Building a better society

#41
The increase of A does not imply the decrease of B, unless the correlation between both is mathematically defined.
But this also would mean that such claim is void when applied to the real world, as mathematics is anything but real.
Thus the logical fallacy.
Economically as you increase resource in one point you decrease the potential quantity that the other point can posses. Which is quite logical and works very good when talking about a society. Since we do not posses unlimited resources this process affects us. We can not create anything toward a perfect society since what we give to one aspect we must limit the other aspect proportionally.
 

noex1337

Emmie was here
#42
Economically as you increase resource in one point you decrease the potential that the other point has. Which is quite logical nd works very good when talking about a society. Since we do not posses unlimited resources this process affects us. We can not create anything toward a perfect society since what we give to one aspect we must limit the other aspect proportionally.
So you're back to the assumptions instead of supporting your viewpoints with facts and historical data. Absolutely useless.
 

Kaze Araki

Libertarian Communist
#46
Near perfect is still a dubious phrase but it is still not a perfect society.
This also render your claim as void, since near perfect is anything but impossible.
 
#47
We remove free will. Although that doesn't necessarily make a "Utopia", it brings us that much closer to one. Ethically, it can be looked at as a dystopia, but if it removes crime and people can live lives to their fullest (unbeknownst to them that their minds have been altered), then I'm not sure what the problem is.
Utopia /juːˈtoʊpiə/ is an ideal community or society possessing a perfect socio-politico-legal system.
^The definition, just so we're all on the same page
 

noex1337

Emmie was here
#48
No, I blame your ignorance for bring up a subject and demanding I explain it with the grounds that if I can not my whole point is false.
:sigh:

I refuse to waste my time with you if you're unable to see the error in your own argument.

Now back to the topic at hand, the first step I would make towards building a better society would be decreasing the interclass barriers and the poverty level, while creating a system that rewards hard work and provides no assistance for laziness. Now, while I may have no idea how to go about doing this, I do realize this as a flaw in the current system in America. The little we do to help poverty (wellfare and the like) seem to be abused by those who'd rather sit on their ass and do nothing. While I realize that there should be assistance given to those who need it and are unable to help themselves, there's nothing more disgusting than leeches who've become complacent with feeding off of whatever they can milk from the government. I guess, a part of that would be creating a society that is less lazy and more proactive about helping their needs as well as those of another, but how do you give people incentive to care for the well being of those around them?
 
#50
This thread is getting massively derailed.

Instead of discussing alternative models for societies, we're discussing whether or not it's possible to improve society? . . .

Of course it's possible to improve society. Who here is going to argue that Poland under the throes of feudalistic serfdom (Basically agricultural slavery of 95% of the population) is equivalent to modern day Belgium?

Society can be improved.

Now that we've settled that, if we can start debating different models for said improvement. . . I was looking forward to the showdown between the more autocratic models and the more idealistic ones.


@ Everyone.

There's a reason I said building a "More perfect" society and not just a "perfect society" lol.

Of course perfection is impossible. But improvement certainly isn't impossible.

My system

If I were to create a Utopian society, I would focus on the inherent problem of man's inherent laziness. Like Zero Phoenix, I would focus on education. I would create a system of communal raising similar to the Agoge in Sparta, with major differences.

The training would begin at age 7 and the training would consist of three branches.

Branch 1 (Strength): Combat, Physical Fitness (Clearly, Combat in this branch would be split by gender) (About 20% of the education time would be in this area)

Branch 2 (Intellect): Math, Logic, Science, Reading, and Writing. (55% of the education time in this area)

Branch 3 (Specialization): Rhetoric, Military strategy, Leadership, and the Arts. (Each student would chose 1 specialization) (25% of the education time in this area)

Depending on the proficiency in each branch, a child would receive a certain amount of food. It would be balanced out so that on average, the weakest 10% would die through the entire process, thus ensuring an evolutionary trend.

Training would end for the surviving 90% at about the age of 17-18, as with high school in the US.

The education would be the only aspect of the society that was autocratic. The rest of society would be based upon a democratic system, with freedom of speech, assembly, etc.

This society hinges on indoctrination and pridefullness to sustain the acceptance of the Agoge system. The process is designed to create stronger, more hardworking, and more competitive citizens who had been trained fiercely to succeed in all their ventures.
 

noex1337

Emmie was here
#51
This thread is getting massively derailed.

Instead of discussing alternative models for societies, we're discussing whether or not it's possible to improve society? . . .

Of course it's possible to improve society. Who here is going to argue that Poland under the throes of feudalistic serfdom (Basically agricultural slavery of 95% of the population) is equivalent to modern day Belgium?
Don't even bother, the counter argument will be filled with assumptions since its proponent knows nothing of Poland either.
 
#52
This thread is getting massively derailed.

Instead of discussing alternative models for societies, we're discussing whether or not it's possible to improve society? . . .

Of course it's possible to improve society. Who here is going to argue that Poland under the throes of feudalistic serfdom (Basically agricultural slavery of 95% of the population) is equivalent to modern day Belgium?

Culture can be improved.

Now that we've settled that, if we can start debating different models for said improvement. . . I was looking forward to the showdown between the more autocratic models and the more idealistic ones.
My point was never that society can not be improved. It is that anything near perfect is impossible. The distribute of resource maybe increase society's prosperity but at a point it make near perfection impossible since it is distributed proportionately.
 
#53
But the "improvement" of society itself is so subjective where there might be a stand-off between the opinions.

Although we cannot define or comprehend the "perfect" socio-politico-legal system, something perfect must be acknowledged by everyone as perfect (oddly enough, we can't comprehend it, and thereby begins the infinite regress).

First step to a better society is to get Stephen Harper exiled from Canada imo
 
#54
My point was never that society can not be improved. It is that anything near perfect is impossible. The distribute of resource maybe increase society's prosperity but at a point it make near perfection impossible since it is distributed proportionately.
Utopia, historically, isn't a reference to a perfect society.

It's just a term for an alternative model of society which is superior to the current system.

Utopian experiments along those lines were extremely prevalent among the transcendentalists, the German minorities, and certain British and American industrial experiments.

None of these Utopian ventures claimed to be creating a perfect society, just a better one.
 

Kaze Araki

Libertarian Communist
#55
Then let us elaborate on the term "near perfect" so we can discuss its probability.
No, thanks.
I agree with Noex here.
Furthermore, I've pointed out in my first post how the dubious words should be corrected.


This thread is getting massively derailed.

Instead of discussing alternative models for societies, we're discussing whether or not it's possible to improve society? . . .

Of course it's possible to improve society. Who here is going to argue that Poland under the throes of feudalistic serfdom (Basically agricultural slavery of 95% of the population) is equivalent to modern day Belgium?

Culture can be improved.

Now that we've settled that, if we can start debating different models for said improvement. . . I was looking forward to the showdown between the more autocratic models and the more idealistic ones.
So long as you didn't amend your usage of words, the problem will persist.
More perfect is a redundant words, and to equate it with utopia will confuse people even more.
Also, you need to establish the criteria for what constitute as improvement first.
For example, your model of society in my view is just a cult of brainwashed people.
But you can argue this as improvement because we have no agreeable criterion for it.
 

noex1337

Emmie was here
#56
My point was never that society can not be improved. It is that anything near perfect is impossible. The distribute of resource maybe increase society's prosperity but at a point it make near perfection impossible since it is distributed proportionately.
[MENTION=1268]Denuo Prince[/MENTION]: I fail to see your point. The thread title is about building a better society, improving on what we currently have (as far as I understand at least).
 
#57
Utopia, historically, isn't a reference to a perfect society.

It's just a term for an alternative model of society which is superior to the current system.

Utopian experiments along those lines were extremely prevalent among the transcendentalists, the German minorities, and certain British and American industrial experiments.

None of these Utopian ventures claimed to be creating a perfect society, just a better one.
From my knowledge Utopia refers to perfection or a state of perfection. Utopia is a strong word to use for just "better", in my mind at least.

@Denuo Prince: I fail to see your point. The thread title is about building a better society, improving on what we currently have.
I am aware but his use of the word "Utopia" is the reason I brought up my idea. You on the other hand seem to be fighting my words without even understanding them.
 
#58
From my knowledge Utopia refers to perfection or a state of perfection. Utopia is a strong word to use for just "better", in my mind at least.
Utopia is Greek for "Nowhere".

Technically, it is a reference to an unattainable perfect ideal. So if you want to be literal, creating Utopia is impossible /endthread.

But practically (and historically), Utopian movements and groups attempted to build a superior societal structure on the basis of fundamental changes in the society. I didn't think people would nitpick the term so much. . .
 

noex1337

Emmie was here
#59
I am aware but his use of the word "Utopia" is the reason I brought up my idea. You on the other hand seem to be fighting my words without even understanding them.
Your words seem contradictory at best. On one hand, you say improvements in one area detract from that of another (vaguely proposing that improvement is impossible as there is no net gain), yet on the other hand, apparently improvement is not impossible. Which is why I ask that you pick a standpoint and support it with evidence of some form.

And yes, i understand that "utopia" is impossible, but is there anything preventing us from approaching this unachievable asymptote?
 
#60
Your words seem contradictory at best. On one hand, you say improvements in one area detract from that of another (vaguely proposing that improvement is impossible as there is no net gain), yet on the other hand, apparently improvement is not impossible. Which is why I ask that you pick a standpoint and support it with evidence of some form.
To be factual I have never excluding the last post even said improving. My words have always been about Utopia near perfection and terms along those lines. Their will be a net gain as that is how improvement is created. But that distribution will limit how far society can go nowhere near Utopia or anything close to it.