Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
Utopia

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern
 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
HAL 

Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.


Joined: 17 Mar 2003


PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 9:14 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know if they were.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
Wokko Pisces

Come and take it.


Joined: 04 Oct 2005


PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 10:07 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

David, I find most of your ideas abhorrent and would be on the front lines fighting against them (and I don't just mean philosophically). The family unit and monogamy are not only for the benefit of those practicing it, these social structures allow children to see and experience the most effective and positive way of raising their own future children. It is no coincidence that our Prisons and mental health wards are full of children of single parents or from broken homes. It is no surprise that the most likely person to abuse a child based on percentage, not pure numbers is a step parent and while the data on children raised in non traditional families is still rather a small sample it doesn't look much better.

Tearing down the family and having children raised in effect by the State or community is a central tenet of Communism as it removes a bond of loyalty in the next generation towards anything other than the society that raised them.

On inheritances, I know someone who is mentally ill and has recently inherited enough from their parent's passing to buy into the property market. This will secure a stable future for her and her daughter that may otherwise have ended in homeless shelters. Taking away inheritance may seem a good socialist policy but it is inherently evil and unjust.

Gender is not just a social construct, it is a biological reality that defines us and gives us identity. It is no surprise that mental illness and suicide is so common in those with gender identity issues. While I have no desire to discriminate against people with those issues, they are a tiny, tiny minority and most among us are happy, proud and healthy within our binary gender. While that gender should never define your outcomes in life, trying to legislate it away is again, inherently evil.

A living wage seems like a good idea, but every time you extend welfare you create an underclass of slackers who are willing to live off the work of others. I'm not talking the ill, mentally ill or disabled here either but there is a decent amount of people who once made comfortable are happy to stay there. How does your utopia produce enough to support all the people who will be happy to collect their living wage and do no more?

Weighted voting is a concept that astounds me that you would hold. It really does show that in your system "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.".

I think you need to broaden your horizons beyond social justice groups and websites, there's probably more I could add just on your initial post but I'll leave it there with one final response regarding your reply to my 'Brave New World' post. Brave New World's caste system was probably the least of the evils in that 'Utopia', and it's the only thing you pulled from it that differed from your own.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 11:14 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

stui magpie wrote:
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.


Yeah, well, ok, you're right. Mr. Green

Wokko, I might just address a few of your points (although I acknowledge that we come at this from very different ideological positions and almost certainly won't see eye to eye on these things anyway):

Wokko wrote:
The family unit and monogamy are not only for the benefit of those practicing it, these social structures allow children to see and experience the most effective and positive way of raising their own future children. It is no coincidence that our Prisons and mental health wards are full of children of single parents or from broken homes.


This sounds suspiciously like the argument levelled by the few conservatives still opposing same-sex marriage: that the negative social impacts on children of divorce are a function of non-traditional parenting and not primarily related to, say, the trauma of divorce or the lack of resources available to single parents.

The irony is that the nuclear family is relatively new. Most traditional societies practise (and historically practised) forms of communal child-rearing. I'd actually argue that it's much more unnatural and dysfunctional to raise a kid alone with their mum and dad in a suburban house. That's not how we're wired.

There's no reason why a child shouldn't learn effective child-rearing, love, negotiation and discipline through observing the behaviour of a group of parent figures. If anything, that's probably the ideal model.

Wokko wrote:
On inheritances, I know someone who is mentally ill and has recently inherited enough from their parent's passing to buy into the property market. This will secure a stable future for her and her daughter that may otherwise have ended in homeless shelters. Taking away inheritance may seem a good socialist policy but it is inherently evil and unjust.


But she just as easily might not have, had she been born to less well-off parents. Indeed, I'm sure there are many in such a predicament who might just end up in a homeless shelter (and many more who already live a charmed life by virtue of unearned privileges and are in line to earn another cool million when Auntie passes on). How is that fair? Surely it goes against the basic liberal democratic principle of equal opportunity. And yet you call opposing this inequality "evil and unjust"?

Of course, a point I've omitted here (though one I've argued in the past) is that I'm not just proposing inheritance tax out of some pathological tall poppy syndrome. The whole point of this is, of course, wealth redistribution; the sort of redistribution that would mean that your friend and her daughter wouldn't merely end up in a homeless shelter because she didn't have the good fortune of having middle-class parents. That's the real injustice that you should be outraged about.

Wokko wrote:
Gender is not just a social construct, it is a biological reality that defines us and gives us identity. It is no surprise that mental illness and suicide is so common in those with gender identity issues.


It's no surprise at all, given that such people are among the most marginalised and mistreated in our society. But it is not just for their sake that I'd propose gender neutrality; I think it just cuts to the core of our desire to be seen as individual human beings and not forced into roles that we may or may not choose.

Perhaps you may be perfectly happy with the status quo, but imagine being a teenage girl and being told by media and peers that your chief task in life is to be conventionally attractive; that your role is not to do, but to be looked at. Or try being a boy who doesn't fit into conventional gender stereotypes and gets bullied and ostracised as a result. We definitely have room for improvement, and I think doing away with the gender binary would be a step forward.

Wokko wrote:
A living wage seems like a good idea, but every time you extend welfare you create an underclass of slackers who are willing to live off the work of others. I'm not talking the ill, mentally ill or disabled here either but there is a decent amount of people who once made comfortable are happy to stay there. How does your utopia produce enough to support all the people who will be happy to collect their living wage and do no more?


I believe in incentive as much as the next person, and I also believe that the vast majority of people aspire to more in terms of wealth than just having their basic needs met. I think there are enough of such people to keep an economy functioning, particularly if we live in a progressive economy where old industries are regularly phased out and high-skill jobs proliferate.

But for those struggle to get a job or simply lack the motivation or skills to look for work, I don't think it's too much to ask that they still be housed and fed (while perhaps being offered opportunities for retraining). I don't think that that is such an onerous burden on taxpayers.

Wokko wrote:
Weighted voting is a concept that astounds me that you would hold. It really does show that in your system "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."


I don't know if I actually believe in equality per se. I'd say I agree with something more like equality of opportunity, which in some ways places me closer ideologically to people like Joe Hockey than the Greens and ALP. I know this is a controversial idea, and that it'd be very difficult for it to ever gain traction, but I do think society would be better off if we privileged the voices of the more qualified without disenfranchising the voices of those who aren't. There are all sorts of potential practical problems with my idea, of course, but I think we should be brave enough to consider such ideas in the future. There has to be a better way than our current form of democracy.

Re: Brave New World, I really do need to finish reading it and see where I disagree with Huxley. It's quite possible that there are aspects of his hypothetical society that I might endorse, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm wrong. I think Huxley's dystopia is a more subtle one than, say, Orwell's, and I think he would have appreciated a more critical engagement with these ideas than merely closing the book and saying "well isn't that terrible".

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
think positive Libra

Side By Side


Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere

PostPosted: Wed Oct 29, 2014 11:57 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Wokko, I agree with you one hundred percent.

David, big part of me wants to really let fly at certain things in your post, and the real reasons I think you have for holding those "beliefs". But I won't. I'll just say that I sincerely hope you will change your mind about many of them, when indeed your son is born, and in the following years, when reality can sometimes be a kick in the face, and then just as suddenly, an amazing "I wouldn't miss this for the world" moment that makes all the hard work and sleepless nights worth it. I look forward to the moment you look at your son and want to give him that helping hand, that step up in a world that can be so hard, so cold, and then, so amazing.

You think I'm greedy for wanting to help my kids have it easier than I did. You think I'm maybe over protective, because I don't want my kids to ever feel the terror that I did. You had a hard time as a kid too for different reasons, I know. And so your looking to protect your son in a different direction. I get that. And as much as you judge me, yes i judge you. But I still hope like Hell, you feel that amazing "thing" for your child, that you never could from a test tube. The love that is so overwhelming it hurts. I'm just so glad that I had the opportunity to know that love. And I don't want to share it with anyone. It's just not a group thing!

I'm simplistic, sometimes laughably so, I know that. And I really don't care. I can't change the world, the changes I want are just so big, and I'm not mentally equipt for the job. I simply hurt too easily. So I try to make my kids lives the best they can be, and I campaign for animals, because like me, they just want to love you, and be allowed to be free and unafraid. One day I hope to do more. Right now I simply can't. Or won't. I just have bigger things for me right now.

My utopia means no wars, no evil, no abuse, no un curable disease. No cancer, no dementia. It means no child is hurt, no animal abused, the elderly able to rock on their front porch with no fear.

I've had a hard day, and I don't even no why. So I'll wallow, and tomorrow when I'm my usual positive self again, I'll thank The Lord for today's pain, cos it made the roller coaster of life better, when I hit that high again.

Cheers, and peace be with you all.

_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 12:06 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

^ I don't think you're greedy at all! There's a big difference between disagreement with a certain social mechanism (in this case inheritance law) and personal judgement. Of course we can only do our best under the conditions in which we live, and I may well end up doing exactly the same. So, no, I don't judge you one bit for doing what you think is best for your children, just as I wouldn't have judged rich parents trying to get their kids into elite schools in the past. I think that's an important distinction to make.

I'm sure that there are many adoptive parents who love their children just as much as a biological parent does. I don't think love is limited that way.

I hope whatever's been going wrong today clears itself up and you feel better tomorrow.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace


Last edited by David on Thu Oct 30, 2014 12:09 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
Wokko Pisces

Come and take it.


Joined: 04 Oct 2005


PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 12:09 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

David wrote:
I don't know if I actually believe in equality per se. I'd say I agree with something more like equality of opportunity, which in some ways places me closer ideologically to people like Joe Hockey than the Greens and ALP. I know this is a controversial idea, and that it'd be very difficult for it to ever gain traction, but I do think society would be better off if we privileged the voices of the more qualified without disenfranchising the voices of those who aren't. There are all sorts of potential practical problems with my idea, of course, but I think we should be brave enough to consider such ideas in the future. There has to be a better way than our current form of democracy.

Re: Brave New World, I really do need to finish reading it and see where I disagree with Huxley. It's quite possible that there are aspects of his hypothetical society that I might endorse, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm wrong. I think Huxley's dystopia is a more subtle one than, say, Orwell's, and I think he would have appreciated a more critical engagement with these ideas than merely closing the book and saying "well isn't that terrible".


There is very little redeeming in Huxley's world, and the insidious, subtle nature of the horror is what makes it so compelling. Where Orwell showed us an overt authoritarian picture, Huxley shows us that we can just as easily make our own prison with happiness. I think the modern far left is trying to create something very close to Huxley's idea of a horrific dystopia, and is doing so in complete ignorance of the allegory already given to us. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, but the destination isn't any better than the road paved with selfish power grabbing dictators.

I could see in your world where the nuclear family, monogomous types end up living in ghettos and reservations; a throw back anachronism from a golden age of western civilization.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 12:13 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

I honestly don't see much of the modern radical left in Brave New World. Huxley was responding much more to the utopian socialists of the early 20th century, who actually shared a lot of the views I hold now (including my very interest in utopias, lol). They're very unfashionable now, though. Beyond the Trotskyists and anarchists (neither being groups that I have much in common with politically), I don't think there is much of a radical left in Australia any more. The rest are all caught up in identity politics and complaining on Facebook about how terrible Tony Abbott is.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
Wokko Pisces

Come and take it.


Joined: 04 Oct 2005


PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 12:37 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm going to have a crack at this, but I hate making long posts and have already thrown out a couple tonight.

I think any utopia needs an overarching philosophy. The primary rule in a world I created would be "Live free, do not coerce others, do no violence". This sums up, almost in totality the law that I would set down. People are free to live, learn, love, work, earn, trade amongst themselves with little or no coercion or force from 'society' or the State beyond what is absolutely necessary to ensure its function.

The government would provide for the military and foreign affairs and a minimalistic approach to welfare.

The main deviations from this would be universal health care with citizens paying into an insurance pool when they begin working and this fund would invest and be tasked with ensuring there are funds for medical care from cradle to grave.

Government would not own any businesses or take any funds beyond what is needed for the essential running of the state. As there is so little function for government there would be no need for representative democracy as we know it but I see something like Platos philosopher Kings. People found in childhood found to have certain qualities who could, if they so chose take up ruling positions as a council who could then appoint a leader every 10 years, an oligarchy of sorts but lacking the power of the Nation State as we know it, it would have little scope for true dictatorship. I believe this combines the best qualites of Monarchy and Democracy.

Most essential services would be provided for through either insurance payments or through private means, welfare would be provided on an 'as needs' basis and be high enough to pay for food, shelter, essential and child services. In effect a true 'cost of living' payment, similarly paid for through insurance payments made when productive. Government welfare would be bare minimum required (similar to how it is now).

Summarizing: Free market as first choice on all issues, equality of opportunity, minimal government interference and non violence/coercion. Minimal safety net provided through taxation coupled with optional insurance welfare provides for the vulnerable.

Education is a tough one, but I lean towards totally private with scholarships for the gifted poor. Possibly a state run education option for Primary education but that just may be fear of the unknown coupled with what I've always known.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 12:54 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Wokko wrote:
Most essential services would be provided for through either insurance payments or through private means, welfare would be provided on an 'as needs' basis and be high enough to pay for food, shelter, essential and child services. In effect a true 'cost of living' payment, similarly paid for through insurance payments made when productive. Government welfare would be bare minimum required (similar to how it is now).


I just wonder who would oversee this whole bureaucracy (+ education, military and health) if you want such a small government. And who are the authorities who would pick successors?

Would you have a criminal justice system?

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
Mugwump 



Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne

PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 8:06 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

^the trouble with your utopia, David, is that it assumes a new kind of human being. Once you assume that, the breaking of a parent-child nexus is easy, but probably unnecessary. Without a new kind of human being, then it is intolerable - the sheer rate of violence by step-parents against children is an evidential argument, if the emotional one does not (yet, or ever) make sense to you.

Like others, I agree that sexuality can be reduced to a recreational consumption good, but if you want to make it just and only that, then you'll have voided the emotional dance of restraint and yielding that makes the lousy old human body fuel for poetry. Too great a price.

By the way, you forgot the incest Wink

_________________
Two more flags before I die!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 9:14 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Mugwump wrote:
^the trouble with your utopia, David, is that it assumes a new kind of human being. Once you assume that, the breaking of a parent-child nexus is easy, but probably unnecessary. Without a new kind of human being, then it is intolerable - the sheer rate of violence by step-parents against children is an evidential argument, if the emotional one does not (yet, or ever) make sense to you.


But think for a moment about why this phenomenon might occur—for instance, adults getting into new monogamous relationships and resenting the fact that there's a child demanding the lion's share of their new partner's time. The issue is clearly not a matter of biology, because there is hardly any comparable epidemic of abusive adoptive parents.

In the society I'm proposing, there would be far fewer children. You'd have to really want to be a parent to get one, and it'd be an (obviously) serious and unbreakable contract. Those who wished to maintain a relationship with a parent without wanting the responsibilities of parenting would be under no obligation to contribute. I'm not saying it'd be a perfect model, but I think that a lot of the problems around split families would be much less prevalent in my society.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
Wokko Pisces

Come and take it.


Joined: 04 Oct 2005


PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 9:57 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Adopted children are far more likely to suffer from mental illness/behavioural problems etc and have issues with making emotional attachments. While there is less abuse and neglect, I would assume that stems from the fact that adoptive parents have to jump through hoops and be desperate to raise a child that is not theirs biologically. This makes them an uncommon sort of 'kind soul' in the first place and I would also assume that they would be highly unlikely to abuse their own children. Also adoptive parents are more likely from a higher economic class compared to step parents, statistically speaking.

We have a biological drive to mate and to healthily and successfully raise our own children to pass on our genes down the generations. Meddling with this most basic of human behavioural drivers through social engineering would, in my opinion, lead to horrendous unforeseen social problems. Even in your defense of children raised by the community, these were either extended family groups or small 'tribal' setups. There was still pair bonding amongst parents and a biological drive to see these children succeed. There is no such successful picture of community child raising once large cities become the norm. The thought of parentless children raised by random people and the State just chills me to the core.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
pietillidie 



Joined: 07 Jan 2005


PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 10:13 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

^We have a behavioural drive to plan and make good decisions, too. Homo sapiens is part of the natural world, as is Homo sapiens' capacity to engineer the world. There is nothing "unnatural" about our species using its cognitive capacity to achieve behavioural or environmental modification; our brains don't reside on one of the moons of Jupiter.

That said, I'm not taking a side in that debate.

_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 10:50 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

That's my thought too, PTID—people underestimate how flexible social norms are. We are not so much slaves to our biology as some would argue.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
think positive Libra

Side By Side


Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere

PostPosted: Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:08 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Wokko wrote:
Adopted children are far more likely to suffer from mental illness/behavioural problems etc and have issues with making emotional attachments. While there is less abuse and neglect, I would assume that stems from the fact that adoptive parents have to jump through hoops and be desperate to raise a child that is not theirs biologically. This makes them an uncommon sort of 'kind soul' in the first place and I would also assume that they would be highly unlikely to abuse their own children. Also adoptive parents are more likely from a higher economic class compared to step parents, statistically speaking.

We have a biological drive to mate and to healthily and successfully raise our own children to pass on our genes down the generations. Meddling with this most basic of human behavioural drivers through social engineering would, in my opinion, lead to horrendous unforeseen social problems. Even in your defense of children raised by the community, these were either extended family groups or small 'tribal' setups. There was still pair bonding amongst parents and a biological drive to see these children succeed. There is no such successful picture of community child raising once large cities become the norm. The thought of parentless children raised by random people and the State just chills me to the core


.
yup

Reminds me of the creepy scenarios of some prime time crimes series!

Just too easy to have sinister intention. Brrrrrr

_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern All times are GMT + 11 Hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5   

 
Jump to:  
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



Privacy Policy

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group