Utopia
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None |
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
once again the subject of the rental market and negative gearing. curious, wether or not if you believe an investment strategy is evil, anti Australia etc etc, do you still partake in it because it is a sound investment to have, in a day and age where we have no choice but to invest in some way, as we will have to fund our own retirement? With super funds seemingly able to change thier rules at will, can you just trust that? Bank interest ebbs and flows. Or do you just say no, I'm happy to live on the bread line when that time comes? Since we all know it's going to be tough for the kids to own thier own home, no one thinks of an early entry strategy for them? Is it like the car work scheme thing, you just shun it?
My opinion on a utopia is so far flung from anything here I won't bother boring you! So I'll just concentrate on what I'm stuck with, and making the best of it, whilst trying to do go in an area I believe more strongly in, and can actually have an effect in.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
 |
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
TP, i do think that negative gearing is a seriously bad thing, which is likely to contribute to lifelong poverty for many young Australians. But my point is not to attack those that do it. We can all attack each other's actions down some ethical lens or other. The point, for me, is just to change a policy which inflates house prices through a crazy tax distortion.
On where to invest, I understand your point re Super, and I think that any government which changes rules on super is indulging in a fraud against the public, and playing with fire. The gouging of the spectacularly venal and useless super fund industry does not help, either. However, property is just as vulnerable to such rule changes - I suspect it just feels safer because you can touch it.
Where to invest ? Well, i'm no financial adviser, but a range of blue chip shares which pay a steady and supportable dividend are probably as good as anything - with a tranche of US dollar-earning companies that are likely to benefit from currency appreciation as the interest rate differential between the AUD and USD narrows, as it eventually must. Or, of course, new build housing which actually increases the total housing stock rather than crowds out the kids.
On super, by the way, Catholic Super Fund are simply the best, in my view. Properly low charges, conservative management (it is primarily for the teachers in the Catholic school system), sensible investment options, and half the entry fees of the main street banking parasites. You don't even have to be a mick ! I've been with them for about eight years, and they're what a super fund should be, in my experience thus far.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | Half the problem with designing utopia is that everyone will have a different idea of what it looks like, so if you build your version you're just another tyrant imposing your will on the populace.
Likewise, I don't think an ideal global utopia could exist, there's too much variation in human beings to have a large scale system that worked for everyone. |
Perhaps I should have rephrased the OP a little—obviously there'll never be a perfect society, but I guess we could have a "best possible" society. Obviously everyone has their own ideas as to how society should be, but that hasn't stopped ours from changing radically and democratically over the past century or so. You don't need a dictatorship to put your ideas into practice, just the consent of the majority.
That said, my best possible society might go something like this (and yes, I'm thinking a little more radically than most):
First of all, I'd like to see a complete breakdown of the nuclear family. People would live more in groups that might change from time to time. The concept of marriage and monogamy would be an anachronism. Pregnancy would no longer exist; babies would just be grown in test tubes and picked out in the lab by those who want to be parents (by themselves, as a couple or as a group). All adults would be infertile.
There would be pure gender neutrality. No "him" and "her" or different toy aisles for boys and girls. Obviously, there would be no gender discrimination either.
My ideal society would still have a strong legal system, although jails would only exist for truly dangerous people who couldn't be reformed. Otherwise, the focus would be on rehabilitation and, far more importantly, prevention. We would have a good grasp on what causes criminal behaviour and detect the warning signs early enough to intervene through therapy or even medication. Rather than punishment, the goal of criminal law would be to assess what's wrong with the person and help them to overcome it, at which point they would be accepted back into society as an equal. Alternatives to jail might be, for instance, serving the victim in some manner for as long as it takes until the victim is willing to forgive them.
The golden rule underpinning most laws would be "treat your fellow human decently". Human well-being would be prioritised over all other concerns, including border protection and criminal law. The concept of public shaming wouldn't exist; it would be naturally assumed that people are imperfect and fallible. Breaches of the law would be dealt with by the legal system; breach of workplace rules would result in workplace sanctions; and personal issues would be dealt with privately. There would be no blurring of those lines.
There would be no privileges in society conveyed by parentage, nationality, physical appearance or any other factor apart from ability to perform a certain role. Everyone would be entitled to a minimum wage (whether employed or not), a roof over their heads, comprehensive healthcare and free education up to tertiary level. There would be a maximum after-tax wage (set at, say, three or four times the minimum wage), and inheritance tax would be 100% (though assets might be treated differently to cash). The general tax rate would be very progressive and steep near the top.
Education would be thorough, to the extent where all graduates would end up with decent general knowledge and competency in all the core areas, though children would be encouraged to pursue their own specialisations early. I'd want to see a stronger focus on ethics and philosophy.
While religious practices would be tolerated, organised religion would have all but died a natural death. Religious indoctrination of children would generally be frowned upon.
Perhaps as a by-product of the above, sex would have all of its social stigma stripped away, and would be treated as a pleasurable, intimate, but relatively mundane act. There would be vaccines available for all sexually transmitted infections.
Freedom of speech and political/artistic expression would be close to absolute, with the only punishable speech being that which causes serious harm to individuals and groups (and no, that doesn't mean just "being offended"). There would be many more diverse channels for open expression; media monopolies would be illegal.
There would be no factory farming or slaughter of animals for food. We would consume meat substitutes instead. Provided sufficient alternatives had been developed, animal testing would be phased out.
Environmental protection would, of course, be prioritised over corporate interests.
All diseases would have cures, naturally. There would be no frustration of medical research through patenting or exorbitant costs.
Voting would be universal, but your vote would be weighted according to certain metrics (demonstrated real-world experience, intelligence, educational attainment and so on).
Support of Collingwood would, of course, be mandatory.
Phew! I think that's about it. 
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Last edited by David on Wed Oct 29, 2014 12:47 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wouldn't there be animals that liked being eaten, instead? I can't imagine utopia involving meat substitutes. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | Half the problem with designing utopia is that everyone will have a different idea of what it looks like, so if you build your version you're just another tyrant imposing your will on the populace.
Likewise, I don't think an ideal global utopia could exist, there's too much variation in human beings to have a large scale system that worked for everyone. |
Perhaps I should have rephrased the OP a little—obviously there'll never be a perfect society, but I guess we could have a "best possible" society. Obviously everyone has their own ideas as to how society should be, but that hasn't stopped ours from changing radically and democratically over the past century or so. You don't need a dictatorship to put your ideas into practice, just the consent of the majority.
That said, my best possible society might go something like this (and yes, I'm thinking a little more radically than most):
First of all, I'd like to see a complete breakdown of the nuclear family. People would live more in groups that might change from time to time. The concept of marriage and monogamy would be an anachronism. Pregnancy would no longer exist; babies would just be grown in test tubes and picked out in the lab by those who want to be parents (by themselves, as a couple or as a group). All adults would be infertile.
There would be pure gender neutrality. No "him" and "her" or different toy aisles for boys and girls. Obviously, there would be no gender discrimination either.
My ideal society would still have a strong legal system, although jails would only exist for truly dangerous people who couldn't be reformed. Otherwise, the focus would be on rehabilitation and, far more importantly, prevention. We would have a good grasp on what causes criminal behaviour and detect the warning signs early enough to intervene through therapy or even medication. Rather than punishment, the goal of criminal law would be to assess what's wrong with the person and help them to overcome it, at which point they would be accepted back into society as an equal. Alternatives to jail might be, for instance, serving the victim in some manner for as long as it takes until the victim is willing to forgive them.
The golden rule underpinning most laws would be "treat your fellow human decently". Human well-being would be prioritised over all other concerns, including border protection and criminal law. The concept of public shaming wouldn't exist; it would be naturally assumed that people are imperfect and fallible. Breaches of the law would be dealt with by the legal system; breach of workplace rules would result in workplace sanctions; and personal issues would be dealt with privately. There would be no blurring of those lines.
There would be no privileges in society conveyed by parentage, nationality, appearance of any other factor apart from ability to perform a certain role. Everyone would be entitled to a minimum wage (whether employed or not), a roof over their heads, comprehensive healthcare and free education up to tertiary level. There would be a maximum after-tax wage (set at, say, three or four times the minimum wage), and inheritance tax would be 100% (though assets might be treated differently to cash). The general tax rate would be very progressive and steep near the top.
Education would be thorough, to the extent where all graduates would end up with decent general knowledge and competency in all the core areas, though children would be encouraged to pursue their own specialisations early. I'd want to see a stronger focus on ethics and philosophy.
While religious practices would be tolerated, organised religion would have all but died a natural death. Religious indoctrination of children would generally be frowned upon.
Perhaps as a by-product of the above, sex would have all of its social stigma stripped away, and would be treated as a pleasurable, intimate, but relatively mundane act. There would be vaccines available for all sexually transmitted infections.
Freedom of speech and political/artistic expression would be close to absolute, with the only punishable speech being that which causes serious harm to individuals and groups (and no, that doesn't mean just "being offended"). There would be many more diverse channels for open expression; media monopolies would be illegal.
There would be no factory farming or slaughter of animals for food. We would consume meat substitutes instead. Provided sufficient alternatives had been developed, animal testing would be phased out.
Environmental protection would, of course, be prioritised over corporate interests.
All diseases would have cures, naturally. There would be no frustration of medical research through patenting or exorbitant costs.
Voting would be universal, but your vote would be weighted according to certain metrics (demonstrated real-world experience, intelligence, educational attainment and so on).
Support of Collingwood would, of course, be mandatory.
Phew! I think that's about it. |
I got as far as the test tube babies!!
apart from all the other shit about breaking up families and just having an all in orgy, REALLY? REALLY? I sincerely hope after you see your child born next month, you change that view!
WHAT THE **** IS THE GOOD OF LIFE WITH NO LOVE, NO FUN?
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | TP, i do think that negative gearing is a seriously bad thing, which is likely to contribute to lifelong poverty for many young Australians. But my point is not to attack those that do it. We can all attack each other's actions down some ethical lens or other. The point, for me, is just to change a policy which inflates house prices through a crazy tax distortion.
On where to invest, I understand your point re Super, and I think that any government which changes rules on super is indulging in a fraud against the public, and playing with fire. The gouging of the spectacularly venal and useless super fund industry does not help, either. However, property is just as vulnerable to such rule changes - I suspect it just feels safer because you can touch it.
Where to invest ? Well, i'm no financial adviser, but a range of blue chip shares which pay a steady and supportable dividend are probably as good as anything - with a tranche of US dollar-earning companies that are likely to benefit from currency appreciation as the interest rate differential between the AUD and USD narrows, as it eventually must. Or, of course, new build housing which actually increases the total housing stock rather than crowds out the kids.
On super, by the way, Catholic Super Fund are simply the best, in my view. Properly low charges, conservative management (it is primarily for the teachers in the Catholic school system), sensible investment options, and half the entry fees of the main street banking parasites. You don't even have to be a mick ! I've been with them for about eight years, and they're what a super fund should be, in my experience thus far. |
GREAT POST. cheers, appreciate the balanced answer. I might have a look at that fund. im with Aussie super, and ive found them ok, but nothing to write home about. hubby is with a rip off mob his work set him up with years ago, I tried to change it a couple of years back, but we would loose a lot of benefits due to his ongoing cancer battle.
I played with shares for a while, but I wasn't very good!! id pay someone but then I wouldn't trust them!! we have had a couple of rentals over the years, and careful buying (basically divorce of the sellers has meant sell or lose too much to lawyers, we didn't go looking for that just twice happened too put in offers we thought would be knocked back, and we would up it to meet in the middle, get acccepted!)has made it worth it. and yes there is something reassuring about bricks and morter!! cheers xx
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | Half the problem with designing utopia is that everyone will have a different idea of what it looks like, so if you build your version you're just another tyrant imposing your will on the populace.
Likewise, I don't think an ideal global utopia could exist, there's too much variation in human beings to have a large scale system that worked for everyone. |
Perhaps I should have rephrased the OP a little—obviously there'll never be a perfect society, but I guess we could have a "best possible" society. Obviously everyone has their own ideas as to how society should be, but that hasn't stopped ours from changing radically and democratically over the past century or so. You don't need a dictatorship to put your ideas into practice, just the consent of the majority.
That said, my best possible society might go something like this (and yes, I'm thinking a little more radically than most):
First of all, I'd like to see a complete breakdown of the nuclear family. People would live more in groups that might change from time to time. The concept of marriage and monogamy would be an anachronism. Pregnancy would no longer exist; babies would just be grown in test tubes and picked out in the lab by those who want to be parents (by themselves, as a couple or as a group). All adults would be infertile.
There would be pure gender neutrality. No "him" and "her" or different toy aisles for boys and girls. Obviously, there would be no gender discrimination either.
My ideal society would still have a strong legal system, although jails would only exist for truly dangerous people who couldn't be reformed. Otherwise, the focus would be on rehabilitation and, far more importantly, prevention. We would have a good grasp on what causes criminal behaviour and detect the warning signs early enough to intervene through therapy or even medication. Rather than punishment, the goal of criminal law would be to assess what's wrong with the person and help them to overcome it, at which point they would be accepted back into society as an equal. Alternatives to jail might be, for instance, serving the victim in some manner for as long as it takes until the victim is willing to forgive them.
The golden rule underpinning most laws would be "treat your fellow human decently". Human well-being would be prioritised over all other concerns, including border protection and criminal law. The concept of public shaming wouldn't exist; it would be naturally assumed that people are imperfect and fallible. Breaches of the law would be dealt with by the legal system; breach of workplace rules would result in workplace sanctions; and personal issues would be dealt with privately. There would be no blurring of those lines.
There would be no privileges in society conveyed by parentage, nationality, appearance of any other factor apart from ability to perform a certain role. Everyone would be entitled to a minimum wage (whether employed or not), a roof over their heads, comprehensive healthcare and free education up to tertiary level. There would be a maximum after-tax wage (set at, say, three or four times the minimum wage), and inheritance tax would be 100% (though assets might be treated differently to cash). The general tax rate would be very progressive and steep near the top.
Education would be thorough, to the extent where all graduates would end up with decent general knowledge and competency in all the core areas, though children would be encouraged to pursue their own specialisations early. I'd want to see a stronger focus on ethics and philosophy.
While religious practices would be tolerated, organised religion would have all but died a natural death. Religious indoctrination of children would generally be frowned upon.
Perhaps as a by-product of the above, sex would have all of its social stigma stripped away, and would be treated as a pleasurable, intimate, but relatively mundane act. There would be vaccines available for all sexually transmitted infections.
Freedom of speech and political/artistic expression would be close to absolute, with the only punishable speech being that which causes serious harm to individuals and groups (and no, that doesn't mean just "being offended"). There would be many more diverse channels for open expression; media monopolies would be illegal.
There would be no factory farming or slaughter of animals for food. We would consume meat substitutes instead. Provided sufficient alternatives had been developed, animal testing would be phased out.
Environmental protection would, of course, be prioritised over corporate interests.
All diseases would have cures, naturally. There would be no frustration of medical research through patenting or exorbitant costs.
Voting would be universal, but your vote would be weighted according to certain metrics (demonstrated real-world experience, intelligence, educational attainment and so on).
Support of Collingwood would, of course, be mandatory.
Phew! I think that's about it. |
Brave New World was a warning, not an instruction manual. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| My creator is a human. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | David wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | Half the problem with designing utopia is that everyone will have a different idea of what it looks like, so if you build your version you're just another tyrant imposing your will on the populace.
Likewise, I don't think an ideal global utopia could exist, there's too much variation in human beings to have a large scale system that worked for everyone. |
Perhaps I should have rephrased the OP a little—obviously there'll never be a perfect society, but I guess we could have a "best possible" society. Obviously everyone has their own ideas as to how society should be, but that hasn't stopped ours from changing radically and democratically over the past century or so. You don't need a dictatorship to put your ideas into practice, just the consent of the majority.
That said, my best possible society might go something like this (and yes, I'm thinking a little more radically than most):
First of all, I'd like to see a complete breakdown of the nuclear family. People would live more in groups that might change from time to time. The concept of marriage and monogamy would be an anachronism. Pregnancy would no longer exist; babies would just be grown in test tubes and picked out in the lab by those who want to be parents (by themselves, as a couple or as a group). All adults would be infertile.
There would be pure gender neutrality. No "him" and "her" or different toy aisles for boys and girls. Obviously, there would be no gender discrimination either.
My ideal society would still have a strong legal system, although jails would only exist for truly dangerous people who couldn't be reformed. Otherwise, the focus would be on rehabilitation and, far more importantly, prevention. We would have a good grasp on what causes criminal behaviour and detect the warning signs early enough to intervene through therapy or even medication. Rather than punishment, the goal of criminal law would be to assess what's wrong with the person and help them to overcome it, at which point they would be accepted back into society as an equal. Alternatives to jail might be, for instance, serving the victim in some manner for as long as it takes until the victim is willing to forgive them.
The golden rule underpinning most laws would be "treat your fellow human decently". Human well-being would be prioritised over all other concerns, including border protection and criminal law. The concept of public shaming wouldn't exist; it would be naturally assumed that people are imperfect and fallible. Breaches of the law would be dealt with by the legal system; breach of workplace rules would result in workplace sanctions; and personal issues would be dealt with privately. There would be no blurring of those lines.
There would be no privileges in society conveyed by parentage, nationality, appearance of any other factor apart from ability to perform a certain role. Everyone would be entitled to a minimum wage (whether employed or not), a roof over their heads, comprehensive healthcare and free education up to tertiary level. There would be a maximum after-tax wage (set at, say, three or four times the minimum wage), and inheritance tax would be 100% (though assets might be treated differently to cash). The general tax rate would be very progressive and steep near the top.
Education would be thorough, to the extent where all graduates would end up with decent general knowledge and competency in all the core areas, though children would be encouraged to pursue their own specialisations early. I'd want to see a stronger focus on ethics and philosophy.
While religious practices would be tolerated, organised religion would have all but died a natural death. Religious indoctrination of children would generally be frowned upon.
Perhaps as a by-product of the above, sex would have all of its social stigma stripped away, and would be treated as a pleasurable, intimate, but relatively mundane act. There would be vaccines available for all sexually transmitted infections.
Freedom of speech and political/artistic expression would be close to absolute, with the only punishable speech being that which causes serious harm to individuals and groups (and no, that doesn't mean just "being offended"). There would be many more diverse channels for open expression; media monopolies would be illegal.
There would be no factory farming or slaughter of animals for food. We would consume meat substitutes instead. Provided sufficient alternatives had been developed, animal testing would be phased out.
Environmental protection would, of course, be prioritised over corporate interests.
All diseases would have cures, naturally. There would be no frustration of medical research through patenting or exorbitant costs.
Voting would be universal, but your vote would be weighted according to certain metrics (demonstrated real-world experience, intelligence, educational attainment and so on).
Support of Collingwood would, of course, be mandatory.
Phew! I think that's about it. |
Brave New World was a warning, not an instruction manual. |
And there, in a nutshell, is the problem of authorial intention.  |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: |
I got as far as the test tube babies!!
apart from all the other shit about breaking up families and just having an all in orgy, REALLY? REALLY? I sincerely hope after you see your child born next month, you change that view!
WHAT THE **** IS THE GOOD OF LIFE WITH NO LOVE, NO FUN? |
Who says there'd be no love or no fun? If anything, I'd hope my, er, "Brave New World" would have a lot more of both than our current society has.
Wokko, I didn't say anything about a caste system! Although I should get around to finishing the novel at some point...
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: |
Brave New World was a warning, not an instruction manual. |
I actually laughed out loud.
David, if that's your Utopia, refer back to my post you quoted and keep it the hell away from me.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
What parts do you dislike the most? Were there any you agreed with?
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I didn't actually agree, in whole, with any of them. Not even the Collingwood one. Without opposition supporters to bag, the winning isn't as sweet.
Parts of some I could go for but when taken as a whole sentence, pass.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
1061
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | What parts do you dislike the most? Were there any you agreed with? |
I can see a poll coming on  |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 1061 wrote: | | David wrote: | | What parts do you dislike the most? Were there any you agreed with? |
I can see a poll coming on |
It is your solemn duty as a Mod to prevent that from happening. Please [insert deity of choice] you must do the right thing.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
