The Structure of a Society

<b>[KeLP] "Self-interested self-determined education does nothing to develop informed, educated voters.</b>

Possibly, but in truth this remains to be seen. Truly self-directed educations have been rare so far. Most of us have done a little self educating at various times in our lives, but only a handful have been lucky (?) enough to have their entire educational experience be self-directed.

And (obviously) the other-directed education that the vast majority of us receive is now proven to do "... nothing to develop informed, educated voters ...".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Maybe it is the "earning a living" idea that needs to be updated. This idea is not good in a world run by machines doing all the work because it means humans have to not only compete with each other, but also with machines. Very bad indeed don't you think?

<b>Not if you let the machines do what they are good at and allow humans to compete for the jobs that machines are not good at.</b>

We have rid the world of the idea people have to earn the right to live and let the machines do the work.

<b>Being human is ALL about "feeling". Having a job we think is worth doing well, leads to a happy set of feelings.

Whether it simultaneously serves as a means of earning one's livelihood is irreverent - if it doesn't, then it is a hobby and you have to have some other means of supporting yourself.</b>


The fruits of that work needs to be allocated in new ways too since our current system isn't doing the job very well.

<b>Hmmm ... it isn't? Seems to me the industrious and ambitious people get paid for their efforts and the less so are not starving. What's not to like?</b>

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<b>[Jim, from the other topic] "Maybe it is the 'earning a living' idea that needs to be updated. This idea is not good in a world run by machines doing all the work because it means humans have to not only compete with each other, but also with machines. Very bad indeed don't you think? We have rid the world of the idea people have to earn the right to live and let the machines do the work. The fruits of that work needs to be allocated in new ways too since our current system isn't doing the job very well."</b>

A lot of good questions here, Jim. Finding answers (actual real-world solutions) is likely to be hard. What I mean is, SAYING the answer may well be easy, but DOING the answer will not.


<b>[Jim] "Maybe it is the 'earning a living' idea that needs to be updated."</b>

Actually, this is would do more to make the world 'right' than just about anything. And there is a technological 'fix'.

But we do not yet have the ability to implement it.

LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />SOME SIMILARITES BETWEEN FREE SOCIETIES AND DICTATORSHIPS

<b>DISIMILARITIES ARE IN BOLD</b>

<ul><li>People get up each morning</li> <b>at a time dictated to them.</b>
<li>And go to work</li> <b>at a job dictated to them.</b>
<li>They watch TV in the evening</li> <b>watching shows dictated to them.</b>
<li>Or go to a restaurant or bar.</li> <b>at a time dictated to them, and eat food chosen for them.</b>
<li>Most of them have kids</li> <b>in a quantity dictated to them.</b>
<li>The government makes some of them join the military</li>
<li>A few of them are killed in the war.</li>
<li>Others become captains of industry.</li><b>but not chosen by merit.</b>
<li>But most just live a moderately tough life and then die in peace.</li><b>at a time dictated to them.</b>
</ul>

<b>Sounds like living in a dictatorship is akin to being in jail, which is where we in a free society send those who, for whatever reason, choose to disobey our democratically implemented laws.</b>

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<b>[KeLP] "There are 2 kinds of dictatorships: totalitarian and authoritarian. I'm assuming you put the USA in the latter because of the increasing burden of regulations from all levels of government."</b>

The way I see it there is a large number of kinds of dictatorship, and the two you mention are among the most 'popular' They could also be seen as similar to constraints on the possible range of kinds of dictatorship.

<center>KINDS OF DICTATORSHIP</center>
<center>TOTALITARIAN &lt;===========================&gt; AUTHORITARIAN</center>
But then if you take a few steps back you can see that all kinds of dictatorship form one set of constraints, and all kinds of freedom form another set of constraints, on the kinds of possible structures that a society might have.

<center>KINDS OF SOCIETAL ORGANIZATION</center><center>DICTATORSHIP &lt;==============================&gt; FREEDOM</center>
Societies can and do move back and forth over these ranges of possibilities. There are no natural barriers or breaks. It is a continuum.

<b>[KeLP] "My answer is we are still free. As long as the ability to change those regulations is open to the people, either indirectly through elections or directly through voter initiatives, we hold to freedom. Tenuously, it sometimes feels like, but still free."</b>


I hold a similar opinion - we do still have some freedom. More than the people of the USSR had. Less than the people of Hong Kong have.

<b>[KeLP] "... in a dictatorship, elections can change nothing.</b>

And in another dictatorship, they can change some/many things.

LB

<b>[shando] "... at a (time/job/quantity) dictated to them ..."</b>

Good good good.

By who?