Firstly, please remember that when I say "minority" or "diversity", I am referring to factors that have an impact on behavior; therefore, I do not mean ethnic minorities, but rather other social, religious, cultural, ideological, etc "Society" is becoming more and more nonexistent, now that men ignore each other and there is a near total lack of any sort of common identity or common ground. It appears we have pushed "tolerance" to levels much too high for any sort of social backbone to exist. In my opinion, the most important aspects of a society that should be uniform should be: 1) Where the people give their loyalty 2) Moral code (whatever it may be) I would go ahead and say common cultural ground, but the above two are, certainly, necessary for a stable society and stable government. Common cultural ground would be preferable, of course. Society is built on the interactions and identities of individuals, that willingly come together as one, united by a common factor or common goal. If we remove this common factor or common goal, we create chaos and discomfort. We would be removing whatever it was that made a certain group of people, a certain group of people. Certainly, a level of diversity should exist, but to what extent? I'd say, there is no problem at all with different cultures and lifestyles living in a single society, in so long as they share a common loyalty, identity, goal, and morality. Why morality? Law is, to an extent, based on morality and therefore with differing moral codes, there will likely always be discomfort and unhappiness with social policy. A uniform moral code ensures that "right" and "wrong" never differ between individuals, and therefore society is able to run far more smoothly. Having a "it's none of your business" attitude is, while certainly understandable, not a social viewpoint; in my opinion, everything is the business of everyone to an extent. It's part of the social contract. I believe nations should be formed by people with common ground. Doesn't that make sense? Doesn't it make more sense for people to live with their own kind? For the religious to live with others of their religion, with their own society and government, to do things as they please, and for atheists to do likewise; doesn't that create comfort and smooth operation for all? Of course, I'm speaking of major aspects: economic policy, morality, and culture should be uniform within a society if we want stability and a sense of identity. As I said, however, diversity is perfectly acceptable if we can at least agree on common loyalty, common morality, and common identity. Otherwise we are no more a society than a collection of people....without any sort of ties to each other. We need a factor that unites us. On an added note, I came up with a superb social structure (tell me what you think!): My Proposed Social Structure This is assuming the above aspects have been agreed upon and society is operating smoothly: Firstly, my view on the legal process; of course, I believe in the triumph of the will of the people (therefore, democracy). Within a democracy, the citizens' will is most important. However, it's also a sad truth that many citizens, particularly here in the states, are ignorant of their own politics. I think it's very important for the citizens of a nation to keep up with national occurences and politics, to remain informed and in charge. Therefore, that brings us to the first order: legal rights. I do not believe legal rights should be given purely based on age, but rather competence and maturity; give legal rights to those who earn it (who pass a test, let's say); all citizens can, of course, be offered the chance, but we must ensure that only those truly concerned have the say AND THEN hopefully, that will encourage everyone to educate themselves. Secondly, authority; in a truly civilized society, there should be people below to be commanded and people above to be obeyed. Most importantly, all should be offered the chance to rise and to make something of themselves socially. Therefore, status is not given based on hereditary reasons or based on money, but rather, merit. Meritocracy. The more you give to society, so shall society grant you more authority. If you give nothing, society shall give you nothing. In this way, ideally, the people that are truly good shall rise and the corrupt shall fall. As I said, however, everyone should start off on an equal playing field and be given the opportunity to rise to greater heights. This makes it fair and would stop authority from becoming tyranny. The people elected into office could be limited to those few individuals that are of the highest merit and therefore, trustworthy and experienced (with the form of government bieng the one I have already explained, the "efficient totalitarian democracy"). If you are wondering what the authority would be used for, it wouldn't be for bossing around people any time you please, but rather your authority in commanding the social and economic policy of the nation, and things of that nature, perhaps also in the educational system. For the following, civil and human rights are assumed. I'm referring mainly to legal rights (right to vote and be in office, etc, have your say in government). Freedom of speech would be universal, of course, but actual legal muscle should be earned. It could go like this: S-zero - An individual who has harmed society ( a criminal, basically); No legal or civil rights, but of course, Human rights. No authority. ---- S1 (birth-18)- All individuals begin as S1. No legal rights (must be earned); [At 18, S2 is NOT automatic. 18 only means the age that you can apply for S2, but it must be earned. -- S2- Right to vote [gained by a sort of exam to determine legal competence] -- [The following ranks would be gained by merit] S3- Service to the state; "shareholder" in government capital; S4- Considerable and continued service to the state; granted right to run for office as well as perequisite rights S5- Highest service to the state- granted right to run for Head of State Great structure right?
An egalitarian society based on 'merit points', where advancement and authority are awarded to those with the most points? Ignoring the issue of who sets the tests, and decides which answers are correct, why does the compartmenting of society make it work better? Isn't it working already because people choose what they want to do, in terms of a job? How do people who haven't earned the right to vote have freedom of speech? Who decides what society is, and if someone has harmed it? Your plan looks like an ant colony, btw.
Yes. And these "points" are awarded to those members whom contribute the most. A consensus would be in place to adapt a specific "test" and qualification, that makes it fair. Of course people can live their lives, but this is mainly referring to their role in government and society. Simple, they can speak, but they can't actually vote. Society does. This system rewards the good. Certainly a far preferable system over our current one where society lacks a backbone, identity, and culture and where the laziest of scum can become rich pigs while the most hardworking individuals are given nothing. "Contribution" to society wouldn't just be economic, it could be a whole plethora of different things.
Right now the "points" are called dollars (in america at least). Hello? Everyone CANNOT start on an equal playing field. It's simply impossible and highly undesirable. Diversity is inherent to the fact that each member is as such, an individual. Economically - one could attempt to ensure equality, but it would fail miserably. A big problem would be that if you reset everyone's current economic status well, that in and of itself would ignore all previous contributions, etc. Then of course the population is replenished at varying rates. Unless you took all children into some non-parent situation, the children would benefit or suffer from the parent's socio-economic circumstances, which of course blows the whole equality thing right out of the water. More insidiously though, people value things subjectively (which is really somewhat repetetive). Economic value approximates subjective value by offering a standard unit in an attempt to quantify something that's often qualititative. This is a big problem for your idealistic (which I respect) desire to make some things equal. Biologically - not a chance, and of course biology plays a large role in the economic potential of the individual.
That sounds like some kind of sci-fi movie or book like 1984 or The Giver. You don't get legal or civil rights until you are smart enough to pass a test. Man, I hope I won't be living in that society. You are very structured Norsefire, you're going to drive your children crazy.
Do you want ignorant people in charge? No? Then this is a perfect structure! It rewards the hard working and intelligent. Why is that bad? The good rise, the bad fall.
You always assume the best in people Norsefire, but in the end people always mess up what started out as a great idea. I drive the kids I work with crazy because I'm so structured and strict, but at least they get to go home later. My own children will most likely hate me. You seem like you're like that too.
I prefer to see the good in people, but if they do become bad, we should show no mercy. We can safeguard against corruption No, structure and strictness only drives crazy those that do not want structure and strictness. You must show them the power of willpower, and give them a goal, and then seize them, and they shall obey.
Lol. Exactly which is almost everybody, people like structure, but they usually don't care for strict adherence to those structured ways. That's why people keep arguing about the benefits and disadvantages of school uniforms and what not.
It is bad because many many people will violently disagree on what is "good" and what is "bad". It is not an objectively measurable quantity.
