Society et al.

[The_Rorschach]

Jon, a buddy from work, and I were talking last night, and he brought up something that made me think, seriously, for the first time in a couple months. I figured I'd share and see if any of you could help me out.

One and Only, stop reading here.

Alright, to use an analogy, consider the early attempts at aviation. Before the underlying laws of physics were understood, or rather, while they were understood imperefectly, the first heavier-than-air designs were essentially flawed. They were designed after observable successes in nature. Before the relation of lift and push came to light, they tried emulating birds, producing flapping wing mounts et cetera. . .A few attempts, by those with absolute faith, were tested off of high cliffs, and as their momentum carried them, the designers believed they were successful -Until they started to fall at which point they started pumping harder, and falling faster, eventually driving themselves into the ground.

Well we all know there basic tenets governmental infrastructures need to abide by in order to function properly and meet the needs of their constituates, or else they fail. Some societies, like those of the aboriginees, have functioned for thousands of years, and while we would not they say they flourished, on a small scale the system is very strong. Yet we, like Rome,, despite our advancements in the sciences and technological implimentation, seem to be like the aviator driving ourselves into the ground. . .

So the question; What, in your opinions, are the necessary requirements for a society or governmental system, to be ultimately successful?

He and I have made some progress, but from the multiplicity of opinions we hope to get a little further, though this is really just a, well, sociological exercise. I'm sure he isn't the first to consider this problem, nor I to be intrigued by the possibilities, but I've never come across anything of this nature and am rather excited by the line of thinking. Any contributions would be much appreciated.

Thanks and my apologies for being so long winded.

[El Blanco]

Well, the government needs to be answerable to the people. If the guys in charge are doing a lousy job, the people should be able to unseat them through peaceful means. Remind them that they are public servants, not rulers.

Also, codified laws are a big one.

[ranxer]

yea, ill agree with blanco on that one, however the only way that can happen is when
1. the media is able to tell the truth to the people and
2. the people are able to make educated decisions

there's a lot that needs to be done to enable those two situations.

i'm very affraid that it will take a ton of work to get to that point in America. will that revolution be peaceful? man i hope so, but as martin luther said (paraphrase) ' when the people are not allowed to peacefully protest the government, violent revolution is inevitable' i'd add that the peaceful protest must make a difference to said government.

as i just learned from a nun (rosalie bertel) the military industrial complex spent more in the 50's(i think it was the 50's) on propoganda production than hollywood did on movies, and they've been working on media control ever since(very successfully).

[Brandon]

So the question; What, in your opinions, are the necessary requirements for a society or governmental system, to be ultimately successful?

Well, I draw a distinction between what makes a society "work" and what would be ideal for human beings.

If we're just arguing functionality, then I'd say any type of coercion into behaving within guidelines will make a society "successful." That coercion could take any form (codified laws, brute force, or a mindfucking religion).

[The One and Only...]

In order for the capability of a society to be maximized the public sector must take over what it can do more efficiently than the private sector, and the private sector must take over what it can do more efficiently than the public sector.

Ultimately, this leaves a small number of functions for government, as most things operate better under non-monopolous conditions and wealth redistribution plans frequently backfire. Among these are national defense, police, courts, fiat currency (provided strict guidelines for the monetary bases growth), and possibly roads in addition to minimal societal welfare to prevent the growth of discontent.

[kellychaos]

I don't know if this has anything to do with techology/science much but I've been watching some of the "barbarian" themed documentaries (vikings, goths, huns, ect.) on the History Channel lately and it seemed that the common motif from fourish to finish is that they started as a warrior society intent on domination and ended up crumbling from within as merchantilism began to flourish and their militaristic needs dwindled eventually causing in-fighting.

[sspadowsky]

I don't think there is an answer, Ror. I think we're just another part of the long saga of the planet Earth. I think we'll manage to undo ourselves no matter how hard we try not to drive ourselves into the ground.

I apologize; I know what I'm trying to say, I just don't know quite how to articulate it. I'll try to come up with a better explanation when I have more time.

[Zhukov]

The most successful system is the one that the best suits current development of the means of production. Dialectics.

Primitive Communism ---> Slavery ---> Feudalism ---> Capitalism ---> Socialism ---> Communism ---

The type of society the Aboriginals had would not be best suited to the type of production the Romans had, and vice versa.

You are right about 'running ourselves into the ground', slavery died and made way to feudalism, feudalism gave rise to capitalism, and capitalism is creating it's own destruction to pass over to socialism.

[The One and Only...]

Dialecticism is a joke.

[O71394658]

Interesting question.

I don't necessarily think we're driving ourselves into the ground, but I just think humans are more or less biologically programmed to deviate towards discontent. No matter what the situation we (as humans) find ourselves in, we usually only remain happy for a short time before we start pointing out the flaws and fallacies. I don't know why. Perhaps it's in our nature. The Darwinian desire to be the strongest, the most powerful on the evolutionary ladder. Perhaps that's why we're never happy with the government.

There have been several cataclysmic events in history in which all-out revolution is at hand in order to change the status quo. Of course, after much chaos and bloodshed, the discontent are content, but only for a short while. Such events, like the Revolutionary War, the French Revolution, and the Haitian Revolution are prime historical examples. There are even more local examples. The L.A. riots, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Iraqi War can also fit into this category. The people we look on as heroes today are the ones who can actually bring about this change with little to no violence or bloodshed. Perhaps that's why Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Jesus are so popular. They're figures who deviated from the norm and were able to bring about great changes in society peacefully. Of course, as it can often be seen, many of these changes are only idealistic in nature; they can never be fully implemented in real life. But the pattern of content and discontent, is in my opinion, cyclic. We gravitate towards discontent until a breaking point, in which we are satisfied. We remain in that place for a while, but then begin to gravitate towards discontent once more.

I think it's more of a question of the problems of human nature vs. the problems of human government.

[kellychaos]

I read an essay once that applied (or attemted to apply) the chaos theory to sociology in the respect that, while we certainly have turbulent/violent patterns in relatively short chronological range which is restricted by our own mortality, if you step back from history you will see patterns arise from a seeming chaos. I'm not endorsing this exactly but it is an interesting thought. I wonder what the mathematical model for we walking apes would look like?

[Zhukov]

Libertarianism is a joke.

I say 'driving into the ground' in regards to the economic systems destroying themselves and being replaced. Capitalism is still better than Feudalism.

[The One and Only...]

Feudalism wasn't an economic system.

[Zhukov]

Social system. You got me.

[The One and Only...]

Social systems will eternally collapse and be reborn throughout human history. It would be... illogical, to say the least, to assume that one system could last for the rest of humankind's existence, regardless of whether or not it should.

[Zhukov]

Well, I'm saying that to an extent, but no one has any good ideas on what follows (higher) classless society. You don't know enough about communism to make me interested in talking to you about it though.

[derrida]

Originally Posted by O71394658

Interesting question.

I don't necessarily think we're driving ourselves into the ground, but I just think humans are more or less biologically programmed to deviate towards discontent. No matter what the situation we (as humans) find ourselves in, we usually only remain happy for a short time before we start pointing out the flaws and fallacies. I don't know why. Perhaps it's in our nature. The Darwinian desire to be the strongest, the most powerful on the evolutionary ladder. Perhaps that's why we're never happy with the government.

There have been several cataclysmic events in history in which all-out revolution is at hand in order to change the status quo. Of course, after much chaos and bloodshed, the discontent are content, but only for a short while. Such events, like the Revolutionary War, the French Revolution, and the Haitian Revolution are prime historical examples. There are even more local examples. The L.A. riots, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Iraqi War can also fit into this category. The people we look on as heroes today are the ones who can actually bring about this change with little to no violence or bloodshed. Perhaps that's why Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Jesus are so popular. They're figures who deviated from the norm and were able to bring about great changes in society peacefully. Of course, as it can often be seen, many of these changes are only idealistic in nature; they can never be fully implemented in real life. But the pattern of content and discontent, is in my opinion, cyclic. We gravitate towards discontent until a breaking point, in which we are satisfied. We remain in that place for a while, but then begin to gravitate towards discontent once more.

I think it's more of a question of the problems of human nature vs. the problems of human government.

The instability you're referring to is more symptomatic of modernism than indicative of any transcendent human nature. Examples abound of homo sapiens living for millenia in unchanging social conditions.[/i]

[O71394658]

That was perhaps considering the fact before the mental capacity of the homo sapien evolved to its modern-day potential.