Prove Stefu your ideal society would result to greatest good for greatest number

[Shi Huangdi]

In my Ideal society, the people of Finland will be taken out of their country. Finland will then be filled with very poor people from all over the world who might otherwise starve, thus saving a whole bunch of lives. The Finns will then be used as the world's slaves. This provides the greatest good for the greatest number because the bad of enslaving the Finns is outweighed by the Good of Saving all those poor people's lives, and the world's billions of peopel get the benefits of what the Finnish slaves would have to do- for instance, we could use them as guinea pigs for scientists to test new medicines on. It is quite probable that we may once again save enough people equal to the population of Finland from diseases cured.

[David Floyd]

[Stefu]

See, I'm not interested in what the greatest good is, I'm interested in what is right and moral.

Now, I think laissez faire does bring the greatest good for the greatest number, but more importantly, it is right and moral. There's a distinction.

Well, see, I think that what's right and moral is what brings greatest good for the greatest number. Therefore, if you want to convince me that laissez faire is right and moral, prove it brings greatest good for the greatest number.

In my Ideal society, the people of Finland will be taken out of their country. Finland will then be filled with very poor people from all over the world who might otherwise starve, thus saving a whole bunch of lives. The Finns will then be used as the world's slaves. This provides the greatest good for the greatest number because the bad of enslaving the Finns is outweighed by the Good of Saving all those poor people's lives, and the world's billions of peopel get the benefits of what the Finnish slaves would have to do- for instance, we could use them as guinea pigs for scientists to test new medicines on. It is quite probable that we may once again save enough people equal to the population of Finland from diseases cured.

I don't know if this is anti-utilitarian argument or some kind of weird Finland-bash that seems to follow me around.

In any case, bringing someone to Finland doesn't stop them from starving, and there are methods of testing medicines that don't require us to torture poor Finns. And anyway, this would be creating precedent allowing us to kidnap and slave entire nations, which would assuredly be negative enough an effect that all positive benefits would be cancelled.

[Buck Birdseed]

Why, because my society is specially designed and pruned to accomplish this task.

The basic thesis that forms the framework for my society is that all people belong to several identity groups, ie groups of people who identify themselves as something or are identified by society as something. Men, Women, The Working Class, Citizens, Immigrants, Ethnic Eritreans, Asian-Americans, whatever. Power in society as it stands now is divided so that some of these groups have substantially more power, and thus have their interests looked after and their ideas propagated much more than others. Men, for instance, dominate society both culturally and practically when compared to women. What my society does is to attempt to create a constitutional framework whereby all groups have a say, a majority cannot dominate a minority, and power is shared as equally as possible between the groups relating to a certain set of identities as possible. In short, a pluralised version of Machiavelli's classical Civic-Republican model of government.

This model has many advantages. It ensures that no-one is trampled upon, while still redistributing power from those who have much of it to those who have little of it. It doesn't trample on liberties. It is not less democratic than most other models, in fact more so. By encouraging identity groups and citizen groups to become active in politics, it creates a more vibrant democratic scene than ever before. And it's efficient. It doesn't allow any one group to create a hegemony and siphon off society's resources, and it stops wasteful beuraucratic monoculture by bringing in fresh ideas from a wide variety of sources. It combats corruption by keeping everyone on their toes constantly, and by not having an elite group in the first place.

Long live New Pluralist Republican Post-Modern Feminism!

Read: Democracy and Difference by Anne Phillips 1993.

[Stefu]

and power is shared as equally as possible between the groups relating to a certain set of identities as possible.

How would this be achieved?

[Inverse Icarus]

can't prove that. my ideal society has many, many killings by the state, so it wouldn't be that great a number.

[Paul Hanson]

My "ideal" society would go like this.

Firstly, everyone who posts on Apolyton, with the obvious exception of my good self, would be murdered in their sleep. If they decided to stay awake to avoid being killed, I will simply have them killed through sleep depravation. This will be done in order to rid the world of some rathre anally retentive and frankly, quite dull people.

Secondly, I will sit back and allow the world to run it's course. Elementary Hansonian Theory states that the world is inevitable working itself towards perfection, since time heals all wounds, physical, mental and metaphorical. This process cannot be speeded up or slowed down in any way, so all we can do is sit back and hope it comes in our lifetime.

[Shi Huangdi]

"In any case, bringing someone to Finland doesn't stop them from starving"

Finland's resources and wealth would be going to sustain those poor people who would otherwise be starving.

"and there are methods of testing medicines that don't require us to torture poor Finns."

You still can't beat testing on humans? Why do you think people are still needed to volunteer to be medical resarch test subject. As it is, it is already a slow process, and often times medicines have to be tested on rats first. Imagine all the quick progress we could achieve with all safety regulations gone and with an unlimited pool of test subjects who could be subjected to any type of treatement the scientists want.


"And anyway, this would be creating precedent allowing us to kidnap and slave entire nations, which would assuredly be negative enough an effect that all positive benefits would be cancelled."

No, because I get to set the rules of my ideal society. And in my ideal society, everyone would be given the right to freeedom for slavery except for Finns who would be declared sub-human and thus subject to any type of treatement willed by the masters.

[Stefu]

Fools to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am! Stuck in the middle with... well, no-one...

[Sirotnikov]

correction: I didn't mean the bit about palestinians

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I'd require everyone to do two good deeds daily- the recipients to be selected by means testing. One recipient would be in the local area, the other would be elsewhere in the nation/world. This could be a physical act, or a cash donation.

A bit boy-scoutish? Perhaps- but it's a simple a pragmatic step towards making the world a better place and getting people to work together.

[Buck Birdseed]

Originally posted by Stefu

How would this be achieved?

A much trickier question than the theoretical framework. Suggestions might include: strong public funding of identity groups, forcing legislatures to take the opinions of these groups into account, a second house of parliament outside the party systems, quotas, positive discrimination, stronger anti-discrimination laws and enforcement, stronger constitutional allowance for citizenship and citizen's power, etc.

[Az]

Suggestions might include: strong public funding of identity groups

The system is unviable in the long run, promoting differentiation between members of the same society, and places them all in subgroups that have strong powers which will ,eventually , lead to infighting, squabling , and finally the falling apart of the society as a whole. Instead you will have many small societies , acting against each other , and thus not promoting the idea , of having as many people as possible have a good life for as much time as possible.

[Buck Birdseed]

Bah. I don't subscribe to the idea of a homogenous, fascistically controlled ideal of how everyone should be. Society should celebrate it's differences; true equality can only be achieved if different perspectives, different viewpoints, different identities are all acknowledged. Democracy through difference!

[Provost Harrison]

That's the problem with these ideas isn't it Snappy, nice in theory, impossible practice.

And I wouldn't stoop to answer Stefu's initial question. Why should I stoop to interrogation when I know I am right