What is our best chance of achieving a practical utopia? One that is realistically possible.

We all have ideas of how the world could realistically be made better... legalising drugs seems to be a favourite on here. We must take into account the current limits of 'human nature', both that which is genetically natural to us, and for these purposes we must also be aware of that which is learnt as a product of current culture as well.

I have deliberately placed this thread in the science, history and technology thread rather than the philosophy/spirituality thread, in the hope that this will give the thread a more realistic leaning, rather than a 'we-all-take-entheogens-everyday-and-evolve-into-energy-beings' feel!

My first thoughts are these... communism has failed practically, due to 'human nature' as defined above. The USSR collapsed. China is evolving far enough towards capitalism that it can no longer be called communist. North Korea is insanity. The collapse of Cuba seems inevitable. An argument that what we saw in these bold experiments was 'state communism' and therefore actually 'state capitalism' rather than true communism is irrelevant to me... the fact is that the process failed to yield results in all largescale experiments.

Then there is anarchy, in its plethora of forms (generally involving the decentralising of power). My own desk research into historical experiments in the 19th and 20th century showed that anarchic communities always 'failed', at least in the sense that they only survived by breaking up into family units of smallholdings who co-operated only when necessary for survival... no different to the village model prevalent pre-industrial revolution and still existing to some extent in the counrtyside. Again, socialist communities of all forms did not continue for any significant length of time either, at least until the people involved had been helped enough to alleviate their poverty and enter capitalism as individuals and family units again. However, one can argue that these experiments often attracted those rejected by mainstream society, making them (particularly the anarchic ones) more volatile, and also that cultural change is difficult and lengthy, and that sometimes the experiments failed as a result of the patriarchal attitudes of those who began them.

History also shows that without an organised central government, populations become oppressed. Warlords rise up and live like feudal kings. The northern Native Americans lived an anarchic tribal life, and wouldn't have stood a chance against colonisation even if they had immunity to the Old World epidemics. Ancient China was made up of a host of separate kingdoms constantly at war until the first Emperor established his empire. Europe was marauded by nomadic warrior tribes after the collapse of the Roman Empire, then the emerging kingdoms warred with each other for thousands of years until we reached the stability tha we are enjoying today under the European Union. I believe that while anarcho-communism is the ideal, human nature and learnt culture as it stands today prohibit any form of anarchy from succeeding.

Extreme change seems to invariably fail. So what can we do? Maybe we should become more like Norway. The oft-cited survey into happiness found that Norwegians, when asked if they were happy, were the most likely to state that they were (sorry I don't have references, and would be really grateful if someone could point me to them, it's a pretty well known survey). What use is America's (and the UK's) high GDP when it's citizens don't even rank themselves in the top ten of the world's happiest countries? Happiness is what's important, not wealth, and above a certain amount of wealth that satisfies your material needs, it is the culture of the society in which you inhabit that determines the population's general happiness.

Norway is characterised by a left of centre government, low population density and a small gap between rich and poor, among other traits. The correlation between the gap between rich and poor and civil harmony is a well-established one. Population density is more problematic, because a megacity such a Hong Kong operates with a relatively low crime rate, disproving the rule that high population means crime and unrest.

So I think we should try to emulate Norway. That and realise the sovereignty of the individual, allowing freedom to all when their freedom does not inhibit the freedom of another, such as by legalising all drugs, offering treatment instead of punishment and taking away organised crime's main source of revenue. Once we have established such a society, and the cultural change becomes complete and embedded in the population's psyche, then we can then move onto a second waves of change further towards utopia if realistic possibilities exist...

Communism in the way Karl Marx envisioned will always fail. Even if one has a 'nice' government/communist party. The reason being that central economic planning is impossible and will always lead to problems on the nation scale. Which will lead to distrust of the party by the people and or abusive means by which the party will try and maintain its power/idealogy. Its a flawed system all and all. Plus why the heck should everyone earn the same wage? We are all born equal but that does not mean we all deserve the same wages etc etc. I could go on about why I think true communism is total crap but I don't think its necessary.



Not everyone has a low population density or shares views within that population. This wouldn't work in many other countries/regions.



I don't think we need to emulate Norway to build a better society.

Liberty is the key to building better societies. One major reason I am in favor of liberty is that there is no such thing as "the greater good". Whats good for you or for me might be different for someone else. But thats ok as long as no one directly harms one another or one another's property/land/freedom/environment. Laws exist to protect those rights. I think the U.S. constitution had a pretty good description of individual rights in its bill of rights (once it included woman and blacks as citizens etc). The U.S. constitution is an amazing document (although vague in some areas but thats fine) and its a shame that no one in the U.S. government save a small few actually adhere to it. If they did the U.S. and the world would be a much different place.

Now this is also part of the reason I am against socialist forms of government. I include most of the EU and even the U.S. as partially socialist governments for reasons that I will try to explain. Socialism implies a greater good. It implies that we all should work together to build a better society by doing things to share wealth provide government services etc. Now while that sounds nice I am against it for the same reason I am against communism in that there is no such thing as the greater good. Whats good for you and me is different. Why should I let the government take my money that I earned (income tax, which was also illegal in the original U.S. consitution!) and use it to do things that I don't agree with? They can tax the roads, they can tax imported goods, they can tax things like the sale of tobacco etc but they should NEVER have been allowed to tax YOUR INCOME! It is in complete violation of how the founding fathers of The United States saw liberty.

Thats why liberty is better because I can choose how I want to live, what to do with my money, what to do with my land, and how I want to interact with those in my community. Now of course that does not mean people can or should do whatever they want. But the purpose of laws is to protect peoples liberty not to enforce the "greater good" because the greater good is again different for all of us.

But then people always ask but what about the environment? What about controlling the evils of capitalism etc etc?
Realize that in a society that puts liberty above all else the laws in place would protect people and their land from those who violate it. For example if a company pollutes your air or your water or your communities air and water then its the courts duty and the governments duty to protect the peoples liberty (ie in this situation their land). Global warming and financial crisis are two major issues right now and what are people doing as a result of it? They are giving the government more power to fix these issues. That will never EVER work! The only way to solve these problems is through liberty of the individual who can then choose to improve their lives and the lives of those in their communities.

I will stop because I can go on and on but if you have any questions please ask and I can be more specific.

To sum it all up. How to build a practical utopia? Liberty is the answer.

Emulating relevent aspects of Norwegian society is advantageous because it would be a 'scientific' change in that it would be based on implementing what actually works, rather than implementing risky change based on pure ideology.

I forgot to say that capitalism had failed as miserably as communism. The horrors of the industrial revolution proved that, compelling governments to restrain capitalism further through enforcing worker's rights etc (and these horrors have been and are being repeated in the developing world, often under the direct supervision of Western multinationals). The US constitution could be seen as a protective governmental measure against the excesses of true capitalism (which is synonymous with anarcho-communism). Any governmental regulation could be argued to be in essence 'socialist', in that it intends to protect people, rather than rely on the myth of self-regulating capitalism that amazingly some people in the world still seem to believe in.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not completely anti-anarchism- I believe in retaining the hierarchal system of government (local to regional to national), but of protecting against corruption by redistributing the flow of power in such a system so it is less top to bottom, and a bit more bottom up. I'm not against the idea of a one-world system of global-national-regional-local, as long as it's not an elite at the top dominating everyone else. We seem to be cooperating more at a global level these days, certainly the EU is, but it remains to be seen how the power will be distributed.

The USA is hardly an advertisement for how basing a society on liberty works. Problems being the availability of guns, the rampant greed and psychopathic behaviour of US multinationals (psychopathic because a company is a legal person, and what kind of person would act like they do?), and the fact that only those who are rich enough to pay for their campaign can ever get into power meaning that you are ruled by an economic elite... all problems stemming from the US idea of liberty. And of course, as previously stated, the fact that Americans aren't as happy as people in other cultures! I'm a libertarian too, so don't take this as an attack on liberty... more an acknowledgement that a society built upon the idea of 'true liberty' could be as flawed as one built on 'true' capitalism, communism and anarchism.

Burnt, please could you elaborate on how your utopia would function practically? The process of change towards your society, then how it would function if the change occured successfully.

Yes you are right about that but only because people have abandoned what a true free market capitalist society was. By this I mean central banking and fiat currency. Central banking ruined capitalism as did the corrupt politicians who believe in it. I suggest learning how and why to understand where my view point is coming from. There is one good documentary on this called "The money masters", it all over the web, there are some other good ones but they get caught up in conspiracy theories often. Its long but very informative, the only problem is the conclusion I see other alternatives but anyway I recommend checking it out. As well as host of economic theories and ideas for how these things work but we can talk about them later when it becomes appropriate.

I want to point out that any country with a central bank is not a free market! The free market in the U.S. died in 1913 with the passing of the 16th amendment and the passing of the federal reserve act. Since then the U.S. claims to be a free market but that is an outright lie. There is virtually no country in the world who does not have a central bank at this point with the world bank and IMF on the global scale. The federal reserve in the U.S. and I am sure the EU has one now too I just forget the name.

So people often view the U.S. as a failure in free market economics or a free market society but the reality is that the U.S. hasn't been a free market for almost a century. This is the most important point I am making.




Agree, but I did not say the U.S. as it is now. I said the U.S. constitution was a good starting point for a practical utopia. If you read the U.S. constitution and then look at the U.S. government today you would balk. As I have. The U.S. was founded on the idea of liberty but that as well as a free market run by the people has also in large died as a result of central banking, big government, and yes also greed corruption and lies.

My point is that what you see today is not how it was meant to be. How did it get so bad? Because people are stupid and ignorant and they allowed it to get this way. People don't understand what money is people don't understand what the role of government should be.



Hmm. Ok well. My point is that utopia generated by a government or a society at large is impossible. People have to find what works for them on their own in their communities and with their neighbors. But they cannot do that with a government ramming rules and regulations or guns down everyones throat.

Now you pointed out that its possible to have a global type government as long as its for the people. But again this implies that people all over the world share the same vision of a "greater good". I think the "greater good" is a false utopian ideal. There is only the "greater good" of the individual.

All I am suggesting that free people have the power to make their lives and their communities more towards a utopia. If the people are not free it will never ever happen.

Also I am not an anarchist there is a role for government. The problem is that no one understands what the role of government is anymore. Most people think its there to solve all your problems I say its not and it will only make things worse the more you rely on government to solve problems.

It's interesting that we have very similar views of what utopia is, but very different views on how we'd get there.

Given your logic about why capitalism hasn't really failed, one could say the same thing about communism. They were both hijacked. Their susceptability to hijack was the failure. Things weren't exactly rosy before 1913! Anything but. And I see these evil people you talk about who hijacked capitalism as a product of the capitalist system- the result of a system that encouraged greed and was not adequately defended against it.

I will check out that link though, thanks

^^Haha yes your right that is interesting. I am not sayings things were rosy or picture perfect before 1913 either. I am saying that killed the dream. Even if the dream wasn't always a reality.



I think communism will inherintly fail though. Because central economic planning is impossible. Capitalism can fail but only if people let their government allow people to cheat the system (in the present situation corporations). Obviously the government has to protect from monopolies and things like this and labor unions are a good way for workers to organized against corporate leaders who are abusing them. However it seems more and more that the world is moving towards government monopolies which is even more scary then business monopolies.

I gotta run though so I'll get back to this next week. In the mean time if you have the time please check out that documentary and let me know what you think. It is kind of a long history lesson (its a few hours) but I found it very informative and what I have learned since then makes me think they are legit.

Also their prediction came 100% true (I think its about 10 years old the documentary) as we are in an state of economic collapse.

Hehe capitalism had thousands of years to sort itself out and still failed, state communism didn't have much of a chance to develop, bar a few disparate nicey nicey groups like the early Christians (before the Roman Empire hijacked their religion). We may have to agree to disagree on this point

I agree that how we work today is well suited to human nature, which is exactly why we've developed this way, into a sort of socialist-modified capitalism. In a chaotic system, just the tiniest bit of tinkling could yield the massive change we're after, hence the apparent tameness of my first-stage proposals.

I'll watch it... I've seen a few of these banking videos so I know roughly what it's about, but it would be good to see one without the conspiracy vibe muddling everything.

Oh, I think the cultural use of smoked DMT would benefit society too, get people off the booze and develop their ethics and retain the childlike wonderment that so many lose when they calcify into adulthood

I'm sure you've read Brave New World. This supposedly utopian society conditioned everyone to be happy from birth. That's scary.

Also. The communist "each to his abilities" approach was utilized to condition them further before birth through each person's genes. This was like the Indian caste system, except it worked for the "greater good" as well as each individual's happiness. Shit, that's scarier.

yep.
but don't you forget "equality" and "fraternity"....

here is another practical utopia...:

http://www.threefolding.org/gliederung/

Yep, I've read it (science fiction as it is). It's not really a utopia, it's a dystopia (a bad place, not a good place). For somewhere to be a good place, it would have to be good for everyone, not just for some... at least give everyone the chance to find happiness without the pressures and inequalities of modern life, where the poor die young and the rich live long. Huxley's 'Island' was his vision of a utopia (and yes, this peaceful place was invaded by a neighbouring despot in the end, thus making it an unsuccessful one).



I agree, and I said that communism failed. I am completely against utilitarianism, which is this theory of the greater good, meaning the course of action which creates the greatest average happiness. The Nazis were utilitarians- they acted for the 'greater good' by scapegoating and eliminating minorities for the sake of social cohesion of the majority and economic benefits. If you look at a lot of what they were doing in health and environmentalism, they did a lot of 'good' for their own people- but only through the horrific sacrifice of others. Nazi Germany is a classic and incredibly horrific dysopia, the likes of which you wouldn't believe if someone just wrote it as a novel. The prohibition of entheogens is utilitarian- the authorities are scared of the unknown effects of drug use and the abuse of certain drugs, so blanket-ban everything that isn't already part of culture (alcohol, tobacco, caffeine) or has no effect other than medical (pharmaceuticals). In doing so, they oppress and criminalise responsible entheogen users like the people here, who benefit greatly from their use.

The USA is also a dystopia- it was founded on an ideal of happiness through liberty, but has corrupted and failed and is now run by a deceptive elite and a preoccupied mass of consumers.

Don't get stuck into thinking of utopia and dystopia as being the stuff of fiction- Sir Thomas More's 'Utopia' was originally written as political comment. Wiliam Morris's 'News from Nowhere' was an illustration of his political beliefs. The genre got sucked into science fiction in modern times, but still some serious ideas are conveyed in the form of novels, such as Walden 2 (again, not exactly a utopia, as the writer seems to have 'given in' by making his utopia ruled by a benevolent elite of behavioural psychologists). But yes, it is the association with science fiction that has led me to talk about 'practical utopia', meaning 'as good a place as could be achieved'.

Here are some notes from on utopian literature, taken from Branda and Robert Vale's 'The New Autonomous House', for anyone who's interested. This doesn't cover the academic work which now forms 'serious' political thought, just novels.

p22 UTOPIAS
The simple life vs technology
Authoritarian (Plato's The Republic) vs libertarian (Zeno of Kittion (Stoic))

Aristophanes "The Birds", 414BC, "ridicules the whole idea of technological progress, and shows how it destroys a carefree and happy society. In the play the birds are persuaded by an Athenian politician to give up their quiet life and become a super-power to challenge the gods and men. They build and arm a huge city, and achieve a powerful position. By the end of the play they have become the servants of the technology they have created and must spend all their time keeping up their defences."

Thomas More's 'Utopia' (1516)- militaristic and dependent on slave labour, tech. advanced, no poverty... inspired a series of Utopias a century later typified by Andrea's 'Christianopolis' (1619)
Burton's intro to 'The Anatomy of Meloncholy' (1621)
Campanella's 'City of the Sun' (written 1602, published 1623)
Gott's 'Nova Solyma' (1648 )
Bacon's 'New Atlantis' (1672)- scientific, pragmatic
Early utopias- luxuries were regarded as undermining moral values, so austere and egalitarian. In C19th, mass production promised wealth for all so progress viewed in material rather than spiritual terms.

Bellamy "Looking Backward" (1888 )- state sole employer, serve in army 21-45. People who refuse to work are 'cut off from all human society'! Work is not pleasant.

Cabet's "Voyage en Icaries" (1845)- experts decide what you should eat etc!

Morris, 'News From Nowhere'- perhaps the first 'alternative-technology Utopia'

Wells- 'A Modern Utopia', 1905- efficient, rigidly controlled world society
'Men like Gods', 1923- advance anarchistic society, like the people of a Bronze age community

Ethel Mannin 'Bread and Roses'- anarcho-syndicalist society of natural liberty and mutual aid

Skinner 'Walden Two'- controlled by behavioural psychology, residents voluntarily submit to a code designed to modify and control their behaviour to make them happy.

p30 Huxley's 'Island' (1962) 'Electricity minus heavy industry plus birth control equals democracy and plenty'. Western science meets Eastern mysticism, small-scale democracy. Eventually invaded by neighbouring dictator!

p31 Callenbach's 'Ecotopia' (1975). Plenty, but ritual war games! Outdoors-loving.

Le Guin's 'The Dispossessed' (1975)- looks at disadvantages of libertarian society. 'Excess is excrement'.
Piercy's 'Woman on the Edge of Time' (1976)- public opinion prevents change. Villages, rural, but alt.tech, decentrally produced. Communal child raising!

Brenda Vale 'Albion' (1982) People ignored the govt, moved away from cities, and squatted their own eco-homes in country.

p35 "most writers have considered that the technology of their time cannot meet the needs of a society which places the needs of the individual above the demands of the state. The implication, therefore, is that advanced technology is not appropriate to a freer society, and that it represents a barrier to freedom... alternative technology can be seen as an idea running parallel to the development of conventional technology, and as representing the technology suited for many different views of what constitutes an ideal society, one that values individual freedom."

p40 Rattray Taylor, 'The Doomsday Book':
"One of the best-established principles in economics is the one which says that the more you have of anything, the less satisfaction you get from having some more; otherwise known as the principle of marginal returns. One car may make a great difference to your life. The fourth car just gives you the choice whether you will go there in the sedan or the convertible. One crust of bread may save a man from starvation; a thousand crusts would simply be a litter problem... industrial civilisations have reached the point where a majority of the population is consuming goods which yield only marginal satisfactions."

p41 Colin Moorcroft, AD 'Design for Survival' issue, July 1972,
"It is a patent fraud for the rich nations to pretend that the poor nations will ever be able to consume equal amounts of resources. They are prevented from doing this by more than economic controls: they are prevented by the fact that there isn't anything like enough to go around..."

Criticises advanced tech. as part of problem keeping world's poor in state of poverty: "The new technology is more than an unsuccessful alternative to previous technologies: it actively blocks any other ways out."

"An autonomous house has to depend on the resources that can be collected on its site, and the technology that it uses to harvest these resources needs to be simple, robust and controllable by the occupants. Only in this way will the inhabitants of the house gain that sense of control which will allow them to use their share of the Earth's resources sensibly."

The 'more or less libertarian' utopias are by Morris in 1891, Wells 1923, Mannin 1944, Huxley 1962, Le Guin 1974, Callenbach 1975, Piercy 1976 and Vale 1982. The others are more or less authoritarian. All the libertarian ones use 'alternative technology' (technology that helps people, rather than enslaves them) and the authoritarian ones use conventional technology. 'Walden 2' is the exception, a libertarian society ruled by a benevolent elite of behavioural psychologists- people have actually formed communities based on this book, unsurprisingly these communities seem formulated mainly of behavioural psychologists so I guess they're just telling each other what to do!

Could you explain the process by which this highly structured society evolves from what we have now? I'm genuinely interested, thanks for the link. From what I've just read, I can't see this happening and can't see it explained on the site. The abstract is merely a vague overview of the society and seems to omit important practicalities. If you have a deeper knowledge, I'd be grateful if you could explain it.



Fraternity? In the economic sphere? How do we turn greed into fraternity? These three spheres seem contrived and it's not explained how they're created or upheld. This society looks very rigid, so difficult to keep ordered. Personally I don't have an issue with the relative anarchism that we have now, if we can regulate it a little differently.



So the creatives get all the money? Haha, ok I'm sold But when I die my money goes to some other creative, and allocated by whom? Maybe a creative elite will form. Hitler was an artist... I don't know if any other artists ever got into power historically? Creatives can be a little extreme.



Whoa, these creatives have a hell of a lot of influence, what's the background of the authors? As I say, creatives can be extreme. And how can one seriously say only creatives are capable of judging? We all possess different mixes of the same qualities, we're not one or the other.



I've heard this before, from the odd dissident creative, and I suspect that's why countries like India don't respect copyright. Good luck getting inventors to invent without any economic incentive (what other incentive is there in this society, how are they earning their living, the economics aren't explained at all). Reminds me of pre-industrial revolution times, when philosophy and science had little money in them and were the pursuits only of aristocrats and monks... look how much faster we progress now, compared to how long it took back then. Invention is born of necessity, which is why so many breakthroughs are made during wartime. Without an economic necessity (and let's hope no war either), won't innovation slow down to a crawl?

Thanks for the link though. I once came across a really interesting one that claimed to be endorsed by Chomsky, where everyone voted each year how to allocate the world's resources, then worked towards those goals for the rest of the year. Think it's name started with an N or M (wish I'd saved the link, and read up on it properly before losing it!), does anyone know the one I'm talking about?

First i would say that instead of there being no such thing as the greater good, there being no such thing as a free market is closer to the truth.

I dissaprove of communism and all of it's variations (wich might inlcude socialism, if you don't include most of the EU's or US's political systems in socialist systems).
Karl Marx has made the mistake to pledge for revolution or at least to consider revolution as inevitable. Guys like Saddam Hoessein have demonstrated effectively that revolutions in even the most rotten systems can be prevented.
The analasys that a total free market will implode always, has on the other hand been proven true more then once.
An unregulated free market does not exist, and everytime it nearly exists, like recently in the U.S, it implode's.
There realy is no invissible hand, burnt.

What many people fail to see is that many a system like 'democracy' or 'free market', does not exist out of one single rule or condition, but a set of rules and conditions that can be coherent only to a certain extent.
Look at it like drawing a map of the earth; There are vertical, straight lines on it that are parallel. You can for a very long time have people walking these straight,parallel lines, but because of the earth being round, eventually their roads will cross.
In every system, eventually some of it's dogma's will contradict eachother or some of it's rules simply won't work.

My idea about political systems is (like with many other systems as well), that they will best work if you have another system that tells us how the initial system is supposed to be aplied. The U.S. constitution was mentioned before and it is a good example of a set of SIMPLE rules that could be aplied to another set of rules (the actual rules of society), to make that set of rules function properly.

The rules of society can be complex, but you need simple principles that tell what purpose these complex rules have. Why did we have these laws in the first place? The rules themselves cannot answer that question, so we need to have other rules that can help us answer this question.
This can be simple and vague, philosophical descriptions or statements like; "everybody deserves to be free", or "we need to create an environment in wich for an as large amount of people, it is possible to reach the greatest possible happyness".
Then, we can judge how a law or any other governing principle, ought to be aplied to reach the described goals.

It wasn't just for some. Almost everyone in that society was happy. It was a sin not to be. Only rarely would one have issues with their conditioning and the society they live in. It's dystopian for the reader. Ignorance is bliss. Of course, you're right. It is science fiction after all, but realistic in a way. Cloning. Genetic engineering. That shit is going to have a serious effect.

I agree with burnt. Liberty must be the key. The liberty to be happy or unhappy. It goes without saying that if everyone was happy art would definitely suffer as a result. I believe it was Deepak Chopra that said something about the discontent mind and this and that...illusions mmm bmm hmm mmb...

Excellent topic!

I'll got lots to say, just give me some time!

I've now watched 'The Money Masters'. I'm familiar with the ideas from other internet videos like 'Money as Debt' (a more concise watch) and didn't find it surprising when I watched them because, as is obvious, I have no faith in unrestrained capitalism- which IS the only capitalism there is- any enforced regulation is a socialist action, thus making a mixed rather than capitalist system. It is important not to identify 'socialism' merely with Karl Marx and communism, and acknowledge that there are many different forms of socialism, and that the word 'socialism' has been demonised in the States by the corrupt elite. Noam Chomsky, an American and I hear currently the third most quoted philosopher in the world, is a 'libertarian socialist'. This is not a socialist in the common understanding of the word, and actually is more just the American word for a form of anarchist. Remember, I am not a socialist either- I advocate a mixture of strategies, something as yet without a name, and I'll give a more precise outline soon. Manipulation of markets by the rich has been going on as long as civilisation itself- the video starts in biblical times- and I therefore see it as a product of capitalism. I'm not saying that other political standpoints don't have problems, far from it, I am critical of all standpoints and believe a mix of the current polarised strategies is essential.

Blanket bias against socialism was my first criticism of 'The Money Makers' as I watched. The video was fine until it started muddling the enormous umbrella term 'socialism' as a whole with communism, insinuated using quotes at about 2hrs15mins. I find it strange how he rails against the scheming megarich but just assumes that they'll stop meddling if he sorted out the banks. I suspect a possible misquotation of Lenin used to fit into the video's conspiracy theory but I don't have the time to verify that. Then at about 2:45 the presenter says that Ian Fleming, author of the James Bond novels, was the head of M15! Absolute bullshit! Fleming was nothing more than an intelligence office in Naval Intelligence during the war- an assistant- then became a writer again in peacetime. At this point the video lost all credibility in my eyes. The guy is a joker. Then he says that some people say Ian Flaming wrote these stories (Goldfinger in particular) as a warning to the world, thus insinuating to the viewer that this is to believed. Fleming also wrote Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, what terrible conspiracy is he trying to tell us about in that then?! I wonder what other bullshit a historian or economist could sniff out. He says how the banking conspiracy is "the real reason why both parents now have to work"- I would say it was because the market responded to the increase in available labour due to the emancipation of women during WW2 by a gradual relative lowering of wages. The video's constant repetition is a hardsell techique. The whole video was dragged out, another hardsell technique, I was so bored by the one hour mark but stuck it out somehow. He talks about the growing gap between rich and poor- this is the inevitable result of capitalism, I'm afraid. He tells people to buy silver and gold to survive depression at the end, which made him seem a bit survivalist (the guys scared stiff of the 'New World Order', and contradicts his earlier rants against metal money. In any case, gold and silver is worthless if society crumbles- only that which is necessary to survive will have value: land, food, fuel and tools. If you want to live life in a bomb shelter in constant fear, then buy these, not silver and gold! And he predicted this massive economic meltdown as happening in 1996- 12 years ago, and what's happening now isn't necessarily going to be a meltdown.

I was going to ask if anyone could give proof of the respectability of the source and who financed the video, but that became unnecessary once the narrator had discredited himself so obviously. I'm not saying it's all bullshit, I'm just saying that that video lacks credibility. Sorry.

The Bank of England was nationalised after the war so my government controls my central bank already, rendering much of the video irrelevant to the UK. What is your capitalist solution for the USA? Because this step is a socialist one, instigated by a socialist Labour government in the UK. It's not a capitalist strategy, the capitalist way is to privatise, privatise, privatise. Sell the rain. If anything, this entire video is a damnation of capitalism unbeknown to the narrator, showing how it enables the accumulation of wealth and power to the extent that individuals can dominate and manipulate society to their own ends.

I'm not sure why we're arguing though, we're both libertarian! Ok, I'm going to formulate my first proposals, then you guys are free to savage it! And generate your own alternatives, maybe we'll end up with something great!

Well ohayoco, you made clear that capitalism and free-markets are not the same thing.
Karl marx sayed the same thing.
This is another thing where i think burnt is making a mistake; what's good for me doesn't have to be good for you or anybody else. But to create an atmosphere where everybody is free and able to decide for himself what 'good' is, means automaticcaly that there's a common interest and that there IS a greater good (just not defined in socialist terms).
For all the people who live in california, having precautions taken for when an earthquake hits is part of this greater good and for all the people living in new-orleans or the netherlands (where i live), having a good system of levee's and evacuation plans is part of this greater good as well.
When people don't have to pay taxes, nobody will be able to help them when real shitty things happen. When there's no central bank or regulatory mechanisms in the financial sector, some people will get rich by committing fraud, and many people will lose money becausse of this. And banks will fall, and putting your money on a bank will be so risky, that there won't be any trust in and within this sector and therefore it will cease to exist, like it almost did recently.
What adam smith realy meant when laying the foundations of economical philosphy, is that people need rules and a 'greater good' and therefore, even in chaotic situations will strive towards creating some sort of order; spontaneous order. This is no argument for anarchy at all.

Secondly; consider my thoughts on systems and meta-systems. You really cannnot have a system that's detailed as well as consistent, that aplies to every possible situation. When you have a system of complex rules, or a complex system of (simple) rules, you need to have a simple system, with simple rules in order to steer the complex system. A rule or ideology by itself cannot justify itself, so there needs something else that can justify it, of wich the truth is as certain as can be. For methodological reasons this other thing must be simple then, so it cannot be the system of rules on wich society is based, itself. Therefor a two-layered system is most practical in the first place, and more able to conduct and express true moral principles in the second place. Any other system will at one point become too complex, too bureaucratic, too rigid and coldhearted and too unpractical because of its complexity and rigidness.

Marx's view of history was brilliant, but his conclusions and projections were flawed, and as Bookchin argued are now completely outdated.

Good point, there is a difference between utilitarian 'greater good' which I view as oppressive, in contrast to 'greater good' in the form of co-operation for mutual benefit. I've come across widely accepted studies showing that co-operation benefits both a group and the individual within the group more than competition... but it only works when a certain proportion of that group act co-operatively. I came across this in management psychology books, and found similar themes explored in the introduction to evolutionary psychology that I read recently.

Could you explain your system/metasystem with examples, I don't understand what you mean when you talk about it abstractly? Do you mean one dominant theory such as capitalism doing the big stuff, with a smaller socialist function overlaid to regulate it?