How would you change the world?

[sobrique]

I subject I was discussing with zaitan. How would you change the 'system'. The established order.

What would be your idea of utopia?. And how would you implement it.

Imagine, that in some shock occurance, you are made Emperor of the world. All defer to your will, and all will accept your wishes as law.

What do you change?

You see, the thought occurs that in this country we have a parliment. If you are elected, you get a paycheck. If you are not though, you don't.

This basically means that you've got to be financially secure in some way to run for government, which nicely cuts out a large segment of the population.
Would you change that demographic, and how?

Do you see the ideal society as more communist or capitalist than it is? Remembering for every fair system you implement, there will be those who do not play fair, and who abuse it.

We discussed, you see, the idea of 'career' politicians. Paid to compete and run for government. It's be great. A new age where everyone can try and do the job, and bring fresh ideas. But we couldn't think how to do it. If you offer a grant to anyone who stands in an election, then you will get people standing just to get the grant.

One way or another, despite their idiosyncrascies, the 'established' political systems have lasted quite well. Is this due to an ongoing cycle of corruption, or is it simply that it really is the 'least worst' system?

It's the usual problem, of power corrupting. It'd start simply. You'd get some support standing for election. And then you'd owe 'em a favour. So maybe you'd see some good stuff go their way. Look out for you and your own, and then the others.

Problem is, I can't see a way out. Giving all the power and decision making authority to one man would be ideal, but only if that one man is one you can trust to do the right thing for all. So instead you split the crown amongst many, they fight over the issues, and gradually pull in different directions.

So just imagine, that tomorrow you were made president, prime minister, king, queen or otherwise major authority figure.

What would _you_ do with it?

Comments

[warmage.livejournal.com]

If I were made President tomorrow, I would fight and fight and fight (assuming I can't simply decree) for line-item veto. This is a power the POTUS does not have, although nearly every Governor does. Then there's no question about where me and my interests lie. If I want to pass the pork, I don't redact that paragraph. If I want to sling some shit back to the lower house, one BIG RED X on that measure.

Then someone could report on exactly what I passed and I could comment on my philosophy and my reasons for passing or denying certain elements. I would be more able to thwart my opponents and my antitheses, and equally able to support my compatriots, whatever the feather.

Without these, you see what the US Code has become: "Sneak it in somewhere in the middle and you'll get your law/money/special interest catered."

[warmage.livejournal.com]

More deeply, we need to abolish money, egocentricity, and probably religion. All religious zealotry will be met in exactly the same way, though I don't think you could build prisons fast enough, and mass graves are never looked upon with glee.

If you want to get holy, do it in privacy. If you want to march the streets singing praises to your deity, you'll need a permit. Want to go door to door? You'll have to identify yourself as a domestic missionary immediately. You will be punished if you do not heed the wisehs of those you can't convert; go away or get put away.

Want money? Sorry, we're going back to the barter-credit system. A pint of milk for a pound of sugar, work given for work earned. No more cash, and federalized banking will be put back into force. You have an account with Uncle Sam's Bank, just like everyone else. The Bank of USG will be able to lower taxes because the commodities market won't go away, it's all credit-driven already, and the USG will become a very large investment banker...

In a phrase - LIBERAL SOCIALISM, NOT CAPITAL COMMUNISM.

[xarrion.livejournal.com]

First act? Massive fines or exile for casual lawbreakers & assholes:- littering, knowingly smoking in no-smoking areas, Running red lights, Parking on double-yellows in anything short of an emergency, benefit fraud. Probably death sentences for the first two :D. Slightly less strict, but greater enforcement of: People who park between two spaces, vandalism, wearing baseball caps in school.

Pull out of other countries until our own is more sorted. Ban or lock up animal rights activists under the Terrorism Act.

Compulsory national ID, with strict privacy/data protection laws. Allow free downloading and distributing of music, including funding of new talent.

More serious answers when I'm not tired ;)

[malal.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's possible for a fraction of a second to bring about my utopia.

You see, it would involve a completely equal distibution of wealth. Now, say we'd fixed all the problems about bring that about & making it sustainable (that's assuming those are surmountable. Not convinced that they are). The populace Just Wouldn't accept it. A lot of people seem to need to feel superiour to others.

So I'd slowly, oh so slowly, inch the world in that direction. It wouldn't be there by the time I died, but hopefully I'd have moved it along enough in that direction that my successor would actually continue in the same vien. We'd stil never get there completely, but hopefully we could get it down to a cosmetic gap between rich and poor, so the richest could own a nice and car, while the poorest could own a not so nice house and car (as an example). (I'd like to get public transport to the point it's worth using, and you use cars to shift more stuff than just you). When you remember that I'm talking worldwide wealth levels, then you can see that's still a bloody huge change.

I think humanity would be better off without religon, but there's no way in hell it's ready for that step. People still need the strength and moral structure that good religious belief can give them. Unfortunately finding that's rare. Dunno what I'd do about this. Make it a crime to claim you're a member of a religion if you habitually break it tenants? Dunno. I'm an athiest, but I respect those who have religious beliefs and stick to them. It's those that claim religion and don't stick to it I have no time for. (Like Bush cannot claim to be a Christian while starting a war. Why? It's breaking a rather central rule of "Thou Shall Not Kill". There's no "Unless" clauses. Breaking it by proxy is still breaking it..).

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

You see, it would involve a completely equal distibution of wealth. Now, say we'd fixed all the problems about bring that about & making it sustainable (that's assuming those are surmountable. Not convinced that they are). The populace Just Wouldn't accept it. A lot of people seem to need to feel superiour to others.

By 'need for superiority' I don't agree. I _do_ think that in order for people to work for a living they have to be able to see some advantage in it. So in a situation where you have a completely equal distribution of wealth, you also have a completely equal distribution of work. E.G. none at all.

After all, why should you work hard for a living if there is no positive incentive to do so?

We already have people 'professionally unemployed' - that are just living on benefits, having 15 children, and insisting they've got a right to live.

For many, that's not seen as a fair or good way to live. But if you were to divvy up the income of the country equally, then you can bet you'd see an awful lot more of it, and gradually we'd slip into poverty en-mass because the minority will end up supporting the majority.

[malal.livejournal.com]

Like I said, there are a lot of probably insurmountable problems to it...

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

So, back to the original question then. If you were handed power, what would you do with it?

[malal.livejournal.com]

Give it to someone I trust? :-)

Honestly, I'd probably start by keeping things as they are, and fine tuning here and there. Give the Democrats power in the US, and the Liberal democrats power over here. Sit back, let them do there thing, and only occationally interject if they try doing something really dumb ass. After they've been in power a term, review this approach, see how it's working, and if a Better Way has presented itself. Of course, this does mean I'd spend an inordinate ammount of time looking over what they've been doing, but then "With Great Power comes Great Responsibility".

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

So essentially, you'd let someone else do it?

[malal.livejournal.com]

Yes. I'm not qualified to run the world. I have never looked into relevant social or economic theories. Nor do I posses the unfortunately required social (diplomatic) skills. Even with this discussion, I haven't taken a long hard look at the state of the world, statistics and laws bore me to be frank. So giving someone who has all these things and thought about it seriously for quite some time is probably the best thing I could do.

But I'd keep the power to over-rule or replace them, just incase I'm wrong... :-)

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

Now what was that someone was saying about giving Liberals a bad name? :)

[jorune.livejournal.com]

What a bunch of pinko hippy commie nonsense, this is the sort of idiocy that makes 'Liberal' a swearword.

What we want is liberty and individuality not an overpowerful state and conformity.

Inequality is natural, just accept it and move on.

What we need is to move towards equality of opportunity so everyone can be the best that they can be. The main factors stopping people are their beliefs.
'I can't do it'
'I'm cannot be bothered'
'They won't let me'
'I have X big personal problems so I can't do it'

We need to fix people's attitudes. So with X trillion research budget I create a device which akin to the CP concept of Simstim/Simsticks i.e. VR. The software for the device is the key element. The first piece of software is a honey trap. It allows you to have Sex with your ideal partner, unlimited use. Full contact, All body types, ages (18+). It would sell for a nominal amount. Getting the planet laid would be a good start.

Explicitly within the software would be code that would rewire a person's beliefs. So if you ran the sex software after 3-5 uses you could change a person, enable that person; upgrade their experiences and ability.

To become a good lover can someone a few attempts and others a lifetime. With this software we can let people know what it is to please someone sexually, know what it is right or wrong in a legal framework, and understand their inner emotions. As it allows risk free sex people will rush to consume it, thereby self-programming themselves. We can do the same with the Body to resolve anorexia and body image problems. The software would react to each person in an individual way, as we are all individuals. The key concepts would be the same but their expression is left to the person.

The beliefs instilled for the legal framework could be described as:

'If I attack some sexually I will be commiting a crime.' Obvious of course but it will carry the realisation of what this entails, the sick sensation of fear, conviction, imprisonment, life on an offenders list. If they still want to commit the crime then they will not be stopped. With any such implanted belief there will always be a choice for an alternative.

Theoretically this software could be extending to many areas. If you want a new job or to try out something safely first, pop in a simstick and try it out. Through this we can expand people’s horizons dramatically and allow them to follow their dreams. I’m not advocating this as I haven’t thought through all the social and cultural consequences.

As a second major action with the X trillion research budget I will create nanites that act as internal medical regulators. The first target would have to be control of the menstrual cycle. PMS would be a thing of the past as the nanites would control/absorb/resolve any mood swings/pain/discharge. They would act to monitor the appearance of disease and other maladies.

This measure would ensure a dramatic increase in productivity with all the concomitant benefits for the economy, the nation and the individual. We would all get richer.

These measures are aimed at fixing women because Women are broken. A significant proportion of them suffers from major medical/psychological issues. These measures would go some way to fixing them. As it improves their lives so it would improve the lives of the men and children who live with them.

These measures are an increase in liberty and opportunity for all not just the favoured few. We are enabling the nation; we are raising the nation up to a higher existence not pulling it down to a lowest common denominator.

I pledge to you today that this nation, shall under God, have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not vanish from the earth.

[jorune.livejournal.com]

As an addition, which I forgot to put in the original comment, once you installed all the beliefs encoded in the software there is a final belief that weans you off the simstick. Naturally because you have acquired an understanding of women/men/your choice you now realise that they don't want to be second choice to a simstick.

[malal.livejournal.com]

"What a bunch of pinko hippy commie nonsense, this is the sort of idiocy"

Well Fuck You too. Did you miss the big "I don't think this is possible, but it would be nice?" disclaimer.

"that makes 'Liberal' a swearword."

No it's not. What makes "Liberal" a swearword is the fact we don't follow traditional Republican / Conservative belifs. It's like the Tools who use "Gay" as a swearword / insult. And using like that makes about as much sense (i.e. None).

"CP concept of Simstim/Simsticks"

Nice idea. A good chunk of the population would advoid them like the plague. Even more wouldn't go near them if the mental reprogramming side was known. They'd be viewed like dope, only slightly worse, because they deal with sex which would make even more people uncomfortable with them.

Also, the world doesn't revolve around sex, and I'm not sure encouraging that popular viewpoint is a Good Thing...

"If they still want to commit the crime then they will not be stopped."

Well they bloody well should be. Just because they've accepted the most likely (note that they could still not get caught) consiquences doesn't help the victim really does it? Heck, being able to "safely" simulate committing that act might mean more people realise they get off on that sort of thing. Not good.

"I will create nanites that act as internal medical regulators."

Bloody excellent idea, but a long way off I fear.

"These measures are aimed at fixing women because Women are broken."

That's rather sexist isn't it? Look around you, men are damn near equally broken, it's just that our particular brand isn't bunched around a particular period in the month & is more socially accepted.

[jorune.livejournal.com]

The point is that the idea of completely equal distribution of wealth is only possible in a star trek universe where there are replicators and therefore there are no barriers to production and everyone can be supplied with limitless wealth.

Beyond that everyone has their own opinion as to their preferred level of wealth. Would you force wealth onto those who want no wealth? i.e. Nuns, Monks, Hermits, certain poets and artists. What about those working in the Black Economy who do not report their earnings? They would appear to be poor and therefore receive more than others.

The approach you advocate has been tried many times in many cultures and it has always failed due to human nature and the power of those beliefs.

Possible? Not in this time and culture. Nice? Only if it does not restrict personal choice.

'Simsticks as dope, people will avoid them.' Think of your perfect partner, so wonderful and special that they are the number 1 choice out of 6 billion people. You can experience that for £20 (£10 Player, £10 Software). It would be an overnight sensation, every media outlet in the entire world would talk about it. It would achieve more positive publicity than anything else. The social pressure to try it would be overwhelming. Within the first 6 months of its release, 30-40% of the sexually active population would have used it. It would become an essential part of life with many people refusing to date anyone who hadn't done it. Within 2 years it was reach 70-80% of the population. Within 3 years 80-90%. The pressure would not come from the govt but from the people.

I am not here to dictate people's reactions but to make them aware of their choices. They can then follow their moral codes, naturally I would recommend the tenets of Judeo-Christianity-Islam. I believe in a person's right to choose and implanting a forced reaction would be a very dangerous precedent. Democracy and Diversity not Demagoguery and Dictatorship.

You may view my statement as sexist, that's your choice. I see it as an observation of a longer life.

Consider this exercise in this manner: the more you intervene the worse it gets. Life should be a self sustaining development, set your ground rules and let it go. My approach aims to adjust some basic mechanics and then let it go. I would ask for Liberty myself from an imaginary overlord I can give no less to any of my subjects.

[malal.livejournal.com]

"The point is that the idea of completely equal distribution of wealth is only possible in a star trek universe where there are replicators and therefore there are no barriers to production and everyone can be supplied with limitless wealth."

Not even then, you'd need significant changes to the way humans seem to think and behave. It may one day all be possible, but none of us will be alive to see it.

"The approach you advocate has been tried many times in many cultures and it has always failed due to human nature and the power of those beliefs."

No it hasn't! Ever time someone's even claimed to try, there's been a significant number of people on the top who lived in opulant luxury while those that at the bottom of the chain lived in poverty. That's led to a significant feeling of resentment in the have nots, which really didn't help.

(Big gaps in wealth grate more when your drilled with "All People are Equal" rather than "Everyone is rewarded consumate with their ability". Even I can point to a half doesen rich and that under current society they deserve their wealth).

"Think of your perfect partner, so wonderful and special that they are the number 1 choice out of 6 billion people."

I do, it's the most depressing daydream I can have. Waking up after the experiance, just to have it slapped in your face that it's Not Real will turn people off it in droves. The conservitive element will look at it as another drug and advoid it without reason. Without their support, that media pressure just wont happen.

Let's take another, more damning arguement why it wont take off. Computer games have been around in an affordable form for how many years? Certainly since the early 80's, debatably before. They've only very recently managed to be socially accepted. Now, how many computer games have an interactive sexual / romantic element to them? Not many. Why? They really don't sell. Even when comfortable with the media, people aren't comfortable with the subject matter in that medium. This means the social pressure to try it won't materialise.

Those factors will combine to mean those projections just wont happen.

"I believe in a person's right to choose and implanting a forced reaction would be a very dangerous precedent."

I'm sorry for the barbed question, but you would rather let someone impose their will on another than impose a commanly agreed sense of decentcy on them? I remember a discussion about what would happen where everyone was opposed to letting anything at all impose on their freedom of choice. I remember it's a really nasty place to live.

Freedom of choice is good, but it really does require everyone to strongly respect everyone else's freedom of choice. Humanity is too selfish and inconsiderate to do that. I'd like to belive that would change over time, but you'd need strong social engineering....

"You may view my statement as sexist, that's your choice. I see it as an observation of a longer life."

No offence, but I see it as missing some facts. Mentally, Men are more prone to violence, suicide, and dying through doing stupid things. I don't believe the percentage of serious mental illness is dramatically different to women overall, though it is for specific disorders.

Physically, Notably more men are born than women. Once they've got into there mid twenty's, the number is pretty much even, and those men remaining are unlikely to die through stupidity or suicide (or, at least, just as unlikely as women of the equivilent age). Once you get to the mid 40's, the number of women starts to edge ahead. The older you get, the more notable the difference is. Once you get to the 70's, the number of women vastly outnumber the men. From speaking to my 65ish year old Mum, the anecdotal evidence of far less men surviving that long supports the numbers.

That's what I mean by men are just as broken as women. We're all very definately imperfect beings.

(And as an aside, don't bring experiance into it, it's not a factor, because I'm 90% sure my Mum would argue that men are the more broken sex. Besides, that leads to the "Young aren't qualified enough to have an opinion" arguement. Hasn't that been throughly debunked?).

[jorune.livejournal.com]

I put it to you that the approach has been tried, in communes and kibbutz's, each time it gets beyond a small size of people the model breaks down. Shall we refine your initial comment for equal distribution amongst people who are happy with equal distribution? This is the one key concepts of a commune that everyone makes a choice for equal distribution.

There's a big difference between watching and doing. Then there will be a qualitative difference between those who have and those who have not. A critical factor.

Humanity is not too selfish and inconsiderate, this is why we have moved from tribalism-feudalism-monarchy to a system where the views of ordinary people are heard. That is real and continuing social progress.

It is through the software that negative behaviours are modified and potentially improved.

If you want to say Men are Broken, then it's fine by me.

[sobrique.livejournal.com]

YHBT.
YHL.
HAND.

[jorune.livejournal.com]

If I didn't want to post then I wouldn't have read it.

Ps YAPTG.