why is this quesion of theoretica relevant? what bearing does this theoretical origin scenario have on what constitutes an ideal state?

oh i see, because you asked it. ha. i don't know, you never really have a clearly designated point where state and state of nature split. i think that what you find instead is that what is today identified as the state and bureaucracy and governance all go back and correspond with earlier bio-social developments.

in a sense, if you go far enough back, the institutions of the state ultimately blend in with the trees - the demands living with other creatures in say a forest ecosystems imposes on each individual biological entity a state which is more like the modern state than merely a state of nature. i guess i'm saying state of nature is illusory category, internally problematic, with no empirical referent. so why would you choose to abandon state of nature is beside the point which is rather we have evolved the state as part of our very state of nature in the same way that we have evolved our bodies.

@ obiwanobiwan:

We are not animals. This is both good and bad at the same time.

It means we're capable of higher forms of thought and sensibility (1), and it means we're also capable of higher forms of destruction (2).

The first (1) is why we CAN create a society with binding rules and social ties, rights and responsabilities, and the second (2) is why we SHOULD create it.

That's pretty simplistic, I know, but this is a forum thread...

What about a system out lined by Heinlin in his Star Ship Trooper (the book not the lame movie). Only those who put their life and limb on the line in voluntary service to the state can vote or hold office. All others have limited rights such as a fair trial, an education, property rights, etc, but have no power in the goverment. Those rights earned are not hereditary, each generation must earn them anew.

g50: Prats like you are the people who lead to the murder of 20 million in the Soviet Union. It's all about "success". Who cares if we take away all the freedom from the people and a few million happen to die.
In response to the "why" question- because I believe people should have the freedom to do whatever the hell they want in their own country so long as it doesn't fuck stuff up for other people. So if someone fuck's themselves with heroin, it's there own look out. If they as an individual had made a decision to get insurance, they'd be alright. If not, it's their own lookout.

Xapi, we shouldn't have one with arbitrary regulation- only regulation in the sense of protecting people's lives- so police should be provided, but not education.

I disagree with you. But I don't feel like entering a huge debate, I just wanted to answer obiwan's question, "Why a state, why not just 'natural law'".

And in my view, education falls under "rights".

@ RB: You really think everything that happens to anyone is just a matter of the choices they make? If you do, you really are delusional.

so RB are you now in favour of government supported medical care? cause that's about protecting people's lives, and science research to futher our understanding of medicine?

how about drugs companies?

I'm with you on minimal regualtion of the economy, and social freedoms/privacy; but the money system - which allows the economy to function needs to be controlled - because regulating the money supply is really important to prevent either excessive inflation or deflation - and I can't imagine completely unregulated financial institutions providing a stable or successful economic system, until they form a monopoly.

Also monopoly breaking regulations are specifically called for even by Adam Smith (the founder of the idea that the government shouldn't be invovled in economic deisions)

Re: Altruism - maybe i should have said: I believe humans are capable of helping each other on the basis of an idea that they will recieve the same help in a similar situation.

RE: animals: Yes we are and they can act Alturistically aswell - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070625085134.htm
to quote: "in two comparative experiments, they found that both chimpanzees and human infants helped altruistically regardless of any expectation of reward, even when some effort was required, and even when the recipient was an unfamiliar individual--all features previously thought to be unique to humans."

It doesn't matter what you call it if this is true then it is something which can be encouraged/taken advantage of in our 'perfect' society.

I am in favour of liberalisation of drug laws, and they regulation of the sale of cannabis - or decriminalisation of growth and possesian but not sale of cannabis (to cut the supply of cash to drugs gangs) - also it should be recognised by society that some drugs are more addictive, more difficult to withdraw from, more likely to f**k up your life, as opposed to 'say no to all drugs' - because once it is revealed to a young person that the government message contains some b*llsh*t they are more likely to experiment with other more dangerous drugs - a policy which was closer to the medically understood reality would be more useful (and the UK government just fired their scientific advisor for saying something like this)

Altruistic Rats: First Evidence For Generalized Reciprocal Cooperation In Non-Humans

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070703173345.htm

that's nonsense britannia, i am nothing but pro-american. but i have no illusions about how my country operates. it is an authoritarian and hierarchical system - the point is that though its promise of freedom is largely illusory, it nevertheless works to make productive people and a productive society. and so it is pretty close to the ideal state - effective and productive and like a machine.

Didn't say that. Don't see what that's got to do with government. I don't believe that the government''s job is to help everyone with their employment. Their job is to protect them from threats.

of course the government's job is to help everyone with their employment and general economic situation. economy is central to the security of the state. consumerism is the best national security strategy - consumerism is like the "democracies don't go to war" philosophy except for it's real. consumers don't resist - they indulge. an essential role of the state must be to maximize the ability of each and all to consume - which is ultimately not different-in-kind than how you may imagine the archaic banding together so that everyone is individually better off through the pack.

Oh, sorry g50- clearly misinterpreted what you said.
Oh and Orathaic, I accept that monopoly stopping regulation is needed.
And about all the issues you raise, I accept that these would be tough to overcome. I was talking about what I think would be perfect, not what I reckon could actually happen.

the ideal state would not have the highest productivity - it would have the highest happiness for ALL. Tools for individuals to work out how to best find happiness must be provided by the education system, progress in society is an important goal fortunately some people are willing to go in academia/science for reasons other than just making money (because they would always be able to make more money in industry instead of trying to do pure science/academic work) - and competition forces companies to develope new technologies aswell... though i think with a re-working of copyright and patent laws we could better push the sharing of ideas to help improve society as a whole; i'm not enirely sure how yet.

i mean, yes, basically what i believe is the philosophy of indian massacres, jim crow, hiroshima, vietnam and iraq - but even against these monstrosities, is there any doubt that america is the pinnacle of human social achievement?

i guess you are more defining the ideal state in terms of how people would view the state - so if everyone's happy, that makes their happiness itself validate the state as of things ideal. however i am understanding the question of ideal state to be what internal attributes of the operation of a state make for an ideal state itself, regardless of ideal maximization of happiness of populace. how does that ideal state work, what does it do. once acknowledging the prerogatives of the state as the some of the key architecture of society, then, at that point, you can include measurements of happiness as subsets. bottom line - build the roof, then paint the walls.

I honestly believe that less regulation etc leads to more happiness- leads to a more efficient and richer economy, and a better economy means everyone is better off. Maybe they don't get richer at the rate, but everyone gets richer.
A vast majority of people do think about money, rather than scientific advancement.

g50- I agree that the U.S is pretty good at the moment, but with the democrats running it, it's bound to get a whole lot worse.

@RB - i think your idea is that perfection means simply letting economic decisions be made by self-serving individuals - and i think this is only true for a limited circumstances - compulsory purchase (by the state) of all the assets, skills, research and knowledge of an industry (for a decent and high amount) and sharing of his knowledge and best practice between companies followed by resale of the assets divided into new companies (with the same base of knowledge available to them) could potentially improve the speed of new developments, the total productivity of an industry, and improve society faster than simply letting them compete. (also a decent price for the purchase and restructure would encourage investors to reinvest in that industry when it became available for sale again)

That allows for competition but also guarentee co-operation. (And so long as it was decided far enough ahead of time then it could be planned for and accounted into standard bussiness pratice)

Now i'm not saying this is workable - but it may be a mechanism for improving human development even faster than direct competition between various factions. Destroying what we have and rebuilding it from scratch is also useful to get rid of older obselete practices - and improve both efficiency and eventual performance. (that doesn't mean we should always destroy what we have, but we should consider it)

an ideal society today is dubai i think. everyone loves the sun sand and wealth. if money brought this great order and great fun in the sun , maybe an ideal society is one that is comparitively richer than all the other ones. i think that money brings order

@RB: "I honestly believe that less regulation...leads to more happiness"

yes, but there limits, some regulation is important to the funcioning of society. If you take the (simply) extreme view that ALL regulation should be removed then you will lose what you're seeking to create.

fuzz, sold. sounds like california, though.

britannia - lol. i think the democrats are doing tremendously well thanks to good leadership, despite the weakness of will and intellect among its spineless rank-and-file.

G

O

D