A nice idea in theory, but obviously it has limitations if we could have checks and balances written into the Constitution at the same time as chattel slavery.
That’s just the most glaring example. But beyond that I think another issue with our system is that having so many forces pull in so many directions makes it hard to have a coherent long-term plan or response to crises.
Maybe but it’s just a thought-terminating cliche that someone always throws out at any proposal at all besides shrugging your shoulders and accepting every problem.
I disagree, this is an objection that applies to this particular solution.
Its a global truth that corruption and tyranny is always a risk, but the amount of that risk varries with the solution proposed, and there are plenty of ways it could be mitigated to varrying degrees.
Devolving power to many smaller regional entities can offer a kind of open corruption that would be hard to pull off at a national level without attracting attention.
Honestly, the older I get, the more I like the vision of a 1930-era utopia. I get up. I have a communal exercise program in the morning. I work for some number of hours, while kids are at school. It's a 32 hour work week, but that's made up for with my 8 hours mandatory education. I'm guaranteed a job, a house, food, and medical care. I'm guaranteed retirement and disability too. There is no advertising. I don't have access to video games, alcohol, drugs, or Facebook.
I can describe how I'd set one up, to guarantee personal freedoms and human rights, and reasonable systems of governance, but at the end of the day, I think "whomever is in power" will make better decisions about human well-being than the invisible hand of capitalism.
I think China has some elements of the right approach:
- Free markets for mass-produced commodities.
- Socialized banks, resources, real estate, and other rent-collecting industries.
>It's a 32 hour work week, but that's made up for with my 8 hours mandatory education.
What are you requesting be done to you if you are found to be truant from your mandatory education? That's the other side of laws that seems to be ignored in these kinds of proposals.
In general, I'm a fan of little happening. In the same way as if I don't vacuum or make my bed, nothing happens, but it's what I'm expected to do. There's some social stigma, and little more.
With classes, I guess I don't advance in my career as much.
Critically, society would be structured with room for this, and a place I'm expected to be without distraction.
I get the appeal of having structure, but I only think it works if it's voluntary to sign up for it. What you're describing sounds like a voluntary military enlistment (communal exercise, job, house, food, medical care, retirement, and disability), except with access to video games, alcohol, drugs, and Facebook (and also more hours).
However, the system will fall apart if it's mandatory for all. People will shirk their 32-hour work week, do the bare minimum for 8 hours mandatory education (e.g. clicking through modules super fast, or Googling all of the answers), make their own video games (which would be great), go through the motions of mandatory exercise, brew alcohol, grow or synthesize drugs, and create their own social network, even via amateur radio.
The counter-culture sounds a lot more fun. Also, the utopia is incompatible with people with dreams of becoming game developers, people who critique expensive wine, and people who spend a variable amount of time self-learning on their own, versus fixed hours.
The imposition of how a person spends their time is a separate principle from guarantees of a job (an income guarantee is preferred, because a lot of people will effectively and potentially rationally do the bare minimum/no work at the job), housing, food, and medical care.
The 1930s were a horrible time, but had plenty of beautiful utopian visions of the future.
That's when communism and fascism were sparring with democracy in Europe, China had the Kuomintang and CCP visions, the Soviet system was new, and so on. There was a lot of interesting political thought.
China has a technocratic communisim which embraces capitalism since the 1970s. That includes the learnings and notes from a 5,000 year old administrative bueracracy corps formed by qishihuang of the first ming dynasty. China is doing great (today), however poor planning as recently as the 1970s lead to widespread food shortages and people selling their kids to butchers for cannabalism (so it still has capitalism is my point). I like china personally, it's not a utopia, but it is closer to utopia than anything I have experienced in the usa.
Pollution's gonna happen somewhere unless the way we manufacture changes radically. The US never solved the problem, it just outsourced it. Overall, I think progress's been made.
China doesn't embrace capitalism. They're thoughtful about where they have and haven't embraced it.
On the whole, I am glad for China. I like having multiple systems, and unlike many others, I feel like the government is trying very hard to improve, and sometimes succeeding.
However, I think your view of it as closer to a utopia is a little disconnected from reality. The US is still a nicer place to live than China, unless you're a tourist. The gap has closed rapidly, but it's still there.
I think each system has upsides and downsides. I'm glad for having multiple systems. I hope they can learn from each other. The Chinese concepts of meritocracy, family, and long-term planning, as well as the emphasis on education, would go a long ways here. I also like what's socialized and what isn't. I like weak IP laws and contracts; I think China's in the right place there now (I wouldn't have said so a few years back, where it was the wild west)
The US still has lower corruption. The US is much more transparent. I also don't like the way Chinese politicians are kinda dicks, openly insulting the US. Then there's issues like Tibet, Honk Kong, Taiwan, and the Uighurs, as well as mass surveillance (although the US is not much better on the last one, as of late).
I feel like at some point, China might find a chill government who will let a lot of those slide or move into a more balanced position.
I hope they do. I can see path for China to really become closer to a utopia than virtually any other place right now.
> Honestly, the older I get, the more I like the vision of a 1930-era utopia
Fundamentally all you're saying is that you're a child who needs to be told what to do. That is not compelling.
The solution you're looking for is to grow up. You don't need a totalitarian government to do that for you. You can get that done on your own.
> I can describe how I'd set one up, to guarantee personal freedoms and human rights, and reasonable systems of governance
Maybe just do what Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are doing. They're not perfect, but they sound more like what you want while also allowing you to be an adult.
No. I'm saying I like structure in my life. It's work to get that done on my own, and I'd like someone else to do that for me.
I'm managing several major projects, and I like having a project manager tell me what to do. Before that, I had an admin to boss me around. At some point, I figured out that scheduling and planning all this stuff is no fun. If I wake up, and have a calendar of meetings, or a big block of time for writing, or whatever, I am much happier than if I'm planning it myself. If I have a project, deadlines are nice. I set them, but an RPM or admin can harass me to make sure I remember them and meet them.
My project manager, and before that, my admin, report to me. It's not totalitarian at all.
I don't see why a government needs to be totalitarian to structure my life. I think everyone should have a free basic home. I also think everyone should be welcome to buy a nicer home if they choose.
If so inclined we could equally well cast the desire to just act in accordance with one's own desires and not contribute to some sort of greater plan as childish. Doesn't really rise above the level of an insult.
> "What good does it do me, after all, if an ever-watchful authority keeps an eye out to ensure that my pleasures will be tranquil and races ahead of me to ward off all danger, sparing me the need even to think about such things, if that authority, even as it removes the smallest thorns from my path, is also absolute master of my liberty and my life; if it monopolizes vitality and existence to such a degree that when it languishes, everything around it must also languish; when it sleeps, everything must also sleep; and when it dies, everything must also perish?
There are some nations in Europe whose inhabitants think of themselves in a sense as colonists, indifferent to the fate of the place they live in. The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved. They are so divorced from their own interests that even when their own security and that of their children is finally compromised, they do not seek to avert the danger themselves but cross their arms and wait for the nation as a whole to come to their aid. Yet as utterly as they sacrifice their own free will, they are no fonder of obedience than anyone else. They submit, it is true, to the whims of a clerk, but no sooner is force removed than they are glad to defy the law as a defeated enemy. Thus one finds them ever wavering between servitude and license.
When a nation has reached this point, it must either change its laws and mores or perish, for the well of public virtue has run dry: in such a place one no longer finds citizens but only subjects."
> There is no name calling. There is only a correct assessment.
For starters, you're asserting without argument. Which leads it to appear to be name calling.
Secondly, given you are being downvoted to hell, you should probably reevaluate if it is really a correct assesment. After all, if its obviously correct why aren't people agreeing?
Second you are clearly using childish as an insult, instead of saying what you really think is wrong with that view - which is a second reason why it looks like name calling. Childish can mean a lot of things, some positive some negative, its hard to see from your posts what the specific objection is, which makes it seem like just a shallow insult.
> What do you believe is not childish in an adult saying they are unable to control themselves and that they need someone to do it for them?
For starters, the original poster did not say that. They especially did not say they were unable to control themselves.
They did say they would like to delegate some aspects of their life. I personally wouldn't want to live in their utopia, but its not like it's totally different from how many societies work including our own.
I hired a guy to do my taxes, instead of taking responsibility for them myself. Is that childish?
Some people hire personal trainers instead of coming up with their own exercise plans. Is that childish?
Some people go to university for a structured education, instead of reading textbooks, articles, recorded lecture videos themselves (seriously, between lectures on youtube, open courseware, lib genisis, is there any valid reason to go to university except a lack of self control and discipline?) Is that childish?
I would argue the true mark of an adult is knowing what to take responsibility for yourself, and knowing what to delegate to others. We all have limited attention, if we try to do everything we do nothing very well.
> Secondly, given you are being downvoted to hell, you should probably reevaluate if it is really a correct assesment. After all, if its obviously correct why aren't people agreeing?
A lot of people are wrong about a lot of things a lot of the time. Popularity doesn't make something true or false. If you're chasing what's popular you will never be honest.
However, it does mean it is not "obviously" true, and you need to provide a compelling argument for why whatever you believe is actually the case instead of just asserting it.
If that's childish, then fuck being an adult. In fact, if you want to step it up a notch, than being an "adult" is having as many children as you can to pass on your genes. Anything more than that is stuff humans made up to not be bored when they get past child bearing age.
I am too cynical to believe this. Would be nice though.