A Completely Free Society, Rich in Resources with an Educated Population

[PadawanBater]

Can it be achieved?


What are the positive aspects of society that should be preserved?

What are the negative aspects of society that should be discarded?

How do we go about educating the entire population, and what are the most important things we should be teaching students? Also consider the general type of education currently in use.

What are your views on Capitalism/Socialism, etc. Is the current system the best? Could it be better? Does it lack anywhere or need improvement? Should it be completely discarded? Or is it the best one available and should be protected from change?

What is the best way to protect this society from those that wish to destroy it?

 

[PadawanBater]

bumpbumpbump

 

[JustAnotherFriedDay]

these are all great questions, however im way too stoned for intellectual thought.....maybe later

 

[PadawanBater]

these are all great questions, however im way too stoned for intellectual thought.....maybe later

lol, whenever you're ready my friend.

 

[Mcgician]

Impossible IMO. Huxley's book 1984 touched on why there's a NEED for different classes of people. If I may simplify my point, I'll quote from a very famous movie.

"Well, the world needs ditch diggers too!"

Can you guess which movie it was? Lol.

 

[PadawanBater]

Impossible IMO. Huxley's book 1984 touched on why there's a NEED for different classes of people. If I may simplify my point, I'll quote from a very famous movie.

"Well, the world needs ditch diggers too!"

Can you guess which movie it was? Lol.

Aww man, it's on the tip of my tongue!

lol

But imagine a world where the ditch digging was just a task that needed to be done, not a permanent job that someone was assigned, for their whole life, at a minimum wage.

Imagine a world where robots did such tasks, leaving humanity to do other things. What would it take to get there from here? Is that the direction we should be going?

 

[Rob Roy]

A completely free society will not exist as long as there are two things present or in power :

Government / Regulation.

People that want to make others do THEIR bidding and that refuse to leave peaceful people alone.


At least these Three things must exist to have this society :

Self OWNERSHIP

self responsibility

Free market

 

[jrh72582]

Impossible IMO. Huxley's book 1984 touched on why there's a NEED for different classes of people. If I may simplify my point, I'll quote from a very famous movie.

"Well, the world needs ditch diggers too!"

Can you guess which movie it was? Lol.

Your avatar says it all. Poor Danny just wants to get into law school... Great fucking movie.

As for the question, I'd argue that some Northern European countries are close to your ideal. They have a peaceful, largely educated populace with many resources to offer. Let me get some concrete numbers to see what I can find.

I will say this - most of these countries are socialist in nature. Capitalism always results in huge gaps between rich and poor, causing a nightmare of a situation. Currently, roughly 15% own 85% percent of the wealth in America, and that wealth wasn't earned through hard work - it was stolen through corruption and predation. This situation creates class envy and the unfairly designed, cyclical system eventually stymies peace and prosperity. My two cents...

 

[PadawanBater]

A completely free society will not exist as long as there are two things present or in power :

Government / Regulation.

People that want to make others do THEIR bidding and that refuse to leave peaceful people alone.


At least these Three things must exist to have this society :

Self OWNERSHIP

self responsibility

Free market

So are you saying in order to achieve this, we should get rid of Government completely? (I think this will eventually become a neccessary step, but I also think that educating the population is one of the major factors in establishing a successful way of life after gov. is gone, so that needs to be done first, probably with gov. support/funding)

Could you clarify what you mean by regulations? Are you talking about like no regulations on cigs/alcohol to kids, or no regulation from the gov. in business affairs?

One more thing, your three requirements for this society seem to stem from capitalism, so should I assume you think capitalism is the best form of gov. available? (if it is the best, should nothing be changed?)

Your avatar says it all. Poor Danny just wants to get into law school... Great fucking movie.

As for the question, I'd argue that some Northern European countries are close to your ideal. They have a peaceful, largely educated populace with many resources to offer. Let me get some concrete numbers to see what I can find.

I will say this - most of these countries are socialist in nature. Capitalism always results in huge gaps between rich and poor, causing a nightmare of a situation. Currently, roughly 15% own 85% percent of the wealth in America, and that wealth wasn't earned through hard work - it was stolen through corruption and predation. This situation creates class envy and the unfairly designed, cyclical system eventually stymies peace and prosperity. My two cents...

Great observation with capitalism. Overall I think it's the best system we've ever invented to run society, but you can't honestly look at it with an objective opinion and say that there aren't any flaws in it. The class seperation thing is one of the big ones. Both sides develope animocity towards the other simply because the system exists. This is a HUGE issue that needs to be reviewed.

 

[mrmadcow]

A completely free society will not exist as long as there are two things present or in power :
Government / Regulation. ....

your own question shows the flaw in this

What is the best way to protect this society from those that wish to destroy it?

my opinion is that limited government like we had in 1800s is the solution
to quote some dead white men

all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

while not perfect,it is the best solution so far and turned a backward continent into the powerhouse it is today.
dont misunderstand,I dont think the government we have today is the ideal but what our founders set forth had alot more going for it than any other form of government.
Utopian dreams always seem to forget that man is not perfect & cannot setup a perfect society.
class seperation will never be removed from life because of mans nature.you could equally devide all the wealth of this nation and in a few yrs,some like D. Trump would roll up their sleeves and start over to build another empire, others would squander it away & be no better than before.what was unique to this country is that you are not born into a class w/ no means of bettering yourself.most of our wealthiest citizens were poor or middleclass & worked to rise above.in old europe,and the rest of the world, very few could even hope to move above the class they were born to.
ever read the antifederalist papers?the 1st half is the minutes of the convention that brought forth the constitution and has a lot of insightful ideas about the forms(&pitfalls) of government.

 

[Mr.KushMan]

Capitalism is like the free world, or the evolutionary process, only the well endowed will survive.

Laws or regulations are used to remove problems inherent to the system without fixing them, a system that adjusts to accommodate problems is ideal. When they are part of the system they are no longer problems.

Education is necessary but only to those who are able to be educated. There is no doubt a difference between people, some just don't have the ability to learn, I would say this is about 15% of the functioning population.

Things cannot be taught to you, you can only have confirmed what you already know. Meaning you have to be able to think and pre-contrive ideas based on previous concepts, about 10% of the population beyond the first 15% are only able to repeat information, meaning they have no conscious thought, don't confuse this with not self aware.

I believe the utopian society is a fairly rational concept that isn't to hard to imagine nor conceive of. The technological boundaries we face are where the problems lie, if we had unlimited energy that didn't pollute, and were able to prevent a garbage mass that was 30% plastics, and useless waste on a mass scale the possibilities are endless. There are many things we will have to do, and it won't include changing the system we have, we will have to start from scratch. Recreate Everything From The Start. Like the Romans, the egyptians, the greeks, the persians, the germans, the norse, the chinese. Countless remodeling to their system, and literal destructions of cities and palaces to make way for the new technologies.

Peace

 

[RickWhite]

Can it be achieved?


What are the positive aspects of society that should be preserved?

What are the negative aspects of society that should be discarded?

How do we go about educating the entire population, and what are the most important things we should be teaching students? Also consider the general type of education currently in use.

What are your views on Capitalism/Socialism, etc. Is the current system the best? Could it be better? Does it lack anywhere or need improvement? Should it be completely discarded? Or is it the best one available and should be protected from change?

What is the best way to protect this society from those that wish to destroy it?

Nothing is perfect.

Wise men understand that no man is capable of answering such questions - and the least qualified of us all is the one who thinks he can. Give that a little thought.

Our Founding Fathers being wise men, created a system of checks and balances to assure no one man or group of men ever held the power to make such decisions. Instead, they put in place a system in which competing ideas and free markets would result in the best possible outcome prevailing. Not necessarily a perfect outcome, but the best outcome. This system has been enormously successful thus far.

The system will always need careful tweaking and our framers provided avenues through which this is done.

 

[Rob Roy]

So are you saying in order to achieve this, we should get rid of Government completely? (I think this will eventually become a neccessary step, but I also think that educating the population is one of the major factors in establishing a successful way of life after gov. is gone, so that needs to be done first, probably with gov. support/funding)

Could you clarify what you mean by regulations? Are you talking about like no regulations on cigs/alcohol to kids, or no regulation from the gov. in business affairs?

One more thing, your three requirements for this society seem to stem from capitalism, so should I assume you think capitalism is the best form of gov. available? (if it is the best, should nothing be changed?)

I have no objection to those that want to be governed and that enter into it FREELY
and VOLUNTARILY being governed. Try to name one government that will permit this. There aren't any, they ALL rely on forced participation, therefore "freedom" is impossible as long as people MUST participate. Alot of people have cognitive dissonance, this statement will surely bring it out, YET the statement is absolutely true.

You said a "completey free" society, right? I'll assume you meant free of extortion and coercion, a society where people's interactions are based on VOLUNTARY relationships. Keep in mind I believe people have a right to THEIR freedom as long as it doesn't encroach on anothers.

If Regulations exist where one person or persons decide what you can smoke, how old you must be etc. then it would not be "completely free". When I was a kid, I often bought cigarettes, guess what the world didn't come to an end. I do not advocate kids smoking, but I believe PARENTS not government should decide.

Education? Funded by Government? Nope. Mandatory Public education is the 10th plank of the communist manifesto. It is force funded. I love education, hate how it is funded. If a group of people want to pool their money and form a school...cool.

I believe the unmolested FREE MARKET
is best. What passes today for "capitalism" is so watered down and ripe with government intervention that it really isn't a free market. Not even close.

People have a hard time grasping the idea of "no government". They imagine chaos and violence etc. will ensue. MAYBE, but probably not. How's the world doing WITH government? Hasn't there been a constant state of war ? Is the world free of evil, crime and theft now WITH government? Nope.

I've recommended this book before written by a friend of a good friend. It details how and why the free market will work. The book was written by Morris Tannehill, it's called The Market for Liberty. It might be hard to find, but I highly recommend it. Peace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Liberty

 

[abe23]

I have no objection to those that want to be governed and that enter into it FREELY
and VOLUNTARILY being governed. Try to name one government that will permit this. There aren't any, they ALL rely on forced participation, therefore "freedom" is impossible as long as people MUST participate. Alot of people have cognitive dissonance, this statement will surely bring it out, YET the statement is absolutely true.

You said a "completey free" society, right? I'll assume you meant free of extortion and coercion, a society where people's interactions are based on VOLUNTARY relationships. Keep in mind I believe people have a right to THEIR freedom as long as it doesn't encroach on anothers.

If Regulations exist where one person or persons decide what you can smoke, how old you must be etc. then it would not be "completely free". When I was a kid, I often bought cigarettes, guess what the world didn't come to an end. I do not advocate kids smoking, but I believe PARENTS not government should decide.

Education? Funded by Government? Nope. Mandatory Public education is the 10th plank of the communist manifesto. It is force funded. I love education, hate how it is funded. If a group of people want to pool their money and form a school...cool.

I believe the unmolested FREE MARKET
is best. What passes today for "capitalism" is so watered down and ripe with government intervention that it really isn't a free market. Not even close.

People have a hard time grasping the idea of "no government". They imagine chaos and violence etc. will ensue. MAYBE, but probably not. How's the world doing WITH government? Hasn't there been a constant state of war ? Is the world free of evil, crime and theft now WITH government? Nope.

I've recommended this book before written by a friend of a good friend. It details how and why the free market will work. The book was written by Morris Tannehill, it's called The Market for Liberty. It might be hard to find, but I highly recommend it. Peace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Liberty

Good post, rob. I appreciate your posts because they are well formulated, fully thought out and coherent. But this is where you get onto some shaky ground in my view. How do you maintain the quid pro quo of the 'social contract' if it's a voluntary engagement that you can choose to opt out of. Without taxes and some level of coercion (i.e. the IRS) nobody is going to provide the public goods on which a free society and capitalism depend on like infrastructure, law and order or national defense but that the unregulated free market fails to provide. I'm probably more of a lefty than you for thinking that education and healthcare should be part of that as well.

I also don't agree with your view of your rights being 'god given'. On a philosophical level you might be able to argue that these are natural rights and unalienable but in a practical sense, it is the government and the rule of law that ensure and protects these rights...which is the whole point of the constitution in the first place.

The 'unmolested' free market doesn't protect against monopolies or oligopolies. It doesn't provide for a number of public goods and leads to the tragedy of the commons. Who is to step in and create those protections if not government?

 

[Rob Roy]

Good post, rob. I appreciate your posts because they are well formulated, fully thought out and coherent. But this is where you get onto some shaky ground in my view. How do you maintain the quid pro quo of the 'social contract' if it's a voluntary engagement that you can choose to opt out of. Without taxes and some level of coercion (i.e. the IRS) nobody is going to provide the public goods on which a free society and capitalism depend on like infrastructure, law and order or national defense but that the unregulated free market fails to provide. I'm probably more of a lefty than you for thinking that education and healthcare should be part of that as well.

I also don't agree with your view of your rights being 'god given'. On a philosophical level you might be able to argue that these are natural rights and unalienable but in a practical sense, it is the government and the rule of law that ensure and protects these rights...which is the whole point of the constitution in the first place.

The 'unmolested' free market doesn't protect against monopolies or oligopolies. It doesn't provide for a number of public goods and leads to the tragedy of the commons. Who is to step in and create those protections if not government?

The social contract is not a given, I believe it is a theory. If it were a given, and an actual contract whereby both parties agreed to the terms it would be different. Show me where I agreed to any contract with "society" or government.

What I advocate and agree to is simply to leave others alone and ask the same in return. As long as people aren't initiating aggression who is anyone to DEMAND more of them and still maintain that person is free? How is the authority of government derived if I do not consent? It must be by force, if it is not by mutual agreement, right?
That's not a "social contract" that's "social coercion".

When you speak of monopolies, think for a moment. What is the single greatest monopoly? It is government.
Who will protect us from the monopoly of government if we aren't free NOT to participate in government?

Education and healthcare are fine. How you FUND them is an entirely different matter. How am I completely free if I cannot choose how to spend MY money?

The loss of infrastructure etc. is not an issue, the free market WILL provide solutions.

If the constitution didn't exist we would still HAVE natural rights. Whether we can excercise them or not is largely a function of how much government RESTRICTS rights, not how much government PROVIDES rights. Government doesn't provide rights at all. As far as I'm concerned it's questionable that they protect them
anymore.

In an earlier post in this thread I made a suggestion for a book to read, please do consider reading it. It answers your questions in logical terms far better than I can. Thanks for keeping the conversation cool. Peace.

The book is The Market for Liberty ....check it out.

 

[abe23]

The social contract is not a given, I believe it is a theory. If it were a given, and an actual contract whereby both parties agreed to the terms it would be different. Show me where I agreed to any contract with "society" or government.

What I advocate and agree to is simply to leave others alone and ask the same in return. As long as people aren't initiating aggression who is anyone to DEMAND more of them and still maintain that person is free? How is the authority of government derived if I do not consent? It must be by force, if it is not by mutual agreement, right?
That's not a "social contract" that's "social coercion".

When you speak of monopolies, think for a moment. What is the single greatest monopoly? It is government.
Who will protect us from the monopoly of government if we aren't free NOT to participate in government?

Education and healthcare are fine. How you FUND them is an entirely different matter. How am I completely free if I cannot choose how to spend MY money?

The loss of infrastructure etc. is not an issue, the free market WILL provide solutions.

If the constitution didn't exist we would still HAVE natural rights. Whether we can excercise them or not is largely a function of how much government RESTRICTS rights, not how much government PROVIDES rights. Government doesn't provide rights at all. As far as I'm concerned it's questionable that they protect them
anymore.

In an earlier post in this thread I made a suggestion for a book to read, please do consider reading it. It answers your questions in logical terms far better than I can. Thanks for keeping the conversation cool. Peace.

The book is The Market for Liberty ....check it out.

I looked at the wikipedia page earlier and i'll peek at the book if I get a chance. I like the term 'anarcho-capitalist'. The thing about that outlook on the world (i have lot of friends who are ron paul libertarians and beat this horse with them all the time...) is that it ignores a lot of the history of how modern nation states came about. Also, when you talk about your money...yes, you earned it with your own sweat and tears but one of the reasons that you were able to earn it is that the government provided you with a number of public goods/service like infrastructure, currency and the rule of law. Your taxes pay for these things and so do mine.

John Locke talked about the social contract back in the early 18th century and his ideas influenced the founding fathers in a huge way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke#Political_theoryThey did actually believe that the right kind of government was essential in protecting our unalienable rights...

The idea of public goods is that exactly that they are things that the market inherently fails to produce because it's not economically rational for anyone to provide them. The market does NOT find solutions for this or finds ones that are sub-optimal...it's one of the problems of capitalism and only the state can provide them. Take the most basic one of these goods....security. When the government does not enforce the rule of law you get something like afghanistan, somalia, drc, haiti etc. The market does find solutions in these places but those solutions are pretty violent and uncivilized if you ask me...

 

[PadawanBater]

Abe, Rob, great job guys, I'm glad this thread is going the way it is, this is the shit I've been talking about!

Both of you are giving excellent perspectives and providing some thought provoking information.

Deep down I agree with you Rob, in that "freedom" entails being free from government in all aspects of the word. But like Abe pointed out, specifically about education, the free market fails to produce sufficient education for all citizens. Private schools (currently) are not consistent, and do not follow the same curriculums, so some students get better educations while others worse. Are you suggesting that the education system in America be for profit? (with that, I already foresee problems)

Basically, apply that to the stuff that the free market is bad at producing, how do we get these things to work in a society with no government?

 

[Rob Roy]

I looked at the wikipedia page earlier and i'll peek at the book if I get a chance. I like the term 'anarcho-capitalist'. The thing about that outlook on the world (i have lot of friends who are ron paul libertarians and beat this horse with them all the time...) is that it ignores a lot of the history of how modern nation states came about. Also, when you talk about your money...yes, you earned it with your own sweat and tears but one of the reasons that you were able to earn it is that the government provided you with a number of public goods/service like infrastructure, currency and the rule of law. Your taxes pay for these things and so do mine.

John Locke talked about the social contract back in the early 18th century and his ideas influenced the founding fathers in a huge way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke#Political_theoryThey did actually believe that the right kind of government was essential in protecting our unalienable rights...

The idea of public goods is that exactly that they are things that the market inherently fails to produce because it's not economically rational for anyone to provide them. The market does NOT find solutions for this or finds ones that are sub-optimal...it's one of the problems of capitalism and only the state can provide them. Take the most basic one of these goods....security. When the government does not enforce the rule of law you get something like afghanistan, somalia, drc, haiti etc. The market does find solutions in these places but those solutions are pretty violent and uncivilized if you ask me...

http://www.podiobooks.com/title/the-market-for-liberty

Thanks for considering the hard copy book. This is a link to an audio book.

I prefer old school type books, but thought the audio book format might be of interest to you. The guy that narrates the book also hosts a radio talk show, Free Talk Live and is very active in the liberty movement in Keene, NH.

I sincerely hope you get a chance to either read the book or listen to the audio tapes with an open mind. Peace.

 

[Rob Roy]

I looked at the wikipedia page earlier and i'll peek at the book if I get a chance. I like the term 'anarcho-capitalist'. The thing about that outlook on the world (i have lot of friends who are ron paul libertarians and beat this horse with them all the time...) is that it ignores a lot of the history of how modern nation states came about. Also, when you talk about your money...yes, you earned it with your own sweat and tears but one of the reasons that you were able to earn it is that the government provided you with a number of public goods/service like infrastructure, currency and the rule of law. Your taxes pay for these things and so do mine.

John Locke talked about the social contract back in the early 18th century and his ideas influenced the founding fathers in a huge way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke#Political_theoryThey did actually believe that the right kind of government was essential in protecting our unalienable rights...

The idea of public goods is that exactly that they are things that the market inherently fails to produce because it's not economically rational for anyone to provide them. The market does NOT find solutions for this or finds ones that are sub-optimal...it's one of the problems of capitalism and only the state can provide them. Take the most basic one of these goods....security. When the government does not enforce the rule of law you get something like afghanistan, somalia, drc, haiti etc. The market does find solutions in these places but those solutions are pretty violent and uncivilized if you ask me...

The history of modern states, government etc. and how they came about is based on wars and subjagation, I think that is irrefutable. That method remains the current mode of operation now. Because we've "always done it that way" should not be a substitute for we always should do it that way.

The government didn't provide me with opportunity. The demand for my products, housing, are present without government. The government DID stifle my efforts and tell me I must accept them as a "business partner" although I took the risk and they simply took my money, my time and interfered with my ability to contract with other willing adults.

John Locke was a smart guy, he almost got it. Remember not too many years before his time it was "common knowledge" the world was flat and Kings ruled by divine right. We know different now don't we?

There is no such thing as a "public good", if the means of providing it is to forcefully redistribute. To forcefully deprive one party of prperty or voluntary action for the benefit of another is what? Isn't that sort of like slavery? Terms like "for the good of society" are crafted to rationalize the position and METHODS of bureaucrats. Hint... think Marijuana laws...they were instituted and continue to this day under the guise of "public good." There is a litany of "public good" that once was accepted, but now is questioned. Women and blacks were property at one time too, this was considered a "public good" and was enforced by laws...in this country.

You should not assume that Somalia and Afghanistan are "free market" and lay the blame for their ills on the free market. They are chaotic, because there was a power void and one form of government has merely replaced another. I'm gonna cop out here and just say read the book for a better explanation.

No government doesn't mean roads and so forth cease to exist. All things that are in demand can be provided by the free market, DESPITE government interference. Again, think Marijuana.
Despite the illegality of it, there is a demand. If there is a demand and the free market is disallowed, the black market will ATTEMPT to fill the need, always. No goverment needed or required to get pot. There will be roads...trust me. Keep in mind, the government doesn't provide services, they REGULATE and INHIBIT. That's it.

Nothing in a voluntary society prohibits people, nor should it, from cooperating and having what THEY want. Want a school? Get your friends together and make it happen. Want a farm cooperative? Go for it.
If I'm allowed to be successful, I might even contribute, VOLUNTARILY, even if I don't want or need the service. The nature of charity is it must be given, not TAKEN.

The essential question is, should one person or group of people own the right to another persons life, liberty and property? I say the answer is no. The government differs with me. They are wrong if they control my liberty and tell me I am free.

The question in my opinion isn't What kind of government should there be, rather it is, should there be government?

 

[Rob Roy]

Abe, Rob, great job guys, I'm glad this thread is going the way it is, this is the shit I've been talking about!

Both of you are giving excellent perspectives and providing some thought provoking information.

Deep down I agree with you Rob, in that "freedom" entails being free from government in all aspects of the word. But like Abe pointed out, specifically about education, the free market fails to produce sufficient education for all citizens. Private schools (currently) are not consistent, and do not follow the same curriculums, so some students get better educations while others worse. Are you suggesting that the education system in America be for profit? (with that, I already foresee problems)

Basically, apply that to the stuff that the free market is bad at producing, how do we get these things to work in a society with no government?

"Sufficient education" is an arbitrary term. Who would or should determine what is sufficient? If education is mandatory and funded through force, wouldn't it be better to call it what it is? Forced education or perhaps "indoctrination".

Your thread asks for two things that may not be possible to co-exist under the present form of public education. A "completely free" society cannot exist if there are some people mandating to others what they MUST do.

The free market is merely the absence of government control and coercion, not the absence of learning or education. I'm certain the free market can do BETTER than the um "not free market" education system. Check out some stats on homeschooling sometime, those kids usually out perform the kids in the public realm.