have chosen liberty (i.e. freedom) over fraternity (i.e. equality). The basic definition of liberty is similar to laissez-faire, everyone do what he wants. Since we are different with one another physically, morally, aesthetically and such (not to mention politically and religiously, but that might sound biased, so not a word in politicking for now), we expect different cultures and beliefs, do we not? And the fact that we have diversity, we expect contradictions and conflicting ideas, which tends us humans to misunderstand with one another at the same time. Misunderstandings creates conflicts, and conflicts create events like that in the scenario of Global Defense Initiative and the Brotherhood of Nod, throw in the Scrin for that soupy mess (I am just citing an example. I hope you do get what I am implying about.)

However, to make a "new society" realistically attainable, mutual aggreement should be reached. It is not stated in your discourse regarding this. All parties involved should have reached a conclusion. Whether that conclusion is beneficial or harmful, it is an agreement reached. All involved shall gain or suffer from it. (Well, in the first place, they should have assessed the situation first before arriving into an agreement.)

Which also come into mind the word agreement. It is a written fact that not everyone shall agree to any idea or concept presented to them. It is regardless of personal or any other non-personal reasons. The point is, he/she will not agree if what he/she believe is not right or beneficial to his/her sake. Another recipe for misunderstanding.

2. Society is a collection of different individuals that co-exist with one another.

From that, even if he/she is a hard-headed, close-minded fellow, he/she is part of the society that he/she wishes to join. It is not relevant whether that co-existence is a peaceful one or not (best example, Justice League). And I do not think that it is civilized enough to banish such people from any society. We are, after all, humans, not simians. We keep our criminals in penitentiaries and/or mental institutions (for those whose lawyers are smart enough to avoid death penalty). Such actions nauseate an ape. The anti-social ape is either killed or driven out.

3. History always repeats itself.

This is somewhat self-explanatory. Even if we do successfully create a moment of peace for our society, chances are, misunderstandings shall arise and create confusion, conflict and chaos, undoing the peace we have laboriously attained. After several years of negotiations, peace shall be attained, and conflict shall rise again, and on, and on, and on.

Thus the vicious cycle of peace and aggression is perpetually in motion.


Based from the arguments I have presented, I conclude that all societies experience these kind of events. We cannot achieve real peace and propserity. We cannot change those events. We adapt from them.

However, to substantially improve our society (I have mentioned substantial improvement, not outright solution), all agendas should be discouraged. These are following items that should be taken into consideration to improve our society as a whole:

1. Politics should not mix with science (example: eugenics)
2. Religion should not interfere with scientific advancement
3. Duties and responsibilities first, personal matters later
4. All scientific and sociological matters should be on a "blind-fund" basis. Ideas and concepts that are implied by the "patron" are subject to bias, which is dangerous.
5. Caring to others and environment is irrelevant. Results matter.
6. Proper resource management. It does not mean material resources but also human resources as well.
7. Propaganda should be discouraged at all costs.
8. Sufficient education for all. I do not mean a BS degree in Engineering, but education in real life (so as not to be gullible in propaganda and other agendas stipulated by our "good friends".)

Edited by The Wandering Jew, 02 September 2008 - 09:25.

[Shirou]

As long as religion, the one which wants to expand on the world, exists, there can be no such society unless said religion achieves the highest of all goals, complete reach and assimilation of every human being to their ideology.

In this sense, if there were no religion, everyone would be atheist. And then Atheism is the absolute dominant culture. So it doesn't matter whether the entire world would be buddhist, christian or atheist, as long as there is more than one type, there is more than one idea about how to run society and thus conflict. Conflict =/= harmony.

Aside from that, there are also the political ideologies of liberalism, confessionalism (while strongly linked with religion that is) and socialism/communism at the extreme.

I ll keep that out of elaboration due to policy, but even more so with this than with religion, on these political views people will always remain in conflict. Maybe a unified religion is possible. However, a unified political idea of how to run a country will never exist.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Lassiez-Faire Capitalism anybody?

[Shirou]

Would you MIND elaborating as you can't expect me to be arsed to search a definition on that.

[ĦѦʠʠɵƇҟ Ϣϙɩƭ]

Well, to help health, I would set up a large number os recovery centers, and illegalize smoking. I would also limit alcohol (like bars cut you off sooner, and the amount you can buy in a store) This would lower cancer an alcohol-related crashes, because if you don't already know, are quite prevalent in America.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Aftershock, on 7 Sep 2008, 9:01, said:

Would you MIND elaborating as you can't expect me to be arsed to search a definition on that.

A near anarchy where the only branches of government that exist are dedicated solely to the protection of property rights; the military,police, and justice system.

Edited by Dr. Strangelove, 07 September 2008 - 10:10.

[CodeCat]

And also a system in which the poor will be exploited by the rich because there are no laws to keep them im check.

[Dr. Strangelove]

CodeCat, on 7 Sep 2008, 11:15, said:

And also a system in which the poor will be exploited by the rich because there are no laws to keep them im check.

The poor can't have anything stolen from them because of their property rights, so I don't understand what you are saying.

[CodeCat]

I said exploited, not stolen. Property rights mean nothing if some people are unable to acquire it.

[Dr. Strangelove]

CodeCat, on 7 Sep 2008, 10:39, said:

I said exploited, not stolen. Property rights mean nothing if some people are unable to acquire it.

Define 'exploited'.

[Shirou]

With which he means the rich control the entire economy and thus they also make out people's salary and their working conditions. They can exploit people by giving them extremely low salaries for 16 hour work days and such.

When there are no social laws like a minimum salary, demands from the government to take care of their employees with maximum hours of work per day, or the regulations and safety measures that the companies in our society HAVE to take: There is going to be a totally poor society with a small elite controlling the masses.


In other words, it's like going back in time. It's the beginning of the industrial revolution, that things went this way. Child labour? why not. People dying because of pollution in their factories and the bosses can't be arsed to protect them from it? Whatever..?

Edited by Aftershock, 07 September 2008 - 11:25.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Aftershock, on 7 Sep 2008, 11:24, said:

With which he means the rich control the entire economy and thus they also make out people's salary and their working conditions. They can exploit people by giving them extremely low salaries for 16 hour work days and such.

When there are no social laws like a minimum salary, demands from the government to take care of their employees with maximum hours of work per day, or the regulations and safety measures that the companies in our society HAVE to take: There is going to be a totally poor society with a small elite controlling the masses.


In other words, it's like going back in time. It's the beginning of the industrial revolution, that things went this way. Child labour? why not. People dying because of pollution in their factories and the bosses can't be arsed to protect them from it? Whatever..?

There's something called quitting, ever heard of it?

EDIT: And who brought about the industrial revolution in the first place?

Edited by Dr. Strangelove, 07 September 2008 - 19:34.

[TehKiller]

Dr. Strangelove, on 7 Sep 2008, 11:19, said:

CodeCat, on 7 Sep 2008, 11:15, said:

And also a system in which the poor will be exploited by the rich because there are no laws to keep them im check.

The poor can't have anything stolen from them because of their property rights, so I don't understand what you are saying.

Sure as they dont have anything of value to be stolen from

[Dr. Strangelove]

TehKiller, on 7 Sep 2008, 20:37, said:

Dr. Strangelove, on 7 Sep 2008, 11:19, said:

CodeCat, on 7 Sep 2008, 11:15, said:

And also a system in which the poor will be exploited by the rich because there are no laws to keep them im check.

The poor can't have anything stolen from them because of their property rights, so I don't understand what you are saying.

Sure as they dont have anything of value to be stolen from

Is that a problem?

[Cryptkeeper]

Dr. Strangelove, on 7 Sep 2008, 14:31, said:

Aftershock, on 7 Sep 2008, 11:24, said:

With which he means the rich control the entire economy and thus they also make out people's salary and their working conditions. They can exploit people by giving them extremely low salaries for 16 hour work days and such.

When there are no social laws like a minimum salary, demands from the government to take care of their employees with maximum hours of work per day, or the regulations and safety measures that the companies in our society HAVE to take: There is going to be a totally poor society with a small elite controlling the masses.


In other words, it's like going back in time. It's the beginning of the industrial revolution, that things went this way. Child labour? why not. People dying because of pollution in their factories and the bosses can't be arsed to protect them from it? Whatever..?

There's something called quitting, ever heard of it?

EDIT: And who brought about the industrial revolution in the first place?

if you basically that your on;ly means to live and other business will not hire you becuase you quit then yes there is problem with it

having nothign of value to steal basically puts you back to the level of servants and slaves were all they can do is live and work

[Pav:3d]

Haddock, on 7 Sep 2008, 10:26, said:

Well, to help health, I would set up a large number os recovery centers, and illegalize smoking. I would also limit alcohol (like bars cut you off sooner, and the amount you can buy in a store) This would lower cancer an alcohol-related crashes, because if you don't already know, are quite prevalent in America.

Whats the point of illegalizing smoking? People will still do it anyway, and ur government would loose a huge amount of money in taxes and will have to get that from somewhere else

[Shirou]

Dr. Strangelove, on 7 Sep 2008, 21:31, said:

Aftershock, on 7 Sep 2008, 11:24, said:

With which he means the rich control the entire economy and thus they also make out people's salary and their working conditions. They can exploit people by giving them extremely low salaries for 16 hour work days and such.

When there are no social laws like a minimum salary, demands from the government to take care of their employees with maximum hours of work per day, or the regulations and safety measures that the companies in our society HAVE to take: There is going to be a totally poor society with a small elite controlling the masses.


In other words, it's like going back in time. It's the beginning of the industrial revolution, that things went this way. Child labour? why not. People dying because of pollution in their factories and the bosses can't be arsed to protect them from it? Whatever..?

There's something called quitting, ever heard of it?

EDIT: And who brought about the industrial revolution in the first place?

You're just as narrow minded as ever aren't you, come on.

Go do your research on the Industrial Revolution and how things went that way. Working conditions currently are regulated by the government and are thus national/global.

When there were no regulations, then every rich kapitalist would do the same thing, exploit his employees. Working conditions will always be global, because if someone will be radically better for his employees, his products will be so much more expensive and thus his company will go down into failure.

Competition in the free market is what controls everything, and there are the governmental regulations to prevent that the hunger for money and more efficiency will be maleficient for the employees. If there are no regulations.. for most people their world will go down the drain. That's not the goal of society. The society should not exist to be only good for a certain elite people swimming in their money, while outside on the streets everybody lives in poor slums, begging for money to feed their childreh.

And

Quote

Is that a problem?

That is the problem.

Edited by Aftershock, 07 September 2008 - 21:51.

[CodeCat]

Dr. Strangelove, on 7 Sep 2008, 21:31, said:

There's something called quitting, ever heard of it?

If all jobs are like that, then it's starve or suffer. You can't win. Late 19th century industry is a perfect example of that. It was only solved when people started to form workers' unions to unite against the big companies that exploited them.