ju'iblex

youre doing a good job Christopher, my congratulations.

And prohibition in the 20's worked didnt it? i mean, everyone was happy because alcohol didnt exist.

obviously that was riddled with sarcasm. but you like facts, so we will look at 1920's America. Alcohol consumption increased as any good history textbook will tell you. i also argue, it is not the cause of family violence, but alcoholism generally is a symptom of deeper more significant issue that is plagueing the individual.
Youre going to have a real hard time with border security if youre doing both alcohol and marijuana.
people will find plenty of other ways to get their kicks. making something illegal is in no way tantamount to abolishing it. i feel for your customs security, i really do.
interesting choice, im intrigued why you would choose this.
if you eliminate poverty, then call me Bob. its purely idealistic and even in the home of Marx, it did not work.
interesting contradiction, what you are proposing is an absolute set of truths and values, for the society to follow, in place of the current ones. what is your basis for this system? if you have a set of values and morals that are imprinted upon everyone, society will not evolve. minds will close, creative thought stemmed. who decides these absolute truths? what happens to those that are classified as abnormal by these rules? i could go on forever.
hello Dark Ages! im not even going to touch this one.
i think we should really be dealing with the issues behind the actions rather that making everything black and white like this.
there are degrees of culpability here, how do you propose dealing with them?
doesnt work. theres been a recent trial in Sydney where camera's and better lighting were placed in crime hotspots. Some of the crime levels in those places decreased, meanwhile others stayed the same and even still others increased. all it has solved is identifying the criminals, not preventing crimes.
Gustapo and stormtroopers no doubt. define strict.
i'd like to see you enforce that one! what are you going to do, require a minimum distance between persons, and if they hug you'll spring the police on them? Not only is this impossible to carry out, its absolutely ludicrous.
Im inquisitive as to the content.
this sentence is ambiguous. are you implying you eliminate all other races but the one, merge all the races into one or simply name them as one? The problem with humans, namely the ignorant masses as youre so fond of describing them as, will find any difference in people they can and pick at it. its human nature.
will communes be allowed to interact?

What you have proposed here is appalling, and has more than a smattering of Hitler and any other manipulative regime that has existed. I suspect you have power issues, because you feel the need for everyone to submit to you. Im amazed and disgusted at what you think of as some kind of utopia.

The design itself is flawed. You have decided already, who is smart, what is to be prized and revered based on your own opinion, and biases, in fact, you have already laid out yourself as the template for the ideal individual! You have instantly thrown off "the masses" as stupid, based on your own opinion, yet you come up with a design which is designed to benefit them all? No society will thrive if those who are not in a position of power are convinced they are unworthy. Even if you dont directly tell them, no doubt it will be implicit in your actions, which has already been demonstrated in your writing.

You have already placed yourself above "the masses" by deciding they are not allowed to hold private possesion. You have deprived them of everything which will make them even vaguely happy. They have no decision making place in their society, and even an elitist system of "credit points" which is possibly the most easily corruptible system i can think of. Not to mention the idea of point-scoring would inevitably lead to a class system. Those with the most points rule. Replace points with money and you have our society summed up. You have not abolished the class system at all, but have made it the defining force of your system.

you keep reiterating that anyone can become a member of the oligarchy. with the point system this is quite obviously not the case.

and where do these "points" come from? The tests. Which you have not elaborated on what they will consist of, except that "Let's just say that the tests would be perfect." I just wish you could see how flawed and silly that sounds.

You society is based purely on manipulation, it incorporates all the vile aspects of the Church-run societies, dictatorships, and one-party rule systems that have plagued our planet for millenia. And all this, under the vague guise of "communism", "for the benefit of the people". you dont fail to disgust me Trebaxian.

Totalitarianist

And prohibition in the 20's worked didnt it? i mean, everyone was happy because alcohol didnt exist.

Of course it didn't work. It's because they didn't execute the consumers. They could have done something better than that, though. They could have kept the beer, whine, and whatnot, and continued selling it, but without any actual alcohol. They wouldn't tell them this, of course.

Alcohol consumption increased as any good history textbook will tell you. i also argue, it is not the cause of family violence, but alcoholism generally is a symptom of deeper more significant issue that is plagueing the individual.

Oh, yes. We want depressants like alcohol to help them. That'll work.

Youre going to have a real hard time with border security if youre doing both alcohol and marijuana.

There would be a lot less of everything if people were just done with on the spot.

people will find plenty of other ways to get their kicks. making something illegal is in no way tantamount to abolishing it. i feel for your customs security, i really do.

Not when it's illegal to have personal possessions.

interesting choice, im intrigued why you would choose this.

Why? do you disagree?

interesting contradiction,

That was a mistake.

what you are proposing is an absolute set of truths and values, for the society to follow, in place of the current ones. what is your basis for this system? if you have a set of values and morals that are imprinted upon everyone, society will not evolve. minds will close, creative thought stemmed.

It's funny for you to say that when you don't even know what it is....

who decides these absolute truths?

The founding fathers.

what happens to those that are classified as abnormal by these rules?

You cannot critise that which you are completely ignorant of.

hello Dark Ages! im not even going to touch this one.

Actually, they would be imprisoned to be treated.

i think we should really be dealing with the issues behind the actions rather that making everything black and white like this.

I hate sex offenders more than anything else. If a man kidnaps a six year old girl, mutilates her genitalia, and posts it on the internet, I see no reason why he should live. I've seen this when searching for "warez".


doesnt work. theres been a recent trial in Sydney where camera's and better lighting were placed in crime hotspots. Some of the crime levels in those places decreased, meanwhile others stayed the same and even still others increased. all it has solved is identifying the criminals, not preventing crimes.

The cameras would be hidden. We want to identify the criminals. That's one of the most important things.

i'd like to see you enforce that one! what are you going to do, require a minimum distance between persons, and if they hug you'll spring the police on them? Not only is this impossible to carry out, its absolutely ludicrous.

Males and females would be separated in schools. On top of that, few people would risk being imprisoned.

this sentence is ambiguous. are you implying you eliminate all other races but the one, merge all the races into one or simply name them as one?

Only one race would be selected.

The problem with humans, namely the ignorant masses as youre so fond of describing them as,

How are they not ignorant? How can a labourer have advanced knowledge in politics? And yet the labourers are absolutely necessary.

will find any difference in people they can and pick at it. its human nature.

And it will be based on what they learn throughout the course of their life, especially childhood. And guess what they would be learning? Pro-Communism, pro-Atheism, pro-military, pro-science, pro-Trebaxian religion, etc. What will the "differences" be that they are most likely to pick at? Those differences incompatible of, or contradictory to, what they've learned from childhood. This will be a good thing. AND IT WORKS. Look at the Christians. Anti-homosexual, anti-Atheism, anti-Abortionism, etc. All based on their religion, and it is quite an advantage for them and for what they believe in.

What you have proposed here is appalling, and has more than a smattering of Hitler and any other manipulative regime that has existed.
How am I like Hitler?

Im amazed and disgusted at what you think of as some kind of utopia.

I am amazed and disgusted by the fact that thou, apparently, dost not think that morals, ethics and whatnot are subjective. Thou art disgusted by the fact that I do not adhere to Christian morals, or whatever morals thou art possessed by, and ye therefore, undoubtedly out of thine unalloyed ignorance, think that thy morals and ethics art correct and objective, and mine ideas are incorrect and apalling; and based on what, exactly? Thou hast been indoctrinated from birth to think, in part, like a Christian. We are nought but material; thy beliefs seem oddly compatible with belief in a soul.

The design itself is flawed. You have decided already, who is smart, what is to be prized and revered based on your own opinion, and biases, in fact, you have already laid out yourself as the template for the ideal individual!

No, no, no, no.... Only to become a member of parliament (the oligarchy) you have to be great at maths, a science, philosophy and Communism.

You have instantly thrown off "the masses" as stupid, based on your own opinion, yet you come up with a design which is designed to benefit them all?

NO! I never said they were stupid! I said they are ignorant of maths, a science, philosophy and Communism, lack an interest in maths, a science, philosophy and Communism, lack an inclination to maths, a science, philosophy and Communism, and sometimes altogether dislike maths, a science, philosophy and Communism. ONLY to become a member of the "rule-making" oligarchy, they have to have a degree in maths, a science, philosophy and Communism. They can do whatever else they want. Any course that is available, they can do. They can become detectives, physicians, philosophers, actors, or WHATEVER they want. Though they don't technically have any possessions, they do have access to everything in their community, from library books to toilets.

No society will thrive if those who are not in a position of power are convinced they are unworthy.

Then they'd be, like everyone else, a member of the proletariat. That would be encouraged more than anything else. Can you admit that genius is rare? Then only the rare genius would go fully beyond contribution through physical labour, yet live in the same houses and eat the same food as everyone else. They would contribute through what they have an inclination to. The scientist would contribute through his science, the labourer would contribute through his labour; but the labourer could, if he wanted, be more than a labourer. His needs are provided through his labour, but through his deeds he could progress beyond mere contribution-by-physical-work, if he has the inclinition to the subject of his liking, which he most likely does. Even here in this nation of Canada, most people are labourers. Why do they do work? Food, shelter, etc. Why else do they work? Computer, education, books, etc. It's a lot the same in my system. Their needs, like here, are supplied through their work (though instead of getting a few dollars to buy a loaf of bread, they get the loaf of bread that is of equal worth to the work they'd done). But instead of working for owning the other things, possessions like books and computers, they have it already supplied, for their work, in one of many community centres.

You have already placed yourself above "the masses" by deciding they are not allowed to hold private possesion

Wrong. No one, including the oligarchy, would have private possessions (beyong sentimental things like photographs). All the things they could possibly want would be provided in one of the community centres, which they can access if they do some work. It's essentially the same here. Instead of "money", which would be used to buy things, they would get "points", which would be used to access things.

and where do these "points" come from? The tests. Which you have not elaborated on what they will consist of, except that "Let's just say that the tests would be perfect." I just wish you could see how flawed and silly that sounds.

No. They get points through contribution. They only get recognition for tests, and perhaps membership for certain things (just like here).

You society is based purely on manipulation, it incorporates all the vile aspects of the Church-run societies, dictatorships, and one-party rule systems that have plagued our planet for millenia. And all this, under the vague guise of "communism", "for the benefit of the people". you dont fail to disgust me Trebaxian.

How do I disgust you? 'Tis not a dictatorship. It is not ran by a Church; it is ran by an oligarchy, which anyone can become a member of. A one-party rule system consisting of wise men and women is more logical than rule by majority, consisting of people who do not even know what they're voting for.

[ July 17, 2002: Message edited by: Pseudonym ]</p>

emphryio

HEY!
Personally I do like discussing "extreme" ideas. I don't like the way ju'iblex is jumping all over psuedonym with the insults. The fact that maybe such a society isn't such a good idea doesn't mean examining the possiblities is bad.

I fear more people will start jumping all over pseudonym shortly making an actually interesting conversation impossible.

Now going back to the idea of electing our leaders based on test performance instead of democracy, I think it would probably work better than what we currently have.

In democracy, the leaders are theoretically accountable to the people. (They must keep the majority happy.) But what it mostly takes to keep the majority of people happy, is controlling the information that they receive. It can be seen that quite a few politicians haven't had much (or any) actual consideration for the majorities happiness beyond that.

And I don't think the majority opinion of an oligarchy of "intelligent" people that wasn't accountable, would suddenly try to turn the people into slaves. I think they would be more concerned for the welfare of the people than the current types of people who run for office.

That would be the positive thing I can say.

Beyond that:
Pseudonym, are you saying that you think the oligarchy would choose to enact massive censorship, propoganda programs, etc? I assume you must be saying this. Personally I doubt they would.

Pretending for a second that I made it into the oligarchy my opinion is this:
I personally think that withholding information from people would decrease their intelligence. And I personally think that as people's intelligence decreases things generally go to hell. But I assume you would only be withholding what you consider useless information and the people's intelligence wouldn't be decreasing?

I would suggest that as opposed to "programming" the children from a young age to believe in the system, why not truly educate them by showing them all the possibilities? Or are we assuming they are too stupid to then believe in the correct things?
(Many might be, I guess.)

Also it seems the great degree of control in this society would decrease individualism. This would decrease the possiblity of new and better ideas from ever emerging. Do you disagree?

Also some people have greatly increased their creativity with various drugs. (ex musicians supposedly) Are you sure making all drugs illegal is good? What about making them legal and using a bit of eugenics on those who can't handle them?

Once again, in closing I would like to say I truly am a freethinker. Therefore I can talk about such politically incorrect concepts as eugenics. If someone wishes to insult me for bringing up such possiblities, then they are less civilized, and simply attempting censorship.

Totalitarianist

Now going back to the idea of electing our leaders based on test performance instead of democracy,

There would still be democracy within the oligarchy. The wise would vote with their fellow masters of logic. Oh, and it's a bit more than tests. Points. A certain amount of points and then a series of tests. As aforementioned, points would be procured through contribution scientific deeds, and the like.

Pseudonym, are you saying that you think the oligarchy would choose to enact massive censorship, propoganda programs, etc? I assume you must be saying this. Personally I doubt they would.
[/b][/i]
That is how it would be initially established. If the "wisest of the wise", or whatever you want to call them, vote for something different (which is unlikely because they'd have lived happily through Communist and Atheistical indoctrination themselves), then all the power to them--it would be out of their own wisdom.

Pretending for a second that I made it into the oligarchy my opinion is this:
I personally think that withholding information from people would decrease their intelligence. And I personally think that as people's intelligence decreases things generally go to hell.

Yes, and that's a perfectly valid opinion.

I would call it withholding contradictory information. Progression would still be quite possible, as the established religion would be completely compatable with science and technology. We should withhold creationism when teaching evolutionism. Better yet, we should show only the negative aspects of creationism whilst praising evolutionism.

I would suggest that as opposed to "programming" the children from a young age to believe in the system, why not truly educate them by showing them all the possibilities? Or are we assuming they are too stupid to then believe in the correct things?

Not that they're too stupid. History is the battle between classes, and an endless search for knowledge. If presented with everything, perhaps they'd choose what's easiest to believe in. An after-life, mysticism, creationism, Zeus etc. That will satisfy their intrinsic search for knowledge. Not a good thing.

Zar

Consider:

1) "Wisest" is a slippery term. Is it a permanent quality of the person or an adjective used to describe the acts or thoughts of that person? Since humans are fallible, even the hypothetical wisest may sometimes do something that is not as wise as could be expected. If the wisest cannot be criticized by at least someone who is supposedly less wise than he, how can mistakes be corrected (and, moreover, outright wrongdoing?)
2) Does "wise" assume "supremely good"? And how is "good" regarded? Does it mean good for the group or good for a few or good for only the wisest?
3) Who chooses the wisest? If the wisest chooses himself, then a wise expectation is that many will choose themselves as the wisest. If the wisest may be chosen from among those less wise, then that seems like a contradiction of the principle that the wisest only should rule, since the power of the leader derives from the choices of his inferiors.
4) Is assuming the existence of a "wisest person" tantamount to assuming there is not any wisdom at all in any other person? Assuming an informed populace, is it really so impossible to imagine that those somewhat less wise can see if a promise has been kept or a goal met, even if they are not the most knowledgeable person walking the planet in the discipline in question (such as economics)?
5) Does all human wisdom emanate only from those already assumed to be the "wisest"? It seems that nearly all new knowledge will come from a great number of people of varying "wisdom" who, although they are not among the current "wisest", may, momentarily, be wiser than the wisest people in the land on a certain subject, given a new discovery.

emphryio

I agree with your Zar. I think how we each define "wise" is pretty subjective. Of course it should ultimately be attributed to actions.

I define wisdom as acting in a way which causes the individual the most happiness. Personally I think a wise person would also usually want every one else to be happy in order for himself to have the most happiness. (Egoism with extreme forethought) But others may have different ideas.

Who chooses the wisest is a rather tough question. Strangely enough I consider myself wiser than most. I choose me. How about you?

To pseudonym
How exactly would this all be initially established? By the force of someone who considers themself very wise?

Maybe it just my basic distaste for any dishonesty, but truthfully, I wouldn't want to constantly have to push a intellectually lazy population in the right direction. I'd prefer people that could be given all the information and learn to think for themselves. I assume you do want them to learn to think for themselves?

Anyway, if some manage to latch on to some harmful superstition, what then?

[ July 17, 2002: Message edited by: emphryio ]</p>

Skepticwithachainsaw

Ok, so we have Tribex' vir's ideal state do we, how nice

Ok, so you have Tribexia (although it sounds rather like Oceania to me)

You seem to be under the impression that someone who is good at mathematics is going to make a good, fair ruler, why exactly?
Why would being good at logical thinking make you automatically a good person? Many people are good at Maths but don't let it rule their lives.

How exactly are you going to enforce these decisions on the "ignorant majority"? Or do you expect them to submit to them voluntarily?
And who controls the police and Military? And what controls are there over them?

However, why we work out something rather fundamental first, what exactly are you trying to achieve?
You obviously have ideals of a "Perfect state", but exactly what do you mean by this?
What is the most important, the minimisation of "negative" emotions (e.g pain, grief, fear, anger etc) or the maximisation of Freedom (physical and mental, while making sure that people don't violate others freedoms, by killing them and stuff)

From that rather impressive list of banned activities, I would conclude that you want to minimise negative emotion. Ok, in that case

Then you have the problem of corruption, where an individual manipulates the power entrusted to them, power-hunger is a basic human trait and it's going to be bloody hard to stamp out. This is going to be a real problem in your utopia because by the looks of it the "wisest of the wise" have theoretical total control, although maybe it is the police and military that hold the real power. How are you going to ensure that the "chosen" don't reinvent the state, or that their isn't a military coup?
If you want a corruption free state, the only real route would be the forth mentioned an A.I-ocray, failing that, like other people have said, deconcentrate the power, I.e form a democracy.

Kharakov

A few issues:

Society stagnates when free thinking is suppressed by the state or religion.

About your views on drugs: Dr. Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize winner for his discovery of the Polymeraze Chain Reaction said he doubted that he would have been able to come up with such a radical idea (described as insane and impossible by fellow scientists) if he had not learned new methods in which to think through the use of psychedelic substances.

-k

emphryio

Hey Kharakov, that's what I was saying. Of my current 3 favorite musicians or groups and 3 favorite writers, at least 2 out of the 3 appear to have been aided by drugs.

Also it seems every time I stumble across some good music, it turns out the composer died 5 years ago of a drug overdose.

I wish this wasn't the case. (I have my own aspirations yet don't plan on taking drugs.)

But generally this society would seem to remove individuality.

Totalitarianist

Well, I use the word "wise" for lack of a better word. "The wisest of the wise", to me, are the masters of deductive and inductive reasoning. That combined with advanced knowledge in philosophy and mathematics. Mathematics and a science to improve and exercise their reasoning abilities. Communism and philosophy for obvious reasons.

Of course it should ultimately be attributed to actions.

Yes. That's where the point system comes in. On second thought, though the point system would be implemented, and a certain amount of points would be required for parliament, I believe that wisdom is the capacity for logical thought, and not duties (even those done out of the acquisition of "points").

How exactly would this all be initially established? By the force of someone who considers themself very wise?

By the founding father and his or her disciples.

I'd prefer people that could be given all the information and learn to think for themselves. I assume you do want them to learn to think for themselves?

Of course they would think for themselves.

Ok, so you have Tribexia (although it sounds rather like Oceania to me)

Communism in Oceania? That's a laugh.

To SkepticWithAChainsaw:
You seem to be under the impression that someone who is good at mathematics is going to make a good, fair ruler, why exactly?

I never said that.

Why would being good at logical thinking make you automatically a good person?

I never said it does. That's where Communism, philosophy, and the Trebaxian religion cometh in. You must remember: logical decisions are to be prefered. Can you deny that? If logical decisions are to be prefered, it is thereby logical to have only the masters of logic make the logical decisions. Yes, they do make mistakes too; however, they are far less likely to make logical decisions than, say, the irrational majority.

How exactly are you going to enforce these decisions on the "ignorant majority"? Or do you expect them to submit to them voluntarily?

Yes, and in the same way that Christians submit to their (illogical) beliefs and morality voluntarily. If they are indoctrinated throughout their entire life, literally from birth, they will happily subscribe to the established religion.

And who controls the police and Military?

The oligarchy.

You obviously have ideals of a "Perfect state", but exactly what do you mean by this?
What is the most important, the minimisation of "negative" emotions (e.g pain, grief, fear, anger etc) or the maximisation of Freedom?

I lovely jingle of words would be "the maximisation of freedom through the minimisation of negative emotions". I wish I had an answer like that. I agree with Nietzsche and Freud on this matter. Emotions, no matter how terrible, should not be fully suppressed.

Too much of anything isn't good, including freedom. Unalloyed freedom would be lawless anarchism, which leads to utter chaos.

Then you have the problem of corruption, where an individual manipulates the power entrusted to them, power-hunger is a basic human trait and it's going to be bloody hard to stamp out.
But leadership would be praised, and the ability to lead would not be denied.

This is going to be a real problem in your utopia because by the looks of it the "wisest of the wise" have theoretical total control,

But they attain control through their deeds, like everyone else. Just like anyone here can become the Prime Minister. "Total" control would only be feasible if the majority were wholly incapable of becoming a member of the oligarchy, which is not the case.

How are you going to ensure that the "chosen" don't reinvent the state, or that their isn't a military coup?

But there would be no "chosen". I don't know where you came up with that.

although maybe it is the police and military that hold the real power.

The oligarchy would control the military and the police force.

Society stagnates when free thinking is suppressed by the state or religion.

If it's a mystical, anti-science, medievalistic and implausible religion. Quite unlike a one based wholly on science, and some Nietzsche and Wittgenstein, and Atheistic rationalism.

Hey Kharakov, that's what I was saying. Of my current 3 favorite musicians or groups and 3 favorite writers, at least 2 out of the 3 appear to have been aided by drugs.

"Aided by drugs". That's ludicrous. Their music came out of their own mind, not some inhaled substance. (Perhaps that's why rock music is causing corruption.)
Rock music and anything related would be banned anyway. A very bad influence.

Edit: UBB code.

[ July 17, 2002: Message edited by: Pseudonym ]</p>