> Lior wrote:
[CLIP]
> > Me:
> > > What's wrong with buying choco-ice-cream in the nearby store?
> > Drakir:
> > > How would you apply such a metaphore to *actual* social structures?
> >
> > Ben & Jerry's can answer the demand for choco-ice-cream better than a
> > pro-choco-ice-cream social structre. i.e. In a free market you don't
> > necessarily have to produce your commodities by yourself. You can
> > concentrate on providing yourself with the means of purchasing whatever
> > you want.
>
> I see what you mean. But could this same thing be applied to political
> concepts such as freedom and equality?
Or even transportation infrastructure, or education....
State-like organizations are useful when the benefits of investment [like
the above] are inobvious to the myopic [which includes most humanity, at
present. I don't know whether education would fix this; it's worth a
try, but educating a fool/barbarian just produces an educated
fool/barbarian.]
> > Me:
> > > * What makes a society stable?
> > Drakir:
> > > Non conflicting laws. No prejudices. Education among the people.
> >
> > Let's focus on the idea of 'education among the people'. What does it
> > mean?
>
> It means that all the citizens are educated to a certain point, at
> a minimum, and the education goes far enough to make them "good"
> citiznes
Whatever that is. This depends on the operational details of the state.
> > Why is it needed for a stable society?
>
> Without education, prejudices flourish, and violence increases. This is
> the beginning of Anarchy and Chaos. Maybe that's desireable, but it should
> not be attained in this way.
Correct. My heuristics for an "ideal" state include extreme tolerance of
Anarchy and Chaos. I'm not adapted to such conditions, alas. Yet.
Education can be extremely useful.
In other words, said "ideal" state would be adapted to Anarchy and Chaos,
not disrupted by them.
Another angle:
In my heuristic "ideal" state, things like the ~5.5 Earthquake in Los
Angeles would not be declared a "state of emergency", because the
infrastructure wouldn't have been disrupted. This is as much a social
technology question as a physical technology question.
The Flood of 1993 would have needed better physical technology before the
above ideas would have had a chance.
> > How can it be reached?
>
> The state *must* provide it for the citizens, in it's own interest.