There is no objectively correct answer. Discussing and arguing in this thread is fine but don’t be dicks.
I keep thinking about a world without money in it. Some form of trade of goods and services. Or a world without rent with housing as a socially distributed good according to needs. Or both. If we didn’t have rent (or mortgage) to worry about, everything could be extremely better. Also, obviously, no wealth accumulation, no inheritance, free basic income (if we do need something like money)
I society without douchebags ruining anything good we could have. Tired of narcissistic, greedy, self serving ditbags in every aspect of our lives. Wish we could somehow cut that out of the human genome.
The one that instead of competition, oppression and punishment provides education, food and housing for it’s members.
Sounds better lol
I’m not sure I have a fleshed out idea of what would be my own perfect society, but I can tell you it would certainly involve zero pedophiles and mass murders in positions of power.
Hell yeah thats fair
It’s gonna be pretty close to Norway or Iceland but even harder on road tax, property tax, O&G.
My wildest dream is to die in a world that is marginally better than the one I got born in. At this point I’d settle for marginally worse, since catastrophically worse is a real possibility.
Does it have to be practically feasible or am I allowed to hallucinate wildly about how individuals and groups of people behave?
For practically feasible: I live in a Scandinavian country, we have it quite good by most conparisons. If I had to move I’d probably give Switzerland a try.
The world is your oyster in this hypothetical.
A post-scarcity solarpunk society where people don’t work for economic credits but instead work towards making real things and real progress…basically the Star Trek type of society where all your physical needs can be satisified by replicator technology. The starships part is optional.
Oh, and public transportation. Lots and lots of public transportation.
Basically democratic socialism but with a few rules:
- No billionaires. After 500 million, it’s taxed at 100%
- No Corporations. Private business ownership only. No Shareholders or Hedge Funds. Basically no wall street.
- Lobbying on behalf of an industry is banned.
- No party “whips” that exist to make a representative vote the party line even if they’re personally disagree with the party on that particular issue. Representatives need to truly represent their constituents, not their party. In fact, fuck the entire concept of “party politics”. Ditch it.
- By law, a representative has to have actually lived in their riding for 5 years or more.
- Representatives are required to spend at least 80% of their time in their constituency, in their office. It’s a 9-5 job. No more of this showing up to vote bullshit and then fucking off to Mexico. You serve your constituents, and your job is to be in your office to listen to them tell you what they want 5 days a week, 8 hours a day. Otherwise, what do they pay you for?
- With the exception of meeting twice a year in person, most bills in congress/parliament are able to be done completely virtually. The representative studies the issue, consults with his constituents and votes accordingly. They do so without any input from their so-called peers. The only input they are allowed is from their constituents and legitimate experts in whatever field they are looking into.
- Representatives have a strict two term limit and an age limit.
- At any point, your constituents (and ONLY your constituents) can trigger a recall election due to no-confidence.
- You’re a “servant of the people”; not the other way around. You get a working man’s salary; enough to live and a small dispensation for travel expenses, office staff, etc… But using your position to enrich your own personal wealth is grounds for an immediate arrest.
I don’t disagree with most of these. Would get rid of a ton of the seemingly parasitic portions of the US government. Aggressive term limits like that would inherently force change very quickly. I’ve discussed that with a very politically involved friend (far left works in DC). His argument was always along the lines of things move slow so career politician’s are needed to actually enact change. If its forced to speed up though, maybe that’s good? I’m not really sure honestly. One charismatic populist/small group of charismatic populist could make a huge amount of change in a short span of time. Positive or negative. I do think they should be compensated for their terms at a pretty high level though, say 200k a year with the same benefits a basic federal worker gets. With the stipulation that they can’t trade or earn from a related secondary source of income while in office. We want them to be elite thinkers/doers so we should pay them that way. I really like 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9. I appreciate how organized and detailed you were. Sorry my response is kinda scatterbrained.
True about the pay.
In general I just feel like our representatives are too far removed from the people they’re supposed to serve.
Here in Canada, we’ve had a couple of floor-crossers from the Conservatives to the Liberals, and social media is up in arms about how that shouldn’t be allowed. “We voted Conservative, not Liberal”. Whenever someone points out (and rightly so) that in the parliamentary system you’re voting for an individual, not a party, they freak out and say that’s not how it works.
They fundamentally have no idea how a representative democracy is supposed to work.
A part of that comes from an American culture bleeding up into Canada a bit, with people thinking they vote directly for the Prime Minister the same was Americans directly vote for their president. But a bigger part of it is that those representatives spend more time in Ottawa than in their own ridings. And if a representative loses their seat in an election, they can just pick a different riding where they don’t even live and run again. It’s ridiculous.
Yeah, I like everything you’re saying.
I really like the anarchist societies dreamed up by Ursula LeGuinn. Anarres. The Kesh. Implementation does require a significant change of attitude, though.
Can you expand on them a bit? I don’t mind getting a book and reading it but I’d like to hear what you like about it.
In an absolutely wild, impossible world, my ideal society would be one where any politician or media individual instantly dies if they knowingly lie about something impactful, or make someone lie on their behalf. (You can lie about a “does this dress make me look fat” kind of thing lol)
There would be no deciding what the truth is by some individual (an opening for manipulation) it would just be an automatic instant thing, like how an object responds to a gravitational field. You let go of something, it just falls. You have power and you lie, you just die.
We could improve society so fucking much if we weren’t constantly bombarded and manipulated by propaganda and wealthy/greedy individuals and were actually all operating off the same understanding of “reality.”
That would be pretty sweet.
Something like the world in A Psalm for the Wild Built and A Prayer for the Crown Shy (Monk and Robot series) by Becky Chambers.
Half the world is left to nature, the other half is used by people in various self-sufficient villages. Walking off the path is strongly discouraged. Beaches are similarly something to be appreciated from afar.
*They all almost died because they were close to completely destroying their planet with unchecked industrialism. This society is after that, having learned from their previous mistakes. They know there must be a balance. It’s a reflection on what’s happening right now.
Not being able to enjoy nature sounds awful.
Yes, you should read the book. ;)
You’re not really selling it lol
Okay?
Interesting
Maybe similar usa today but with laws against advertising and marketing and political donations. No religious marketing and no money could be used for religion.
Taxed wealthy people…
And some way to not make business out of war and drugs.
Also no “entertainment” as in no art, movies, or videogame created for money… Just art for expression as a sacred release instead of as a way to make money.
Basically reduce drive for money so creation and life becomes authentic again.
That sounds as far from the USA in it’s current state as possible lol.
Low freedom, low wealth disparity, high investment into social goods. I would prefer we expect people to behave and remove them if they can’t/refuse, personally.
Low freedom? How does that look? Also, what does removing them if they don’t behave look like?
It looks like being polite in public and contributing to society, or complying with mental health treatment if you can’t, and leaving the town if you refuse.
Classic Lemmy comment
Yeah didn’t really answer either of my questions.



