|
|
|
|
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/16/2009 10:23:11 PM |
Utopia will only be achieved when everyone in society adheres to their own ideal (how close am I to ideology, exo) without stepping on the rights of their fellow brethren.
An ideal is:
1. a conception of something in its perfection.
2. a standard of perfection or excellence.
Basically a person who follows their own Ideal is a person striving for their own perfection. Trying to be the best of themselves. This is as far away from an ideology as one can get.
Right, so any society we want to construct should be as independent of ideology as possible. There should only be the "common ground".
Just to clarify, would this be the only common ground to focus on "without stepping on the rights of their fellow brethren."? | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/16/2009 10:46:30 PM |
Basically a person who follows their own Ideal is a person striving for their own perfection. Trying to be the best of themselves. This is as far away from an ideology as one can get. The unification is "without stepping on the rights of their fellow brethren."
Thank you so much for the clarification...we are stepping on soft ground with this topic...
Yet it is the grounds for the most fertile of thoughts...(I am thinking tide pools, etc.) | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/17/2009 2:20:47 AM |
Can we see a world whose population is predominantly made up of Einsteins, Gandhis, Schweitzers, Dalai Lamas, Buddha's & Christs? How would this affect Utopia? Who'd serve the beer? - or would Utopia be dry?
I couldn't find the publications describing the database for his conclusions, but I understand that Maslow excluded any but the most gifted from his database. Are these the only people expected to inhabit Utopia, or will there be others to accomplish the less heady tasks required for the foundation for self actualization?
I have difficulty constructing a model based upon an assumption that the entire population has the same fundamental behaviors and needs as a small, selected, specialized sample.
So, my first concerns would be how to deal with with those unable to meet the lower needs on Marslow's pyramid due to physical condition, pathological state or simply just lack of motivation. Secondly, how do we deal with those who may, by current standards behave normally, yet in Utopia may exert a disruptive influence to express their all-too-human capacity to find fault with the society in which they exist? Can these people be brouught to a state of self-actualization which can co-exist with the accepted norms of self-actualization? An alternative community of such people may be created, but how then do such communities coexist? | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/17/2009 3:43:07 AM | I have too. Have you experienced anything other than this? More importantly, have you entertained the idea that there is something beyond this? When I say beyond this, I mean partisan pettiness. Oh, it exists. It is why I offer the idea that a common value, rather than a common ideology may be a solution to the conundrum of existing parties, who don't agree with each other. And I get the paradox, of introducing an idea, without an ideology.
I didn't mean partisan in the common term. What I meant is a group of people fixiated one idea and unwilling to compromise, I guess ideolouge would have been a better choice.
The example I gave was an extreme one to demonstrate my point. In a pure democracy the wicked have a voice too. I believe that the example I gave was first introduced by Plato in Republic. I could be wrong. My example stands as an extreem case in pure democracy.
Edit: Leader or Co-ordinator call it what you will someone will be in charge.
Who's concept of Natural law are we using Staire Russell's, Locke's Hobb's the list continues. Clarification on this point would be helpful.
Somolia is a faild state not a Anrchist (in the pure meaning of the word) state. It is a triblal system, of smaller self contained units with a very weak centeral government. It is an interesting case study on why dangerous drugs need to be controled. They sit around all morning chewing Qat, think Meth, mixed with PCP. They become extremely agressive. | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/17/2009 3:44:42 AM |
Who'd serve the beer? - or would Utopia be dry?
Are you kidding me?...In a world of self-actualized brewmasters?...and self actualized drunks like me?
I understand that Maslow excluded any but the most gifted from his database. Are these the only people expected to inhabit Utopia, or will there be others to accomplish the less heady tasks required for the foundation for self actualization?
The idea isn't to create a society of self-actualized people, but to create one that fosters the process of self-actualization; a society that ALLOWS people to pursue their interests and to maximize their potential and abilities. I think I posted this in an earlier thread, but I may be mistaken. Rather than elaborate, there is a small wikipedia article that should acquaint everyone with the theory (yes I know it's not "proved" - that isn't the point either - the point is that I see self-actualization as happiness and believe that happy people will naturally be compassionate and helpful to others by their very nature). There are a couple of old movies I'd like everyone to watch. One is Frank Capra's "Meet John Doe" (with Gary Cooper). It was the first one to suggest to me that such a society or club should be created and that such a vehicle could foster more happiness in the world. Another great movie to watch is CHARLy, a sci-fi flick from 1968. It (along with some downs syndrome people) taught me that the truly actualized man (or woman) is happy. The actualizing man pursues happiness (which is usually elusive). The self-actualized simply IS happy. People are happy when they are all that they can be and all lower level needs are met (hard to be happy when you're starving, or when you're child needs medical care that you can't afford). My vision of "Utopia" is a society that tries to maximize happiness and minimize suffering. My belief is that it would foster transcendence and create a large number of Buddha's, Christs, Gandhis and Dalai Lamas, not as leaders but as teachers who might help the "merely" actualized to achieve that next step in human social evolution, the spiritualization of Man that I call Homo Utopius.
It occurs to me that in general, people are happiest when they feel they are making a real contribution to the human condition. For instance a garbageman is often frowned upon as a lower level lifeform whose duty it is to haul people's trash. It's a dirty, smelly, generally lower pay business for a man to be in. Anybody can dump trash, so the garbageman's contribution to society goes unrecognized. It is never observed that the garbagemen free up productive time for the Einsteins and the engineers (who might otherwise have to haul their own garbage) to create and move science & technology forward. In that sense, one can see that maybe Einstein's garbageman had a very real part in the formulation of relativity. Should he not get some of the credit?
What is the more valuable service to society? If aliens beamed up all our engineers & scientists & mathematicians, how long would it be before that impacted society? How long before they were even missed? Now if the Venusians beamed up all our garbagemen...same question. So our priorities may have to change in terms of the values of society. Generally, nobody likes hauling garbage, so it's unlikely there'd be many choosing a career in that field. Chances are good that to recruit garbagemen, we'd have to pay them sufficient compensation to make it worth their while. You or I might not be inclined to do the work, but a quarter million dollar annual salary could be sufficient compensation to attract people to the field.
The modern Van Goghs, who can do nothing but paint and whose contribution is as yet unrecognized, should be supported in their endeavors to the extent that society can meet those needs, so even "unproductive" people should have a baseline living of food, shelter, medical care, and education. Presumably their friends, lovers & immediate neighbours could provide some of the less tangible needs. In providing a "baseline" that allows people to pursue their interests, I suspect we would soon have oodles of Van Goghs and Einsteins in our midst. If everyone sat around painting all day, the society would soon collapse, so the van Goghs would have to be persuaded to put down their brushes & help out or the commune would soon starve itself to death, but people are far more productive than they think they are, so the van Goghs wouldn't likely have to spend their entire day hauling garbage say and could soon return to their painting.
Clearly, our current society isn't structured like this, but I feel if it were, we'd all be better off. | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/17/2009 4:04:15 AM | ^^^nice thought but, I doubt that will lead to production. One can look at the safety net and see how it has perputuated poverty not improved the social condition. There was an English Economist, who's name escapes me that did a study and showed how harmful to people simply providing for ones needs can be. (I believe in assistance for those who truely need it). So for the able bodied this can actually hurt there self image, and discourage acheivement.
I don't know about where you live but trash haulers are paid well here. I am however reminded of the Dilbert Cartoons where he talks to the grabage man to fix his problems.
I've seen Meet John Doe. If I remember he was a con-man trying to get a free ride. So that is a little more complex then just how soceity can be when needs are met. I would also recommend reading Chock by Plaucank. (sp). It goes along the same lines, but shows the darker side of humanity.
Even if all a persons needs are met would the reduce his dark nature or increase it?
Off to work. TTYL | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/17/2009 4:17:58 AM | There was an English Economist, who's name escapes me that did a study and showed how harmful to people simply providing for ones needs can be.
One need only to look at countries like Sweden and Norway to put to rest that little lie; While Sweden has moved a bit to ward the "right" in the last decade, its socialism gave the people long, happy and productive lives. They have a strong "safety net" that truly supports those in need.
Even if all a persons needs are met would the reduce his dark nature or increase it?
5% of the people are psychopaths with no conscience. My society would not exterminate them, but would have to prevent them from committing crimes and/or clawing their way to the top again. The second possibility won't exist because there will be no "top" to claw up to. They will of course inevitably commit crimes, kill, rape, etc. just like today, they would have to be dealt with justly, possibly with a life of productive incarceration, where any surplus they produce goes to victims as partial restitution. | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/17/2009 8:37:11 AM | Ah gadget, you are a fellow North Carolinian! Greetings!
Even if all a persons needs are met would the reduce his dark nature or increase it?
Wouldn't it help reduce it, since most people's "dark nature" usually is a reaction to unmet needs?
Think about it...power over (our current governmental state), power with (our made-up Utopian society, that may or may not come from More...btw, kirk, whatever did they do with his head?) and power within, which may possibly enable a person to develop, if all basic needs are met, (and let me stress, that it is the WAY these needs are met which will be the contributing factor that leads to the self-actualization process)...what would that look like?
While Sweden has moved a bit to ward the "right" in the last decade, its socialism gave the people long, happy and productive lives.
Just pointing out that Sweden is a monarchistic society with a democratic parliament.
Could people co-exist without a rallying figurehead?
You should go see "Watchmen"...newer movie, but it brings up a lot of interesting points... | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/17/2009 9:05:20 AM | Hi Diva, I would call myself a transplanted North Carolinian. I was raised in the suburbs of Baltimore.
I don't having basic needs cuts down on our more base emotions of hate, greed, exploitive behavior and so on.
As I stated in another post I would like to see what the elasticity point of socialism is.
There is one rule to Economics that I found to be true. People have unlimited wants but have limited resources. Part of the reason I beleive in recyling.
I am not against the needy gaining the aid they need for a temporary period of time.
I do think you cannot have a philosopher king type government where there isn't a leader. I believe we have people that are power hungry as a survival mechanism.
Correction the Title of the book is Choke. I misspelled it in my previous post.
TTFN Back to work. | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/17/2009 9:45:38 AM |
I do think you cannot have a philosopher king type government where there isn't a leader.
A philosopher king would be a leader and would therefore be anathema in principle to the society I wish to create. There can be no leaders allowed, only public servants. Looked at another way, "The People" would be the leader.
With respect to the Swedish monarchy, it is interesting to note (if I recall correctly) that while the Monarch holds a feudal position, the monarch can be deposed by popular vote. | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/17/2009 10:25:16 AM |
A philosopher king would be a leader and would therefore be anathema in principle to the society I wish to create. There can be no leaders allowed, only public servants. Looked at another way, "The People" would be the leader.
I totally agree...but, may it not be module of something we all wish to create? With all due respect, to say "I wish to create", negates the very essence, of what we, as a small collective on a POF forum, are trying to present...
With respect to the Swedish monarchy, it is interesting to note (if I recall correctly) that while the Monarch holds a feudal position, the monarch can be deposed by popular vote.
I am not sure if it is so much that they may be deposed, as it is the monarch's duties are regulated by the constitution (the people), and that the monarch's duties are primarily representative and ceremonial.
Which brings me back to, could people co-exist without a rallying figurehead? | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/17/2009 11:43:29 AM | Zeke... Are you ready?
Oooh... Diva... this is the first time you've gotten feisty with me...
Anarchy represents the absence of a centralized government.
Yup.
There is a difference between principle and a value system based upon human inherent value.
Anarchy isn't a principle... it's a METHOD used by those who aren't in power to gain or get into power. In my observation, Anarchists advertise themselves as being 'left'... but in fact what they really think/do rarely has anything to do with 'the left' ... classic bait and switch.
Utopia will only be achieved when everyone in society adheres to their own ideal
No it won't. If people have different ideals, you'll still have a mess because different ideals from different people tend to clash. For example... Alcohol or no alcohol in Utopia?
Maslow's idea of perfection, was based upon individualistic thinking that resulted in across the board of met needs. He wasn't necessarily advocating conformity. Perfection is subjective. How does one define perfection?
Good question... and like Utopia, everyone's idea of perfection is different. Yet another reason why I think Utopia is a fantasy that will never happen.
Utopia translates as "no where".
No it doesn't. The history of the word is that it was coined by Thomas More to describe an island that didn't exist that enjoyed a perfect legal, social and political system. It was only 'no where' in the sense that he was being upfront with it being a figment of his imagination. The "no where" isn't the point of Utopia... the political, social and legal ideals are the point.
Hence, the definition of Utopia taken from Dictionary.com:
U·to·pi·a
1. an imaginary island described in Sir Thomas More's Utopia (1516) as enjoying perfection in law, politics, etc.
2. (usually lowercase) an ideal place or state.
3. (usually lowercase) any visionary system of political or social perfection.
Now I take your one snowball elf and raise you three:
 | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/17/2009 11:46:33 AM | A philosopher king would be a leader and would therefore be anathema in principle to the society I wish to create. There can be no leaders allowed, only public servants. Looked at another way, "The People" would be the leader.
You've just described democracy... in theory anyway.
5% of the people are psychopaths with no conscience. My society would not exterminate them, but would have to prevent them from committing crimes and/or clawing their way to the top again. The second possibility won't exist because there will be no "top" to claw up to. They will of course inevitably commit crimes, kill, rape, etc. just like today, they would have to be dealt with justly, possibly with a life of productive incarceration, where any surplus they produce goes to victims as partial restitution.
Your view of crime is overly simplistic.
I've got news for you... crimes get committed for a number of reasons... just off the top of my head... aside from someone being a 'psychopath with no conscience':
-Emotional trauma
-Anger
-Fear
-Survival
And btw... one of the principles of the penal system in Canada and the US is Rehabilitation. Is there consideration for this in your system?
And another factor... people wrongfully accused/convicted. DNA evidence alone is being used to free many wrongfully convicted people. But that's for major crimes. For minor stuff like assault, I can tell you from first hand observation that there is a lot of injustice going on mainly because many people who get accused can't afford proper legal representation. In addition to that, the police often do questionable things to undermine an accused person's ability to get proper legal representation. I've observed that too.
As part of your system, you will have to include the elimination of questionable police practices AND have any accused person have the same legal resources as the prosecution. At the moment, unless the person is wealthy, the prosecutor is the one with limitless resources while the accused has to mortgage and remortgage their home, sell off their investments and borrow... and even if they win, they still lose financially even if innocent.
Forget your perfect utopian society... just figure out a system where this fundamental injustice is rectified... and actually get it implemented... and then we can *begin* to have a discussion on what an ideal society would be. | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/17/2009 12:02:16 PM | Forgive me if I don't do all the quotes I could.....
Sweden may not be too good a model. I love the place, but it has one of the higher suicide rates in the world - and, most damning, alcohol is heavily controlled!
Would I be correct in thinking that self-actualization may be restated as doing what you want to do?
There seem to be a great many inconsistencies in Utopia.
1) Not everyone is self-actualized, so we have a fuzzy basis for behavior and an elastic foundation for our Utopia.
2) Can you justify any notion that individual self-actualizations are compatible? Probably they would need to differ to get everything done. Thus, conflicts will be inevitable. Who arbitrates? and how can incompatible self-actualizations be resolved to the self-actualization of both parties? - We still have to occupy the same planet!
3) Money in a self-actualized world? Surely money would be irrelevant? If I understand correctly, the currency would need to be fulfillment. ( see 2)
4) Utopia evolves, but who selects the best alternatives? Or do we just know what the best alternatives will be? Does anything here presuppose a perfect individual. Who will recognize that individual rather than another individual with a different alternative?
5) Based upon current history (and perhaps the theory of evolution). Is our anthropomorphic view of Utopia even close to the harsh realities of life and progress?
Such questions boggle my mind and make it difficult for me to visualize Utopia, but I'll ramble anyway, partly motivated by thoughts of how to approach there from here. My calculus is hopeless, but maybe I can develop a Utopian calculus --- As t->inf, Utopia->1 (or would that be inf too?).
A) My first thought is that we can replace self actualization (or any other level) with perceived state. The issue here would be making sure that individuals didn't know they were being duped. But then again, the process would at least bring some of our population into the fold.
The second thought would be to ensure that the baser needs of individuals were (perceived to be?) met. They would need those to enter the self-actualized level and at the entry to this level, those self-actualization goals would need to be met. Today, and even in Utopia, I would guess that every individual would need extensive attention from a psychologist. Call it therapy, call it self-exploration, but I'm pretty sure everyone could use some insight into what truly keeps them going. The problem would be finding the right self-actualized individuals to do this. With present human qualities any of those therapists may have a self-actualization for manipulation or even world domination, leading to a 'higher cause' Others, as agents of a 'higher cause', could easily be used to sway individuals from a path to self-actualization and toward a path determined by that 'higher cause'. Step 1 - an international standing army of psychotherapists. | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/17/2009 12:49:02 PM | Maybe I should redefine things in more "boring" terminology to eliminate the confusion and misapprehensions that seem to follow grabber buzzwords like "Utopia"
I want to create an egalitarian society that is not subject to the garbage we have had to endure for the last seven thousand years or so. I think we all know enough history to show us that the way we've been doing things to date sucks royally. The inevitable course of history shows us that states based on the leadership principle inevitably produce tyranny. even the US , which started with so much promise has been transformed by the economic rulers into a parody of its original intent. Jefferson (bless him) knew this would happen and cautioned everyone that liberty must occasionally be earned back with blood. I hope to find a better way by creating a society based on many of the original principles, but not subject to takeovers of any sort.
One thing to be taken as axiomatic is NO LEADER, or put another way, leadership by "the people" Those in what we now call government ought to have clearly defined roles as public servants, with no authority whatsoever to make laws, or determine the rights & obligations of the people. Their role should be administration only.
We cannot allow laws to be altered or twisted around by "legal eagles", or before we know it, we will have contracted with our new "leader" again, so written law is out. Only the universal, unwritten principles of natural law should prevail, and the judiciary should consider each case as unique and adjudicate it accordingly, without either referring to, or creating a precedent. For the time being we won't worry about a military/militia until we have a better definition of the judiciary and and civil administration.
We can make no assumptions of honesty or trustworthiness of anyone in the position of public trust. In effect, public trust won't exist. It will be replaced by a system in which the people can and do oversee and can overrule the actions of the public servants, which at all times must be open to the public and transparent.
The intent is to construct a society that by its very nature cannot be corrupted and made into a tyranny. One way to assure this is to guarantee (under priniciples of natural law again) ALL of the rights individuals may require, subject only to the necessary moral obligation to recognize those rights for everyone else. So once again, the "bill of rights" would be unwritten. The moral obligation would of course have to be observed, so everyone would have to take oath with their signature that they will abide by natural law (thus placing themselves under its jurisdiction), so rights and obligations would be well defined (but unwritten) and inviolate.
Things that stand in the way of preservation of a peaceful society are things like human greed and powerlust. These could arise even in a near perfect society and would certainly crop up in this one. If any individual or group was able to accumulate enough property or money, they could stand in a position of advantage to manipulate the economy of a small collective. From there it could grow like a cancer, infecting other collectives and before you know it, we have tyranny again.
I think the concept of private property would have to go, to be replaced with the concept of fair use of resources by the collective, which itself couldn't "own" its profits but could lay claim to some of them, the rest would move to the next level, etc, until at the highest level, net after expenses could be trickeled back down to the individual level. This would assure that some communes would not suffer or starve themselves out of existence.
It is my belief that such a society would help everyone achieve their potential and this is what I meant by an actualizing society. It would be a society that enables self actualization, not a society of strictly actualizing people, | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/17/2009 1:53:23 PM | | That would mean going against almost everything that has guided us to this place in time. Not just for 7,000 years, but for about 4 billion years. You're asking for a magic event to change human/animal nature. | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/17/2009 2:39:41 PM |
One thing to be taken as axiomatic is NO LEADER, or put another way, leadership by "the people"
Well that's already been done before in the USSR. Stalin, for example, wasn't the leader, he was merely a Secretary... LOL.
Those in what we now call government ought to have clearly defined roles as public servants, with no authority whatsoever to make laws, or determine the rights & obligations of the people. Their role should be administration only.
Okay... so if the government isn't 'administering' things such as the legal system (which makes law in the form of legal precedents) or handling the determination/enforcement of rights/obligations, then who is? If nobody handles it, you have anarchy...
And with anarchy, you get a Somalia-like situation in practice.
We cannot allow laws to be altered or twisted around by "legal eagles", or before we know it, we will have contracted with our new "leader" again, so written law is out. Only the universal, unwritten principles of natural law should prevail, and the judiciary should consider each case as unique and adjudicate it accordingly, without either referring to, or creating a precedent.
What's wrong with writing things down and having things clear? Not writing things down will mean that everyone will be subject to the whims of the Administration on any given day. There won't be any consistency... unless you create a neural network of all the minds that make up the "Administration" so it behaves as one mind... but then you have one mind controlling everything... and that is called a Dictatorship.
And tell me... what is an example of some "Universal Laws", eh? And if you come to me with something like "Everyone has the right to live", I'm gonna come back with "And everyone also has the right to die". And when you look at nature and "natural law", plants and animals often kill each other for survival. So then the debate will wind down the path about whether your right to live is greater that some other person or animal's right to kill you for food.
This won't be progressive... it would be REgressive.
We can make no assumptions of honesty or trustworthiness of anyone in the position of public trust. In effect, public trust won't exist. It will be replaced by a system in which the people can and do oversee and can overrule the actions of the public servants, which at all times must be open to the public and transparent.
Public servant says: "You must pay your property taxes".
You say: "No"
Public servant goes away as he/she is overruled... no revenue is collected... nothing gets done... no services get provided as a result... society falls into Anarchy... Anarchy leads to a Somalia-situation.
The intent is to construct a society that by its very nature cannot be corrupted and made into a tyranny.
A society that can't be corrupted? Well that means that 100% of the people in that society would have to be uncorruptable. And without people, there is no society.
We cannot allow laws to be altered or twisted around by "legal eagles",
Yes we can... as a matter of fact, it's absolutely necessary as society evolves. What is essential is a difficult-to-change framework that provides stability.
And that's called a "Constitution". The alternative to this is relying on Case Law and adhering to the principle of Stare Decisis.
I think the concept of private property would have to go, to be replaced with the concept of fair use of resources by the collective,
It's been done before. You need to study the Bolshevik revolution. The net result is there was a huge drop in productivity and Ukraine went from being a net exporter of stuff like Wheat, to a net importer.
It is my belief that such a society would help everyone achieve their potential and this is what I meant by an actualizing society. It would be a society that enables self actualization, not a society of strictly actualizing people,
I believe a society like that will lead to either a Somalia situation or a USSR situation.
A society like that would result in nobody becoming self-actualized and mediocrity would be rewarded... unless you have a society made up of Perfect People.
Everything you talk about has been tried and failed miserably.
You need to take a course called European Economic History (or something similar to it) like I did in University. You take that course and you will become greatly enlightened as to why most, if not all, of what you said doesn't work in practice.
As a said before... focus on a fixing smaller problems first like the injustice in the legal system I cited. It's a relatively simple problem... one piece of legislation that caps the $$ amounts spent would probably do the trick.
But I guarantee you it will be hard/impossible to get the fix implemented because you'll get opposition and harassment from the police, police unions, crown/state attorneys, corrections industry and many individuals who agree with these organizations and in many cases, are employed or profit from not changing anything.
And do you think these people/organizations will just go away just because of a change in the political system?
Well they can if you do what Stalin did and have mass-murders done of anyone who was educated.
So did Mao... only he often gave a choice of "Re-educaton" or a bullet in the head.
You can't have an Administration/Government without Authority. It doesn't work in practice... not even on a small scale... not even in a really REALLY small scale situation in a non-profit corporation... like a Condo board.
I was on a condo board for 7 years... and there were some who were of similar views to you. But you know what? Reality hits home and you still have to take enforcement action on people causing problems. And you can't Enforce without Authority. And if you don't have Authority, nobody will take you seriously.
Hell... Even WITH authority people often don't take you seriously and you have to drag their @sses into court, they lose because they have no case, they ignore the ruling, then you go back to court so they can be found in contempt and they still ignore it and then you have to set them up with a date with the Sheriff who will throw then in jail if they still don't comply... then they either comply or get thrown in jail and the problem gets resolved because either they complied or they're in jail.
THAT'S reality.
I'm just an IT guy who took some history and economics courses in university. I'm hardly an expert in these areas... But in spite of this, I can easily see some GIANT problems with the society you propose. And I'm pretty sure a real expert in these areas would have a ball debunking what you just proposed in your last post. | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/17/2009 2:58:14 PM | I need to add to quietjohns post. Which is correct.
No money? Call it barter but there will be some exchange of goods for services, therefore an economic system.
Dukky You haven't answered my earlier question, which view of natural law we are applying. There isn't just one view. Is it Locke, Hobbs, Smith, Russell, Satire, and so on.
How can rights be protected if you have no written law. One of the good things about Western Civialization, equal protection under the law. But we don't now aht that is because we don't know who's views we are applying.
I would say your system would lead to the strong and power hungry to assume a dictorial role, quickly. I can just look at the mess with the history of the Byziantine Rulers
Even in collectivist economic systems there is hoarding, and cheating. So you'd create a black market, a cartel, and return to my barter system. You admit this yourself.
Again what would people do. In a Republic, The People are in charge, it is matter of how often they choose to exercise that control. | |
|
| |
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/17/2009 3:50:20 PM |
I need to add to quietjohns post. Which is correct.
Actually there are so many misconceptions in his post I don't know where to begin. Don't tell him he is correct, because he has it mostly wrong.
<div class="quote">which view of natural law we are applying. There isn't just one view. Is it Locke, Hobbs, Smith, Russell, Satire, and so on.
There will likely be elements of all of them in it but some of the philosophical constructs in almost any philosophers "take" on it will be logically flawed. My view is quite "Lockian", with the exception of property, which he incorrectly derived based on flawed assumptions. Rather than get into the philosphical fine print, it will simply be in essence the negative form of the golden rule, which is "Don't do to others what you do not wish done to you." If you do, you have caused harm by denying someone their right to remain unharmed. There are certain assumptions that go with that of course; an insane man may for instance wish to be killed and would therefore feel free to kill, so for the relatively bizarre "exceptions", it will be assumed that community consensus can be considered a rational man's opinion, so it will be the community's opinion of right and wrong that will prevail over that of an individual.
I'd like to actually use the positive golden rule, but many less charitable people might interpret that as compassion being forced upon them by tyranny. However, since membership in the society will be contractual, agreeing to abide by the golden rule could be considered a contractual obligation and not tyranny at all.
<div class="quote">How can rights be protected if you have no written law.
Because everyone knows what their rights are and will not yield them.
<div class="quote">One of the good things about Western Civialization, equal protection under the law
Most people are unaware how the legal system has been twisted around to make it unjust. This was done with words by lawyers working for the power elite. It is a system based on deception that has fooled almost everyone.
How can anyone be bound to obey a law they do not understand? In truth they are not. Why do people pay their credit cards by statement instead of a true bill? They are not bound to pay a statement (which is only notice of the account balance), yet practically everyone sends a cheque with the remittance stub. Why don't they simply ask for the bill? Because they don't understand the law, that's why. This is only one small fairly innocuous example of many many more, of how "laws" have been rewritten to rob them unknowingly of their rights.
How does scribbling something on a piece of paper make something a law? It doesn't the law must pre-exist, otherwise you are forced to conclude that there is something magical about things written on a piece of paper. If a written constitution guarantees you the right to life, does erasing it take away that right? Of course not, so why even bother writing it down. I hardly think anyone is likely to forget. So now you have to ask yourself if that bill of rights is worth the paper it's written on. How many were onmitted? If one was omitted does it mean you don't have it? Of course not, but that's what most people think, and the legal system isn't telling them any different because that's what keeps the lawyers in business.
<div class="quote">Even in collectivist economic systems there is hoarding, and cheating
How many times must I say that the society I propose would be FAR more stringent & less trusting than the existing one. There may be criminals who can get away with crime, but I'm betting there will be far less crime to begin with and far more of the criminals would probably get caught, because the system places no trust in people's honesty and would install auditing mechanisms to check
<div class="quote">In a Republic, The People are in charge, it is matter of how often they choose to exercise that control.
If they don't exercise it constantly, they lose it. That's what happened in just about any country you'd care to name. In the US that power was lost long ago. In Canada, we never had it. | |
|
| |
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/17/2009 4:00:55 PM |
Public servant says: "You must pay your property taxes".
You say: "No"
Public servant goes away as he/she is overruled... no revenue is collected... nothing gets done... no services get provided as a result... society falls into Anarchy... Anarchy leads to a Somalia-situation.
actually the conversation would go like this:
Public servant: Here is your balance sheet. How much do you expect to draw next month?
You say: Thank you, but I don't know just yet.
public servant: Thank you, but please let me know before month-end so I can balance the books for the upcoming shareholders meeting. Have a nice day.
You: Bye. | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/17/2009 4:24:25 PM |
I need to add to quietjohns post. Which is correct.
No money? Call it barter but there will be some exchange of goods for services, therefore an economic system. That would be part of my confusion - in a self-actualized society, there would be no need for money. The motivation would come from within. I would render my services because they were needed and/or I was happy to provide them.
Actually there are so many misconceptions in his post I don't know where to begin. Don't tell him he is correct, because he has it mostly wrong. Clearly, I am not equipped to contribute further and I am not worthy of enlightenment. No hope for me and I should bow out.
 | |
|
| Utopia and self-actualization...an actualized state?
Posted: 8/17/2009 7:09:25 PM | @ Zeke (good to see ya!)
You are always the one to turn the volume up, aren't you? I can hear those snowballs hitting my front screen door...
it's a METHOD used by those who aren't in power to gain or get into power
Nope. You are WRONG. It is a STATE of lawlessness. It is not a method...why, to say that it is a method would nullify the whole concept of anarchy...a method implies planning and anarchy doesn't...
No it won't. If people have different ideals, you'll still have a mess because different ideals from different people tend to clash. For example... Alcohol or no alcohol in Utopia?
If inherent human value was the given, rather than the norm, people might automatically NOT step on the toes of their brethren (and if they might even say, "I am sorry, boundary check."). They might respectfully allow other people to live their lives as such. Isn't that a vision worth entertaining? And in Utopia, they would definitely allow alcohol...(beer, wine and margaritas!)
Yet another reason why I think Utopia is a fantasy that will never happen.
Refer to earlier posts...
Utopia translates as "no where".
No it doesn't.
Utopia comes from utopos, which means "no place". Refer to earlier posts, and if in doubt, look it up...(other than the sources you have already used.)
I've got news for you... crimes get committed for a number of reasons... just off the top of my head... aside from someone being a 'psychopath with no conscience':
-Emotional trauma
-Anger
-Fear
-Survival
But...if Maslow's needs are met (and hey throw in nurture and touch, too) would these "reasons" stand to exist?
My first thought is that we can replace self actualization (or any other level) with perceived state. The issue here would be making sure that individuals didn't know they were being duped. But then again, the process would at least bring some of our population into the fold.
Ugh! Don't always go with your first thought...Don't confuse a blueprint of a social infrastructure with religiosity! I know that the insinuations were deliberate...
Today, and even in Utopia, I would guess that every individual would need extensive attention from a psychologist. Call it therapy, call it self-exploration, but I'm pretty sure everyone could use some insight into what truly keeps them going.
Possibly, in today's society. But if all needs are met, and there was an equal distribution of power, would there be such a need for psychotherapy?
The problem would be finding the right self-actualized individuals to do this.
If a standard of living was set up so that everyone might possibly engage in the process of self-actualization, who would be the "right" people? That is exclusionary, and purely subjective...and not the OP's intent at all...
We (or at least, I am) talking about POWER, people. And the socio-economic construct, where it is more evenly distributed. | |
|
| |
|
|
Home
login 
