Log in

View Full Version : Dreams : To persue or not to persue


Yiuel
March 13th, 2009, 11:46 PM
So, I've got that not-so-silly philosophical question.

I have a dream. Not MLK-Jr.'s one, but still, I have a dream. What should I do : persue it completely, not bothering myself with any other question, despite how hard it might seem, or abandon it?

This dream has been described as madness, though not the dangerous kind. So I wondered if dreams, no matter how hard they may seem and how weird they may seem, should be persued as far as one can.

So, that's it.

Tsar Phalanxia
March 14th, 2009, 12:09 AM
What is it?

Loki
March 14th, 2009, 12:13 AM
I suppose that depends upon your dream.
If it involves a Beretta 9mm I'd reconsider :D

If it means getting laid by glorious dusky beauties with big tits and no morals then I say ...
Live the dream!

Only you can decide:icon_razz:

Tsar Phalanxia
March 14th, 2009, 12:18 AM
Pain is inevitable.
Suffering is optional.

Yiuel
March 14th, 2009, 02:14 AM
Tsar : Getting myself independant, and found an independent society.

brutelord
March 14th, 2009, 02:41 AM
independent society? Elaborate.

Personally I am pursuing my dream with nothing else really in mind. So I say go for it...

tagnostic
March 14th, 2009, 04:44 AM
personal opinion

failure beats
regret everytime

go for it......

djura
March 14th, 2009, 12:41 PM
what Loki sad, but I'd go for enormous tits :icon_lol:

rmw
March 14th, 2009, 12:43 PM
What kind of society are you looking to found, Yieul (besides independent)?

winwun
March 14th, 2009, 12:53 PM
I'm with Djura . . .

Nightmare: Dolly Parton was my mother and she put me on the bottle . . .

The downside is dirty looks from my wife . . .

There's nothing wrong with a Beretta 9 -- it is perfectly capable of doing the job it was sent for . . .

Yiuel
March 14th, 2009, 02:15 PM
independent society? Elaborate.

Well, that has been the subject of many things that I have turned my mind on.

Somehow, I don't expect that much, it all depends on how much do I have with it. If I were alone, or with a hundred people, or with a thousand people or with a milion people, I would expect very different things to happen and to have. If I have more (material) ressources, I certainly could build a little bit more (though there is always a limit beyond which you cannot sustain what you have built). Same thing for space : depending on if have a few km² or a lot more than few, things will also be different.

But the foundation of it is having a community where the community together would garantee each of its members :

- The right to existence, without physical and psychological violence
- The right to have a safe place where to live within the community
- The right to have enough ressources (food, water, air, tools) to live within the community

In exchange, every member would garantee to the community :

- A contribution of work to the community, to provide food, water, air or tools and provide safe space.*
- Make sure that every member has a place within the community
- Will not cause physical or psychological violence or murder a fellow member of the community

With that :
- Every non-member would have the right, at any time, to join the community as long as they agree to the defined rights and duties as decided by the community at their time of arrival.
- Every member would have the right, at any time, to leave the community, as long as they leave only with the things they produced for themselves outside his duties.
- Every former member would have the right to come back, as any other non-member.
- Every action that would go against the defined rights and duties would lead to indefinite expulsion (ostracism) either in prison, in exil or, if wished by the convicted, in suicide.

Indeed, there are more rights (and duties in exchange), including freedom of belief, thought and reflexion (and a right to express them, and act by them if they do not contradict any other right expressed).

With that, I would indeed have institutions, to manage all this, maintained by the community. For the change of that Constitution and laws, I would have an Assembly, selected by knowledge, which would in common decide of the changes to make to the law. I won't describe it in detail, but it would replace the parliament, the government and the Head of State at the same time. (If the community is smaller, you don't need elaborate institutions, but the shape would basically be the same.)

I would have in it, as much as I could try, a culture as liberated as possible. That is, within the bounds set by the various rights and duties, I would have it that every possible cultural trait would be possible and supported. You cannot have much differences with a thousand people community, but if you have a community of 30 millions, you can certainly imagine the number of possible subcultures, including variations in language, politeness, food style, dressing style etc. This would be along having specific tools for pan-community interactions, like a common language.

Well, that is about it.

* While this may seem very limitative, nowhere is it said that you cannot do more. Actually, when you do more (beyond the limits defined by your duties), it becomes yours. So while you have some common duties with the whole community, for the fulfilment of the rights you have agreed to, you can do whatever you please after that (as long as you do not go against the defined laws) and keep it for yourself. I find it important that you can have stuff for yourself if you wish so, or only do a minimum if you also wish so.

tagnostic
March 14th, 2009, 03:17 PM
loving it, i would also add
that the right to 'vote' be restricted to those that have perfomed serivice to the public good, ie: police, fireman, schoolteachers, etc..
anyone in public office (ie: in a policy making position) is only to get recompense equal to the median recompense of their constituency
all public offices are to be vacated at the end of a specified term, with the former holder to be barred from all public office equal to the time that they served.

Harm a child, go to hell, death, no save.

jmho

Yiuel
March 14th, 2009, 05:05 PM
Let me comment a few of the details of what you added, in terms of those things I have for the sake of simplification, left out.

that the right to 'vote' be restricted to those that have perfomed serivice to the public good, ie: police, fireman, schoolteachers, etc..

Well, in the community I see, doing "public good" is pretty much everything that is included in the "basic duties". Someone who produces some food so that everyone gets enough food to live, to me, is doing some public good. Sure, it is not as grandiose as being a firefighter or a heroïc figure of that kind, but the person doing those small things are also performing some public good. But doing public good is a prerequisite to enter the community, and when you achieve the level required to have all your rights, then it should be fair that anyone could have the right to vote.

The right to vote shouldn't be automatic, however. I always envision some kind of testing. In its more formal form, it is a full fledged out examination process, where a prospective voter would have to present proof that he knows about the people, the environment, the laws, the institutions and the common language of the community.

anyone in public office (ie: in a policy making position) is only to get recompense equal to the median recompense of their constituency

Not sure about that. Taking decisions can be time consuming. It took me years to come out with the small synopsis of the community I would wish. Applying these are simpler. Have you ever remarked how some cells are bigger than others? Different works may not have the same amount of difficulty for the same amount of time. This makes it moot to have everything be equal just because they are in the same workplace. And this balance is NOT simple.

However, I would love to adhere to that Confucian principle : When the people starve, the King shall starve like them. When the people eat, the King should eat like them.

all public offices are to be vacated at the end of a specified term, with the former holder to be barred from all public office equal to the time that they served.

I do not like the idea. Some people can be really good with their position, and we may wish to keep them in place because they are really good.

However, the right to leave the community at whim (that I have made inalienable) is a danger for any ruler. A ruler without ruled is basically a head without a body : not very useful, and certainly not liveable. But there are other ways to limit the stupidity of people.

In my vision, any public office is given by the Assembly to individuals who are deemed good for the job. However, the Assembly can dismiss him at any time, if the Assembly is not pleased about his job. That is, you may have a public office, but you may be kicked out without anything else at any time if you're just fooling around and not doing your job properly.

In fact, I hate the whole idea of specified terms : if you realize that a guy lied and you're stuck with him for the next 4 years, we're screwed. My way of doing this may bring some chaos to the system, but as we have learned from Science, a little chaos is not a bad thing.

Harm a child, go to hell, death, no save.

Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give life to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. (Find yourself whom am I quoting)

Sure, harming a child, like harming anyone in this world, is an awful thing. I will not disagree.

Yet, I will never go further than kicking such person out of the community. Mistakes on our side are easy, even though we try to avoid them. People also do mistakes.

Otherwise, living alone without the help of anyone is worse than giving death : you give him complete insecurity, especially if he knows that other dangerous people hang out outside.

Ultimately, when in danger of being invaded, there shall be issued the killing, because he is trying to destroy the community after everything : then no mercy. But not before.

Tsar Phalanxia
March 14th, 2009, 06:35 PM
THIS THREAD CALLS FOR COURAGE WOLF

http://s5.tinypic.com/nbwzna.jpg

Some other cool ones here

http://neoshinka.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/courage_wolf_pain.jpg
http://neoshinka.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/courage_wolf_death_dies_hard.jpg
http://www.kyle-brady.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/wolf-unknown.jpg
http://13.media.tumblr.com/nfNeT7YvTjklrfgg4rxIPEUxo1_400.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_709-UY_kyd8/SYB0m85iEzI/AAAAAAAAALU/Tz-TF_TM6xU/s400/1233109393970.jpg
And my favourite
http://1.media.tumblr.com/Ibo2y5lv0iqmc7bx8AP81jdyo1_400.jpg

Dr Goofy Mofo
March 14th, 2009, 06:41 PM
Nice Tsar! I didn't give up no one gave a shit on what I said. Plus tl;dr a lot of it. Granted my professor wants me to learn to elaborate because I am to short and to the point with my business proposals, but I am still getting an A.

Tsar Phalanxia
March 14th, 2009, 06:45 PM
I have a big collection of Courage Wolves. They inspire me :D

tagnostic
March 15th, 2009, 05:13 AM
Let me comment a few of the details of what you added, in terms of those things I have for the sake of simplification, left out.



Well, in the community I see, doing "public good" is pretty much everything that is included in the "basic duties". Someone who produces some food so that everyone gets enough food to live, to me, is doing some public good. Sure, it is not as grandiose as being a firefighter or a heroïc figure of that kind, but the person doing those small things are also performing some public good. But doing public good is a prerequisite to enter the community, and when you achieve the level required to have all your rights, then it should be fair that anyone could have the right to vote.

beg to differ,
until you have demonstrated that the Community is greater than you, you haven't earned the right to steer it in any given direction


The right to vote shouldn't be automatic, however. I always envision some kind of testing. In its more formal form, it is a full fledged out examination process, where a prospective voter would have to present proof that he knows about the people, the environment, the laws, the institutions and the common language of the community.


that's kind of scary,
i think the 'test' should be moral,
not written


Not sure about that. Taking decisions can be time consuming. It took me years to come out with the small synopsis of the community I would wish. Applying these are simpler. Have you ever remarked how some cells are bigger than others? Different works may not have the same amount of difficulty for the same amount of time. This makes it moot to have everything be equal just because they are in the same workplace. And this balance is NOT simple.

it's not moot,
it's motivation
and weeds out
the career politicians


However, I would love to adhere to that Confucian principle : When the people starve, the King shall starve like them. When the people eat, the King should eat like them.

when the people get PO'd
the King dresses like a girl
and runs



I do not like the idea. Some people can be really good with their position, and we may wish to keep them in place because they are really good.

'a good politician should be dragged kicking and screaming in to office, with time off for good behaviour'
R.A. Heinlein


But there are other ways to limit the stupidity of people.

you can never limit human stupidity


Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give life to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. (Find yourself whom am I quoting)

Sure, harming a child, like harming anyone in this world, is an awful thing. I will not disagree.

Yet, I will never go further than kicking such person out of the community. Mistakes on our side are easy, even though we try to avoid them. People also do mistakes.

Otherwise, living alone without the help of anyone is worse than giving death : you give him complete insecurity, especially if he knows that other dangerous people hang out outside.

Ultimately, when in danger of being invaded, there shall be issued the killing, because he is trying to destroy the community after everything : then no mercy. But not before.

why waste time and resources,
give them another spin on the karma wheel
and what the hell, at least they make decent fertilizer

(tired & grumpy, my apologies)

Al Farabi
March 15th, 2009, 05:28 AM
In exchange, every member would garantee to the community :

- A contribution of work to the community, to provide food, water, air or tools and provide safe space.*
- Make sure that every member has a place within the community
- Will not cause physical or psychological violence or murder a fellow member of the community

How will you prevent freeloading? Will you take into account how much people produce when deciding how much they get? Who makes that decision?


With that :
- Every non-member would have the right, at any time, to join the community as long as they agree to the defined rights and duties as decided by the community at their time of arrival.
- Every member would have the right, at any time, to leave the community, as long as they leave only with the things they produced for themselves outside his duties.
- Every former member would have the right to come back, as any other non-member.
- Every action that would go against the defined rights and duties would lead to indefinite expulsion (ostracism) either in prison, in exil or, if wished by the convicted, in suicide.

What would happen if every day I joined your community, had a free meal (because I am guarenteed it) and then left again. Would there be reprecussions of anytime? On a large scale that could be a serious problem for your economy. Free stuff is always a draw.

Also, what does "joining" involve? Is it paperwork? Is there work involved? Or is it just entering the community? (strolling into town, as it were)


Indeed, there are more rights (and duties in exchange), including freedom of belief, thought and reflexion (and a right to express them, and act by them if they do not contradict any other right expressed).


Woah woah... if they don't contradict any other right expressed? What if someone strongly feels the need to spout hate against a particular person. Does their free speech win out? Or the targets right to phychological security?


With that, I would indeed have institutions, to manage all this, maintained by the community. For the change of that Constitution and laws, I would have an Assembly, selected by knowledge, which would in common decide of the changes to make to the law. I won't describe it in detail, but it would replace the parliament, the government and the Head of State at the same time. (If the community is smaller, you don't need elaborate institutions, but the shape would basically be the same.)

What kinds of institutions would be provided by the state and what kinds by private citizens?


I would have in it, as much as I could try, a culture as liberated as possible. That is, within the bounds set by the various rights and duties

I take it you mean personal do-what-I-want liberation.
And that is the goal, in fact, of democracy.



I find it important that you can have stuff for yourself if you wish so, or only do a minimum if you also wish so.

Can I do nothing if I want? And if I grow food with seeds that I own, but I do it in a farmer's field without his knowledge, do I own the produce, or does he? Have I not robbed him of some of the nutrients in his land? What does it mean to keep what you produce?

tagnostic
March 15th, 2009, 05:31 AM
really good to have you back,
can't wait to watch this one

(gets 40 & chips)

Yiuel
March 15th, 2009, 01:46 PM
How will you prevent freeloading? Will you take into account how much people produce when deciding how much they get? Who makes that decision?

This is decided beforehand within the Constitution. The Constitution decided, in the best knowledgeable way, to define the basic amount of production needed for the basic amount of ressources one would need if he lived simply, without much other services. You divide all that between all members, not necessarly equally, but equivalently, and you try to do your best.

What would happen if every day I joined your community, had a free meal (because I am guarenteed it) and then left again. Would there be reprecussions of anytime? On a large scale that could be a serious problem for your economy. Free stuff is always a draw.

Also, what does "joining" involve? Is it paperwork? Is there work involved? Or is it just entering the community? (strolling into town, as it were)

There is both some paperwork (at least in the larger versions) and some work involved. Joining the community involves you doing some work for it. You are not directly garanteed food forever, just by coming in physically : you must come in in a very economical way. Doing some work for it.

Practicality being something important, you would be garanteed things not for life (who are we to garantee things for life, on either side?), but for certain terms. At first, you would be garanteed on a daily basis, quickly turning into a weekly basis. If you don't show up do give part of your work during those periods (baring exceptions involving health), you are considered to have done a felony (a crime against the Constitution).

So, if you just came for a few minutes, no use, no one will give anything without proper work (or an equivalent). Indeed, for newcomers, they usually pay or work at any time they require some kind of service from the community. Things settle down after some time, but even fore more permanent residents, I don't think I would go further than a month, perhaps 1 year.

Woah woah... if they don't contradict any other right expressed? What if someone strongly feels the need to spout hate against a particular person. Does their free speech win out? Or the targets right to phychological security?

This is where the limits fall. You can think what you want. We're, as far as I know, pretty much isolated yet in our thoughts. However, when you act in accordance of what you think, you cannot forfeit any other right to other people in the process. In expression, you fall on a border line, but threatening to take out any other right to other people in a public way is considered a contradiction to other rights (as being garanteed those rights by all members.)

Psychological violence is something that I will have to research through. It's hard to tell how it works, but there are some effects. The problem is that, like immaterial ressources, it is hard to define things properly and neatly. I would say that psychological violence usually consist of threats on one side, and total ostracism on the other. While in my ideas, the first type is well defended against, the other one I have yet to so protect clearly.

And one should try to err on the side of not hating, just disagreeing with ideas or ways of life expressed. A community works when all it's elements interact without violence on each other, and one might try to be as inclusive as possible, just to have himself included as much as possible. (Example : You might not like people that live in the nude. And you might serve them or not, but unless there is general frowning upon such kind of nudity, it will only serve you ill. And these people might just decide to not interact with you and found their own community.)

What kinds of institutions would be provided by the state and what kinds by private citizens?

Well, in my view, most of the services would stand in the middle, as cooperative institutions. Some services might be garanteed by the State and ultimately included in the basic stuffs defining the minimal work to do and ressources to receive back, but these would be mostly for industries that might get easier to go by becoming huge groups.

I take it you mean personal do-what-I-want liberation.
And that is the goal, in fact, of democracy.

It depends again. While I do think we have a limited version of the cultural liberation, I have found nowhere a place where a group of funny people could just group together, found their own local community, take all cultural trait they have deemed fun, interesting or good, and live them.

Take me. I love Japanese. I would be happy if my own family would be raised, at least partially, in Japanese. I'd be happy if they would go to school in Japanese. I'd have fun with them if they would like to read manga or watch anime : these are sometimes more intelligent than they seem. Oh, and the train and metro system, it shall be included, if big enough.

Yet, I don't like much of Japanese culture : too strict in terms of relations, and definitely a too-much-workaholic culture when it comes to ordinary work types. Oh, and a particular disdain or misunderstanding of foreigners (but not hate).

And, somehow, I am pretty sure that I am not alone like that (though, granted, we are not a big number either). Educational laws where I live would forbid my children to receive their education in Japanese. Grouping with others like me would bu shunned upon, strongly, and we couldn't live a decent life like we want on our own without being harrassed. Independance, especially political and economical, is deemed bad for anything smaller than the whole unit stupid nationalists (on either size) deem the right size. So, no, we are no way close to what I am describing here.

Can I do nothing if I want? And if I grow food with seeds that I own, but I do it in a farmer's field without his knowledge, do I own the produce, or does he? Have I not robbed him of some of the nutrients in his land?

In some larger versions of the idea I have, you have a category or people that would be called residents. By choice, they don't fulfill their economical duty completely, and in turn, they don't receive a full return of services in exchange. Others, while still doing everything, may request to be taken out of some provided services (excluding any kind od insurrance programm, since these work only in common). Ultimately, you may want to do nothing, but unless you have reasons accepted by the community (total disability or sickness recognized by physicians), you won't be granted either citizenship or services.

Also, you can have your own stuff and bring it. However, if you go unto someone else's garanteed place within the community, I wouldn't garantee any kind of security. You're not a citizen (or, ultimately, a resident), so you are not granted any right (except the right to join the community.) So I cannot garantee what the farmer may do (or request someone else to do). Indeed, you might be killed. It would be considered difficult morally, but in terms of legality, it would have been legal if you were given the right to join the community (in the terms described).

When it comes to "property", nothing is natural. (I do not believe in any "natural" right. Especially the one regarding property. It is a social construct.) I would define property as best as I can, but it sure is a difficult thing. What you take, you establish as your own, and you try to defend it. If you take it in common, you may wish to establish it as common property, and defend it commonally.

In my own community, land is not a personal property, but a common one. This is because land is a very limited ressource for new communities, and you might want to use it in the most efficient way (and I also define somehow that the land and ressources used should not be wasted, as much as possible). (My own country's way, the same as yours, definitely is NOT the most efficient way to use land.)

Within it, however, you are given the right to establish yourself and do some work. And that work, you own. Part of it is your duty, you give that part of the work in return for the commonly garanteed services. What is left you use at your own discretion, either for yourself, or in exchange for not-garanteed services. And work is represented by ressources. These can be material or immaterial. Food is obviously of the material kind. But all this is within the constraint of the community : if you are outside of it (as is your case, here), again, you are garanteed nothing.

Yiuel
March 15th, 2009, 02:07 PM
beg to differ,
until you have demonstrated that the Community is greater than you, you haven't earned the right to steer it in any given direction

This is a philosophical point I think we will disagree. I do not think the community is greater (morally) than I. But I don't think it's smaller than I either. It's all a thing of balance between yourself and your part within the community : you do your own part in it, and people will do other parts, and you'll receive a part in return, so as they. See my other post in another thread.

I will however easily acknowledge that the community is more than the sum of all its members, and that living in a community gives and can give you more than if you lived alone. (And the bigger the community, the more it can give, because the more specialized people can be.)

But doing any part in that community (at the level specified as correct by it) is worth the right to take part in its direction (though I would, for most things, delegate it to people who can put the time into analysing stuff and how it could go better).

that's kind of scary,
i think the 'test' should be moral,
not written

May I ask what makes you afraid, what detail? Is it that I would require some knowledge? If it is so, I can garantee you something : the knowledge required would be publicly known, written down in some guide, and all questions asked could only refer to the content of that specific guide. I don't require people to know things : I require them to know how to know things, and by the same time, I require them to learn a few things about their own community.

If it does not answer your fears, than, what was it that you fear?

it's not moot,
it's motivation
and weeds out
the career politicians

I can reassure you that career politicians are not much possible in the community I think of. Make a mistake and your career is destroyed, you have competition from all Voters to come up with good laws at any time. You may loose all the work you have done if what you proposed is bad. Some might be able to go on for a long time, but really, most of these will just be there doing good job after all.

(I won't go against career administrators, but then, if you can kick them out when they stupidly fail, what else do you want?)

you can never limit human stupidity

My bad. We should have read "limit human stupidity in office". Also, a part of infinity is still infinity, so we'll always have stupid people. Just somewhat less because we'll be able to kick them out a little sooner.

why waste time and resources,
give them another spin on the karma wheel
and what the hell, at least they make decent fertilizer

On a personal note, I don't like to kill : not that I can't, just that I will avoid as much as I can (oh yeah I will).

On a more judiciary note, I like seeing people striving for life alone in the wild instead of being killed. It's more problems for us, but it's a lot more problems for them (live in the wild for some time...). Sure, they can kill themselves nonetheless, but killing yourself willingly is a lot more difficult than being killed, especially by the State. Oh, and what for the sense of danger that you put on him, since the criminal is certainly not alone, ready to be killed by another convict.

Morally, read again the quote I gave.

As for fertilizer, there's not enough of it. I'll get some by other means. (Or some might bring back dead bodies from outside the community, but that's morbid :P)

rmw
March 15th, 2009, 02:37 PM
Yiuel, how will the community defend itself from other communities or individuals who wish to harm from the outside? What kind of defensive actions are the members of the community expected to take when being attacked?

Tsar Phalanxia
March 15th, 2009, 03:26 PM
This sounds like an ideal Anarchist "state".

Al Farabi
March 15th, 2009, 06:27 PM
not necessarly equally, but equivalently

What does this mean?

There is both some paperwork (at least in the larger versions) and some work involved. Joining the community involves you doing some work for it. You are not directly garanteed food forever, just by coming in physically : you must come in in a very economical way. Doing some work for it.

On the day I join, do I not get dinner? I have hardly had a chance to contribute economically - I've been moving into my new home.

Practicality being something important, you would be garanteed things not for life (who are we to garantee things for life, on either side?), but for certain terms. At first, you would be garanteed on a daily basis, quickly turning into a weekly basis. If you don't show up do give part of your work during those periods (baring exceptions involving health), you are considered to have done a felony (a crime against the Constitution).

A felony would, if I am remembering correctly, result in expulsion from the community. This is a very serious punishment. Who decides whether your laziness is a felony or not? Can your boss say "JENKINS! YOU LAZY ASS YOU ARE FIRED AND EXPELLED FROM THE COMMUNITY!" and get away with it? Or is there some sort of adjudication processs? If there is, wouldn't the process of trying all people who are thought of as lazy be a huge drain on your economy? And what about intellectuals - authors, philosophers, and so on. How would you keep them from being thrown out when they spend their days contemplating and wandering in preparation for their work? They may not contribute economically in a significant way for many months after arriving. Would they be expelled?

So, if you just came for a few minutes, no use, no one will give anything without proper work (or an equivalent). Indeed, for newcomers, they usually pay or work at any time they require some kind of service from the community. Things settle down after some time, but even fore more permanent residents, I don't think I would go further than a month, perhaps 1 year.

But how would you know how long people had been in there? Would new people be treated with suspicion due to the risk of grabbing and running?

This is where the limits fall. You can think what you want. We're, as far as I know, pretty much isolated yet in our thoughts. However, when you act in accordance of what you think, you cannot forfeit any other right to other people in the process. In expression, you fall on a border line, but threatening to take out any other right to other people in a public way is considered a contradiction to other rights (as being garanteed those rights by all members.)

Who would make these calls? Who decides when you are overstepping your rights?

Psychological violence is something that I will have to research through. It's hard to tell how it works, but there are some effects. The problem is that, like immaterial ressources, it is hard to define things properly and neatly. I would say that psychological violence usually consist of threats on one side, and total ostracism on the other. While in my ideas, the first type is well defended against, the other one I have yet to so protect clearly.

What about just always calling someone nothing but "moron" rather than their name. That is nearly threat nor ostracism, and yet would be devastating psychologically.

And one should try to err on the side of not hating, just disagreeing with ideas or ways of life expressed. A community works when all it's elements interact without violence on each other, and one might try to be as inclusive as possible, just to have himself included as much as possible. (Example : You might not like people that live in the nude. And you might serve them or not, but unless there is general frowning upon such kind of nudity, it will only serve you ill. And these people might just decide to not interact with you and found their own community.)

What if 99% of the people in the community threw their support behind the total ostracism of blue-eyed people. Should those who disagree just tolerate?

Well, in my view, most of the services would stand in the middle, as cooperative institutions. Some services might be garanteed by the State and ultimately included in the basic stuffs defining the minimal work to do and ressources to receive back, but these would be mostly for industries that might get easier to go by becoming huge groups.

How does the state help (or provide) institutions? Taxes? Enlisted labour? Both of those seem against your society's purpose.

It depends again. While I do think we have a limited version of the cultural liberation, I have found nowhere a place where a group of funny people could just group together, found their own local community, take all cultural trait they have deemed fun, interesting or good, and live them.

What about people who choose to live together in shared homes? Is that not a small community of like minded people?

Take me. I love Japanese. I would be happy if my own family would be raised, at least partially, in Japanese. I'd be happy if they would go to school in Japanese. I'd have fun with them if they would like to read manga or watch anime : these are sometimes more intelligent than they seem. Oh, and the train and metro system, it shall be included, if big enough.

Yet, I don't like much of Japanese culture : too strict in terms of relations, and definitely a too-much-workaholic culture when it comes to ordinary work types. Oh, and a particular disdain or misunderstanding of foreigners (but not hate).

Why not just only speak japanese at home? Many families speak a different language in the home than their kids do at school, and the kids end up totally bilingual.

And, somehow, I am pretty sure that I am not alone like that (though, granted, we are not a big number either). Educational laws where I live would forbid my children to receive their education in Japanese. Grouping with others like me would bu shunned upon, strongly, and we couldn't live a decent life like we want on our own without being harrassed. Independance, especially political and economical, is deemed bad for anything smaller than the whole unit stupid nationalists (on either size) deem the right size. So, no, we are no way close to what I am describing here.[/quote

It's illegal for you to put your kids into japanese language school where you live? And are you not proposing to shun society anyway? Why does it matter if society shuns you back?

[quote=Yiuel;120407]In some larger versions of the idea I have, you have a category or people that would be called residents. By choice, they don't fulfill their economical duty completely, and in turn, they don't receive a full return of services in exchange. Others, while still doing everything, may request to be taken out of some provided services (excluding any kind od insurrance programm, since these work only in common). Ultimately, you may want to do nothing, but unless you have reasons accepted by the community (total disability or sickness recognized by physicians), you won't be granted either citizenship or services.

If you do nothing, but it's for a reason, who provides your essentials of living?

Also, you can have your own stuff and bring it. However, if you go unto someone else's garanteed place within the community, I wouldn't garantee any kind of security. You're not a citizen (or, ultimately, a resident), so you are not granted any right (except the right to join the community.) So I cannot garantee what the farmer may do (or request someone else to do). Indeed, you might be killed. It would be considered difficult morally, but in terms of legality, it would have been legal if you were given the right to join the community (in the terms described).

What if I am a citizen and I do that. Can he still kill me? How does he know if I am a citizen or not before shooting me and checking for a citizen card or whatever?

When it comes to "property", nothing is natural. (I do not believe in any "natural" right. Especially the one regarding property. It is a social construct.) I would define property as best as I can, but it sure is a difficult thing. What you take, you establish as your own, and you try to defend it. If you take it in common, you may wish to establish it as common property, and defend it commonally.

Again, the afarmer's field. I have raised this plant by the sweat of my own brow, but I have done so with his resources (the land). Am I stealing? And if so, how am I to be punished?

In my own community, land is not a personal property, but a common one. This is because land is a very limited ressource for new communities, and you might want to use it in the most efficient way (and I also define somehow that the land and ressources used should not be wasted, as much as possible). (My own country's way, the same as yours, definitely is NOT the most efficient way to use land.)

So then, I am not stealing? I can just drain the farmer's fields of land, and thus take his only means of economic contribution and continued existance, because land is not property?

Within it, however, you are given the right to establish yourself and do some work. And that work, you own. Part of it is your duty, you give that part of the work in return for the commonly garanteed services. What is left you use at your own discretion, either for yourself, or in exchange for not-garanteed services. And work is represented by ressources. These can be material or immaterial. Food is obviously of the material kind. But all this is within the constraint of the community : if you are outside of it (as is your case, here), again, you are garanteed nothing.

Hmm I think the property laws need to be fleshed out a lot. And on a side note, this looks to me to be less anarchistic and more communistic actually.

Al Farabi
March 15th, 2009, 06:42 PM
Note that I haven't read this thread so I have no idea what you guys are talking about, but this line makes for interesting thoughts about territory and territorial protection. In the distant past and in today's animal kingdom the animal that was the best fighter generally held the largest piece of land. Human laws and economy seems like a less bloody way to achieve the same kind of territorial boundaries.

In the case of man, strength has been replaced with finances.

Al Farabi
March 15th, 2009, 06:54 PM
Well, at least mostly. Unfortunately there are those who seem unable to catch up.

and in the animal kingdom, there are those who never get breeding territory. I would posit that it's the same, but our empathy makes us feel bad about it

Yiuel
March 15th, 2009, 09:02 PM
Yiuel, how will the community defend itself from other communities or individuals who wish to harm from the outside? What kind of defensive actions are the members of the community expected to take when being attacked?

That's the purpose of a national guard or, best, army, a isn't it? And that's much it. As for defensive actions : "Get out of the way and let the army take care of the issue." I don't like the idea of having an army, but that is its very basic purpose, and would keep it. The society's skin and immune system.

What does this mean?

Say that for a community of around 3000 people (a decent village), the community needs for a year around 1 million hours of agricultural work (to produce a specific amount of food), perhaps 20 000 hours for water distribution etc. Instead of having everyone do 334h of agricultural work and 7h of water distribution per year, I would have 500 people full-time (2000h each) doing agricultural work, 10 people full-time for water distribution etc. And so long for all that is required.

On the day I join, do I not get dinner? I have hardly had a chance to contribute economically - I've been moving into my new home.

When you join a new company, do you get (all) the advantage as soon as you arrive?

A felony would, if I am remembering correctly, result in expulsion from the community. This is a very serious punishment. Who decides whether your laziness is a felony or not? Can your boss say "JENKINS! YOU LAZY ASS YOU ARE FIRED AND EXPELLED FROM THE COMMUNITY!" and get away with it? Or is there some sort of adjudication processs? If there is, wouldn't the process of trying all people who are thought of as lazy be a huge drain on your economy? And what about intellectuals - authors, philosophers, and so on. How would you keep them from being thrown out when they spend their days contemplating and wandering in preparation for their work? They may not contribute economically in a significant way for many months after arriving. Would they be expelled?

1. About laziness, you can get a paper from a doctor or some other health professional. This is pretty much a good way to go. Otherwise, I would make it so that the minimum work would NOT be a full time work. The same way that, in Canada, not all the money you get goes on taxes to the government. So you might be technically lazy, but legally you wouldn't.

2. Usually, the first thing you would loose is your citizenship (different from current style citizenships). This means that, since you did not work the minimum, you will not get the minimum you are entitled to (bearing, again, the exceptions). You'll be like a resident. You'll get kicked out if you claim more than what you had right to, which is buglary against the community.

3. I never said that the minimum would be everything, economically. I also never limited all the work that could be done. I expect more than a share over the minimum, and I would let it go. Some basic companies and organizations would be State-owned (to have the scale effect on them), but a lot more can and will be produced and consumed. These work as an exchange : someone (some people) will do in my stead the part of my duties to the state, and I, in turn, will provide those people something more that they may want. The talentful artisan, the thoughtful philosopher and the strengthful warrior are all included here.

But how would you know how long people had been in there? Would new people be treated with suspicion due to the risk of grabbing and running?


- Welcome! Here is your residency status card.

Card reads :
Yiuel LeMelvillois
Male - Voter
Joined July 15th XXXX
ID : XXXX0515M00000001

I also did not get rid of money. From your work, you get some money (except for the parts involving inssurance), which you will use to buy the things you have a right to. This money works like a refundable credit : directly linked to the value of what you are producing.

Who would make these calls? Who decides when you are overstepping your rights?

Courts of justice, with judges.

What about just always calling someone nothing but "moron" rather than their name. That is nearly threat nor ostracism, and yet would be devastating psychologically.

I call that beng excluded of the intelligent people. A form of ostracism. But, as I said, I will have to do some more researches. I am alone in this, not an army of philosophers. Ask a single brain cell to take care of your whole body, and it doesn't work. Same here, doing my best, but will need more heads if things get more complicated (as people might come and join in).

What if 99% of the people in the community threw their support behind the total ostracism of blue-eyed people. Should those who disagree just tolerate?

Those who disagree can just say : " I leave." Because they still hold the right to leave the community if they wish. "And then, (boop) you stupid (boop)es. And I shall make my own community on my own if your being such (boop)holes." Pretty much the same way I dream. I'd certainly do it again, if those who joined ultimately became so stupid. Oh yeah, and now, since they are independant, either they tolerate each other, or one goes against the other.

(However, for my own community, I would instead have a list of attributes that would illegal to discriminate against : you would have the right to live undiscriminated. Most of them would include genetic and epigenetic caracteristics, while others would include mores between consenting adults, or actions involving no one else except yourself.)

How does the state help (or provide) institutions? Taxes? Enlisted labour? Both of those seem against your society's purpose.

Mostly enlisted labour, but since you have the exchanges I shown earlier, you also have some kind of taxe. Those people who work for the institutions would generally be guaranteed their share of the common production, and get more from the "replace me for my duties" style of semi-formal contracts. So really, you have both.

(What changes actually is how money is defined. In my view, money should not be linked to a precious metal, but to the actual production. So it would be a representation of production. In smaller communities, you wouldn't need much representation of it, barter is close to optimal. In larger communities, you would need a more formal system, but it is no way worse than the whole banking system our "modern" societies have.)

What about people who choose to live together in shared homes? Is that not a small community of like minded people?

As I said, we have a limited frame here. But you are still linked to the present societies without a possibility to leaving them entirely. (Or almost)

Why not just only speak japanese at home? Many families speak a different language in the home than their kids do at school, and the kids end up totally bilingual.

I wouldn't mind bilingualism, but where I live, you are forced to learn a common language no matter how hard you wouldn't have your kids learn it. I am not against multilingualism myself, and I obviously understand the usefulness of it. But the best bilingualism is one where you have the most common language (something I have defined in my ideal community in my first post) and your own communal one, without a third language to complicate the situation.

Oh, and languages do not live long if their are restricted to homes (I should know, I almost would never have spoken French today if for a weird twist in my life). They must be used as often as possible in more public relations, to the point that any other language wouldn't be there locally before a long time. Indeed, to me, a common language would be used only outside the local daily-life community.

It's illegal for you to put your kids into japanese language school where you live? And are you not proposing to shun society anyway? Why does it matter if society shuns you back?

Law 101 please, you should know it, it's famous throughout Canada. I happen to be a pure-laine Quebecker as well. So yes, it's basically illegal.

Well, I do have plans for myself to leave my present society entirely. But the reason is because they wouldn't tolerate what I wish for myself. So yeah, basically, I won't bother myself more. I am just saying that it would be impossible in current location and situation.

If you do nothing, but it's for a reason, who provides your essentials of living?

Compassion and sharing? Help and support? People do a lot of that. For help and support, you sometimes have problems, and not all is predictable. You can get sick, sometimes too sick to work for a long time. Sometimes you're handicapped for the rest of your life because of someone else or a mistake. We do more, just because we want to help when there is a problem. We call that Insurrance (medical, social etc.). The minimum is not strictly what you need on a day-to-day basis. The minimum includes a little more, to cover those possible problems.

What if I am a citizen and I do that. Can he still kill me? How does he know if I am a citizen or not before shooting me and checking for a citizen card or whatever?

Why would a citizen do what you would intend to do? He would usually have is own place (remember, garanteed space where to live?), and if one of his jobs is being a farmer, he would have his place where to do his part (for society, and also for himself).

Again, the afarmer's field. I have raised this plant by the sweat of my own brow, but I have done so with his resources (the land). Am I stealing? And if so, how am I to be punished?

If you are a citizen, you are stealing against the State about space (that the community brought together for together), and another citizen for the ressources he is using to do his part (since he got a part of what the community brought together for his own use).

As for punishment, it would usually be the same as anything : exile. But it seems harsh for such a petty crime, isn't it? Usually, one will instead request to be paid back the stolen stuff, and leave you alone otherwise. (Indeed, judiciary laws would include how to make such deals.)

So then, I am not stealing? I can just drain the farmer's fields of land, and thus take his only means of economic contribution and continued existance, because land is not property?

Land is not a personal property per se. That does not mean you aren't granted by the community a part of it to do your own part for society (and also yourself). The land itself is owned by the community as a whole, then further divided between the various individuals to make the most of it.

Think of it the same way as when you are working in a company. In administrative workplaces, you'll be assigned a desk, for your own use. Yet, you do not own the desk, neither the space where it is, neither the ground on which the building is set. But you can use it as you like, and no one else is allowed to use it as long as you are there doing your part in the company. How would the company, or yourself, treat someone who's from outside the company and would be using your desk? He'll get kicked out instantly.

And what you do in the company is given to the company, and in return you receive a salary. If you leave it, someone will replace you at that very desk, in the same fashion.

Replace company with my community, and you get the idea, economically. Indeed, I see my community more like a joint enterprise than anything else (and certainly not like a providence giving institution). Something weird for a community that looks so much communistic, isn't it?

Al Farabi
March 15th, 2009, 09:27 PM
Isn't state-conscripted and -assigned labour the absolute opposite of maximizing personal liberty?

Yiuel
March 15th, 2009, 09:28 PM
Not if you can join or leave the community at whim. Like in a company.

rmw
March 15th, 2009, 09:37 PM
Not if you can join or leave the community at whim. Like in a company.

Yes, but what of things outside one's control that keep them in the community, though they wish to leave?

Using your company comparison, older workers' retirement accounts have been decimated due to the unstable economy. What once might have lead to a comfortable existence after working for 3-5 decades, would now lead to financial ruin--and so a worker who might be eligble for retirement (age-wise) continues to work, as s/he has no other means of supporting themselves. Couldn't something like that--an external crisis--keep people from leaving the community, even though it's not their wish to stay?

Yiuel
March 15th, 2009, 09:52 PM
Yes, but what of things outside one's control that keep them in the community, though they wish to leave?

Using your company comparison, older workers' retirement accounts have been decimated due to the unstable economy. What once might have lead to a comfortable existence after working for 3-5 decades, would now lead to financial ruin--and so a worker who might be eligble for retirement (age-wise) continues to work, as s/he has no other means of supporting themselves. Couldn't something like that--an external crisis--keep people from leaving the community, even though it's not their wish to stay?

You can also try to live like crap again.

But really, the retirement accounts are based on interests and stock-markets. They can only work in a world where you have a bubbling economy, where money can be done only by waiting after further credits.

The ideal here is again something akin to an insurrance. All those years that you work, the community saves part of it for when you will have done maybe 30 years or 40 years of loyal services to the State. You might be able to save around 20 years. Then, for those 20 years, you spend all what you have saved without working. Some people might be unlucky and die early, others will be luckier and live a longer life, you only need a few actuarians to work throught the statistical probablities to see how much everyone should probably save.

In this case (like in the case of the insurrances that I have exposed in another post), your savings are not exposed to a bubble (since you don't need to invest it), relying simply on what you have accumulated in time. Your retirement is thus (unless real bad luck) garanteed.

Al Farabi
March 15th, 2009, 10:52 PM
This is not an escape from the oppressiveness of society, just a replacement. Let me illustrate an example:

Jim: "All I want to be is a great author, but I am too bound by monetary and societal constraints to ever develope my muse! I know, I'll move into this new society! I hear liberty is the guiding light!"

Welcomer: "Hello! Just sign this form!...Okay! Welcome to Yiueltropolis! You will start reaping the benefits as soon as you start your work as [glances at sheet] a barley farmer!"

Jim: "But I want to be a great author!"

Welcomer: "You can do that in your spare time, once you have met your economic commitments"

Jim: "But!"

Welcomer: "You may also leave at any time."

Yiuel
March 15th, 2009, 11:32 PM
This is not an escape from the oppressiveness of society, just a replacement.

I do not think that leaving my current society would leave me totally free. I recognize the duties you have when you commit yourself into an organization with other people. Indeed, I do not want to leave those duties behind : sharing the burden can simplify a lot of things. I want to leave some of the absurdities I see.

It is normal that what I want will bear a lot of ressemblances to current society. I'd still be human, those with me as well (unless aliens exist and would join us, but that's deeper speculation for now), and organizations will still have common points.

Let us examine your example, now.

Let me illustrate an example:

Jim: "All I want to be is a great author, but I am too bound by monetary and societal constraints to ever develope my muse! I know, I'll move into this new society! I hear liberty is the guiding light!"

Welcomer: "Hello! Just sign this form!...Okay! Welcome to Yiueltropolis! You will start reaping the benefits as soon as you start your work as [glances at sheet] a barley farmer!"

Jim: "But I want to be a great author!"

Welcomer: "You can do that in your spare time, once you have met your economic commitments"

Jim: "But!"

Welcomer: "You may also leave at any time."

First, your proposition is absurd. Take any immigration, and have your lambda immigrant coming in without any penny and saying to the immigration clerk "I'll be writing books." The clerk might just laugh into his face, but let us make him have some politeness and respect. Would you ever enter into a community like that? Unless the community desperately needs a novelist (which will be far from occuring, if what we see about most novelists is true).

The successful novelist, probably more akin to an entertainer than an artist (I make the distinction), might just bring with him an amount of wealth he managed to accumulate, maybe for the very purpose of moving into the community and financing his own place with what he brings. The less successful but artful one might instead propose himself to universities, or maybe institutions who would need such a novelist. One even lacking artfulness might try to look for crappy writing jobs like porn, or instead go into journalism.

What you are basically asking is a non-successful, non-artful, unknown wannabe writer to be accepted in a community. Acceptance is one thing, foolishness is another.

That does not mean he couldn't come in the hopes of doing that one day. The same way he could apply for a job in a university, he might want to try a scholarship into his field. This would be limiting his admittance as a citizen only if he gets accepted into university, but he would be entirely supported (but also would have a debt towards the community in return, that he would have to pay back, scholarships are after all credit given to students so that later on they may produce high-value works in order to pay back.).

He could yet still try to enter merely as a resident. I wouldn't have my community devoid of charity, but charity can be easier if the one who gets it can actually do a small needed part within the community, especially if he can. Then why not, instead of charity, taking some part-time job to get the minimum a citizen has the right to, and then taking pleasure in doing what you want to do else?

Second, you assume that liberty (or a free-for-all liberty) is what pushed my will. If such thing is true in terms of culture and cultural expression, it's not that way in terms of economy. Take the image of a company again : if you enter into a company, you have a task to do. But that task completed, unless you go againts laws and various policies you have agreed to, you are pretty free. This is what drives my own intentions : by giving myself those policies that I deem basic (and trying to limit them as much as I can), beyond them I am a lot freer.

Al Farabi
March 15th, 2009, 11:49 PM
First, your proposition is absurd. Take any immigration, and have your lambda immigrant coming in without any penny and saying to the immigration clerk "I'll be writing books." The clerk might just laugh into his face, but let us make him have some politeness and respect. Would you ever enter into a community like that? Unless the community desperately needs a novelist (which will be far from occuring, if what we see about most novelists is true).

Actually the point I was trying to make was that the idea of assigned labour is in and of itself anti-freedom. The very act of telling the artist what his job would be is what I have the problem with. You're right, if I went to move to the US (or England, or Pretty well any country) and said to the immigration officer "I have no money and I intend not to get a job and just focus on my work" they would think I was an idiot, but they would let me try if I wanted to. In your society, I would not be allowed to try, and if I did anyway, I would be expelled.

What you are basically asking is a non-successful, non-artful, unknown wannabe writer to be accepted in a community. Acceptance is one thing, foolishness is another.

Actually, what I am asking is why are your citizens not free to be foolish if they please? It is only damaging to the community if very specific economic systems are in place. Systems which your proposed society embraces. The very structure of your society is bent to keep people from acting outside of the will of the organizing force.


Second, you assume that liberty (or a free-for-all liberty) is what pushed my will. If such thing is true in terms of culture and cultural expression, it's not that way in terms of economy. Take the image of a company again : if you enter into a company, you have a task to do. But that task completed, unless you go againts laws and various policies you have agreed to, you are pretty free. This is what drives my own intentions : by giving myself those policies that I deem basic (and trying to limit them as much as I can), beyond them I am a lot freer.

You seem to support the idea of freedom, but not its implications. Saying "you are free to do as you please as long as you've done what we told you to do already and don't bother anyone" is not really granting freedom so much as a shinier enslavement.

Yiuel
March 16th, 2009, 12:48 AM
Actually the point I was trying to make was that the idea of assigned labour is in and of itself anti-freedom. The very act of telling the artist what his job would be is what I have the problem with. You're right, if I went to move to the US (or England, or Pretty well any country) and said to the immigration officer "I have no money and I intend not to get a job and just focus on my work" they would think I was an idiot, but they would let me try if I wanted to. In your society, I would not be allowed to try, and if I did anyway, I would be expelled.

To quote what I wrote in my last post :

He could yet still try to enter merely as a resident. I wouldn't have my community devoid of charity, but charity can be easier if the one who gets it can actually do a small needed part within the community, especially if he can. Then why not, instead of charity, taking some part-time job to get the minimum a citizen has the right to, and then taking pleasure in doing what you want to do else?

While in a small community, residents like these are not likely to be numerous (and certainly not desirable because smaller communities will need more workforce into basic services), in larger ones, we should expect that some people might try to live with less than what is considered the minimum. (I have done tons of conworlding involving the principles I am showing here, and weird, really weird things have shown up.)

Also, you failed to see that I would not, in my community, assign any specific job to someone coming. You're there, you'll be part of the community. You'll be adding yourself to the needs of the community, so here is what we have to be done. You can take it, you can refuse it, that is your choice. We don't need anything else for now. Tell me, when you work for a company, will you do needed work or unneeded work? Why would it be different with any other venture, especially one like a new society?

Also, you state that they would let me try if I wanted to. To quote Wikipedia, citation needed.

To enter Canada, even as a temporary immigrant, no matter what is the reason you want to come, you must prove that you have enough financial ressources to sustain yourself during your stay. For a student, they require approx. 10,000$/year. (As a visitor, you must prove you have sufficient ressources to leave the country after your visit, otherwise you're blocked) You can check immigration services if you want, I had to deal with them for my ex-girlfriend, and they're really an asshole. (Note that they even ask that of family reunions, again, my situation with my ex-girlfriend.)

As far as I know, it is the same in the US, and it's even worse in Japan, where you can only enter to do some specific duty after all (I had to deal with Japanese immigration, and might have again in the future; if Canada is an asshole, they're even worse). If we take that into account, and what I have provided in my former post, I seem to be more permissive than most modern States.

Actually, what I am asking is why are your citizens not free to be foolish if they please? It is only damaging to the community if very specific economic systems are in place. Systems which your proposed society embraces. The very structure of your society is bent to keep people from acting outside of the will of the organizing force.

Who said I wouldn't let people fall and be foolish if they wish? Where did I write such thing?

Citizenship, which is "participation into society" and not just a residency status, involves you, directly or indirectly, into giving a specific part of what you do (in Canada, into taxes, a very strict economical structure, mind you) in order to receive specific services that are, again, specified (in Canada, by laws and the government's policies). Some individuals might no be able to take part in it, temporarly or permenantly, but that's okay, that's the purpose of social security (common) and charity (private) and general help to those in need of it.

But for someone to actively not do anything within the community is a very perverse idea, in terms of citizenship. He may still be resident; who cares if he is not bothering anyone and generally respecting the working of those who take part in community? (Again, modern immigration policies in all countries that I know will not accept even that, as I have shown with my example of Canada, but my own envisioned society would.)

You might want to try to stop working and paying taxes and, generally, stop taking parts in society. In Canada, you'd be lucky, social security will pay even for that (even if only a little), so that you won't have to steal in a more classic fashion. In my own, you might want to try to not do your part (which can be done directly with work or indirectly with work exchanges, as I have said elsewhere), but you won't be given any social security, and you will have to find what you need in another way. (However, I would have institutions dedicated to have those people who left join back and receive help to fully take part into society, or receive the proper help if the problem is more profound.)

You can come in, you can fool around as long as you don't bother the people working on the terms they has accepted. You can also have been born here, refuse to take part in it and do as you will, surviving from your own work, perhaps making some money to survive. (Immigrants in most countries cannot do that, including your own country.) But in my proposed society, you could pretty much start your own society (leaving mine in the process, or just doing something parallel to me), if you're really not pleased by the one you are offered, and if you're not pleased by the tasks that may be required.

You seem to support the idea of freedom, but not its implications. Saying "you are free to do as you please as long as you've done what we told you to do already and don't bother anyone" is not really granting freedom so much as a shinier enslavement.

At least, I am clear in my intentions : "If you are to come with me, you will have to do some work for the community. We try to keep that burden to a minimum, but unfortunately, there will still be some burdern left to do, no matter how hard we try to reduce it. When that burden is done, and you have a clear figure of what it consists of, you can do whatever you please, as long as you respect some specific laws." Life is never free, and I would laugh at anyone saying that.

I don't believe in total freedom either. Laws, and limits, ARE important. I try to make them as open as possible (thus, perhaps why you have the impression that I support the idea of total freedom like a libertarian), like I would try to make the economical burden as small as possible.

But, when you live, you are really a slave to the work you have to do to sustain yourself. Do you think food comes out of cans from nowhere? (I am sure you don't.) You have to take your food, you have to build your house, you have to design your tools (or have all of this done for you, for which in exchange you will give other things). The freedom I aspire is not the freedom that comes when you let go of all your duties to yourself (and, in society, to it), but the freedom you get when in common you can reduce your economical duties and social restrictions to a minimum (both in order to live), and then have plenty of time for your own fulfillment*.

* In Canada, at least, while we are in one of the countries where the social restrictions and the economical burden is somewhat limited, these have nowhere been pushed to their maximum : you still have people who, despite working a full-time job, do not have enough to even contribute to taxes, and you still have some social restrictions that are based on very tendential beliefs.

Al Farabi
March 16th, 2009, 12:58 AM
hmmm interesting. Clearly my first impression was wrong.

My new question is: what makes this idea unique?

Yiuel
March 16th, 2009, 01:20 AM
hmmm interesting. Clearly my first impression was wrong.

My new question is: what makes this idea unique?

Who knows?

Somehow, I feel there is a difference. Some details, while minor, do show that there are some differences :

- The whole idea about me and a community,, mostly autonomous, unrelated to Japan, taking up Japanese and living by an entirely new set of cultural traits not necessarly related to Japan either. And that being accepted by the community at large. (In Québec, where I live, this idea is abominable at best.)
- Immigration, being particularly free and easy. (Compare what you need for Canada and what I have stated for my ideas.)
- Money (really, credits) being defined not by an intrinseque value (as of today) or related to a precious metal (as in the old days), but directly related to the production you offer to society. (In Canada, it has an intrinseque value, and that value is constantly deflating, causing a permanent inflation on everything, because the money is not based on how much you produce, but on how much you are ready to lend in banks.)
- The idea of self-independence and recursive independence : my own community, displeased by laws and ways of its former State(s), leave(s) it (them) to form a new society. And people from it could do exactly the same.

Somehow, the last point gives the whole libertarian impression, since you can pretty much do whatever you want. The importance that I give to that freedom to define your proper set of rules and burden to answer to your need to live (and thus enslavement to production), gives most of the tone, and it's probably the most important detail, and the most different point.

What is left after is a permanent experiment to try to limit the economical burden as much as possible for everyone, while at the same time opening the limits of what can be done within society, including the tools, knowledge and institutions in order to achieve this (infinitely eternal) goal. But this is an after thought, when you have set your initial rules first.

But all in all, I have a hard time showing what is different. Things are not really that different after all (though they are, if only a little). However, I like to think that maybe people being born in my own creation might even think that I didn't do enough, that I could have gone further (I am not flawless, neither am I omniscient, and they are certainly not worse than I am). But that some might have not gone far enough is, actually, what I think of my current society.

Al Farabi
March 16th, 2009, 04:34 AM
I don't think I understand how your monetary system works. You say, if I may paraphrase, (and correct me if I am wrong) it is not based on any intrinsic value (intrinsic to the money that is) nor to any standard (the example springing to mind being gold), but only to the direct product of your labour.

Does this mean that it is a barter system? A pound of grain is worth a bicycle or whatever?

Yiuel
March 16th, 2009, 05:22 AM
Does this mean that it is a barter system? A pound of grain is worth a bicycle or whatever?

Fairly close. While in smaller versions, barter would indeed be its actual form, the bigger it gets, the less practical barter becomes. However, instead of relying on gold, I would have them use what I would call "credits". Think of them as money emitted by some banking entity in return for given out goods.

Let us say, to be simple enough, that you are a producer of strawberries. To have credits, you must go to a banking entity emitting credible credits. These banking entities work like warehouses, where propositions for services and products are being stored (sometimes, they also store actual products). In return for the products and proposals being stored, they receive credits.

They will then use these credits to buy other products, pretty much the same way we use money. These credits will ultimately go back to the warehouse, when someone will buy something stocked into the warehouse, like the guy's strawberries.

The difference is how the credits are garanteed. On a gold standard, all money is garanteed by gold underlying it. In our modern currencies, money garantees itself (something akin to blind confidence, but we have confidence in the money because we know we can buy something with it, but let us not forget Zimbabwe and how confidence can fail).

In the community I envision, money (credits) would be garanteed directly with production. The problem here is then to value said production. Never something easy, because value is defined by a weird equilibrum between need and offer, and also quality of the offer. Both Porsche and Lada are cars, but they don't offer the same quality. Still, you would value said production, and the value of the credits you have are based on your production. Indeed, if your production is not worth a dime, you won't get any credits for it. If your production (like say, a Céline Dion song) values millions, well, so will it value.

And this means that the warehouse has control over the value it gives to its money, relatively to the value it gives to all the production it receives.

(Those warehouses would thus work like our central banks, at least in relation to money. But, in the spirit of what I would like, these warehouses are no monopoly of the State (you could create very local systems), even though the State might be taking care of a large one, including to administer its own companies.)

Al Farabi
March 16th, 2009, 05:25 AM
How would you guage the value of new things?

Yiuel
March 16th, 2009, 05:43 AM
How would you guage the value of new things?

Overvaluing it until the right value would be found.

tagnostic
March 16th, 2009, 10:33 AM
when you say production
you generally refer to tangible
items, what about intellectual property?
and intangible rather than intrinsic values?

djura
March 16th, 2009, 11:15 AM
Although the post is too damn long, I've read it and from what I could comprehend it sounds a lot like liberal socialism or communism. Been tried several times, and several times it failed. Although there are several reasons why this happened I'll only stick to relevant ones.
- it has been proven that every socioeconomic system can be addressed trough one, although wary important, basic human emotion. This is the glue that holds the idea together, and wary being basic, it is understandable to all. In capitalism this emotion was "freedom to all" as freedom to become what everyone wants, freedom to create wealth and to be independent. I don't have to remind you that "freedom" wary quickly become "greed" and countries embracing this system, became un-free in the process.
For communism it was even wurst - basic emotion of "equality of all" turned into "envy" over night, and this, among other things led to crash of such regimes throughout the world.
Way people are organized proves that you can not have a society grater that couple of hundred of people living according to collective moral guidelines - it does not work. In sociological experiments it has been proven that only one "bad apple" per 1000 residents is enough to spread anticolectivism, and this is where the story ends.
In order to have a successful society you must overcome the human barrier, and make sure everyone is treated accordingly to actions they undertake. And not just according to amount of wealth they produce - socially irresponsible behavior is equally unacceptable. This, however, contradicts the wary foundation of any society - individual freedom. This is why all the societies throughout the world came with the idea of laws and corresponding punishments for not obeying them. As Tag sad, if one should harm a child, he should be killed on the spot, to paraphrase a bit. If you come up with a society that has all the elements of an existing one, and we have no proof that anything different could even work, you might just spare your self a trouble and go for the enormous boobs.
Karl Marx made one fundamental flow in his work - he considered all people to be good by nature, and society was to blame for people becoming irresponsible goods guzzling morons as we know them today. Time as well as human nature have unforgivably proved him wrong, and stick remains so much more powerful than a kind word.

Yiuel
March 16th, 2009, 12:50 PM
when you say production
you generally refer to tangible
items, what about intellectual property?
and intangible rather than intrinsic values?

I refer to mostly material production because they are of kind that can be evaluated more easily.

Immaterial production, which includes entertainment, art, science, philosophy and things like that, including part of your own job, as far as I could understand that you make tatoos, is a little more difficult to evaluate on the spot. You have to consider the time taken to learn the skill, the ressources needed to have learned that skill, the time and skills it takes to make a good production (that is, with quality), and more details yet. With material ("tangible") production, these can be fairly well evaluated. With immaterial kinds of production like intellectual work and on-the-spot services, it's harder.

djura : will answer to your post, but not now, will take some time.

winwun
March 16th, 2009, 12:59 PM
Sounds to me like: From each according to his inability, and to each according to his greed . . .

What would be an ideal community is one that purposely has high taxes, and the surplus of taxes beyond what is necessary for the operation of the municipality would be invested and in say, 25 years, the income from the investments would be sufficient to pay for the operation of the municipality, with, hopefully some left over to disburse to the general population, and in the future, there would be NO TAXES AT ALL.

Problem #1 would be seeing that greedy politicos did not squander the surplus before it could earn sufficiently to pay the cost of operating the "town".

Problem #2 would be enfranchisement of benefits -- seeing that "welfare cases" did not ride the system.

Problem 2-A would be qualification of new members to the community -- perhaps a one-time payment of $10,000 -- this should keep out the ribbon clerks . . .

Wouldn't it be nice if someone had started such a system in your town 25 years ago . . . ? ? ?

tagnostic
March 16th, 2009, 01:26 PM
I refer to mostly material production because they are of kind that can be evaluated more easily.

Immaterial production, which includes entertainment, art, science, philosophy and things like that, including part of your own job, as far as I could understand that you make tatoos, is a little more difficult to evaluate on the spot. You have to consider the time taken to learn the skill, the ressources needed to have learned that skill, the time and skills it takes to make a good production (that is, with quality), and more details yet. With material ("tangible") production, these can be fairly well evaluated. With immaterial kinds of production like intellectual work and on-the-spot services, it's harder.



rofl
actually I'm a dumbass bar cook
but i try not to limit myself
working the garden
today

winwun
March 16th, 2009, 01:31 PM
Tag, humility ill becomes Caesar . . .

tagnostic
March 16th, 2009, 01:35 PM
et tu brutus?
:icon_razz:

Tsar Phalanxia
March 16th, 2009, 04:21 PM
This sounds a lot like an ideal Anarchist "State". I propose that it be called Yiuelism.

Yiuel
March 16th, 2009, 04:35 PM
This sounds a lot like an ideal Anarchist "State". I propose that it be called Yiuelism.

May I ask why "anarchist"? I do not feel that it can be describe as anythink like a system an-archist.

I won't disagree with "State" though, beccause basically people*institutions*location=state. (I happen to include law as well in the multiplication.)

Tsar Phalanxia
March 16th, 2009, 04:42 PM
Anarchism is a rejection of the state, and it's institutions, and holds that the state is a parasite of the people.

However, imho, the state is a nessecary evil.

Yiuel
March 16th, 2009, 04:56 PM
But, if you read what I have written, I certainly do not reject institutions. They actually form a central part in all that I have said here. From an Assembly, to the Warehouses, and other possible institutions that I have not described here, what I think is certainly not devoid of institutions : on the contrary, it is full of them.

To me, Institutions are not merely a necessary evil. They are an integral part of the tools we can use in our life. (And like any other tool, has no evilness associated with it, except by those who use them.)

EDIT : Actually, I am always forgetting the most important institution between all these, the Constitution.

Tsar Phalanxia
March 16th, 2009, 06:50 PM
Oooh
Now we're getting somewhere.

Yiuel
March 16th, 2009, 07:20 PM
The only thing that is anarchist in any way is the lack of "Head of State" or "Head of Government".

While initial visions did include something like that, into the shape of a community representant, this position dwindled into a mere "chief administrator of intracommunity and foreign relations" which serves at the Assembly's whim. The assembly itself is the government, so its speaker (the one taking care of all administrative issues pertaining to the Assembly) might be said to be akin to the head of government, but they certainly wouldn't do the same job.

But the political system, at least for larger versions of my vision, emcompass a lot more than just that big no-no. If you want to see something close to it, Switzerland's state council is the closest equivalent.

Fallen Hero
March 16th, 2009, 11:22 PM
Just a quick response to the thread up until the first post by Al Farabi:

I see this concept as a communist ideal. I see it ending poorly very quickly.

1. Many if not most humans are greedy, helps them survive.
2. Corruption has many faces.
3. Jealousy of when one does minimal and another does maximal work will be ugly.

Communism is dysfunctional.

Yiuel
March 17th, 2009, 01:09 AM
Got time, will answer the meaty questions.

Although the post is too damn long, I've read it and from what I could comprehend it sounds a lot like liberal socialism or communism.
May I ask why you think it looks like liberal socialism? But I can see the link pretty well : there are things from my own country (a fairly liberal-social society) that I would take.

- it has been proven that every socioeconomic system can be addressed trough one, although wary important, basic human emotion. This is the glue that holds the idea together, and wary being basic, it is understandable to all. In capitalism this emotion was "freedom to all" as freedom to become what everyone wants, freedom to create wealth and to be independent. I don't have to remind you that "freedom" wary quickly become "greed" and countries embracing this system, became un-free in the process.
For communism it was even wurst - basic emotion of "equality of all" turned into "envy" over night, and this, among other things led to crash of such regimes throughout the world.

If anything, I am inspired by the general culture around me. To me, economically, the goal is not "freedom for all" or "equality for all". As I have discussed with Al-Farabi, I do not believe in total freedom, and equality to all in the very communist sense is absurd. It doesn't work like that in our own body between simple cells, why should it work like that with people, groups of cells?

But I can resume my economical view in one such sentence : "safety for all". The goal is not for everyone to have the exact same thing, nor is it to be able to do anything, but to insure to all citizens safety. Sure, it will fail. Pretty much the same way bodies fail to stay alive. One recognizing that from the beginning might be excused a little bit to wish for better. At one point, society will face some issue and won't be able to insure the safety of all its members. But such thing can happen at any time, anywhere.

When you recognize you will fail, or at least that there is non-null possibility that you will fail in the long run, you will plan a way to escape failiure. I did so with "the right to leave", and if I may continue the analogy with the body, it bears much ressemblance to reproduction. The old corrupted society dies, letting the younger less corrupted one take on the run. And you plan ways to make sure these "social offsprings" may achieve a society on their own.

To resume : I know the one wish this community would rely on, "safety for all". I know that, ultimately, it will fail no matter how hard we or our offsprings will try. With both ideas in head, I'll try my best to have new societies easily build in mine's stead whenever it will be deemed necessary to happen.

Way people are organized proves that you can not have a society grater that couple of hundred of people living according to collective moral guidelines - it does not work. In sociological experiments it has been proven that only one "bad apple" per 1000 residents is enough to spread anticolectivism, and this is where the story ends.
In order to have a successful society you must overcome the human barrier, and make sure everyone is treated accordingly to actions they undertake. And not just according to amount of wealth they produce - socially irresponsible behavior is equally unacceptable. This, however, contradicts the wary foundation of any society - individual freedom.

I fear you haven't understood the purpose of a society. Do wolf packs join together to have individual freedom? Do most ants join in those eusocieties to have individual freedom? Perhaps an even more fundamental question : why do multicellular bodies exist? For every single cell's individual freedom? In all cases, the answer is negative. I hardly see any freedom for the eusocial groups. And with the wolf pack, members are hardly free.

And in human societies, the concept of "freedom" as understood by Enlightment philosophies is a relatively young concept, certainly not shared by most societies. Indeed, "doing as one pleases" is shunned upon in most societies, because of the dangerous consequences it may bring. I don't reject the concept of "freedom", but it is certainly not the foundation of societies, it's rather a consequence.

Now, I do agree that you must take care of the rotten apples or it will spread. I have explained in on post to Al-Farabi and another one to Tagnostic how I highly value "exile" as the best punishment. But pretty much all punishments would be exile, in my case. But prevention is another part : you can prevent rotness in apples, in some of our societies are doing very well in that. Tokyo has a suprisingly low crime rate, for such a huge society. But in Japan, a lot is done to prevent people to turn into petty criminality.

Karl Marx made one fundamental flow in his work - he considered all people to be good by nature, and society was to blame for people becoming irresponsible goods guzzling morons as we know them today. Time as well as human nature have unforgivably proved him wrong, and stick remains so much more powerful than a kind word.

He made it. I didn't.

Elsewhere in this thread, I have stated how people can be stupid. I do not think that people are good by nature. I don't think they're evil either. Humans have needs, they will do what they can to satisfy those needs, which are pretty much defined by how our body is made, and that is pretty much it. They'll group, they'll build tools, sophisticated tools, and they'll get what they need.

What would be an ideal community is one that purposely has high taxes, and the surplus of taxes beyond what is necessary for the operation of the municipality would be invested and in say, 25 years, the income from the investments would be sufficient to pay for the operation of the municipality, with, hopefully some left over to disburse to the general population, and in the future, there would be NO TAXES AT ALL.

You have one problem here. Well, at least one. The idea of investment. All this would be no different than taxes : part of the profit of businesses would go to the government, which is still basically taxes. You're just changing the way taxes would be brought into the treasury. And in a very perverse way, you are hiding the fact that things aren't free. Not the best way to educate people about how the world works. Can be interesting, but, unfortunately, I deem this way to be fairly bad.

1. Many if not most humans are greedy, helps them survive.
2. Corruption has many faces.
3. Jealousy of when one does minimal and another does maximal work will be ugly.

1. and 2. Agreed. This type of antisocial behavior is one of the ugliest way for a society to fail. But read more of what I answered to djura, as I know it will fail, ultimately.

3. This point is addressed in later posts, with Al-Farabi.

But I think that part of what you are adressing in this point comes from a misunderstanding of my concept of "minimal economical duty". This duty is my concept's equivalent of taxes. Instead of taxes, you are to provide the institutions that enable your life in the community an amount of work, for which in return you will receive the basic services for your own safety.

However, this minimum is not a full-time job. For a usual fairly easy work, it might be half of it. If not less. (Think about how high taxes are in some countries where services are universally garanteed, like Sweden. Yet, as far as I know, it's not 100%.) Also, this minimum is not stupidly defined : you are expected to produce something, and really, production, more than time or any other arbitrary measure unrelated to production, is the basis on which the minimum is based.

Think about it as in a company. You join the company, you are assigned some work. In some companies, the amount of production you give bears no relation to how much you will be paid. In others, it will be a direct relation : commission and boni. You are expected first to provide a minimum of production to your company before you can any commission or boni. Having reached that, you may now get more.

Well, this is pretty much the way I would view it. You are each expected to produce a minimum, no matter what, no matter how, no matter in how much time. After that minimum, you can stop, or you can go further. And when you go further, well, you can get more, for yourself. I have said elsewhere in this post how what you do beyond the minimum is considered yours to be used at your own discretion. Freedom as a consequence of safety.

(Indeed, viewing my proposed community as a venture company has had benefical effects on the whole idea. No company is perfect, but some of them have endured for centuries. Hudson Bay Company for one near me.)

djura
March 17th, 2009, 10:37 AM
need to work, will elaborate latter

Perna de Pau
March 17th, 2009, 07:16 PM
Your idea is interesting but not very original. It is however worth pursuing.

For more than 2000 years people have been trying to define an ideal society. Plato's Republic (380 BC), Thomas Moore's Utopia (1516) and Aldous Huxley's Island (1962) come to mind but there are many others. If you have not yet done so perhaps reading these three books will give you ideas to improve your model.

I still go with Winston Churchill, who said that "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried".

Yiuel
March 17th, 2009, 07:36 PM
Your idea is interesting but not very original. It is however worth pursuing.

For more than 2000 years people have been trying to define an ideal society. Plato's Republic (380 BC), Thomas Moore's Utopia (1516) and Aldous Huxley's Island (1962) come to mind but there are many others. If you have not yet done so perhaps reading these three books will give you ideas to improve your model.

I still go with Winston Churchill, who said that "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried".

I have read a few of these. However, I also like other readings, like Jane Jacobs' "Cities and the Wealth of Nations" or indeed, my ultimate inspiration in Plato's Apology of Socrates. In form (but not in content and values) I follow Rousseau.

I also like real-world example : Singapour, Switzerland and Finland have been an inspiration for culture, while Switzerland is a close example of what I would like as an State executive, and also as regional organisation. Japan inspires me in terms of administration style (but not the administration itself). Weirdly enough, Canada had been an inspiration for the monetary system, though you also have special communities in France that have inspired me.

And I disagree with Churchill, and seeing how Switzerland works, I have confidence in the system I would go for. Churchill maybe just wanted to secure his place.

Perna de Pau
March 17th, 2009, 09:40 PM
And I disagree with Churchill, and seeing how Switzerland works, I have confidence in the system I would go for. Churchill maybe just wanted to secure his place.

But Switzerland is a democracy (and in the end Churchill did not secure his place)

Yiuel
March 17th, 2009, 11:46 PM
But Switzerland is a democracy (and in the end Churchill did not secure his place)
And, ultimately, so is my proposed community.

djura
March 18th, 2009, 12:08 PM
So, let me see if I understand you correctly

- Anyone can come in and leave as they please
- Anyone can work as they please as long as they work at least a little
- You won't have to pay taxes, but you have to do your part in relation your skills
- If you can't do shit, you'll do manual labor
- If you leave you can come back
- There isn't a real law making government, but rather a bunch of smart people elected by general public (when did this ever happen) that basically make important decisions in everybody's name
- there are no real laws, but rather moral guidelines that are strongly enforced
- Economy is self sustained and not necessarily connected to outside world
- The surplus value created by such economy is used to further enforce the society
- Not clear if actually any monetary system is present, and if so how it would compare to others around the world
- Society's based on exchange and valuing things, but what about banks and other financial institutions
- Everybody's safe but what about military?
- Police?
- What about marriages and children?
- What about prisons, schools, hospitals?
- A zillion other questions related to things we all take for granted
- Most importantly what about the mechanisms that keep people from turning into socially irresponsible beings, killing each other, robbing, raping, molesting children, setting shit on fire etc.

That just about scratches the surface.
And btw - democracy didn't just become by it self. Sure, ancient Greeks called their society "a Democracy" but sacrificing 32 domestic animals to the gods and getting your head chopped off if you didn't, don't sound wary democratic by today's standards.
Democracy has actually evolved from various social happenings during 19 and early 20th century, followed by 2 world wars and an economic depression. Even so, in most countries it has become the wary negation of it self (I saw you mentioned Switzerland), and basically failed to deliver a true free society.

tagnostic
March 18th, 2009, 12:14 PM
take it easy Dj,

I want a work ocrasy
the harder you work
the more rights you have

and as for the anti-social
harm a child crap
I'm big on taking
them off planet
there's a cure
I've got it

winwun
March 18th, 2009, 12:15 PM
Good post, DJ -- BTW, you can't reason with children -- just give them a little time out and a big hug and they're OK . . .

Word, Tag . . .

Yiuel
March 18th, 2009, 03:15 PM
Rien ou pléthore. Okay...

- Anyone can come in and leave as they please

It is not as simple as that. The basic right granted is "You can enter, as long as you respect the laws established by or with the Constitution." Further, "You can become a citizen, if you do your part, economically." This implies that he's doing the part to secure his place and secure the community's existence at the same time.

As for leaving, you can at any time. However, you can only bring with you what is yours within the laws. If you go against the law while leaving, you cannot be garanteed that you will be able to leave.

- Anyone can work as they please as long as they work at least a little

The little bit that is described is for citizens. Otherwise, you can do whatever you want, as long as your actions do not go against any established law.

- You won't have to pay taxes, but you have to do your part in relation your skills

You'll have to do your part, but it doesn't have to be related to your true skills. But mostly, it will. Not doing that, except under exceptional circumstances, will cause you to loose citizenship (if you had it) and all the protection that came from it.

- If you can't do shit, you'll do manual labor

If you can't or don't want to do much, that may be just the right thing to do. And manual labor is just as important as any other activity.

- If you leave you can come back

If you did not commit a crime, sure, why not? Sometimes, it's a good think to go outside and experiment things differently. And if you happen not to like it, well you can just come back home.

- There isn't a real law making government, but rather a bunch of smart people elected by general public (when did this ever happen) that basically make important decisions in everybody's name

There, you have completely misunderstood.

You have laws, and you have a law-making body. It's the Assembly of Voters. It's members are those citizens (so, people doing their economical part in society) that have completed and passed an examination about their knowledge or skills to acquire knowledge about the community, which I divide into 5 parts : Demography (general data about the people), Environment (mostly science), Law, Institutions, Common Language.

You don't have a vote on who is part of the Assembly, if you pass the test, you are automatically a member of the Assembly for the next decade or so (not permanently, it's a good thing to update your knowledge about the community). This Assembly votes on the laws proposed by all the people.

The Assembly doesn't have a strict way of proposing laws. The only thing they have is that any member can propose a law to a defined Secretary of the Assembly, and that after a certain period of time, these laws will be voted. However, imagining a little further, I see members grouping into ad hoc commities, about any subject deemed law-worthy. These commities are neither permanent nor official, but the group can work on a specific law to be proposed to the assembly. Multiple commities can work on the same subject and propose different laws.

Laws are further divided into two groups. You have the constitutional laws (which are part of the Constitution) and the institutional laws (which are built upon the Constitution). Institutional laws are enforced when the Assembly adopts it. Constitutional laws must be accepted by all citizens. A corrolary is that institutional laws cannot go against the Constitution, the source of the community's links. Constitutional laws can, as they modify the Constitution and thus the source of the community, but since you need common agreement of all the citizens (and not only the Assembly), they are more difficult to adopt.

- there are no real laws, but rather moral guidelines that are strongly enforced

No, there are real laws, but they are only enforced inside the community. Outside the community would be deemed outlaw land. The only thing about these laws is that they aren't absolute : you can just leave and screw them if they don't please you. But, within the community, they are a real absolute, and going against them (and being exposed) will lead to punishment, that can go up to exile, the basic punishment for any crime.

- Economy is self sustained and not necessarily connected to outside world

Not exactly. If anything, the economy is based on ressource importation.

The more ressources you can bring in, the richer the inside is. There are two ways to gather ressources like that : gathering and exchange. In gathering, you take what is not being used and bring into into the economical system. In our current societies, we have a lot this, with mining, agriculture, lumber etc. Exchange is when someone else outside does the gathering (and perhaps further transformation), and we exchange it for something else. Indeed, the only way an economy can grow bigger (in terms of material) is by gathering.

Exchange also can have an effect on knowledge. Since knowledge is easily transfered, the more extensive and intensive the network of exchange, the quicker the advance of knowledge. So the idea is not having an isolated economy, the idea is having an inner richness that will be able to support society.

(Unbalanced exchanges can also lead in economical transfer of riches. But this is only a disguised form of gathering, by doing some internal work on imported riches to send back with a higher value (and thus making people send more to be transformed). Most of the modern economies developped that way, with the most proeminent example (that we can actually study in great detail) being South Korea.)

- The surplus value created by such economy is used to further enforce the society

I don't understand what you mean by that. Work being accomplished is partly given away to the community in return for goods, services and inssurance. This part is the one I described earlier as the minimum to be a citizen. What is further produced is then owned by each individual, at his own discretion, bearing any specific law. But since one can't make use of the tons of strawberry jam he produces, you will have exchanges occuring.

- Not clear if actually any monetary system is present, and if so how it would compare to others around the world

There is a monetary system, it is a further developpment of the current self-valued money without any gold standard.

Money cannot be worth anything without something to represent it, economically. This has been understood since a long time, and Zimbabwe is a case where they have trillions of dollars and yet are poorer than anything else, because that money, economically, represents nothing (there are not internal riches to support any value, no matter how much you pour in).

In my own views, I try to push that money to be further represented by actual production. That is, the value of the money would be based on the value of what is being produced. In such a system, inflation is hardly a good thing (indeed, it would just cause an economical collapse). Deflation is also a bad thing, as this would mean that things were over-valued and someone got richer than he should have been.

You have small systems in France, which I don't remember the name, that exchange services like that. They exchange services using some form of credit, that one may spend on other services. The amount of available credits is equal to the amount of available services. If more services are proposed, then more credits are made available. We aren't very far from our current system actually, but in our current system, those credits which are money are made available over an amount of money, and can further be lended again. (Basically, it's an endless circle of lending. And that's how banks work, really, and why inflation is so easy to have happening. The initial amount of money is the basis for all this economy, but this amount was not based on production, but on the old standard of gold.)

- Society's based on exchange and valuing things, but what about banks and other financial institutions

I have described to Al-Farabi the concept of Warehouses, you may want to refer to that. Inssurance companies would also exist, but they couldn't use investment much as a tool for further developpment.

- Everybody's safe but what about military? Police?

No, the community tries to make the people as safe as possible. That does not mean that everyone is safe, or that noone will have to risk his life. Indeed, the rights to existential, physical, psychological, locational and material security are limited to physics : physics will override anything we define, so we'll always have some insecurity. And even the people themselves aren't completely safe with themselves or others.

So you will have institutions and people who will do that job. And since these jobs are that easy, well they will be given more for it. And I have thought about all of this, with professional military and security orders.

- What about marriages and children?
- What about prisons, schools, hospitals?

You seem to wish a full description of what I came up with. I haven't discussed these because they weren't brought up in this discussion. But I would be a poor thinker if I would not have thought about these. But I have thought about these, a lot.

- A zillion other questions related to things we all take for granted

Well indeed, there are zillion things to think about. As far as why do we don't sit on other people when the bus is full? (I remember this one from a homework I hade to do on sociology)

But I am alone, or mostly alone, to think about these. Can't do everything by myself, even though I try my best. But I have said that earlier in this thread.

- Most importantly what about the mechanisms that keep people from turning into socially irresponsible beings, killing each other, robbing, raping, molesting children, setting shit on fire etc.

Since you have misunderstood how laws are defined, I understand why you couldn't find those mechanisms. But there are. There is law, and if you go against it, you are automatically set into going into exile.

Denouncing any wrongdoing would be considered a duty here : so you are basically witnessed by everyone around you. The law is only maintained if any wrongdoing witnessed is punished. Otherwise, we fall into a life of hypocrisy, and social cancer comes back. (One must however avoid the rise of malevolent sychophantes. Athens had problems with these, Socrates's death can be blamed on them. You can avoid these by having carefully trained judges specialized in analysing evidence.)

You have investigators for those crimes that might not have (enough) witnesses. They'd be trained to find the culprits. You have a police, to find out those culprits. You'd have a judiciary institution to pounder the evidence and witnesses of crimes to determine wether as far as can be known the accused one is the culprit.

Indeed, a central concept into all of this is how culprits are treated. They aren't given death; they are given full ostracism : they are kicked out of society and left to try to survive on their own. And as I said, being outside of society means outlawness, which means lawlessness. Ultimately, an angry citizen could then leave the community for a small while and kill the culprit, or worse. (I have written a short story about such an event. Frightening.)

And btw - democracy didn't just become by it self. Sure, ancient Greeks called their society "a Democracy" but sacrificing 32 domestic animals to the gods and getting your head chopped off if you didn't, don't sound wary democratic by today's standards.
Democracy has actually evolved from various social happenings during 19 and early 20th century, followed by 2 world wars and an economic depression. Even so, in most countries it has become the wary negation of it self (I saw you mentioned Switzerland), and basically failed to deliver a true free society.
And why would things stop changing now? Just because it is convinient that, in our time, things won't change?

As I have said earlier, everything will fail at one point. Flaws will appear, evident. The first attempts at democraty had obvious flaws. Those of our time aren't devoid of them either. But things keep changing, and the concept of democraty will as well change with everything else.

Other forms of government will evolve from various social happenings that are occuring in this very present. I am just adding my thoughts to it, taking part in those social happenings. As "I have already existed".

Perna de Pau
March 18th, 2009, 05:42 PM
And, ultimately, so is my proposed community.

But then why do you disagree with Churchill?

One flaw I see in your system is your proposal of exile as the basic punishment for crimes. If all communities followed the same model there would be no place to exile criminals to. And even if other communities did not follow the same system they would probably not accept your criminals.

Yiuel
March 18th, 2009, 06:45 PM
But then why do you disagree with Churchill?

Well, there are differences on how he views a not-so-bad democracy and how I view it.

One flaw I see in your system is your proposal of exile as the basic punishment for crimes. If all communities followed the same model there would be no place to exile criminals to. And even if other communities did not follow the same system they would probably not accept your criminals.

Indeed, I am pondering this issue every day.

At first, I only had exile and suicide as options. However, I added some sort of internal exile, really a prison (well, you also have hospitals in cases where the crime has been commited due to psychological problems). However, it would not be a place where you be just locked up and made turn around. I have defined a few styles, going from isolated community, to specific workshops (à la "slavery") to care centers. The first are for those who just don't want to leave, but don't want to do anything else. Workshops are for those who aren't repentant, while care centers (which would include workshops as well, perhaps) would be there to eventually release the convicted person.

I do not like, however, the principle of fixed sentences in length. Some criminals do not wish to stop being disruptive. However, I would let convicted criminals go further closer to society (from isolation, to workshop, to care center, to society) in a fairly liberal way. I know that this system won't be perfect, and people can be deceptive, but I don't claim perfectness, I just try something else.

As for exile itself, the world as we know it where everything is dull and all closed up is a rather recent developpment. But even if I claim it won't last, it might last until I die. So then, what happens? There are various countries actually that might be happy with some of the criminals. I don't know which, Caanda isn't one (usually). But all in all, perhaps the best would have to be to have a specific isolated region within the State where to place all that lawlessness.

tagnostic
March 18th, 2009, 06:48 PM
please elaborate
on your ideas of
a just penal system

Yiuel
March 19th, 2009, 01:36 AM
please elaborate
on your ideas of
a just penal system

Make yourself a bowl of pop-corn,
Fasten your seatbelt
Cause the trip may be long


Can a "just" penal system ever exist? Could a penal system ever bring back life to those who have been killed, sanity to whom's mind has been destroyed? We barely can offer those physically impared some ill-formed replacements, still to be perfected. For all this, we should invest more thought and more time in a better health system than on a "just" penal system. Save the victim before anything else.

Death penalty

Now, as I have said elsewhere, I do not like death penalty. I and you and all people, we are humans, not omniscient beings, and we can and do make mistakes. I don't treat individuals as mere cells, despite the image I constantly compare society to : killing off someone, and then realizing you made a mistake is just not "Oh, I just killed the wrong cell". You can't give him back what you have taken.

But, indeed, that is not all. To me, even if we made no mistake, death is not harsh enough. To Christians, death to the criminal and death to the innocent isn't not that bad an idea : the first will go to hell, for eternity, while the other, wronged, will be granted access to heaven on the spot.

But, I am not Christian, I think that should be clear by now. I don't believe in anything that contains "theist" without "a-". I think that death is the end of life, as birth is its beginning. I believe that my existence is limited to that time between when my brains starts to work and then stops to work, the same way Earth existence is limited from the time Earth became to when it will be utterly destroyed by a self-destroying Sun. Beyond each limit, I cease to exist. So, basically, killing someone is just ending his life.

I don't deny that being ended is difficult, because it is. But it is nowhere as harsh as all the pain the criminal has caused, especially with murder, rape and other kinds of violence againt individuals. Let us take a murder. Someone kills someone else. So far so good. But then, he causes a fear in everyone, that they can be killed by the next human. Think about the sorrow that all the killed person's friend are going through. What about the sheer madness brought from such injustice, such lack of respect for someone's existence. The killer is doing a lot more than killing a person, and the raper is doing a lot more than a rape. So death is just not harsh enough.

But I had, as I said, other considerations. One of them is that one might want to try to live as he wants, no matter how badly we may judge his choices. Sure, you have people who are sick psychologically. Sure, you have people who enjoy being disruptive and destructive. Sure, you have people who do crimes for a living. But what we want, is not to have them with us. They could be left alone, never to interfere with us, and we would be at least content that they won't be here with us. Killing them is just overdoing a wish to have them outside of our lifes.

So, what about the arguments for death penalty? After, it can serve as an example. But for whom? Those who are sick psychologically? Some of them can't even understand what being dead is, and some can't be made afraid of death. That we can commit suicide is just a proof of how not afraid of death we can be. Those who enjoy being disruptive? As if mere punishment would stop them : they will have enjoyed a life of destruction. Those who commit crimes for a living? Some of them do it because they can live : take them that, they don't have anything else, so, who cares? Others have megalomaniac tendencies : "I won't be catched!"

For the few to whom death penalty might be an examplary punishment, they generally have enough sanity or sympathy not to kill or do violence on people. And even then, psychological crisis can lead someone, no matter what the consequences might be, into a mad mode where they can do things just as harsh as what they might have feared to be done in saner times.

To have an idea about the effectiveness of death penalty, you can compare the crime rates between Canada and the US. Japan is an outlier in all this, but it can be explained otherwise than by the use of death penalty. (You can also compare crime rates within Canada : in Quebec, where punishments are usually weaker, you have a lower crime rate... These crime rates are absurdly low in cities like Québec and Saguenay, if we compare them to other Canadian cities of the same size.)

So, out of my way, ineffective, unforgivable and especially not-harsh-enough penalty. Hope I have made things clear enough in that respect.

Harsher penalty

As I said, death is not harsh enough a penalty for me. It's just too easy to let someone disappear, and it will not bring back de deceased person, nor will it easily repair what problems the crime has caused. To me, exile is better suited. Exile means being kicked out of society. To where? I usually propose three places : Outside, Inside, Suicide. (Suicide is really a subset of Outside, but because of its implications, I usually treat it seperately.)

A crappy life is more difficult to live than a few months before a programmed death. Being left alone in the wild, to survive on your own, if more difficult than being given death. And knowing that, outside, you can be killed off at any moment, that you are never ever secure, is even worse as a thought. Where can you get richer in such a life of insecurity? How can you even be pleased of being forever the outcast that might be killed on sight? Sure, the criminal would still enjoy some life, but what kind? All this, is the Outside Exile option.

Loosing everything, by virtue of having lost all his rights as a citizen or resident, he is kicked outside, where he must find a way to make himself a living, if he still wishes to live. He's marked forever, and will be shunned forever. But that is not all. He is outside of everything, even of the laws that protected him inside. He is litterally living in lawlessness, the state he accepted for himself when he decided to commit a crime. And who stops anyone of leaving and going there as well, and have fun killing NPCs?

Because, what's better than having the State killing the monster : doing it yourself. Form a Party, get Outside, and kill the Dragon. I will question your morality, but you aren't a criminal if you do so. Can you see how crappy your criminal's life can be? And why not, instead of having him killed, having him taunted and made crasy by harassing him? This is harsher than death. And perhaps a billion times more satisfying for the wronged one. This has always been the paroxysm of a penal system for me.

As I have said, I do not think that a penal system can bring justice to the world. At best, it's purpose is to get rid of the criminals by kicking them out of society, and to bring a satisfying vengence for the wronged people. If you want justice, help those who have been wronged, help those to whom life has not give the chances you had, help all these people in having the chances that you had and are still having. And no penal system will ever bring that. And to me, exile is the best way of having both purposes of a good penal system.

The Inside version of Exile is almost the same thing at its harshest. You place the criminal in a place which is, inside, free-for-all. He'll have to try hard to be able to survive that. The Suicide version is obvious : deciding to go out, the convicted one would simply kill himself. This is for the weak mind, or the one that doesn't wish to live a life like that, but doesn't want to live inside society.

Forgiveness

But sometimes, the criminal will seek forgiveness. Some people might be deceitful, but we do what we can. Some, seeking some form of forgiveness, would be greatful to make himself useful ; we might just have him do some work for society. Depending on the crime he commited, you might want to be sure he doesn't get out, but, at least, if you can have him do some useful work for society, why not keep him just for that? This way, he'll at least be giving something good to society, in return for all the bad things he caused.

Others, at the same time, might want to learn a better way to live in society. Sometimes, they were just in need of help. Some of these were even sick psychologically, hurt into their very soul for some reason. In these cases, we, as a society, have failed them : sometimes, without knowing, we even created the hurt, actually commiting a crime unwillingly. Sure, ultimately, we can all make choices, so for those whose problem is not psychiatric you still have some form of responsibility, but sometimes, out of misconceptions that were never corrected or even detected, someone can make really bad choices. While he pays back for his wrongdoing, he might just as well receive help to correct those misconceptions.

And there are other people who are sick, in a very physical way. Their brain has a problem, no matter what they have gone through, they are sick. This is our failure to detect that the individual was sick. Like when a white cell fails to detect AIDS and get rid of it. Their punishment is already harsh enough : they are sick, sometimes forever without redemption possible. But our task then, is not to have a system who will kill them out, but a system who will find them as soon as possible, and help them as much as possible. Which leads us to the final topic I want to discuss.

Prevention

Earlier, I have said that Japan, despite using death penalty, was an outlier in occidental(ized) societies because their crime rate was rather low (though it did rise recently). But, unfortunately for those who see in that any effectiveness, there doesn't seem to be any relation. (If there was any, we would see the same effect in the US, which is obviously not the case.)

What Japan does naturally, is prevention. It tries to integrate everyone as much as possible into the social system. Public school is not merely the place where children go and learn everyday. It is the place where they are encouraged to build their social relations with all the other children in the neighborhood, where they are to integrate society. And this is done by the older children to the younger one. This has had a strong impact : your place is basically secured, so you don't fall into the insecurity of being alone.

We are nowhere near that here. And really, this system as it is has its own flaws, because those who ultimately are rejected by their peers for any queerness are doomed to a faith worse than criminality and aren't "saved" by a more formal system if need be. But this difference, taking care of things before they even appear, is the type of things that should be part of the system.

We could find out, first, those people who are outright sick. We could also find those who were hurt. We could find those who are having other problems that can lead to soul-hurts. When we see children over reason age comitting a crime, instead of punishing him, finding what made such a young figure do that and help him before it gets worse. Basically, help before the need arrives.

Conclusion

Sure, Prevention won't be able to prevent everything. Sure, Forgiveness might bring back unrepenting criminals. Sure, from Exile people can come back and do just things as bad. But no system is perfect, I don't even think the one I described here is. We can strive to take care of all mistakes we can make, but perfectness is just impossible. But that is what I think might be good.

djura
March 19th, 2009, 12:55 PM
tl;dr
but go for it!

tagnostic
March 19th, 2009, 01:18 PM
personal opinion

you don't get justice
you take it
make it
or
survive it

incarseration
is a band aid
not a solution

Al Farabi
March 19th, 2009, 11:05 PM
The issue of harsh penalties: maximums
No matter how far you increase the harshness of the penalty, there will always be a worst penalty, and once a criminal knows he will be convicted of that, there is nothing stopping him from committing further crime in order to avoid getting caught.

If you are about to be condemned to the worst possible fate, will you think twice about murdering someone to buy yourself a few more days of freedom?

tagnostic
March 19th, 2009, 11:58 PM
the death penalty
may not be perfect
but there are no
recidivists
problem
solved

ps, I'd rather make a mistake
than miss one and have a child
go through preventable hell..

Yiuel
March 20th, 2009, 12:55 AM
The issue of harsh penalties: maximums
No matter how far you increase the harshness of the penalty, there will always be a worst penalty, and once a criminal knows he will be convicted of that, there is nothing stopping him from committing further crime in order to avoid getting caught.

If you are about to be condemned to the worst possible fate, will you think twice about murdering someone to buy yourself a few more days of freedom?

As I said, I do not concern myself much about whether some penalty will have effect. While I reject death penalty on those bases, I can reject pretty much any penalty, no matter how harsh, on those bases, so I can agree with you. There is, to me, no faith to place in punishment as a deterrent for criminals that are about to commit violent crimes against people, it's all silly. Those with a sane mind don't need harsh penalties, they just need dismaying penalties : something that you can achieve easily with exile as your basic punishment.

Without shame, I don't think about justice when punishing someone. There is no justice to be found in any penal system. I'd concentrate myself on helping the wronged one. About the criminal, I concern myself about getting the criminal outside society (ostracism) and, secondarily, offer to those who have been wronged the possibility to give to that criminal an awful life. Society should just be taking care of the first part.

Yiuel
March 20th, 2009, 12:58 AM
ps, I'd rather make a mistake
than miss one and have a child
go through preventable hell..

Children can go through anything, with proper help. I'm unfortunately a proof of that. (And in my case, it did not involve much mistreatment, but professional fault.)

tagnostic
March 20th, 2009, 02:01 AM
yes,
but they shouldn't have too
preventive maintenance

Al Farabi
March 20th, 2009, 03:51 AM
yes,
but they shouldn't have too
preventive maintenance

Pre-emptive death penalty?

tagnostic
March 20th, 2009, 08:20 AM
Pre-emptive death penalty?

retro active birth control

djura
March 20th, 2009, 09:51 AM
wouldn't it be easier just to have a law about who can actually have children. Take a test, be observed for a while, and get a permit.
Sounds more reasonable then having to clean up after people making a mess. And I know it sounds lot like nazi doctrine, but I believe it's a valid choice considering the repercussions of morons having children.

rmw
March 20th, 2009, 12:36 PM
wouldn't it be easier just to have a law about who can actually have children. Take a test, be observed for a while, and get a permit.
Sounds more reasonable then having to clean up after people making a mess. And I know it sounds lot like nazi doctrine, but I believe it's a valid choice considering the repercussions of morons having children.

djura, I've been advocating something along these lines for awhile now. You have to take a test in order to get your driver's license, shouldn't it be the same with having children? I'd say if you fail the test, you're put on mandatory birth control until you can to pass it.

Yiuel
March 20th, 2009, 02:23 PM
If you are to ask for a test, you must offer in return a course about it, and complete information on what can be in the test.

But that's not everything. I have seen so many people claiming to know the children's best interests yet failing completely (and not just parents).

Everyday of my life doesn't pass without me remembering those awful teachers and principals and other social workers deciding of my fate and placing me in hell's next worse thing for 4 full years before I rebelled. And I can forget my parents, following their supposedly educated advice, accepting. The Universe knows that I can't yet, despite the 13 years that have passed by since then.

I am also weary of the people who claim to know something and yet won't let you go away if you refuse their knowledge. You may be wrong in refusing it, but there is no garantee they are right either. Those people are no better than bigots, shutting you down into a prison without anyway of excaping.

I claim to know how things can be done better, but I don't claim that all what I say is absolute proof or the best possible or whatever. Indeed, I want you to leave if you don't like it, if you think you know better, especially if I fail to see that what you propose is better than what I propose.

rmw
March 20th, 2009, 02:52 PM
A parenting course before having children is a brilliant idea--honestly, I like it.

When it comes to parenting, I don't pretend to have all the information, in part because I don't have children of my own. I just find it maddening that there are so many people who have children, and yet are the furthest thing from "parents." I've seen this in my own family, where my mom and dad are practically raising my nephews because their parents have no desire to take on that job. It's not that they're abusive or neglectful--at least in the legal sense of the words--it's that they're lazy and self-asorbed.

I could come up with all sorts of stipulations as to what one must do to become a parent in this hypothetical community of yours, Yiuel, and we could argue over who knows what's best for a child, but I think the most important to take away from this rant of mine is that if you want to have kids, you have to take on the responsibility of raising them. And I've seen to many people who refuse to do that.

Yiuel
March 20th, 2009, 03:03 PM
A parenting course before having children is a brilliant idea--honestly, I like it.

Well, actually, that's what they do here in Quebec, at least for taking care of babies. They call them prenatal courses. So I didn't think about the idea itself, but I see no problem in trying to expand it into a full fledged course and teach about all stages, not only the baby one.

I could come up with all sorts of stipulations as to what one must do to become a parent in this hypothetical community of yours, Yiuel, and we could argue over who knows what's best for a child, but I think the most important to take away from this rant of mine is that if you want to have kids, you have to take on the responsibility of raising them. And I've seen to many people who refuse to do that.

To take on the responsibility, I can agree.

However, I have always thought about the cases where no matter what we try, an unfortunate child is given birth in a family who doesn't want to take care of him. And while I know it is not perfect, I have never had problems with adoption : my own mother was adopted herself, and she turned the best among her natural siblings (who were not). I would make sure that, if something like that happens, there could always be that (not-so-perfect) solution available.

djura
March 21st, 2009, 12:08 PM
A parenting course before having children is a brilliant idea--honestly, I like it.


Been done throughout Europe, mainly by social workers and doesn't work, at least the way it should. Problem is you can't tell a parent he/she can't have kids for failing a test. And tests are hypothetical - no real guarantee you'll turn out to be a good parent. I think a right of parenthood should be earned before making a decision.

Al Farabi
March 21st, 2009, 08:45 PM
Can I just be the one to ask how you intend to prevent people from having children without the course? Mandatory birth control is hardly much of a deterrent; people ignore mandate all the time.

rmw
March 21st, 2009, 09:09 PM
Can I just be the one to ask how you intend to prevent people from having children without the course? Mandatory birth control is hardly much of a deterrent; people ignore mandate all the time.

In real life or in Yiuel's community? In real life, as you pointed out, you can't. About the only thing you can do is educate people about birth control and the realities of parenthood, but even that's hit and miss. I'm not sure how you could go about mandating birth control--a sticks/carrots approach?

winwun
March 21st, 2009, 09:33 PM
A test indicates the regurgitation of previously ingested data, sufficient to achieve the acceptance of the person giving the test.

Having knowledge and being able, or more to the point, being willing and desirous to act on such knowledge is far from being the same thing.

A criminal may know right from wrong, but . . .

A teacher may have a head full of knowledge of her subject, but being able to impart said knowledge to malleable minds in quite another thing, and further, to be able to cause said young minds to want to apply the knowledge imparted is still another . . .