What Kind of society would you like to live in?

[ydoaPs]

Let's make ydoaPs president then. His campaign slogan can be, "Live long and prosper".

 

I like this idea best.

[Peron]

Is that really what we see around us today?

 

Our society is built on politics. We need to apply the scientific method to society.

[tomgwyther]

I'm not sure if this is the time or place to mention this but...

In my honest opinion.

The comments made by Mr Skeptic, iNow npts2020 and Peron sound remarkably similar to the goals and tenets of The UK Zeitgeist Movement. Two of it's main objectives are

'The application of the scientific method for social concerns' and

'The implementation of a resource based economy'.

Plans to try and implement the societies you've outlined are already underway (I'm working on ways to consolidate local exchange transaction networks.)

This post is meant merely as an observation of similarities between ideas concerning society, politics and economics.

I've included the earlier posts for consideration.

 

 

 

Mr Skeptic

A constitutional libertarian democracy with a sane voting system, such as range voting. The constitution should have a completely unalterable portion, as well as parts that are simply very difficult to change. There should be a minimum of laws, with government's role being largely taxation, production and maintenance of public goods, national defense, making laws and at least a portion of the law enforcement, and providing information. Rather than forbidding things, or requiring things, the government should provide information, and account for externalities (behavior or products that affect others in a positive or negative way that is not part of the cost to the parties who do it) by providing tariffs to discourage things with negative externalities and subsidies to encourage things with positive externalities.

 

iNow

People have access to food, resources, and healthcare without cost or limitations based on status/social hierarchy, they have occupations which are based on their own interests, aptitudes, and merits, and it's all centered around a passion for exploration, learning new things, and connecting with others.

 

npts2020

Whatever one wishes to call it, I would like to live in a society where governmental decisions are made based on the best scientific evidence available and the goal is improvement of the condition of the greatest number of citizens possible.

 

Peron

I would say that humans decide what is good, based on scientific evidence. What humans needs most, is access to healthcare, food, shelter, water, sanitation, etc.

You can build the entire society on technology, trying to reach sustainability and the only way to reach sustainability is to remove case poverty and insular poverty. To do that we must share resources, equally.

Edited November 23, 2009 by tomgwyther

[Mr Skeptic]

The comments made by Mr Skeptic, iNow npts2020 and Peron sound remarkably similar to the goals and tenets of The UK Zeitgeist Movement. Two of it's main objectives are

'The application of the scientific method for social concerns' and

'The implementation of a resource based economy'.

 

Hm, none of us suggested a resource based economy though. Anyhow, all economies are always resource based, though some resources are more abstract than others.

[Severian]

I would settle for just having a competent government (at both local and national levels) but that is probably already too much to ask for.

[CaptainPanic]

I like our current system (constitutional monarchy - a democratic monarchy with some capitalism and some socialism).

 

But I think we need better voters.

 

One change I'd like to see: I believe that scientists and engineers should get a larger voice in decisions. But there are plenty of possibilities in the current system to achieve this.

Edited November 23, 2009 by CaptainPanic

[Zolar V]

personally i would rather live in a government that is small scale, almost village/town to town. as you can easily see throughout all largescale governments of countries, it just doesnt work. at the macro level politics and economics leave out at eventually snuff out the micro minority. in a small scale government the macro will not overtake the micro because all the people of the micro make decisions and affect the macro.

 

yes i know that this is how its supposed to work for largescale governments but it doesnt due to different forms of corruption and ignorance. atleast in small scale both of those are significantly reduced.

 

now, my government would be socialist i would think because Capitalism Kills. let me explain, in order for capitalism to work some one wins and someone looses, so simlified someone lives someone dies, basicly natural selection caused by us. in my socialist government it would be true socialism, one without a ruling head, where everyone has a say in what happens. in the natural evolution of this type of government you are going to have differnet families start to grow accustumed to doing certian things, such as a schooled man might become an engineer, he might have his son do it and they might become the leaders in that industry. eventually you will have smart people doing the smart jobs, and mechanical people doing the mechanical jobs. without the basis of economical gain for each person, they are able to persue their lovejob without any want to do something else for more money.

[Phi for All]

now, my government would be socialist i would think because Capitalism Kills. let me explain, in order for capitalism to work some one wins and someone looses, so simlified someone lives someone dies, basicly natural selection caused by us.

That's not how Capitalism is supposed to work. If someone always lost there would be no motivation to continue. It's because everyone along the chain from manufacturer to end-user gains something that the system works. When someone loses it's usually because a collusive deal of some sort has skewed the normal process and created unnatural advantage.

 

Unfortunately, some collusion has been given a patina of lawfulness by calling it a subsidy or a no-bid contract or even a campaign contribution.

[Severian]

It's because everyone along the chain from manufacturer to end-user gains something that the system works.

 

Is that true in today's society though? I think our definition of 'win' and 'lose' has changed somewhat. In modern days often a better measure is comparative wealth, so if someone else benefits more than you, you will actually be worse off.

[Sisyphus]

Well at least, both parties think the exchange will be to their advantage, even if there is a winner and loser, or two losers. (This is readily seen in things like day trading stocks, where both parties have exactly the same goal, and each is betting the other will be the loser.) And obviously, with two "winners" it's quite common for one to win a lot more.

[Zolar V]

here, let me give a nice example on what i mean by someone winning and someone loosing.

person A works and Mcdonalds. Mcdonalds pays person A for work (losing money) person A gains money from working at Mcdonalds(winning money)

now there you have a nice simplified example without all the "well his work is worth x and they payed him y which x=y." and "her work is worth W and they payed her Z which W>x and W>Z"

 

here is another example, Jonny applied for a job at stock inc. the manager there, billy, reviewed jonny's application. betty, jonny's cousin, also applied for the same job and same everything, they both are exactly the same in every way, hell jonny's even got boobs if you really wana go that far... now pretend this is the ONLY job on earth and stock inc can only hire 1 of the 2 applicants. so lets say that jonny got the job. Well jonny just WON, and now because jonny has the job he lives. however because betty the transvestite didn't get hired she or he LOST and therefore now he/she dies.

 

so therefore i stand correct saying Capitalism is about wining and loosing or living and dieing. saying Capitalism Kills is just kinda catchy,

 

BUT, once you start to factor in 2 or 3 or 10 jobs in a community the above examples would get infinitly more complicated. i think that its something to like A= persons B= jobs C= complexity C=A*B^2 or something like that..

[Phi for All]

Is that true in today's society though? I think our definition of 'win' and 'lose' has changed somewhat.

I don't think it has changed in any meaningful way. If you want what I've got and we agree on a price that makes us both happy, win-win. If one of us doesn't agree, and we can move to a market entity that makes us happy (you find someone with a better price or I find a buyer who likes mine), again win-win. It's only when there is no other market entity to turn to that trade is stifled and someone loses.

 

In modern days often a better measure is comparative wealth, so if someone else benefits more than you, you will actually be worse off.

Perhaps what has changed is our idea of "fair". Many people don't think it's fair that someone benefits more than they do. But how are you worse off if you get what you want and I get what I want?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

here, let me give a nice example on what i mean by someone winning and someone loosing.

person A works and Mcdonalds. Mcdonalds pays person A for work (losing money) person A gains money from working at Mcdonalds(winning money)

now there you have a nice simplified example without all the "well his work is worth x and they payed him y which x=y." and "her work is worth W and they payed her Z which W>x and W>Z"

But the equations are necessary in this instance, and you forgot to balance them by mentioning that McD's doesn't lose money by paying person A for working, because person A sells McD's products, and therefore makes more money for McD's than they pay person A. As long as the public continues to enjoy McD's products, then the public, McD's and person A all benefit. Win-win-win, no one dies (if the public enjoys in moderation, that is).

 

here is another example, Jonny applied for a job at stock inc. the manager there, billy, reviewed jonny's application. betty, jonny's cousin, also applied for the same job and same everything, they both are exactly the same in every way, hell jonny's even got boobs if you really wana go that far... now pretend this is the ONLY job on earth and stock inc can only hire 1 of the 2 applicants. so lets say that jonny got the job. Well jonny just WON, and now because jonny has the job he lives. however because betty the transvestite didn't get hired she or he LOST and therefore now he/she dies.

Well, it sounds like you've added some collusion in there, and I warned you that secret deals are one of the things that corrupt Capitalism. If stock inc. has secretly decided they aren't hiring transvestites, they are not playing by the rules.

 

And remember, if stock inc. has the only job left on earth, either Betty or Johnny is going to lose anyway. You've created a False Dilemma where you make Capitalism look bad, but it isn't very realistic at all. Fortunately, you made them cousins so Johnny can take care of Betty and get a Head-of-Household deduction on his income tax.

 

so therefore i stand correct saying Capitalism is about wining and loosing or living and dieing. saying Capitalism Kills is just kinda catchy,

Not really. You just came up with an unrealistic set of circumstances that proves your point. You could do that with anything but it won't give it any more meaning.

 

BUT, once you start to factor in 2 or 3 or 10 jobs in a community the above examples would get infinitly more complicated. i think that its something to like A= persons B= jobs C= complexity C=A*B^2 or something like that..

Just remember to include all parts of the equation. Multiplying by infinity is bound to cause some errors.

 

 

 

I've often thought that Capitalism has lead us to the point where our resources are spent on a lot of meaningless tail-chasing. Why do we need 685 companies wasting time and materials making 4250 types of toasters (completely made up numbers, just guessing)? If one company made all the world's toasters in enough variety to satisfy the range of demand, wouldn't that company be able to make them really well and really cheaply? Wouldn't their research and development costs be lower and more concentrated as well?

 

But in order to form a monopoly like that, you'd have to have a government entity step in with regulations that would keep the toaster company from charging whatever they want as the sole supplier. And while toasters aren't that important to me, they are to others. I guess freedom has it's price.

[Zolar V]

wow Phi for all, you really missed the point of SIMPLIFY.

i did not add Collusion, that was merely a joke on making persons A and B exactly the same.

however you are somewhat valid in saying that my examples are unrealistic, but then again any government and economical standard you simplify will be.

 

and for the most part the equation for complexity was not real i was just pointing out just how complicated it gets once you factor in bigger values for 2 variables, not to mention actually adding more variables into it.

and the other equation was pointing out how can one measure your worth by your work.

[Phi for All]

wow Phi for all, you really missed the point of SIMPLIFY.

OVERSIMPLIFY ≠ SIMPLIFY.

 

i did not add Collusion, that was merely a joke on making persons A and B exactly the same.

OK, but you still skewed the analogy by having two identical people apply for the only job in the world. Any system would look bad in that scenario.

 

however you are somewhat valid in saying that my examples are unrealistic, but then again any government and economical standard you simplify will be.

I don't see how that follows, but OK.

 

and for the most part the equation for complexity was not real i was just pointing out just how complicated it gets once you factor in bigger values for 2 variables, not to mention actually adding more variables into it.

and the other equation was pointing out how can one measure your worth by your work.

But Capitalism isn't measuring your worth by your work. YOU are measuring your worth when you accept the work. No job can be considered beneath you if you decide to take it.

[Severian]

Perhaps what has changed is our idea of "fair". Many people don't think it's fair that someone benefits more than they do. But how are you worse off if you get what you want and I get what I want?

 

What if what I want is to be richer than you?

[Phi for All]

What if what I want is to be richer than you?

Then stop buying my crappy toasters and invest your money in my biggest competitor's company.

[Mr Skeptic]

My responses are based partly on Game Theory, which is often used to model human behavior. If you are unfamiliar with a game type, look it up in wikipedia. It is very fun and informative. It was one of the best courses I took in college.

 

now, my government would be socialist i would think because Capitalism Kills. let me explain, in order for capitalism to work some one wins and someone looses, so simlified someone lives someone dies, basicly natural selection caused by us.

 

That is demonstrably false. What you are describing is a zero sum game where the prize is life. To create a zero sum game where the prize is life, you must have a situation where there is not enough resources for all to live, regardless of how they are distributed. That being the case, it is impossible to win regardless of the social or economic system. A zero sum game is where players compete for the same points but cannot create more, so that the only way to gain points is to win them from someone else. In fact, in the situation you describe capitalism performs better (assuming initial inequity): one lives, the other dies. In a socialist system, they would both receive an equal share of the insufficient resources and would both die.

 

However, life is not a zero sum game: you can make stuff.

 

Capitalism is based on freely made trades. This means that a person may freely choose whether to accept or reject a trade offer. If someone offers a trade, it is fair to assume that the trade benefits him (or he is misinformed). If someone accepts a trade, it is fair to assume that the trade benefits him (or he is misinformed).

 

Now, assuming neither is misinformed, the trade will be beneficial to both parties. However, that does not mean that it will be a fair trade: one might benefit more from the trade than the other, even if they both benefit overall. For example, Timmy may prefer a tootsie roll to four candy corns, and has eight candy corns. Johnny may prefer a candy corn to a tootsie roll and have four tootsie rolls (they got them during Halloween). Now, Timmy may offer Johnny to trade four of his candy corns for all four of Johnny's tootsie rolls, a trade both would benefit by. However, if Johnny knows about Timmy's resources and preferences, he would most likely reject the offer as unfair, and demand a two for one trade (or he could suggest a four for one trade, which would still benefit both but again be unfair).

 

Now, misinformation and lack of information are quite nasty for capitalism, though that is hardly unique. We have a few rules concerning things like advertising and safety standards that can reduce some of the effects. Collusion is also problematic. Suppose that in my previous example, all the kids that preferred tootsie rolls agreed together that they would only accept or offer a trade of one candy corn for one tootsie roll even though they prefer one tootsie roll to four candy corns. Now Johnny will have no choice but to accept the unfair trade, or lose out even worse by refusing to trade. We have rules to outlaw many forms of collusion. Unfortunately, it is impossible to completely eliminate it.

 

But how would socialism solve this? Take everyone's candy and give each child an equal share of the candy? Hire/force someone to poll the children to determine their preferences, then give the children a proportion of the candy they prefer?

 

in my socialist government it would be true socialism, one without a ruling head, where everyone has a say in what happens. in the natural evolution of this type of government you are going to have differnet families start to grow accustumed to doing certian things, such as a schooled man might become an engineer, he might have his son do it and they might become the leaders in that industry. eventually you will have smart people doing the smart jobs, and mechanical people doing the mechanical jobs. without the basis of economical gain for each person, they are able to persue their lovejob without any want to do something else for more money.

 

Hm, but what happens if no one wants to do a certain job? What if no one wants to mop floors? Do we force someone to mop the floor, without so much as giving them something in exchange (the dictator game)? Do we let the floors get filthy until someone can't stand it and mops it anyways (a prisoner's dilemma game)? In a capitalist system, we would offer anyone qualified increasing amounts of money until someone was willing to do it, while simultaneously a janitor might offer decreasing amounts of wages until someone is willing to hire him (an iterated version of the ultimatum game). Which finds the better solution?

 

---

 

If you can find a solution to the fair division problem for billions of people to fairly divide all of earth's resources and work among them all despite imperfect information (preferably in a Pareto optimal and envy-free fashion), then you will earn yourself the Nobel Peace Prize. But that's probably impossible.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Mr Skeptic

[Peron]

Fair division, also known as the cake cutting problem, is the problem of dividing a resource in such a way that all recipients believe that they have received a fair amount. The problem is easier when recipients have different measures of value of the parts of the resource: in the "cake cutting" version, one recipient may like marzipan, another prefers cherries, and so on—

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_division)

 

Their are better ways to cut a cake.

 

Brams, Jones, and Klamler describe a new method for cake-cutting, which they call SP (for "Surplus Procedure"). Using SP, the cake can be cut in such a way that the value Alice puts on her piece is approximately the same as the value Bob puts on his---so both feel, for example, that they are getting about 65% of what they want!

 

http://www.ams.org/ams/press/cake-cutting.html

[Zolar V]

well in answer to your qeustion of who is wiling to take the unwanted jobs, i would say this, there are 8 billion people in the world so someone somewhere would do it. in my society i let people decide what jobs they want without having to decide between money and thier favorite job. socialism is a really good solution, until you put people in it. then it just explodes because she wants this, he wants that, they want more. if you did not have natural selection so engrained in the human psych then socialism would be the perfect solution

if you had 100 people in a room all deciding to be socialist in their own community then proceede to do it, it would work. until you get that 95th person who wants more.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

could you imagine what kind of technological advances would occur if there was no need for funding? no oppression for radical "unethical" ideas? if we lived in as communistic state im sure we would have reached space and other planets by now. just because of the simple fact that people dream about it now, but in the communistic state you dont just have to dream you can.

[Sisyphus]

If by "communistic state" you mean "everybody has godlike powers that grants them whatever they want without anyone having to do it for them," then I agree.

[Phi for All]

could you imagine what kind of technological advances would occur if there was no need for funding? no oppression for radical "unethical" ideas? if we lived in as communistic state im sure we would have reached space and other planets by now. just because of the simple fact that people dream about it now, but in the communistic state you dont just have to dream you can.

Are we putting the "Capitalism Kills" argument aside or was I able to persuade you away from that stance? I'll assume I got through to you unless you can provide some better examples.

 

Communism, huh? From someone at Offutt AFB? I'll bet you're popular with that view.

 

In case you haven't noticed, we *have* reached space and other planets, and we did it under Capitalism. Communism has failed, as it offers no incentives to exceed what is expected of you. I don't see how you can say Communists don't have to dream, they just "can". And funding was necessary in the Soviet state as well. Communism doesn't mean unlimited wealth, just that the wealth is in the hands of the state, and they decide what gets funding or not.

[Mr Skeptic]

socialism is a really good solution, until you put people in it.

 

There's the kicker. Socialism fails to account for selfish human nature, and so fails. Capitalism is designed to work with selfish people, and by design gives them an incentive to do things. And yet, many find time to do volunteer work, or extra money to donate to charity.

 

Despite working in the capitalist system, we have also agreed to pay slightly more taxes, so that our own people won't starve or suffer too much from poverty. So in reality, we have the incentive to work that capitalism gives, yet we give some resources to people who don't have them. We have the best of both worlds in that regard.

[Zolar V]

i would have to agree with you socialism and communism fail to account for human selfishness and natural selection. in that regard i will agree with you in that capitalism is the best soulution due to it taking into account the aforementioned.

 

stating the soviet state as an example of communism is absurd. the soviet state was a totarian dictatorship, the idea that it was a communistic state was propaganda spread by the soviets to quell its people, and the US for giving the enemy a political face and tying that to a new earth shaking ideal that was dangerous to the polititions.

i however wonder at your statement, how exactly can you ask what people think of me just because of my comunistic view. how does that have any affect on me laying down all of my hopes, dreams, and aspirations to protect my great country and mine and your freedom. i dont see you doing any of that.

 

the communist and socialistic state has never been and will never be an achievable political state. it can only be an ideal because of the simplicity of the problem of humans.

 

i bet if i mentioned that i was a goth you would attack that and my service too

[Phi for All]

i bet if i mentioned that i was a goth you would attack that and my service too

You lose the bet. So far you haven't said anything outlandish about your goth-ness or your military service. You did make some adamant statements about Capitalism and Communism that I felt needed some perspective, especially when you made them as general statements instead of opinion statements.

 

When someone questions you when you say Capitalism kills, or Communism is the ideal state, why is it an "attack"?

[Zolar V]

Communism, huh? From someone at Offutt AFB? I'll bet you're popular with that view.

 

I was referring to that, if someone asks me aobut capitalism or communism i would be glad to steer them to something that has the answers to their questions.

 

if you really want a real example for capitalism kills, then here

 

Lets just take a look at the current american capitalism. every day there are hundreds if not thousands of people dying and starving because they do not have the weath to go and buy what they need. however under the american capitalism you do have the safty nets of food stamps, goodwill stores, food distrobution, soup kitchens, but are they really enough. if they were then you wouldn't have the destitute dying.

 

now you have too look at the people who owned their houses,in which the dead people lived, these landlords took what they could from the people to meet thier own needs at the expense of the dead people. so therefore landlords win, dead people, well died.

you can even bring this to another level. and say that the landlords had millions of dollars and no heart and took what he could from the people and killed them(eventually).

 

now if you were to look at a communistic society, you would not have people dying because they do not have what they need. Ever.

but like i said before the true communisitc state cannot exist because people are well people. i can imagine though that there could be a group of educated people that could infact make a small communistic society and it would work quite well.

 

(OPINION)

 

i think that due to the indoctrination of children into believing the principles of capitalism is probably the biggest reason why we cant have a communist society. while a child is growing up they get saturated with the concept of this is Mine and that is Yours. and i need to ask to use that, or i need to trade this to use/get that. when you are born i dont believe you have any idea of race,religion or moral guidance. you only have basic instinct. basic insticnt is over taken by taught morels, religion, and race. but basic instinct is also greedy.

however you can overcome that by indoctrination of the principles you want.

so therefore capitalistic indoctrination is probably the main reason why communism will not work, but if you were to indoctrinate communism goal.OR if you were to indoctrinate christianism, you could easily have a communistic state work just fine.

 

if you really look at christianism you will note that between humans it is supposed to be a communistic society but between god and human its a dictatorship.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Zolar V