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

[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.