Question for anyone that's ever argued for a better future

So I was with a friend laying down my fix to many of our social problems (a right to food and shelter while maintaining the capitalist-market economy).

But what I kept coming up was the idea that if there was one single, solitary flaw in a new vision of the future, that one flaw somehow makes the entire plan invalid, unworkable and impossible. Its like one tiny little crack in the vision is enough to sink the whole ship.

I notice this with many people, not just my friend.

All systems have problems and leaks, I know, my plan is not perfect, I know.

And, naturally, when you ask these people for THEIR solution, THEIR utopia, they usually don't even have one. Sometimes they've never even thought about it yet are ready, willing and able to shoot down ANY different ideas that come along. But thats a whole nother issue.

Do other people run into this? What do you do in this situation?

Most importantly, why do people belief that one flaw is enough to ruin an entire vision? Is it some sort of defense mechanism to protect their precious little worldview? How does one even get to that point in their thinking?

Not clear. In what context are you referring to?

reply to post by doctornamtab


ive tried to come up with many plans and utopias alternative to our current world however really if there was a perfect way to live in the world after 1000's of years you'd think it woulda happend somewhere by now, people are far to various in their opinions really (which isnt a bad thing) though i still havnt given up hope for a utopia yet either

i think people are so easy to shoot down idea's and not even really think about it themselves because they dont believe an alternative to our current world really is possible
and they think that its too much work and effort that wont have any real gains
how would you spread the message even if you didnt think there was a flaw to get the worlds attention?

anyhow i think change is possible and we are could be on the verge of great change
however with OWS protests not even able to really change the system im worried that the collective around the world really does need to adress and change these problems

i dont know about you or what you do but after i graduated highschool i really thought a revolution could happen in north america/the world, i went to uni in political sciences to learn more of current and alternative systems but really the more you know the more complex it all gets
when this plan does materialize i hope its for the people and doesnt have any flaws as you mentioned it could
i believe in the current day with our tech and communication advances its possible
iceland creating their constitution online through social media is a perfect example

personally i believe we have to reformat the UN, disintegrate the sovereignty of states to have universal individual sovereignty with regional... federations to replace country/states and have a global comity to replace the UN with a supreme justice court any person can appeal to

"How does one get to that point"?
it's called"critical thinking".. it's why when somebody promises: "HOPE! and CHANGE!" Not all see their private vision of utopia enacted; but immediately ask:
"Hope? FOR what?"
"CHANGE! FROM what TO what?"
because "progress" and"fairness" mean different things to me and you.
Just sayin'...
(and life experience; I'm an avowed anti-communist (ex-"cold warrior":SAC '78-'85); I "visited" east berlin after the wall came down...Any of your personal "utopian vision"that hints at "collectivism" is going to be an immediate non-starter with me.
Just going to be the fact.

I only ask for 1 thing and 1 thing only


MY PEACE BACK...

We have a blue print that can work very well if followed to the letter. It is called the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If we return to that as our basis of government and do away with our "political class", returning to citizen legislators as originally designed. If we return the senate to it's Constitutional function of representing the states and not the people at the federal level. If we do away with the completely unConstitutional federal reserve, income taxes, and the irs. If we return to our Christian and Libertarian roots, we can have a damn good country. We won't so we get hell on earth.

Originally posted by Manhater
I only ask for 1 thing and 1 thing only


MY PEACE BACK...

Really? How about our freedoms? How about our civil liberties? How about returning our government to some semblance of sanity? Peace without those things will be delivered only to the serfs/slaves owned by the state.

reply to post by doctornamtab



Lots of people have had plans for Utopias … lets see, there was Maximilien Robespierre, Karl Marx, Adolph Hilter, Vladmir Lenin, Pol Pot, Benito Mussolini. All of these men believed that they could transform society into their version of paradise by modifying or eliminating the institutions of man that they believed were responsible for man’s corruption. The Church, nuclear family, monarchy, capitalism … these were what drove people to do bad things and removing them would allow society to be rebuilt fresh without their corrupting influences. Pol Pot took it to the logical extreme: year zero. Eliminate EVERY vestige of modern society, destroy all education, eliminate the family, eliminate religion, and move all people back to the farm where the rebuilding of society can begin. None of the utopias worked out for the simple fact that man has an innate prewired nature and no matter how many of his institutions you destroy, all you are destroying is a mirror of man’s nature. No amount of social engineering can change that.

Put another way: sticking feathers in your ear does not make you a chicken.

The institutions of man are reflections of who we are, not the other way around.

There is no such thing as utopia and trying to achieve it dangerous because you can justify any horror imaginable by telling yourself the end result will be perfection.

Originally posted by 46ACE

"How does one get to that point"?
it's called"critical thinking".. it's why when somebody promises: "HOPE! and CHANGE!" Not all see their private vision of utopia enacted; but immediately ask:
"Hope? FOR what?"
"CHANGE! FROM what TO what?"
because "progress" and"fairness" mean different things to me and you.
Just sayin'...

Actually what I'm trying to get at is the opposite of critical thinking. Its like people are closed off to the possibilities and hold onto one single point like its the edge of a cliff. I enjoy critical thinking and welcome it. Critical thinkers have shown me a lot about this idea and really helped evolve it.

But I wasn't arguing for Hope and Change. ( BTW you notice how they used vague and relative words that mean something different to everyone? Sneaky, sneaky Barry)

And for the record, not every vision of a better future involves Obama and central government.

Originally posted by 46ACE
"How does one get to that point"?
it's called"critical thinking".. it's why when somebody promises: "HOPE! and CHANGE!" Not all see their private vision of utopia enacted; but immediately ask:
"Hope? FOR what?"
"CHANGE! FROM what TO what?"
because "progress" and"fairness" mean different things to me and you.
Just sayin'...
(and life experience; I'm an avowed anti-communist (ex-"cold warrior":SAC '78-'85); I "visited" east berlin after the wall came down...Any of your personal "utopian vision"that hints at "collectivism" is going to be an immediate non-starter with me.
Just going to be the fact.

edit on 13-12-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

Excellent post
Exactly what came to mind. It's called critical thinking.

Well we've heard from all the anti-socialists (not sure why. I never mentioned it) but only one or two people have actually answered some of the questions I posted.

I'm starting to lose faith in ATS

reply to post by DarthMuerte


Well I can't have my freedom, until I get my peace.

First things first.

Originally posted by Manhater
reply to post by DarthMuerte

 

Well I can't have my freedom, until I get my peace.

First things first.

edit on 13-12-2011 by Manhater because: (no reason given)

Then you have your priorities backwards imo.

Let me see if I can help. I recognize you;re being generic here, so no polemics against a particular system. One issue here is that you think you've figured it out. You are frustrated when other people poke holes in your Grand Design because you think those points are trvial and shouldn't negate the entire Grand Design.

If your Grand Design has a hope of surviving more than in the confines of just your own brain, these points, trivial though they may seem to you, must be addressed. If you can't convince even one other person in the inherent superiority of your Grand Design, then it isn't one and is doomed to failure. One of the hallmarks of a good Grand Design is that it is inherently attractive to others. This is true whether you are Jesus, Alexander the Great, Karl Marx, Thomas Jefferson, or Ron Paul. These people, whether you believe in their percepts or not (and I've intentionally covered a wide spectrum) were able to convince others that their Grand Design ought to be implemented.

So far, you're harmless because you can't convince anyone. If people actually started to believe you, that's when your Grand Design becomes very dangerous. Just look at history to see how many millions of people have died because someone's Grand Design was deemed by its followers to be the Best Grand Design Evah!. It's not a pretty picture.

Remember that when you are attempting to tell the rest of us what is fair and what isn't.

reply to post by doctornamtab


I understand exactly what you are referring to and understand your thinking. I started a thread about the world and her problems and expressed my views with an invitation to express views.

Did not know how people would respond or whether indeed anyone would respond. Firstly there was not a huge response and not a lot of the positive. I was extremely grateful for the people who did respond in the positive with an open mind.

First things first - it has been proven and shown time and time again - psychopaths, socipaths and narcissists are all about themselves. The three psychological profiles are not unrelated but are different - however none of them care about the people with whom they interact. The psychopathology of the three groups has an inherit trait referred to as lack of empathy. Studies state the estimate of one in every ten person to be a narcissist. Studies and news articles suggest that six percent of the world population is a psychopath.

I imagine that people who think like us have to always factor in the people who do not care for our thoughts let alone any other aspect of our person. Many people seem only to be happy or alive when they can be critical of another person and their ideas. Perhaps we are being shown a psychological lesson in life?!

Keep sharing your ideas - not everyone lacks empathy and it is important that we - who do have empathy stay in contact and share information and ideas.

Much Peace...