Building a better society

[Kaze Araki]

Utopia doesn't need an agreeable criteria. Utopia's are generally created in order to address a particular problem that a group or leader has with societal organization.

The Utopia is a deviation from the standard model which attempts to fix that particular problem. It is either effective or ineffective in that end.

I humbly think you're straying too far from history. Utopia represent a perfect social, political and legal system - and not "generally created in order to address a particular problem". By your own dubious definition, every single system that we have today can be considered as utopian because they at least address one particular problem - henceforth, again, by your own definition; no current system can be considered as ineffective which is precisely the reason why I don't know where to start criticizing other models.

 

[Btmangan]

I humbly think you're straying too far from history. Utopia represent a perfect social, political and legal system - and not "generally created in order to address a particular problem". By your own dubious definition, every single system that we have today can be considered as utopian because they at least address one particular problem - henceforth, again, by your own definition; no current system can be considered as ineffective which is precisely the reason why I don't know where to start criticizing other models.

For those who think the status quo cannot be improved, they are free to argue that the current system is a Utopia.

Allow me to make this abundantly clear in case you are confused. Figure out what you dislike about the current system and post how you'd modify society within macro. . . micro. . . I honestly do not care. Point out what you dislike about someone else's model on whatever basis strikes your fancy. I sincerely hope you possess the creativity and mental fortitude to accomplish that. As with my previous sentence, I do not care.

I made my lack of caring more than abundant in my opening post.

If you are so baffled and confused by a lack of criteria, then perhaps this is not the thread for you. I find the lack of ability of people to merely navigate this thread without pontificating and quibbling over semantics to be astonishing. I honestly expected better, perhaps that everyone who posted would post a model for societal improvements they wished to see, and then posted, criticizing the reforms of other potential models. It seemed like a rather simple concept to me.

As for your criticizing my use of the word Utopia. You should probably criticize the multiple scores of Utopian movements that used the word in the way I use it now.

I am not referencing Sir Thomas Moore, but rather the various attempts at reform made by the German Protostants, the American Trancendentalists, and the Industrial Social Utopian branches.

NONE of which strove for perfection. Now, I'm sorry, but aside from a few individuals who have posted and critiqued proposed Utopian models, no one else seems to know what the hell is going on. This is frustrating as shit. I will leave this thread before my frustration mounts any further.

 

[Kaze Araki]

I'm sorry to say this, but your frustration means very little in clarifying the confusion.
Nor does the phrase I do not care proves anything but to say "anything goes" which makes it even more confusing.

This isn't even about semantic, since everyone already bypass the confusion of your terminology.
Indeed, this is something that is fundamental i.e. the philosophical basis in any model.

Now, I do not know much about reform by German Protestants or American Transcendentalists.
But I DO KNOW for sure that Utopian Socialism (not sure what Industrial Social Utopian means here, but probably a reference to Proudhon and Anarcho-Syndicalism) did not resides in"generally created in order to address a particular problem" but instead a complete model. I challenge you to prove me wrong here.
Amazingly enough, it is precisely because the system is perceived as too idealistic, as such that Marx and Engels labelled them "utopian" because there are no perceivable ways for such society to be created or sustained.

But confusion aside, my insistence on certain criterion is important in order for this discussion/debate to be meaningful.
Otherwise we will just parading our model without any clear reason why it is rejected or defended.
Thus, an agreement on what should be the fundamental criteria for a desired model must be discussed and agreed upon first.
Saying I don't care simply imply that Jim Jones' cult can also be considered as legitimate model if one's criteria is homogeneity.

Yet, is that what a model of utopia/more perfect society suppose to be?
I don't think so.

 

[Zero Phoenix]

D-d-d-d-destroyed!!!

That's what I like to see Kaze-dono. Put these people in their place. :smart:

In essence though, isn't this thread entirely redundant? On the one hand I'm pretty sure there are two other discussions exactly like this. I know Btmangan is new here but I'm sure the rules were to check to see a thread of the same nature does not already exist before creating a new one. Much like the finer points of a debate, you glossed over that particular item. Secondly, the only way to have a utopia is to either: A) Wipe out all human life or B) Eliminate free will.

As long as people have free will they will undoubtedly use that free will to terrorize others. Even if 99 percent of the population is just and noble, all it takes is one asshole to screw things up for everyone else. Just one and the game is over. So long as people have the "will" to choose to do good or evil, they will typically commit acts of evil if they will personally benefit from it.

Because I find myself having to simplify everything these days, what that means is that there are no systems you or anyone else could possibly come up with to create utopia and carry this thread. Extinction or mass psychological slaverly is the only way to create a utopia. But no one here has a system in place that will allow the facilitation of either of the two, nevermind the fact that some people might find those extremes, well, icky.

 

[Chimer]

As long as people have free will they will undoubtedly use that free will to terrorize others

instead of terrorize... i think "for their own individual benefit" could be a better formulation, even if they're benefits can means crushing the the others...

 

[Zero Phoenix]

instead of terrorize... i think "for their own individual benefit" could be a better formulation, even if they're benefits can means crushing the the others...

Am I to assume you allege that no one would use their free will simply to terrorize others, rather they will use their free will for their own benefit even if it does terrorize others? I suppose I'm saying that I interpret your argument as, "People cause harm to others via the actions not entirely because they aim to terrorize them but because they are simply more concerned about their own benefit?" Do I have a rough understanding of your argument?

 

[Chimer]

Am I to assume you allege that no one would use their free will simply to terrorize others, rather they will use their free will for their own benefit even if it does terrorize others? I suppose I'm saying that I interpret your argument as, "People cause harm to others via the actions not entirely because they aim to terrorize them but because they are simply more concerned about their own benefit?" Do I have a rough understanding of your argument?

yeah and yeah :thumb: i realize it was a bit evident... and part of your words... so well sorry for "poped up for nothing"... eace:
I sometimes forgot to think more before talk

 

[-lexus-]

Is it really that hard to understand what Btmangan tried to do here? Post what you dislike about the current society and post a possible way to fix it. Or, post an entire model that can replace the current model. Why do you focus on the word Utopia when that is just entirely besides the purpose of this thread?

 

[Zero Phoenix]

yeah and yeah :thumb: i realize it was a bit evident... and part of your words... so well sorry for "poped up for nothing"... eace:
I sometimes forgot to think more before talk

I suppose I understand your argument but what about agents of chaos? They typically try to prove there is no order, only disorder and they often allege that they commit acts of terror, acts of chaos not for selfish gain but (to them) to prove a point that the only way to live is without rules.

 

[Chimer]

Is it really that hard to understand what Btmangan tried to do here? Post what you dislike about the current society and post a possible way to fix it. Or, post an entire model that can replace the current model. Why do you focus on the word Utopia when that is just entirely besides the purpose of this thread?

cause utopia define the asked model... maybe...

I suppose I understand your argument but what about agents of chaos? They typically try to prove there is no order, only disorder and they often allege that they commit acts of terror, acts of chaos not for selfish gain but (to them) to prove a point that the only way to live is without rules.

well i think lot of agent of chaos" are issued from natural disorder of life creation/bug in the matrix... i think it's due to illness/disfunctions of their mind... but true even with that, their will always be troublemakers cause no one share the same point of wiew, where some thinks they are doing good, some will think the opposite... human being is like that. ( I THINK )

 

[Zero Phoenix]

Is it really that hard to understand what Btmangan tried to do here? Post what you dislike about the current society and post a possible way to fix it. Or, post an entire model that can replace the current model. Why do you focus on the word Utopia when that is just entirely besides the purpose of this thread?

Spare me the bleeding heart Lexus. Please.

1) No one cares what Btmangan tried to do here.

2) Don't try to act all humanitarian and pretend that this thread is more than what it is. Let's review:

What would the best way of building a more perfect society (Utopia)?

How would you approach this problem? What would be the focus of your reforms?

3) Nothing in your heartfelt argument has anything to do with the topic. How ironic.

4) As far as posting what people dislike about the current society and ways to fix it, I think everyone here did that. What you and Btmangan fail to understand is that there is no point in doing that without the WHY?

5) In case you didn't read the opening post, Utopia is NOT beside the point of this thread. Utopia is the ENTIRE point of this thread [I mean my god Chimer are you seeing this? This is the sort of shit that sets me off.] You better listen up Lexus and you too Btmangan because I'm getting tired having to repeat myself. The entire point of this thread is about Utopia. Why? Because Utopia is a state of a perfect society. Our society is not perfect, not Utopian, such is the reason we have so many issues with it. Btmangan created this thread to talk about the systems that could be used to create a Utopia. This thread LEXUS, is not about creating alternatives to the current society because oh shit guess what, any system that is "different" from the current system will only lead to the same problems. This thread is about putting forth what we feel is a perfect system that will lead to the creation of a Utopia and therefore an elimination of problems. This thread, LEXUS, is not about talking about "different" systems, it's about electing the "perfect" system.

NEXT!!

 

[Kaze Araki]

Is it really that hard to understand what Btmangan tried to do here? Post what you dislike about the current society and post a possible way to fix it. Or, post an entire model that can replace the current model. Why do you focus on the word Utopia when that is just entirely besides the purpose of this thread?

What is the justification for me to dislike or criticize certain model or our current model?
That's the fundamental that I'm trying to point out here.

I can simply say, I dislike the fact that I can't own all women as my sex slaves.
And the model that I presented will involve me owning all women as my private properties.
Now, you can criticize my model, but what is your justification?

This justification is a necessity that we need to establish first before we can give a cogent scrutiny.
i.e. the fundamental basis that underlay all models.



EDIT:
Nailed by @Zero Phoenix (in regard to WHY?).
@Cephal This is a perfect opportunity for me to scrutinize your model, but before that I need to know its philosophical basis first.

 

[Chimer]

[I mean my god Chimer are you seeing this? This is the sort of shit that sets me off.]

Got it :thumb:

 

[-lexus-]

What is the justification for me to dislike or criticize certain model or our current model?
That's the fundamental that I'm trying to point out here.

Well, how about you use the current model as the base point from which you measure it. I assume that even you at least like some aspects, movements, parts, ideas or ideals of what we have now. And even if you dont, I assume you can think of what is progress in your desired direction and what is not compared to today.

 

[Kaze Araki]

You did not answer the question.

 

[-lexus-]

Wouldnt your justification be that things could be improved compared to today? So, improvement of the life on this planet.

 

[Kaze Araki]

Elaborate clearly what you mean by "improvement of the life on this planet".

 

[-lexus-]

That is the thing you should decide for yourself. Indeed if you believe we should all have harems and stuff, argue for harems.

 

[Kaze Araki]

I'm asking you the basis of your justification, not mine.
What do you mean by "improvement of the life on this planet".

 

[Btmangan]

I'm asking you the basis of your justification, not mine.
What do you mean by "improvement of the life on this planet".

If this is your issue with my model, I already posted my reasoning.

I consider the inherent laziness of man to be problematic to human development and I created a model which resolved that difficulty.

I'm sorry to say this, but your frustration means very little in clarifying the confusion.
Nor does the phrase I do not care proves anything but to say "anything goes" which makes it even more confusing.

I apologize for getting frustrated, Kaze. It's never good debate form for me to get as patronizing and agitated as I was.

It's just that people are telling me that I am using the word "Utopia" incorrectly when I took a class on Utopian movements literally last semester.

But I DO KNOW for sure that Utopian Socialism (not sure what Industrial Social Utopian means here, but probably a reference to Proudhon and Anarcho-Syndicalism) did not resides in"generally created in order to address a particular problem" but instead a complete model. I challenge you to prove me wrong here.

That is what i meant by "Addressing a particular problem". Of course, I don't mean to say that there weren't Utopian communities that focused on multiple problems.

My point basically was "We're not reinventing the wheel here." What I'd hoped to see was. . . Adopt a contemporary model, find a problem with that model, and propose an alternative which addresses said problem.

The rest, I left up to the debtors. Kaze, you supplied a model for change (albeit vague). Lex hit the nail much more squarely on the head. He proposed reforms in Law, criminal justice, political organization, etc which addressed problems that Lex saw with contemporary society.

Amazingly enough, it is precisely because the system is perceived as too idealistic, as such that Marx and Engels labelled them "utopian" because there are no perceivable ways for such society to be created or sustained.

Marx and Engles, both well educated individuals, were probably referencing Utopia's Greek definition in a derisive sense.

But confusion aside, my insistence on certain criterion is important in order for this discussion/debate to be meaningful.
Otherwise we will just parading our model without any clear reason why it is rejected or defended.
Thus, an agreement on what should be the fundamental criteria for a desired model must be discussed and agreed upon first.
Saying I don't care simply imply that Jim Jones' cult can also be considered as legitimate model if one's criteria is homogeneity.

Okay, I get what you're saying here.

You and I have different styles when it comes to this. I value a far more "free-form" system where people are free to propose any nonsense they feel appropriate. I think there are some flaws with society, so does Lex. We both propose solutions to those flaws, criticize each other's solutions, praise that which we see as effective, combine the models, pat ourselves on the back, and we're done.

Sure, guys can propose a harem-based system, but they'll get ignored simply because lack of harems isn't an actual societal problem.