The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Yaakov ben Avraham on April 13, 2015, 11:58:28 PM
-
This is an interesting question. What do people think would be the ideal State? Please note that this does not ask what exact Government a State should have (ie, should it be monarchical, or a representative democracy, or what-have-you), although some forms of Government work better with certain types of States.
But I should like to see what people think here. Cast your vote, and don't hesitate to comment on why you cast your vote for a certain system if any. I am immensely curious. So fire away!
-
I like what the Scandinavian countries have going for them right now.
-
There is no such thing as a perfect state. Every setup will have its benefits and downsides.
-
Allow me to clarify:
What is the ideal State?
Clearly, no State is perfect, but what would be ideal, insofar as humans can get it to that point?
-
I still don't think there is one. I believe there would always be at least one very major faction of dissatisfied citizens.
-
Ok. I respect that point of view, whilst I disagree with it.
-
A constitutional Republic based on the United States constitution.
Evidence: Highest GDP baby! GDP! USA! GDP!
-
A constitutional Republic based on the United States constitution.
Evidence: Highest GDP baby! GDP! USA! GDP!
(http://i.giphy.com/1jQhFdU2XHYD6.gif)
-
Voted other because "There is no perfect State" is not an option.
-
A constitutional Republic based on the United States constitution.
Evidence: Highest GDP baby! GDP! USA! GDP!
I'm not so sure. Is the world's highest GDP (citation needed, BTW), necessarily the indicator of a nation's good government? We (the USA), per capita the population, have a higher percentage of our people locked up than any nation in the world, including such luminaries as China, Iran, and N. Korea. The Scandinavian nations are listed as being socially happier than Americans.
I'm not trying to shit on the USA, which is my country too. But we have to be honest with ourselves. IS money the source of all happiness? It would seem not.
-
Give us some magical yardstick to measure with, then. What would make a perfect State perfect? GDP? Prison Population? Health? Religion? Technology? Nuclear bombs?
-
Give us some magical yardstick to measure with, then. What would make a perfect State perfect? GDP? Prison Population? Health? Religion? Technology? Nuclear bombs?
A legitimate question, & a damned hard 1 to answer! Do note that I revised "the perfect State" to the "ideal State", which is a subtle, but substantial nonethless, difference. What would make for the Ideal State? I was the one who voted for Plato's Republic. I believe that the ruling class should be well trained in Philosophy, Logic, and Law. This background allows them to rule with a firm, wise hand. It has been some time since I read The Republic, but I recall that there were three classes in society, the Rulers, the Guardians, and the Artisans. Obviously, in modern terms, there would be a more complex society than this. But fundamentally, society would be ruled by Philosopher Kings in the line of Platonic Thought.
Of course, this assumes that the society is multi-confessional and multi-racial. In a society dominated by Jews or Muslims or Christians or Hindus, I'm fine with Jewish or Muslim or Christian or Hindu law prevailing, although I still think you can have Philosopher Kings, just geared toward Jewish or Muslim or Christian or Hindu Law. In a case where this occurs, every 50 years it should be determined whether it is socially advisable to continue to rule the State according to religious laws.
-
I'm not so sure. Is the world's highest GDP (citation needed, BTW), necessarily the indicator of a nation's good government? We (the USA), per capita the population, have a higher percentage of our people locked up than any nation in the world, including such luminaries as China, Iran, and N. Korea. The Scandinavian nations are listed as being socially happier than Americans.
I'm not trying to shit on the USA, which is my country too. But we have to be honest with ourselves. IS money the source of all happiness? It would seem not.
We keep bad people in prison and make mod money? Sounds like the best to me.
Results are all that matter baby. The United States has been the sole hegemonic power of the modern world, and is by, really any measure that makes sense, the most powerful nation ever. Largest military, largest economy, massive cultural influence. If this was Civ, we'd have won a long time ago.
-
I'm not so sure. Is the world's highest GDP (citation needed, BTW), necessarily the indicator of a nation's good government? We (the USA), per capita the population, have a higher percentage of our people locked up than any nation in the world, including such luminaries as China, Iran, and N. Korea. The Scandinavian nations are listed as being socially happier than Americans.
I'm not trying to shit on the USA, which is my country too. But we have to be honest with ourselves. IS money the source of all happiness? It would seem not.
We keep bad people in prison and make mod money? Sounds like the best to me.
Results are all that matter baby. The United States has been the sole hegemonic power of the modern world, and is by, really any measure that makes sense, the most powerful nation ever. Largest military, largest economy, massive cultural influence. If this was Civ, we'd have won a long time ago.
And our people are fucking socially miserable, suffering from disease and want that is unheard of in other advanced nations, the literacy rate is atrocious compared to Western European States, in education indicators such as science, mathematics, and the like we come in DEAD LAST behind Germany, France, Japan, South Korea, etc, need I go on? How much longer will we be the world's hegemon? Have you not read history? Babylonia, Persia, Rome, Britain, the USA. We can, and will be replaced. Its only a matter of time.
-
A legitimate question, & a damned hard 1 to answer! Do note that I revised "the perfect State" to the "ideal State", which is a subtle, but substantial nonethless, difference. What would make for the Ideal State? I was the one who voted for Plato's Republic. I believe that the ruling class should be well trained in Philosophy, Logic, and Law. This background allows them to rule with a firm, wise hand. It has been some time since I read The Republic, but I recall that there were three classes in society, the Rulers, the Guardians, and the Artisans. Obviously, in modern terms, there would be a more complex society than this. But fundamentally, society would be ruled by Philosopher Kings in the line of Platonic Thought.
Of course, this assumes that the society is multi-confessional and multi-racial. In a society dominated by Jews or Muslims or Christians or Hindus, I'm fine with Jewish or Muslim or Christian or Hindu law prevailing, although I still think you can have Philosopher Kings, just geared toward Jewish or Muslim or Christian or Hindu Law. In a case where this occurs, every 50 years it should be determined whether it is socially advisable to continue to rule the State according to religious laws.
You completely and utterly dodged the question. Is it really that hard for you to say "I don't know"?
And our people are fucking socially miserable, suffering from disease and want that is unheard of in other advanced nations, the literacy rate is atrocious compared to Western European States, in education indicators such as science, mathematics, and the like we come in DEAD LAST behind Germany, France, Japan, South Korea, etc, need I go on? How much longer will we be the world's hegemon? Have you not read history? Babylonia, Persia, Rome, Britain, the USA. We can, and will be replaced. Its only a matter of time.
Then an ideal state is measured by its education? You seem to be jumping around pointing out negatives without actually telling us what a positive is.
-
The ideal state is so subjective that you might as well ask "what is the ideal color"?
The answer then, is simple:
The ideal state is a state in which all of its inhabitants consider it an ideal state.
-
A legitimate question, & a damned hard 1 to answer! Do note that I revised "the perfect State" to the "ideal State", which is a subtle, but substantial nonethless, difference. What would make for the Ideal State? I was the one who voted for Plato's Republic. I believe that the ruling class should be well trained in Philosophy, Logic, and Law. This background allows them to rule with a firm, wise hand. It has been some time since I read The Republic, but I recall that there were three classes in society, the Rulers, the Guardians, and the Artisans. Obviously, in modern terms, there would be a more complex society than this. But fundamentally, society would be ruled by Philosopher Kings in the line of Platonic Thought.
Of course, this assumes that the society is multi-confessional and multi-racial. In a society dominated by Jews or Muslims or Christians or Hindus, I'm fine with Jewish or Muslim or Christian or Hindu law prevailing, although I still think you can have Philosopher Kings, just geared toward Jewish or Muslim or Christian or Hindu Law. In a case where this occurs, every 50 years it should be determined whether it is socially advisable to continue to rule the State according to religious laws.
You completely and utterly dodged the question. Is it really that hard for you to say "I don't know"?
And our people are fucking socially miserable, suffering from disease and want that is unheard of in other advanced nations, the literacy rate is atrocious compared to Western European States, in education indicators such as science, mathematics, and the like we come in DEAD LAST behind Germany, France, Japan, South Korea, etc, need I go on? How much longer will we be the world's hegemon? Have you not read history? Babylonia, Persia, Rome, Britain, the USA. We can, and will be replaced. Its only a matter of time.
Then an ideal state is measured by its education? You seem to be jumping around pointing out negatives without actually telling us what a positive is.
Absolutely by its education, yes. Basically, I would take Plato's Republic and not alter too much of it. Those who are best able to comprehend Philosophy, Logic, and Law should rule the State. Those who are best suited to fight should be Guardians. And those who are best suited to work should be what he called Artisans (although that term would be used loosely in the 21st Century).
And social mobility would be determined by the fact that everybody would be educated by the State, and whoever showed their talents early could be placed on a track suitable for their abilities. And those who refused to be obedient to law and order would not just be warehoused in prisons to become better criminals. They would work. They would be trained as Artisans for when they were released. Those who you could not release because of the viciousness of their crimes would become a permanent labour class. And once a prisoner was released, his crime would be FORGOTTEN, and he would be free to pursue that which he was trained to do. If a prisoner's crime needed to be remembered, that means he probably should never be released.
The ideal state is so subjective that you might as well ask "what is the ideal color"?
The answer then, is simple:
The ideal state is a state in which all of its inhabitants consider it an ideal state.
That is an interesting point, of course. But Dave, I think the question is a theoretical. Its not asking "What do Americans think is the Ideal State?", or "What do Frenchmen think is the Ideal State?". The question is more along the lines of what do YOU think is the Ideal State?
-
Absolutely by its education, yes. Basically, I would take Plato's Republic and not alter too much of it. Those who are best able to comprehend Philosophy, Logic, and Law should rule the State. Those who are best suited to fight should be Guardians. And those who are best suited to work should be what he called Artisans (although that term would be used loosely in the 21st Century).
And social mobility would be determined by the fact that everybody would be educated by the State, and whoever showed their talents early could be placed on a track suitable for their abilities. And those who refused to be obedient to law and order would not just be warehoused in prisons to become better criminals. They would work. They would be trained as Artisans for when they were released. Those who you could not release because of the viciousness of their crimes would become a permanent labour class. And once a prisoner was released, his crime would be FORGOTTEN, and he would be free to pursue that which he was trained to do. If a prisoner's crime needed to be remembered, that means he probably should never be released.
So the ideal state is South Korea, followed by Finland and the US. Amazing.
-
Absolutely by its education, yes. Basically, I would take Plato's Republic and not alter too much of it. Those who are best able to comprehend Philosophy, Logic, and Law should rule the State. Those who are best suited to fight should be Guardians. And those who are best suited to work should be what he called Artisans (although that term would be used loosely in the 21st Century).
And social mobility would be determined by the fact that everybody would be educated by the State, and whoever showed their talents early could be placed on a track suitable for their abilities. And those who refused to be obedient to law and order would not just be warehoused in prisons to become better criminals. They would work. They would be trained as Artisans for when they were released. Those who you could not release because of the viciousness of their crimes would become a permanent labour class. And once a prisoner was released, his crime would be FORGOTTEN, and he would be free to pursue that which he was trained to do. If a prisoner's crime needed to be remembered, that means he probably should never be released.
So the ideal state is South Korea, followed by Finland and the US. Amazing.
Oddly, I have heard the first two mentioned before, but why do you mention them in connection with what I wrote? And why the USA? We don't come anywhere close to what I wrote!
-
Oddly, I have heard the first two mentioned before, but why do you mention them in connection with what I wrote? And why the USA? We don't come anywhere close to what I wrote!
You mentioned education, so I of course measured the highest form of education (college) and how many obtain that education. I like how you once again complain about something but then don't actually say what's wrong.
-
No, IRUSH, you misunderstand. I wasn't complaining, I was quite curious. I didn't realise that America had that high a population that got degrees. Given the average idiocy of the typical American, I was surprised. I am NOT surprised about South Korea or Finland, but I would expect the next country to be Japan or something, not the USA. Maybe I'm just not around the right people. And granted, we have a larger number of people in the population, so we will have a larger number of people getting degrees. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but I am guessing that percentage of the population, other countries probably do better than we do?
-
Out of the top 10 universities on the planet, 7 of them are in the US. I think you vastly underestimate how good the education system is in the United States. Of course, tiny nations will have better overall percentages of their population. It is easy to be that way when a nation has little or no rural areas, when the majority of the US is rural.
-
Out of the top 10 universities on the planet, 7 of them are in the US. I think you vastly underestimate how good the education system is in the United States. Of course, tiny nations will have better overall percentages of their population. It is easy to be that way when a nation has little or no rural areas, when the majority of the US is rural.
Well, of course we have some of the best universities in the world, but how many Americans actually make use of the things? That was my point. I have an MA and two BAs, and I don't dispute that university education is excellent. But having gone through the public education system in California, I can assure you that I did NOT get those degrees based on my public education. California has one of the worst education systems in the country, if not the whole world. I would as soon shoot myself in the head as send a child of mine, if I had one, to a California Public School.
Having taught at university, I was appalled to see the status of the education system and the university freshman that came through my door. I think YOU would be surprised at how atrocious our public education system is, and, even at the university system level, just how ideologically driven it is.
-
Ah, yes, anecdotal experience. I'm sure that dumb freshman only exist in the US based on your thorough analysis.
-
Oh, I expect they exist everywhere. But I am not so sure they are tolerated to the degree that they are here. But this is getting rather off topic. The question was the Ideal State. My question to you is the following, to wit:
What do YOU think is the Ideal State? Not some mythical country's citizens, who you know damn well can never agree on how to exit a wet paper bag, but you yourself. Just in your head, what in your mind would be the Ideal State? I am honestly curious, even if I think you are full of it, I am curious as to what people's opinions are. I know mine, but I would love to hear what other people think.
-
I already said what I think: there is no perfect/ideal state. It doesn't exist. If you want an ideal government you'd have to fill every possible role with robots and then have those robots govern other robots that never deviate from a set of rules. All governments are fantastic on paper, but don't work because people will game the system. Humans will naturally try to circumvent rules even if it is of negative consequence to others.
-
Imagine if Christianity, Judaism or Islam, or any other foreign religion, had never entered Europe...
-
I already said what I think: there is no perfect/ideal state. It doesn't exist. If you want an ideal government you'd have to fill every possible role with robots and then have those robots govern other robots that never deviate from a set of rules. All governments are fantastic on paper, but don't work because people will game the system. Humans will naturally try to circumvent rules even if it is of negative consequence to others.
Well, you have a valid point, of course. Humans basically suck. But what, in an ideal world, would be an Ideal State?
Imagine if Christianity, Judaism or Islam, or any other foreign religion, had never entered Europe...
Well, Christianity is basically a European religion in many ways, because it takes Judaism and cleverly blends it with European Paganism. But, if you were to take Christianity and chuck it, and just have the Germanic, Norse, and Greco-Roman traditions, and of course the Slavic traditions, I expect Plato and Aristotle would still be ruling supreme.
-
Well, you have a valid point, of course. Humans basically suck. But what, in an ideal world, would be an Ideal State?
I just answered that, too. An ideal world would be entirely populated by unchanging self-governed robots that literally do nothing.
-
Well, you have a valid point, of course. Humans basically suck. But what, in an ideal world, would be an Ideal State?
I just answered that, too. An ideal world would be entirely populated by unchanging self-governed robots that literally do nothing.
That sounds quite dystopian to me, but ok. Lets hope said robots don't malfunction in any way.
-
That sounds quite dystopian to me, but ok. Lets hope said robots don't malfunction in any way.
They don't do anything, therefore a malfunction by definition would be impossible because they never functionally did anything to begin with.
-
That sounds quite dystopian to me, but ok. Lets hope said robots don't malfunction in any way.
They don't do anything, therefore a malfunction by definition would be impossible because they never functionally did anything to begin with.
So if they never do anything, they can't be defined as a State, which does something, ie governs a territory and a population of persons living within that territory.
-
So if they never do anything, they can't be defined as a State, which does something, ie governs a territory and a population of persons living within that territory.
That does not always qualify as a functional purpose.
-
So if they never do anything, they can't be defined as a State, which does something, ie governs a territory and a population of persons living within that territory.
That does not always qualify as a functional purpose.
That sounds more like you are pushingfor a purely anarchic non-State.
-
I choose the united federation of planets circa season 3 of TNG.
-
I choose the united federation of planets circa season 3 of TNG.
Why specifically?
-
Benevolent dictatorship would be my preferred option. Run by a leader so rich as to be incorruptible and with only the best interests of his subjects at heart.
No one really wants democracy. You always end up with two teams of the same persuasion boring the crap out of you with lies and squabbling whilst pandering to rich friends. You just want the country to be run well.
-
Benevolent dictatorship would be my preferred option. Run by a leader so rich as to be incorruptible and with only the best interests of his subjects at heart.
No one really wants democracy. You always end up with two teams of the same persuasion boring the crap out of you with lies and squabbling whilst pandering to rich friends. You just want the country to be run well.
Well, its a thought. Plato's Republic pushed the rule of the Aristocracy. Rather than explain it myself, I shall quote the rather well written Wikipedia section on it under the article "Plato's Five Regimes".
QUOTE-Aristocracy is the form of government (politeia) advocated in Plato's Republic. This regime is ruled by a philosopher king, and thus is grounded on wisdom and reason. The aristocratic state, and the man whose nature corresponds to it, are the objects of Plato's analyses throughout much of The Republic's books, as opposed to the other four types of states/men, that are studied primarily in Book VIII.
The aristocratic state that Plato idealizes is composed of three caste-like parts: the ruling class, made up of the aforementioned philosophers-kings (who are otherwise identified as having souls of gold); the auxiliaries of the ruling caste, made up of soldiers (whose souls are made up of silver), and whose job in the state is to force on the majority the order established by the philosophers; and the majority of the people (souls of either bronze or iron), who in contrast to the first two classes are allowed to own property and produce goods for themselves, but are also obliged to sustain with their own activities their rulers' — who are forbidden from owning property in order to preclude that the policies they undertake be tainted by personal interests.
The aristocratic man is better represented by Plato's brand of philosopher: a man whose character and ambitions have been forged into those ideal for a just ruler through a rigorous education system designed to train intellectuals that are selfless and upright, and whose souls have been made calm and aware of the absolute Good by learning the Truth based on the Platonic Ideas. Plato envisages for this philosopher a disposition and ability that makes him the ideal governor of any state precisely because his soul knows the Truth of the Good and he is therefore not only dedicated to establishing the Good in the state but is also incapable of desiring anything but the Good, for both the state and himself. For Plato, the knowledge of Good constitutes the happiest state possible in life, in comparison to which other forms of happiness —- material wealth, fame and power — are but shadows. Thus the man who knows the Idea of Good is not tempted to abuse power for his own gain; and, through his knowledge of the true virtues, is able to establish the ideal conditions for the citizens of his state to live the Good life.
In contrast to historical aristocracies, Plato's resembles a meritocracy or proto-technocracy of sorts. In it, a big government state keeps track of the innate character and natural skills of the citizens' children, and then directs them to the education that best suits those traits. In this manner, a child with a gold soul born to parents with silver, bronze or iron souls will not be held back by his inferior birth and will instead be educated to levels above his kin according to his golden qualities. Conversely, from parents with gold and silver souls, a child born with a bronze or an iron soul is educated to only the level earned by his natural aptitudes.-END QUOTE
That is what is ideal for me. I agree that democracy is one of the worst forms of government. I mean, all you have to do is observe the quality (or rather, the lack thereof) of the people who vote to determine who we are going to get elected to office. Its quite horrid, really.
-
Benevolent dictatorship would be my preferred option. Run by a leader so rich as to be incorruptible and with only the best interests of his subjects at heart.
No one really wants democracy. You always end up with two teams of the same persuasion boring the crap out of you with lies and squabbling whilst pandering to rich friends. You just want the country to be run well.
I'd be okay with living in that Country. such a person doesn't exist though.
-
It would be possible to create a general intelligence AI that could function similarly to a 'benevolent dictator' but we still end up with the question of how to go about doing that.
-
I choose the united federation of planets circa season 3 of TNG.
Why specifically?
The UFP is presented as a sort of perfectly efficient Union of socialism and democracy. Everyone has their needs fulfilled and can do what their heart desires. They are economically prosperous and culturally prolific. Their conflict almost exclusively originates from without and their judicial system is geared towards rehabilitation and is quite successful at that. It is basically a socio-political love fest.
-
It would be possible to create a general intelligence AI that could function similarly to a 'benevolent dictator' but we still end up with the question of how to go about doing that.
G-d help us if the AI ever malfunctioned though. Then we'd all be f----d, and at the mercy of a malfunctioning supercomputer.
-
The ideal state is one which satisfies the material and psychological needs of its people, is flexible enough to alter itself to changing needs, and is governed with the support of the majority and the consent of all.
I don't think such a state exists or has ever existed, but ingredients for an ideal state would be a high quality of education, low levels of financial and legal inequality, stable and reliable infrastructure, freedom of thought and expression, including a safety net to support people who cannot support themselves.
-
The ideal state for me is one where everyone in it agrees with me and the government runs itself in a way that I approve of.
The form of government is irrelevant.