A perfect society?

Not sure where to post this so here goes, a society as it is now but there is no money involved. You perform your job just as you do now but you do not get paid, when you go to a store you pick what you need and take it. Same with cars, travel and anything else. People perform the jobs as they always have except everything is free and as long as they continue the system will not fall apart. Lets say you perform your job to a certain age and then you can retire, meaning you still take advantege of the system and you can enjoy the rest of your life without having to worry about anything. The only problem with this that I can see is human greed, it might not work because "mine is better then yours" mentality. Any thoughts?

What do you plan for the percentage of people that are currently on welfare and have no intention of working for a dollar now, much less in the future...???

It is not greed that would be the downfall of such a system, it is Laziness and the old, "The Country Owes Me a Living" mantra we hear so often...

Semper

In theory your society would work. Everybody contributes and then shares equally in the proceeds. Sounds great.

However, there is one huge obstacle to your perfect society; human greed and avarice. There will always be people who aren't satisfied and wish the whole pie not just a piece. It is human nature to acquire more and to have that which their neighbor has or might have. I seriously doubt that as a species we will ever overcome that.

Another obstacle is the one that Semper pointed out you will always have two groups who would frankly screw it up for everyone else. Those who will not work and feel entitled to a free ride. You see these individuals in every walk of life. Laziness crosses all lines. The second group would be the criminal element; those who not only will not work or don't want to but will take whatever they want by force. What they want could and is everything from some one's life to sex to personal property.

It would be wonderful if your vision was attainable but this is far from a perfect world. Perhaps we can dream of the day when it is possible but that would be very far in the future; so far frankly that I can't imagine it and I have a good imagination.

Some day perhaps your vision of a perfect society may happen until then the best we can do is strive to improve ourselves and our corner of the world.

Please keep dreaming sometimes dreams come true.

I nominate this post as "The Most Liberal Post of the Month Award"

Anybody want to know why liberalism is the easiest choice anyone can make? Because there is no thought required, only feelings!

Everything is free? What are the people that sell things for a living now going to do?

What would stop a Doctor from quitting his job to work at Taco Bell? A job is a job right?

Greed has nothing to do with anything. It's called common sense. Why would the people that are working hard, and making it in life continue to do so if there is no payoff? Why would people try to better themselves if there is no payoff to it?

We are living in the perfect society right now. It's called Capitalism!

[edit on 22-7-2007 by RRconservative]

RR I must disagree with you again. Greed is the primary motivator of humans. I've no issue with that heck without it we would all be content to lay around and not better ourselves. Many people just so you know become doctors because they want to. And as I said it's a nice theory; nice but not practical

RR, to some degree is correct...

However, I will say that the plan would be great in a perfect world. However, we don't live in a perfect world.

One thing that I have always said about socialism or communism, whichever term you prefer, is that it's a great idea that will never work. For one, it completely goes against the nature of the human mind.

Socialism states: What is yours is mine, and what is mine is yours.

Human mind states: No, what is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours.

Some of the ideas of liberalism are great and are well intentioned. However, one of the things that I have noticed about liberals is that they form these ideas without any consideration of the consequences of them. They don't think in terms of what effect that their idea is going to have 20-30 years down the road; everything is NOW to them.

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Socialism states: What is yours is mine, and what is mine is yours.

No, that is Communism, which is a very different thing.
Communism and
Socialism are like Christianity and Judaism, having the same roots and having some
similarities, but two completely different thing.

Socialism is what's mine is mine, what's yours is yours, but when it comes to things that
are needed by all, belong to all.

SpeakofTruth: What socialism should say is "whats mine is mine and whats yours is yours, but let's all go in as equal investors in a factory so that we can make what is mine and what is yours together at cost".

Suppose you and I were friends in real life living in the same area, and we each independently had the great idea to retrofit our cars to run on natural gas and build bio mass generators in our back yards. But then we each realize that we don't have the time, and zoning laws forbid us from doiing it in our back yards, etc, so neither of us can afford to do it. The oil companies have got us because they have the capital to do things that we don't.

So we decide to socialize the project. We each talk to 9 friends and get them into the idea. The 20 of us together then all go in equal shares to form a small company, buy a bit of property where it will be allowable, and hire one full-time employee to manage our little bio-mass generator, and in return we each recieve an equal share of the gas produced.

Now we've got enough capital to do it, and we can do it cheaper than the oil company can do it for us because while the oil company is marking up prices to make a return for its investors, we are doing it for ourselves at cost, because our incentive is to get the gas, not to turn a profit.


In general
I think socialism gets a bad rap because early on it made the mistake of believing that basic market principles could be suspended, when they can't. If socialism were made to work with the market rather than against it, elements of it could work, though not quite to the degree described in the OP.

Market principles, at their root, describe observed human behavior, and it is very hard to control people's behavior. People will get as much as they can in exchange for what they have to offer, and when you try to prevent that, they will find a way around it.

An exchange- having to pay for things- would seem to be necessary in most cases to prevent people from taking more than they need. So free goods just won't do it.

The way I see it, I think the way to go with certain necessities is to have a single government corporation for the production of the given necessity, in which the taxpayer is a shareholder, and thus a partial owner.

Competition is not forbidden. The nature of the way the corporation funds itself and operates will help it outcompete others for its share of the market, but it only provides the bare minimum, and private corporations will pick up the slack for luxuries at a higher rate.

Simple example:
So you've got a city of a million people. Everybody in the city, regardless of income, pays a flat dollar amount towards building the city's electrical infrastructure. They own one equal share of the city's power- an amount that is worked out so that it will be enough to power the average family's house.
If you live alone in a one bedroom apartment, you have a surplus, and the city buys your surplus power, not at a rate proportional to your share, but at the price determined by the private market.
If you have a large house, you have a defecit, and the city sells you power from the surplus at the same market rate mentioned above.

So you are getting what you really need at cost, but if you make the private decision to go for more, there are people out there seeking profit who will meet your desires if you're willing to pay.

Private power companies provide power for commercial and industrial uses, so you don't run into the issue of tax payers subsidizing for-profit industries or of industry being asked to pay extra for the benefit of others, and are also able to cover the domestic uses if there is a defecit.

What basically happens here is that the private citizen, if he makes the choice to use only what he needs, gets a significant discount because he is the investor in the government corporation, and his profit motive is in electricity rather than dollars, thus no markup. On the other hand, if he wants more, market forces will provide a check on his greed. Unfairness doesn't even become an issue because it's not even progressive. Everyone is paying their fair share, it's just that since we all need it, we may as well go in together and get a better deal on it.


On the other hand, not everything can be socialized. There are never going to be socialized strip clubs, socialized video arcades, etc. Everyone needs the necessities, so good/service motivated investment by taxpayers will work. But a very thin part of the population uses any one given form of entertainment, so that wouldn't work. Almost everyone would be getting a rebate on the strip club- it would be ridiculous.

Also when it comes to necessities, performance-determined pay will get you innovation. If the chemist is given some freedom and gets a big bonus if he discovers the next big drug, the pharmecuetical lab will still give you innovation under socialism.
But when it comes to things like entertainment, the investor has to be the innovator, so private investment is best.

It's up to the investor to figure out whether or not people will really pay to go up in an airplane and bowl in a zero-g dive, or to get a lap dance and a barbershop shave at the same time (with an ethanol IV so that you can have a beer without getting a nasty cut). The stripbar-barbershop and the zero-g airborne bowling alley will NEVER be invented by a 100% socialist state. You've got to have a private sector to take those kinds of risks.


And of course there is more to society than economics. What about the justice system, the education sytem, culture, etc? What place does religion and ethnic origin play in the perfect society?

The Great Failed Experiment...

Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and movements which aim to improve society through collective and egalitarian action; and to a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community.

~~~~~~~

The appearance of the term "socialism" is variously attributed to Pierre Leroux in 1834,[12] or to Marie Roch Louis Reybaud in France, or else in England to Robert Owen, who is considered the father of the cooperative movement.[

~~~~~~~

The Communist Manifesto says "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles" [24] and famously declared that the working class would be the "grave digger" of the capitalist class.

In the USA, the Communist Party USA was formed in 1919 from former adherents of the Socialist Party of America. One of the founders, James Cannon, later became the leader of Trotskyist forces outside the Soviet Union.

~~~~~~~

In the 1960s and 1970s, new social forces began to change the political landscape in the Western world. Opposition to the Vietnam War was growing and becoming a focus for socialists, particularly the far left.

~~~~~~~

After winning re-election in December 2006, President Chávez said: "Now more than ever, I am obliged to move Venezuela's path towards socialism."

~~~~~~~

Socialists have played a significant role in organizing the anti-war protests.

~~~~~~~

According to some accounts, the use of the words "socialism" or "communism" was related to the perceived attitude toward religion in a given culture. In Europe, "communism" was considered to be the more atheistic of the two. In England, however, that sounded too close to communion with Catholic overtones; hence atheists preferred to call themselves socialists.[
Wiki

Now THAT all sounds very similar to the evening new today, doesn't it?

Semper

Originally posted by iori_komei

No, that is Communism, which is a very different thing.

To me there is not much difference. They are both systems where the state basically takes care of people within a society.

[edit on 24-7-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

Speaker,

Most scholars agree that socialism will inevitably lead to communism. The two ideals are philosophically linked and the conclusions drawn by social anthropologists are just that.

So in essence you are correct.

Semper

Thank you, Semper. While there may be some distinctions between Socialism and Communism, both systems are basically designed around a dependent populace.

The trouble with such a system, as fara s I can see, is that it pretty much leaves the masses at the mercy of the state... Basically it gives the state room to say, "Hey, if you just go along with our rules and regulations, we will provide everything for you. However, you step out of line, then that's your ass."

I personally think that we have the best system in the world right now. However, one of the troubling things about our current system is that it is turning toward fascism. What is fascism? Well, who better to tell us than Mussolini?

Mussolini basically said that a better word for fascism is "corporatism." It is basically a system where corporations make the policies... That seems to be a lot like the system we have lived in for the last 30 years or so.

Well I still believe that the needs and demands of the populace will control and adequately "police" any corporations that exist...

As for Fascism...

That too is much like Socialism and the resultant arm, Communism.

Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on, but not limited to, ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes
WIKI

That is why so many Liberals are so brainwashed in their beliefs. They fail to understand that the market is not perfect, but more importantly neither is Man.

We have been shown through history that man is the most fallible of creatures when presented with any form of power. The Liberal/Socialists refuse to learn from history and continue to want to give more power to the Government and there by more to Man.

Even though the Corporate structure may be corrupt on some levels, it is still regulated quite nicely by simple supply and demand. There is no single powerful Man that can control supply and demand and therefor the system as it stands, is safe from that form of corruption.

Semper

Well, Semper, for me, the thought of either a Fascist or a Socialist state is frightening. I don't support either venture.

Socialism is nothing like Fascism.

True Socialism shares more similarities with libertarianism than it does with Fascism,
though perhaps what I should say, and mind you I should'nt even have to, democratic socialism.

A true Socialist society would have a small to medium government, and democratic control
of resources that are to scare for people to take as much as they like of, while allowing
people to be free and for democratic systems.


An interesting side note.
Communism and Libertarianism actually do share one major trait, that is the dissolution
of the state or in other words controlled anarchy.

I'd like to make just a couple of observations.

The first is in regard to the point (certainly a correct one in many contemporary and historical examples of communism and sometimes socialism as well) that those two systems necessarily create a dependent population.
It would seem to me that this point relies upon a divide between the government and the people. Afterall, even in any system where people could be considered independent, they will still rely on cooperation with others on some levels. Therefore, if socialism were practiced in a government truly of the people, the dependence upon cooperation through government would be no more harmful to us than our current cooperation through corporations etc.
It is a valid point that at present we are economically reliant on corporations in which we have no say, as opposed to governments in which we have partial say. Our power to police corporations is less than compelling. It works when Jack in the Box sells bad meat. It didn't work in my home town when they built a mall on cheap land in a poor black neighborhood, then eminent domained and bulldozed the surrounding homes for an extra parking lot they didn't need, because they felt the neighbors were bad for business. Business doesn't need anything even remotely near the majority of the population to stay in the black, so it is free to defy many for the benefit of a few.


Also, as I have pointed out, although socialism has often made misguided attempts to disregard market forces, it does not necessarily have to, and if it did not, it would not only be considerably more likely to work, but would be subject to the checks semper has described in addition to those provided by democratic government.


To equate facism and socialism is not entirely accurate either. The communist ideal is in polar opposition to any statist ideology. I'm confident that you would agree with the claim that communism is born from the unreasonable greed of the masses (which differs only by its lack of sympathy from the statement that communism seeks the benefit of the masses). Facism, on the other hand, results from the unreasonable greed of men in government. It is far more comparable to what we see in many democracies, wherein corporate cronyism is brought into splendid perspective by my favorite Mussolini quote, which Speaker was kind enough to raise for us.


In sum, my contention is that were socialism reconciled with market principles and the same democratic reforms which are proving necessary in our capitalist system, it would be no more dangerous than our current system.
Our current system tends towards the facist totalitarian model, while socialism tends towards the communist totalitarian model. Strong democratic reforms can prevent that in either case.
Socialism carries with it the added risk of a history of failure, but this history is brief and determined by a failure to admit that it is experimental, which has resulted in dogmatic adherence to flawed principles rather than necessary adjustments. It is noteworthy that the free market has seen similar setbacks that have required legal reform.

The reason that communism/socialism was not more quickly and successfully reformed touches on one more point. Communism became ideological, and so did opposition to it, owing perhaps in part to Marx' own character flaws and without doubt in large part to the fact that it became tied to a national revolution.
A similar thing can be observed with capitalism in America.
An unreasonable level of commitment to the original plan of national revolutions can make matters of policy ideological, and this would seem to have predestined socialism and America to a certain level of mutual hostility.

I can't help wondering what the debate might be like were we able to be removed from ourselves for the purposes of a more objective discussion.

Originally posted by iori_komei
Socialism is nothing like Fascism.

I don't trust either... Sorry bout that.

I'm confident that you would agree with the claim that communism is born from the unreasonable greed of the masses (which differs only by its lack of sympathy from the statement that communism seeks the benefit of the masses). Facism, on the other hand, results from the unreasonable greed of men in government.

Vagabond, I'm confident that you are absolutely correct on those counts. There is not a lot of similarity between Socialism and Fascism, but, throughout history, one tends to lead to the other.

My contention is that despite what iori_Komei is saying, there is not any real distinction between Socialism and Communism. They are both forms of government that creates a dependent populace. Do they harbor some good ideas? Yes... Are they workable ones? Nope, not if history is any indication.

Iori, in defense of libertarianism, their track record (granted more limited than that of communism) suggests considerably more commitment to the idea of small government than communism ever did. Communism never showed much interest in moving beyond the dictatorship of the proletariat, regardless of Marx's writings. In some cases "controlled anarchy" would be a very good idea, in others it would be quite dangerous, so how that distinction reflects on libertarianism is up to the reader.

Vagabond it is not that I disagree entirely with your summation, it is the ultimate end result I am troubled about.

Most scholars that I have read are in agreement as to the ultimate end result of any Socialist Experiment. That being a Communist State.

Having to factor in human greed and the hunger for power inherent in us all, is of course an inexact science at best. But the social anthropologists that study these phenomenon are all almost in agreement. Much along the lines of my earlier links.

If there was some system that could guarantee the neutrality of a government, then the socialist experiment might actually work. The problem of course is that a government is full of people and people are the weak link. Where as an economy governed by supply and demand completely removes the human element and allows for macro developments to regulate the micro-management of the system.

It has been proven to work here. The problem is one of historical significance ....

"The only thing we ever learn from history, is that we never learn anything from history"

Semper