Your Ideal Society

[easyrider]

I think it's time to liven this region of the forums with a tang of social & political philosophy. I'm almost positive that most people here have an ideal society, state, city-state, nation-state, federation, confederation, etc. in mind. What role should the state serve? What measures are obligatory for the enhancement and integrity of a people? Is there a need for a state? How should people function in this type of society? Should there be designated classes for citizens? What criteria should be used when deducing citizenship? These are among the many questions which surface upon contemplation of an ideal society. Consider this a thought experiment, just as Plato's description of his ideal polis was, in my opinion. Now there may be people who have labored for and continue to strive for their ideal society, and that is perfectly acceptable. Those who struggle for their ideals are perfectly welcome to join this "symposium," if you will, but please limit debate of any sort in accordance with the accepted attitude of these forums. I'm sure this will work out appropriately, since there is an abundance of open minds which inhabit these forums.

Allow me to get the ball rolling, if you will. I'm going to attempt to briefly state the basic tenets of my ideal society because I surmise that complete illustration would result in pages upon pages. And that would be no fun for a discussion, no? The form of my ideal society would encompass collectivism, self-sustainability, oligarchy, statism, paternalism to an extent, the concept of the nation-state, irrationalism, militarism, timocracy, intellectual pursuits in general, spiritualism. The select few governing this society would have to have a broad and deep span of knowledge of the philosophical kind. Each individual would be conditioned from birth to have a sense of leadership, to also have a sense of humility, and to have a sense of self-empowerment along with the willing empowerment of the nation-state. Try to entertain the thought of a being with the soul of Christ and the charisma of Napoleon. Also, imagine the pre-Socratic Greeks who accepted everything spanning from success to tragedy with an almighty "Yes!" Impetus and honor would play major roles in the nature of the individual. Each individual would be thoroughly taught by the state the fundamentals of agriculture, hunting, the art of combat, and artisanship as a means for permanent self-survival. This would essentially make the need for food markets obsolete; there would be a surplus constructed by the state in case of extreme emergencies, though.

The family unit would be permitted, but with the idea that each individual belongs to the nation-state and to the genus more than anything else. Private property would be permitted as well, but only upon evaluation and approval of the dimensions of the property by the state, and with the idea that all property in the end serves for the greater good of the nation-state and its citizenry as a whole. The prepubescent stage of the individual would be accompanied by the tutoring of the aforementioned arts necessary for life, along with basic intellectual devices such as mathematics and language arts. The pubescent stage of the individual and onward until the age of twenty would be considered a crucial one in regard to the grand development of the individual, and would be accompanied by the tutoring of philosophy and its many branches, science and its many branches, and allegorical/fictional literature which would resonate with the key principles of the structure of the society. Inquiries of every range would be encouraged and permitted. The nature of entheogens would be taught to these individuals, and these substances would also be distributed to those willing to explore the depths of their minds. All these fields would be taught objectively as to give the individual a free mind instead of a robotic one. After this intellectual conditioning, individuals will be emboldened to interact with life head-on and to choose a path which best suits their own make-up.

Now, even with the given intricate structure of this ideal society, dissent or will to alter/modify the status quo would still be imminent. Characteristically, a society in which I depicted would probably have the military squash any dissent. No, my ideal society would have the rulers embrace dissent, for they would know that if dissent would reach incredible proportions to the point of impending overthrow, then they would acknowledge without bias that the system is not perfect and should be disposed of. A national palingenesis would ensue, or something beyond the thought capacity of the former rulers.

 

[proto-pax]

Anything goes.

 

[joedirt]

My ideal society would try to build on the currently successes of modern societies with several major changes.

1) The only crimes punishable with jail sentences would be those that infringe on the rights of others. This could include selling drugs to minors, but certainly not doing drugs, growing them, or synthesizing them for personal use.

2) A democratic system that consisted of one person one vote. No campaign contributions from business or non profit. The only people that could contribute to campaign finance would be humans. If Bill Gates wanted to donate 10 million that's fine. Microsoft no.

3) Science would be at the root of all policy. The only debate that would take place about the validity of things like global warming would be within the scientific community. We the people could vote on policy around scientific the findings.

4) All humans would be equal and all would be required to use part of their time in public service and humanitarian areas. The goal here is to foster and promote community and compassion for others.

5) All judges would be required to serve a 1 month anonymous prison sentence. They need to fully understand what the penalties they impose are like.

6) If we still live in a world were war takes place then all citizens of the country would be required to serve in the military, much like Isreal. the reason here is that those that have served would be less likely to blindly send others to die. Ultimately if the world became peaceful then these positions could spill back over into the humanitarian areas.

7) Medicine would be socialized by the government, but with certain restrictions. A set portion of taxes would be used to fund healthcare. Deductions would be given for those taking up healthy lifestyle choices like yoga and exercise. Likewise penalties would be issued against those with unhealthy lifestyle choices such as smoking and excessive drinking.

8) Every tax dollar down to fractions of a penny would be trackable by every citizen of the country via a simple to use website. This would end many of the pointless political debates. Anyone found tampering with these numbers would be sentenced to life in prison without parole.

9) Natural resources that society depends upon for survival such as oil would be nationalized. I can see no reason what-so-ever to allow individuals and businesses to have control over the things that we all depend upon. However this would not extend to farms as farming can be done almost anywhere and should be a basic human right.

10) Education would be required through high school like today, but it would be free all the way to a 4 year college degree.

11) Money would be backed by a gold standard again.

12) The federal reserve would be done away with. I can't see any rational for having the finances of the world determined by a private corporation.

13) Work weeks would be 30 hours. Every individual would have 2 months of vacation per year.


I'm sure I could come up with more, but this list alone would radically change the world we live in today for the better IMHO.

 

[polytrip]

The current political systems are immune to change. I don't think any improvement is possible because of how gridlocked the systems are.

Furthermore, the masses are only interested in wealth.

America is a failed experiment as are the european nationstates.

Within the western world, a federal europe is the only thing that could offer the perspective for something like a civilisation to emerge one day. A-because of a loose structure that would allow for less government interference in peoples lives, B-because of the cosmopolitan dimension of scale and C-because of the fact that it's the only thing that's not a finished product yet like the failed experiment of nationstates.

Unfortunately europeans are cowards who lack the vision to see what's in the best interest of themselves and their ofspring because of the fundamental inability to look further than the ends of their noses.
They all think their irrelevant little shitty nations are superiour and that the world is supposed to evolve around them.

Europeans have the choice to live on a continent that is economically, culturally and politically a superpower that has a say in it's own future in return for sacrificing a little national soevereignty, or to live in soevereign nations in an irrelevant impoverished, politically unstable part of the globe, in irreversable decline waving their silly little national flags the rest of the world spits on in their pompous inflated patriotism while their countries are degraded to futile peaces of real estate owned by chinese firms.

For some reason they prefer the last. So why would i bother about western society? If westerners themselves want to spent their late years in misery and poverty and their childeren not to have a bright future ahead of them, who am i to disagree with them? It's their lives right?

 

[endlessness]

6) If we still live in a world were war takes place then all citizens of the country would be required to serve in the military, much like Isreal. the reason here is that those that have served would be less likely to blindly send others to die. Ultimately if the world became peaceful then these positions could spill back over into the humanitarian areas.

What about if you are a citizen that does not believe in supporting military endeavors? So you think there should be "objection of conscience" possibility to deny going to war and doing some social service instead?

And why do you name Israel? I think thats a pretty bad example because the results of military service isnt a positive one there, im sure you know. There's a lot of psychological traumas amongst people that come out (And a lot of this trauma is 'taken out' on countries such as India where often post-military-service israelis create a lot of problems). Plus you see Israel constantly denying human rights in the ocupied palestinian territories, so obviously this death-institution isnt making the Israelis less likely to blindly send others to die or creating problems in general.

 

[MelCat]

Great topic Easyrider!

The foundation for my ideal society would be The Venus Project. I believe that Jacque Fresco has put an astonishing amount of thought and effort into how a society should operate in order to reach it's maximum potential.

I believe that everything our society has been through, has been for a reason... That reason is to get us where we are today. There are a lot of concepts that were critical to our evolution that no longer serve us as they once did.

This first list are the things that exist in todays society that wouldn't exist in my ideal society.

1) Money would be abolished. It only promotes greed and imbalance. There are entirely too many problems today that will never be resolved because there isn't a profit motive for the "cure". Far too often we hear "we don't have the money or resources to solve that problem". The truth of the matter is whenever you hear that there isn't enough money, that really means there isn't enough cooperation.

There are more than enough resources for everyone's needs, but not everyone's greed.

Love and harmony would be the new economy.

2) All politicians would be abolished. While government has been important throughout the centuries, society is evolving too fast for those traditional systems to keep up. Not to mention that when you think about it, politicians really don't solve anything. The people who solve problems are the scientists and engineers.

When there is a national disaster, they send the president out and he says "Yep, we got a big damn mess here". And then he flies back to where ever... Once he's gone, it's engineers who figure out how to rectify the situation and make it so it doesn't happen again.

3) Jails, prisons and authority figures would be phased out as more knowledge of social problems becomes known. Human behavior and psychology is highly influenced by the environment in which it's brought up. As our social standards rise, we'll no longer create the environments which encourage hostile behavior.

People are much more civilized when their basic needs are met. This allows them to move out of "survival mode" and into "compassion mode" way easier. People do whatever they have to do in order to survive.

4) In my ideal society, all of the labels we put on ourselves and each other would be phased out. We would come to know each other and all living beings on this planet, as Earthlings and as Earthlings, we all have an equal right to live, love and be loved.

Those are the first things from current society I would do away with.

As far as how humans would live, there would be significant improvements and way more emphasis on education. There is far too much ignorance in the world right now. The top priority would be raising peoples awareness with cold, hard, indisputable facts about the world we live in.

The main rule would be the Golden Rule, "Treat others as you wish to be treated."

Education, heath care, travel and anything and everything else would be free for all. You would be encouraged to learn as much as you can and seek out your life's passion.

To sum it up real quick, I just want a society where people are free to express themselves however they choose to do so. I feel there are way too many limitations put on us. With a few tweaks, we could turn this prison into a playground.

If we can learn to band together as one, anything is possible.

No one can ignore 6 billion people.

 

[joedirt]

Endlessness. Good points...and I'll try to address them as well as I can.

What about if you are a citizen that does not believe in war? So you think there should be "objection of conscience" possibility to deny going to war and doing some social service instead?

I myself don't 'believe' in war. But I am very aware that the world is not always a peaceful place. I think all of us that enjoy first world freedoms owe more than we can imagine to those that gave their lives across countless hundreds of years so that we could live in the current world. So, in as much as war and conflict are unavoidable parts of human life (I don't believe they are unavoidable BTW), then yes I think all citizens should take an active part in their countries defense for a period of time like Isreal. And just like Isreal I don't think this means that everyone has combat duty.

I'll be honest I have mixed emotions as I write the above, but I can't think of a more fair way, but I'd sure entertain others thoughts and views here for sure... Even Buddhists, and others that are sworn to a life of non violence could participate by helping the wounded right? I mean there are lots of aspects of defense that don't pertain to putting the cross hairs on your enemies head. Also I think we have to be honest and say that not all people would be cut our for front line defense...just like not all will be cut out for the science necessary to become a doctor.

And why do you name Israel? I think thats a pretty bad example because the results of military service isnt a positive one there, im sure you know. There's a lot of psychological traumas amongst people that come out (And a lot of this trauma is 'taken out' on countries such as India where often post-military-service Israelis create a lot of problems). Plus you see Israel constantly denying human rights in the ocupied palestinian territories, so obviously this death-institution isnt making the Israelis less likely to blindly send others to die.

I must admit that I wasn't fully aware of this. I'm guessing that Israel's psychological troubles have more to do with a country that is constantly in a state of war....don't you? Also I don't think it's fair to call them a death institutions. While I certainly don't want this to turn into an Israeli-Palestinian debate I think we can all safely assume that there are gross violations of human rights on both sides. I mean rocket launchers into urban areas is a pretty large violation of humans rights to me. And Yes I agree that Israel is responsible for gross human rights violations as well. I just don't think it's a black & white situation over there.

Consider this. A military controlled by the citizens would never have to fear their military. But I openly admit that there could be better more eloquent solutions. What would you propose?

 

[endlessness]

Yeah I think its a valid discussion, so let me continue

Endlessness. Good points...and I'll try to address them as well as I can.


I myself don't 'believe' in war. But I am very aware that the world is not always a peaceful place. I think all of us that enjoy first world freedoms owe more than we can imagine to those that gave their lives across countless hundreds of years so that we could live in the current world. So, in as much as war and conflict are unavoidable parts of human life (I don't believe they are unavoidable BTW), then yes I think all citizens should take an active part in their countries defense for a period of time like Isreal. And just like Isreal I don't think this means that everyone has combat duty.

Regarding the past, at the same time a lot of our innocent forefathers/mothers (and children) have suffered in many ways, been tortured and killed because of the military, so was it worth it? How do we measure this?

I know this will sound idealist but Ive thought about this often (and will keep rethinking), but the way I see, every drop of blood is too much. That cliche/funny quote of 'fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity' is spot on IMO.

Costa Rica does not have an army, I think thats a great decision for a country to take. I think if a country remains neutral and peaceful and invests all the money that would be for the army and weaponry in education and sustainability, inside the country and outside, then this money will pay itself over a billion times sooner or later in broad wwawys, compared to how momentaneously-protective but long-term destructive investing in military is. Did you know that yearly the military spenditure around the world is around 1,3 trillion, when with extra 16 billion, or just over 1% of the military costs, its calculated that the Education for All targets could be achieved and every single child in the world could have access to good school?

I think the word 'defense' is an eufemism and I do think that the military is inherently destructive. Education on the other hand, is a weapon of mass construction.

As for buddhists helping the wounded, why does that have to be through an institution such as the army? I think non-violent social service not only can, but should be done by people, but definitely outside the context of military.

I must admit that I wasn't fully aware of this. I'm guessing that Israel's psychological troubles have more to do with a country that is constantly in a state of war....don't you?

I dont think so, for several reasons. One of them, and maybe I have a biased sample, but I've noticed a very very distinct psychological profile in the few Israelis I met that did not go to military service for one or another reason (rare but they are there). Also having met some Israeli youngsters before going to the army, I do think that the country being at war does have psychological consequences but noticeably less than the ones that already served the army. This is just my subjective perception, I do not know if statistically more post-military Israelis suffer from diagnosed psychological conditions than elsewhere.

While I certainly don't want this to turn into an Israeli-Palestinian debate I think we can all safely assume that there are gross violations of human rights on both sides.

There is an enormous difference: One is perpetrated officially by the government of a country with the support or at least lenience from western countries and the UN, with not only direct wars and thousands of deaths, but also with a systematic denying of human rights every single day for years, a blockade that prevents basic materials to come in a country such as school/medical material, prevention of the right to move, ignoring every single UN treaty regarding Israel/Palestine since Israel was created in 1948, building a wall that crosses Palestinian land and separates families/towns, prevents children from going to school, steals land from people, constant harassment through checkpoints and arbitrary searches/seizures/impeding passage, only allowing a very small area of fishing and preventing several economical developments so keeping palestinians in substandard or even inhumane conditions, even getting to the absurd of bombing schools and even UN schools during Operation Cast Lead, etc etc etc. The violence from the other side is coming from certain radical groups that do not represent the Palestinian people as a whole, and its isolated incidents, a horrible thing and unexcusable but clearly a desperate reaction from suffering people. The scale is so disproportionate its not even comparable.

There is no equity in this war and I think the acceptance of Israel's actions by western governments and the US is one of the most dramatic examples of how fake the whole concept of western democracy is, when it is only a fake theater that is sold to some people in specific areas to feel content with ther lives, but only when its in the interest of the few in power.

 

[EquaL Observer]

If somehow we realise that every Planck unit of time is available to us as a dimension, and we could travel in between them at will - and also had complete control over matter - then we could all live in our own wonderlands and travel in-between different lands. Unlimited creation potential & understanding. There's no need for a state if understanding is high enough - I guess this understanding amongst the masses is my ideal society, the above is more fantasy

 

[polytrip]

A military draft is highly unethical in my view. If my country would oblige me to partake in their military hobby projects in afghanistan tomorrow, i would join the taliban today and should every dutch moron i'd see to pieces with a smile on my face. If i where an israeli and would be forced by law to torture palestinians, again, i would choose the other side and kill as many of my own counrtyman with great conviction as i could.
My counsciousness is not for sale, nor is it owned by any politician.

 

[joedirt]

Yeah I think its a valid discussion, so let me continue

Endlessness. Good points...and I'll try to address them as well as I can.


I myself don't 'believe' in war. But I am very aware that the world is not always a peaceful place. I think all of us that enjoy first world freedoms owe more than we can imagine to those that gave their lives across countless hundreds of years so that we could live in the current world. So, in as much as war and conflict are unavoidable parts of human life (I don't believe they are unavoidable BTW), then yes I think all citizens should take an active part in their countries defense for a period of time like Isreal. And just like Isreal I don't think this means that everyone has combat duty.

Regarding the past, at the same time a lot of our innocent forefathers/mothers (and children) have suffered in many ways, been tortured and killed because of the military, so was it worth it? How do we measure this?

I know this will sound idealist but Ive thought about this often (and will keep rethinking), but the way I see, every drop of blood is too much. That cliche/funny quote of 'fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity' is spot on IMO.

Costa Rica does not have an army, I think thats a great decision for a country to take. I think if a country remains neutral and peaceful and invests all the money that would be for the army and weaponry in education and sustainability, inside the country and outside, then this money will pay itself over a billion times sooner or later in broad wwawys, compared to how momentaneously-protective but long-term destructive investing in military is. Did you know that yearly the military spenditure around the world is around 1,3 trillion, when with extra 16 billion, or just over 1% of the military costs, its calculated that the Education for All targets could be achieved and every single child in the world could have access to good school?

I think the word 'defense' is an eufemism and I do think that the military is inherently destructive. Education on the other hand, is a weapon of mass construction.

As for buddhists helping the wounded, why does that have to be through an institution such as the army? I think non-violent social service not only can, but should be done by people, but definitely outside the context of military.

I must admit that I wasn't fully aware of this. I'm guessing that Israel's psychological troubles have more to do with a country that is constantly in a state of war....don't you?

I dont think so, for several reasons. One of them, and maybe I have a biased sample, but I've noticed a very very distinct psychological profile in the few Israelis I met that did not go to military service for one or another reason (rare but they are there). Also having met some Israeli youngsters before going to the army, I do think that the country being at war does have psychological consequences but noticeably less than the ones that already served the army. This is just my subjective perception, I do not know if statistically more post-military Israelis suffer from diagnosed psychological conditions than elsewhere.

While I certainly don't want this to turn into an Israeli-Palestinian debate I think we can all safely assume that there are gross violations of human rights on both sides.

There is an enormous difference: One is perpetrated officially by the government of a country with the support or at least lenience from western countries and the UN, with not only direct wars and thousands of deaths, but also with a systematic denying of human rights every single day for years, a blockade that prevents basic materials to come in a country such as school/medical material, prevention of the right to move, ignoring every single UN treaty regarding Israel/Palestine since Israel was created in 1948, building a wall that crosses Palestinian land and separates families/towns, prevents children from going to school, steals land from people, constant harassment through checkpoints and arbitrary searches/seizures/impeding passage, only allowing a very small area of fishing and preventing several economical developments so keeping palestinians in substandard or even inhumane conditions, even getting to the absurd of bombing schools and even UN schools during Operation Cast Lead, etc etc etc. The violence from the other side is coming from certain radical groups that do not represent the Palestinian people as a whole, and its isolated incidents, a horrible thing and unexcusable but clearly a desperate reaction from suffering people. The scale is so disproportionate its not even comparable.

There is no equity in this war and I think the acceptance of Israel's actions by western governments and the US is one of the most dramatic examples of how fake the whole concept of western democracy is, when it is only a fake theater that is sold to some people in specific areas to feel content with ther lives, but only when its in the interest of the few in power.

I don't have time to fully response...it's sunny out and I'm off work so we are headed hiking!

The US alone spends 750 Billion a year on military. It's more than the next 18 highest spending nations combined.

List of countries with highest military expenditures - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's disgusting. I also am very aware of Costa Rica...My parents moved there for a time and I visited a few times as well. I wonder though. If we went back through history and stopped at say the dark ages. Do you think a country could pull a Costa Rica and survive? I'm not so sure. Our history as humans is littered with war and oppression. I'd like to take the Gandhi approach, but my heart knows that only works in some circumstances...like when the British military is so broke that they have no real choice but to pull out of India...

I suppose I missed the target a little bit with the "Idealized society". Because lets be honest, in an ideal society there would be no war. And shit let's also be honest and say that a social structure designed correctly could mitigate BS like war. But is it possible to fully remove ourselves from the human condition? Humans like to compete. We don't like to be equal. Shouldn't those that try harder do better? I'd certainly concede that I don't think that the things we strive hard for and bust our ass for are the things that we necessarily should be...namely money and power. But still, I like to know that if I bust my ass and work hard I'll be rewarded for it...and yes I realize that's because I was brought up in this society....but hippy communes haven't worked in the past and I believe it's because no one wants to be working the farm all day while Joe is off dicking around. There is an element of everyone needing to pull their weight that has been with us since tribal times right up to modern day corporate America and I don't see that going away.

I'm not going to comment on the Isreali-palestinain conflict simply because I know in my heart that I don't fully know the real situation. I can sit back and demonized my country and their decisions till the end of time and I'd still only know what the media has mass fed me. I suppose it's time I dug into this situation more and formed a more informed opinion about it.

A military draft is highly unethical in my view.

Is it unethical for us to reap the freedoms of our militaries? Or to put it another way. Is it ethical for us to enjoy our freedoms at the expense of others that fought (and perhaps died) for us? Not intended to be confrontational....seriously not at all. Just an honest question that I'm not sure I know the answer to. It would be nice to get House to comment in this thread at some point. BTW I myself have not served in the military...I wanted to as a child growing up, but then got into trouble as a teenager and was larger blocked from doing so...I'm so very glad I didn't take that route. I don't believe our military today defends our freedoms...not on iota actually.

 

[endlessness]

I wonder though. If we went back through history and stopped at say the dark ages. Do you think a country could pull a Costa Rica and survive? I'm not so sure. Our history as humans is littered with war and oppression. I'd like to take the Gandhi approach, but my heart knows that only works in some circumstances...like when the British military is so broke that they have no real choice but to pull out of India...

Who knows, we can speculate all we want I guess but the past is past, we can't change it. But if we talk about the present and future, yeah I think it would be viable for countries to gradually change budget from military to education/health/sustainability investment and I think it would pay itself of many times over.

I suppose I missed the target a little bit with the "Idealized society". Because lets be honest, in an ideal society there would be no war. And shit let's also be honest and say that a social structure designed correctly could mitigate BS like war. But is it possible to fully remove ourselves from the human condition? Humans like to compete. We don't like to be equal. Shouldn't those that try harder do better? I'd certainly concede that I don't think that the things we strive hard for and bust our ass for are the things that we necessarily should be...namely money and power. But still, I like to know that if I bust my ass and work hard I'll be rewarded for it...and yes I realize that's because I was brought up in this society....but hippy communes haven't worked in the past and I believe it's because no one wants to be working the farm all day while Joe is off dicking around. There is an element of everyone needing to pull their weight that has been with us since tribal times right up to modern day corporate America and I don't see that going away.

You are making a supposition that natural human condition of competing/struggling for improvement is the same as war and militarization, no? IMO the natural human instincts could still be manifested in less destructive ways. I mean, as a silly example but think of sports, one is competing and yet there are certain basic rules for this to be healthy.

I dont know if we can really generalize what a 'hippie commune' is, I think we have to look case by case and see why one or another attempt did not work. Also, even if some alternative attempt at a social system didnt work doesnt mean one shouldnt try something else, right?

Is it unethical for us to reap the freedoms of our militaries? Or to put it another way. Is it ethical for us to enjoy our freedoms at the expense of others that fought (and perhaps died) for us? Not intended to be confrontational....seriously not at all. Just an honest question that I'm not sure I know the answer to. It would be nice to get House to comment in this thread at some point. BTW I myself have not served in the military...I wanted to as a child growing up, but then got into trouble as a teenager and was larger blocked from doing so...I'm so very glad I didn't take that route. I don't believe our military today defends our freedoms...not on iota actually.

I didnt ask anybody to join the military and "die for me", just the same as I will not feel like they 'killed for me'. The karma is on them. IMO wars = mass psychosis, and the military and guns industry = brainwash and death industry, sorry to be this strong about it but thats really how I feel.

I was born in a country who's modern history started with invading europeans that massacred millions of indigenous people, plus all the countless slaves brought from africa to serve the rich that colonized the country. Should I consider that a victory, something they did 'for me' ? I certainly dont think that way. And I live in a country who's history is of colonizing others and developed it's riches by parasitic external relations, so am I to be considered responsible and feel thankful for 'reaping the fruits' (or just by chance being alive in this place and time) ?

Also, this discussion relates to all this blind identification with borders: why should I consider that military or people that are inside a certain arbitrary border is on my side and the military inside another border is not 'us' ? Arent we all humans? To me the humans using peaceful methods for balanced self and social development are the ones that are on my side, and the ones picking up guns are the ones potentially against me, regardless of where and when in the world this is.

Ghandi, Socrates, Francesc Ferrer i Guardia and the many other peaceful light-bringers that this world saw are the ones that I feel in a way 'died for me', or died for the cause I feel related to, truth, peace and education. They werent using guns, they were using words and symbolic action, science, education. Thats the only way forward imo

If I had a choice I would say every single military cent spent should be spent elsewhere, 'bring the boys back home'.

And yeah I do realize the idealism, but I dont think its a naive one and I see the gradual transition as possible.

 

[easyrider]

I suppose I missed the target a little bit with the "Idealized society". Because lets be honest, in an ideal society there would be no war. And shit let's also be honest and say that a social structure designed correctly could mitigate BS like war.

I don't think you missed the target, because your ideal society would still have to co-exist amongst other societies which might not be ideal. Or perhaps they are ideal, but are based on differing ideals. One man's ideal society could view the act of war as a dignified, healthy process for the building or progression of an individual's psyche.

 

[joedirt]

I wonder though. If we went back through history and stopped at say the dark ages. Do you think a country could pull a Costa Rica and survive? I'm not so sure. Our history as humans is littered with war and oppression. I'd like to take the Gandhi approach, but my heart knows that only works in some circumstances...like when the British military is so broke that they have no real choice but to pull out of India...

Who knows, we can speculate all we want I guess but the past is past, we can't change it. But if we talk about the present and future, yeah I think it would be viable for countries to gradually change budget from military to education/health/sustainability investment and I think it would pay itself of many times over.

That's right. And we can't change the violent history of humanity. So here we are. There is absolutely no way you and I would enjoy the freedoms we have today if others hadn't died fighting for it. To believe otherwise is idealism IMHO. Looking forward I tend to agree with you. I think the world is progressing to a peaceful enough point that serious discussions about demilitarizing can begin to take place. The past is what it is. We are were we are to today because of it. And believe me...I very much realize what my country is. As a child I was taught this was the land of the free, the home of the brave....by God this is the US of A and we are the greatest country to ever grace this planet.... Only no one bothered to tell it exactly like it was. We left Europe to escape religious intolerance only to arrive on the shores of America and commit genocide against the native Americans with different religious/world views that ours. Then as if that wasn't enough we enslaved Africans with yet other, different, religions/word views and proceeded to build this "great country" on their backs. Believe me...the irony of how it all came to be is not lost even on bit one me. But we have to frame the world in the context of the times. The human condition has been one of war, greed, famine, and slavery since at least the egyptians time and I'd be willing to bet it extends back beyond that as well. The freedoms we know today really did arrise out of horrible acts. But these freedoms you and I and all other first world nations enjoy are spreading to other parts of the world. I don't believe all the blood shed was in vane. I do believe it was necessary for us to arrive were we are today. The only proof I offer of these statements is history itself.

I suppose I missed the target a little bit with the "Idealized society". Because lets be honest, in an ideal society there would be no war. And shit let's also be honest and say that a social structure designed correctly could mitigate BS like war. But is it possible to fully remove ourselves from the human condition? Humans like to compete. We don't like to be equal. Shouldn't those that try harder do better? I'd certainly concede that I don't think that the things we strive hard for and bust our ass for are the things that we necessarily should be...namely money and power. But still, I like to know that if I bust my ass and work hard I'll be rewarded for it...and yes I realize that's because I was brought up in this society....but hippy communes haven't worked in the past and I believe it's because no one wants to be working the farm all day while Joe is off dicking around. There is an element of everyone needing to pull their weight that has been with us since tribal times right up to modern day corporate America and I don't see that going away.

You are making a supposition that natural human condition of competing/struggling for improvement is the same as war and militarization, no? IMO the natural human instincts could still be manifested in less destructive ways. I mean, as a silly example but think of sports, one is competing and yet there are certain basic rules for this to be healthy.

I dont know if we can really generalize what a 'hippie commune' is, I think we have to look case by case and see why one or another attempt did not work. Also, even if some alternative attempt at a social system didnt work doesnt mean one shouldnt try something else, right?

Well Honestly I believe it's this competition/struggle that leads to war. Remember humans didn't just fall out of the sky and inhabit cities. Evolution was a long slow fight from the bush. Competition in the real sense of the word means to compete for food and resources. To help those that help you while out competing (often times killing) those that don't. Modern day sports don't really equate to this kind of competition. I mean when you loose a football game you still go home and have diner with your wife. In prehistoric times when you lost the resource war you had to leave and find another spot or you died. My point here is that you can't separate who who are today from were we came from. This is real competition. This need to have what others don't is ingrained very deeply into us. Is it fixed? I don't know, but I don't think so. The question for me is how do we get to this ideal place that you and I, and many others dream about? I don't think we do it by trying to force away hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution...I think it's a slow evolutionary process and it's one that is unfolding as we speak... I mean as disgruntled as we are with our society I think it's fair to say that the human condition an average around the planet is better than it's ever been. Perhaps life as an Indian was better, but we can only speculate about that from our idealic positions with heaters in the winter, and air conditioners in the summer, and easily available food all year, etc, etc. None of us really know what it would be like to like to live in the wild day in and day our for our entire lives.....and remember war was a big part of Indian life.

As for hippy communes...yes we can define them. They were the offspring's of the USA and European 60's movement. They, like us, were fed up with modern society with it's money and power struggle. They wanted to go live off the land in communes were everyone pitched in equally and shared the rewards equally. Only it didn't work because people do not inherently want to be equal. Does that mean we shouldn't analyze them and continue trying? no. Sure we should, but perhaps we'd be well served to look at the entirety of human history as well. Any attempt to make all men/women equal in this context is doomed to failure at this point in time.

Money is not evil...money is just an instrument that enabled barter and trade to take place on a much grander scale. Who the hell wants to go back to using cows for money? Not me. It's not money that's evil. It's the drive of humans to have more than their neighbors that eventually leads them to power and money struggles which result in evil. I know you didn't say anything about money as we were just talking about people serving in the military, but since this all ties into our idealized society I threw it in.

Is it unethical for us to reap the freedoms of our militaries? Or to put it another way. Is it ethical for us to enjoy our freedoms at the expense of others that fought (and perhaps died) for us? Not intended to be confrontational....seriously not at all. Just an honest question that I'm not sure I know the answer to. It would be nice to get House to comment in this thread at some point. BTW I myself have not served in the military...I wanted to as a child growing up, but then got into trouble as a teenager and was larger blocked from doing so...I'm so very glad I didn't take that route. I don't believe our military today defends our freedoms...not on iota actually.

I didnt ask anybody to join the military and "die for me", just the same as I will not feel like they 'killed for me'. The karma is on them. IMO wars = mass psychosis, and the military and guns industry = brainwash and death industry, sorry to be this strong about it but thats really how I feel.


I was born in a country who's modern history started with invading europeans that massacred millions of indigenous people, plus all the countless slaves brought from africa to serve the rich that colonized the country. Should I consider that a victory, something they did 'for me' ? I certainly dont think that way. And I live in a country who's history is of colonizing others and developed it's riches by parasitic external relations, so am I to be considered responsible and feel thankful for 'reaping the fruits' (or just by chance being alive in this place and time) ?

Also, this discussion relates to all this blind identification with borders: why should I consider that military or people that are inside a certain arbitrary border is on my side and the military inside another border is not 'us' ? Arent we all humans? To me the humans using peaceful methods for balanced self and social development are the ones that are on my side, and the ones picking up guns are the ones potentially against me, regardless of where and when in the world this is.

You may not have asked them to die for you, but to pretend that you'd enjoy the life you have today if they hadn't is idealism IMHO. I didn't ask them to die for me either, but I'm glad they did. If China invaded your country tomorrow would you be glad to have a military....I know I would. I don't believe defense is evil. I think it's ok to defend yourself. But I stop far short of praise for the military industrial complex of my country. Militaries today aren't really in the business of defense. They are in the business of protecting the business interests of their funders. Our soldiers today are mercenaries.

Ghandi, Socrates, Francesc Ferrer i Guardia and the many other peaceful light-bringers that this world saw are the ones that I feel in a way 'died for me', or died for the cause I feel related to, truth, peace and education. They werent using guns, they were using words and symbolic action, science, education. Thats the only way forward imo

history is an interesting thing indeed. Gandhi was a great man in the eye's of history...but not everyone thought so.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703529004576160371482469358.html?mod=WSJ_article_related

If I had a choice I would say every single military cent spent should be spent elsewhere, 'bring the boys back home'.

And yeah I do realize the idealism, but I dont think its a naive one and I see the gradual transition as possible.

I don't disagree with you. But yes there is a level of idealism that we share....and quite frankly I think idealism is ok. Why not strive for perfection? But we need to think of the best way to get from the reality of were we are today to something better. And like easy rider said we have to find away to build this idealized society while also facing the reality that others don't share our idealism....which ultimately leads me back to the realization that at least for right now today...defense is necessary. The question we should all ask ourselves is what can we as individuals...you, me, easy rider, polytrip, Equal Observer, Melodic Catastrophe, etc, etc do do start making this world better. One of the reason's I love this community so much is because I believe that many of us have started asking these questions and many of us are putting some of these ideals to work in our own lives. Part of our frustration likely stems from the fact that we've all spent so much time thinking about this and working to improve our selves that it's hard for us to relate to those that appear as though they are simple drones to the society they were raised in. But in a lot of way's some of those people are happier than many of us. In other way's not so much.

 

[polytrip]

A military draft is always more unethical than having a proffesional army. Especially in combination with political wars.
If it where just a passive military that sit's and waits for an invasion to act upon it and stop it, it wouldn't be so bad.
But to sent people to afhanistan and iraq to fight there, against their will...if anybody would do that to me, i would collaborate immediately and kill as much of my own guys as i could. That'll teach them.

 

[smokerx]

ideal society :

no money, all people equal, no ownership of any kind, all needed would be provided once not needed anymore returned, no guns ofcource therefore no more wars, all people working together , help eachother.

there is plenty of everything on this planet for all people so why should only some people be privileged to have it. we are all the same and deserve the same. we are all citisens of this planet and all on it belong to all inhabitants that means not just humans but animals and plants. if we leave with this in our hearts there will be only love and harmony on this planet. the balance has to be maintaned or the earth will balanc it its self as it is already happening around the whole world.it is still time to make a change.

it is so easy to live like this it only takes all of as to stop complying with stupidity of momentary system that is going down anyway. stop being sheeps and start being the human beings. start being responsible for your own acts. there is nobody else to blame but you your self and thats the place where we all have to start - with our selfs.

 

[Ice House]

I know this is a very basic response, but, I admire and love the nomadic tribal living by the Lakota Indians. Follow the food. Only take what can be replaced. Sustainable living.

Government was a council of elders. You were in based on you experience and deeds. The Shaman guided the comunity in a way that harmonized with their surroundings.

The tribe was community based. Everything that was done was done for community.

In those days there was a selfless devotion to community-brother-sister-father-mother.

I like that.

My vision is that some day.... Maybe not in my life time, but some day the Phoenix will rise again.

 

[1664]

A military draft is highly unethical in my view. If my country would oblige me to partake in their military hobby projects in afghanistan tomorrow, i would join the taliban today and should every dutch moron i'd see to pieces with a smile on my face....

...But to sent people to afhanistan and iraq to fight there, against their will...if anybody would do that to me, i would collaborate immediately and kill as much of my own guys as i could. That'll teach them.

Pretty full on there, are you serious?

 

[Ice House]

A military draft is always more unethical than having a proffesional army. Especially in combination with political wars.
If it where just a passive military that sit's and waits for an invasion to act upon it and stop it, it wouldn't be so bad.
But to sent people to afhanistan and iraq to fight there, against their will...if anybody would do that to me, i would collaborate immediately and kill as much of my own guys as i could. That'll teach them.

You put much thought into that satement? I mean I understand being against war. Hmmm I dont know... I have been to war, twice, dont ever want to go again. I wouldnt ever want to kill another person for any cause. Wow polytrip... really?

 

[polytrip]

I think forcing people to fight a war, except from purely defensive wars, is worse than rape in my opinion. A country that would do that to me would be my personal enemy. Defensive wars are different. But expeditionary wars are a political choice.
If i would ever be forced to fight a war against my will, i'd be dead anyway, i would not have a place to go back to anyway. And my real enemys would not be the other side, but my own country. So yes, then i would definately collaborate.
Besides, if i would go down before a firing squad anyway, why not take some of them with you?