What is the most ideal society that you can think of?

>communist calling someeone gay

>girls are icky
>i-im not gay
ok lad

You didn't say anything about rights, you said society without women, and that shit is ULTRA GAY, so no, thank you.

>a fag
>literal cocksucker
>calling anyone a cuck

>if you hate pussy you must love cock

Not even the gayest of the gays I know would think a society without any females is a good thing.

You have transcended gay-ness, you have become something above the gay, like quantum-gay or cosmological-gay.

>internationalist society where there are so many ethnicities that no one ethnicity can form its own voting bloc and vote themselves unearned privilege. True merit is the only accepted measurement of success. The government is expressly secular in all its dealings. Population growth is stimulated by immigration policy which makes earning citizenship a simple and inexpensive, yet prolonged and educational process for anyone who can pass a background check.
>heavy distributism means that no corporation may ever be allowed to own a majority share of its own industry. Banks are strictly regulated and kept separate to prevent an economic oligarchy from leveraging credit to bully competitors out of their markets.
>Small businesses are privileged over any other kind, tax policy promotes localism and a dynamic, decentralized economy, specifically empowering rural communities to support their nearby urban areas.
>Other than checks on corporations growing too large, regulations are kept light and labor laws are kept pro-employer.
>localized militias provide integrated domestic and foreign security as citizen-soldiers, trading efficiency for cultural integration between civilian and armed services. Foreign military engagement is only permitted through a referendum vote by all standing militia members who would be mobilized into a professional standing force.
>private schools and homeschooling is forbidden: every child attends public schools which are lavishly well funded and fully equipped to promote not just the gifted but also those of ordinary talent, preparing them for lives of skilled trade and small time business owners. Students of all ethnicities are mixed in equal proportions, individual merit and patrotism are strongly stressed, military style uniforms are mandatory. Adult re-education programs are available for free for any citizen. State promoted science provide R and D for the private market while state promoted arts fosters a sense of national unity.

Go cry to mommy about it as she bleeds to death, cuntcuck

>private schools and homeschooling is forbidden
You were doing good up until this part.

A free federation of anarchist communes such as in Catalonia and Aragon in 1936 to 1939.
>Libertarian gommunism
Yeah, or that

Once enough goods have been made for everyone and communism is possible. Also having reached Hegels absolute where there can be no more change in society.

Sounds interesting, but not so much in my taste. Wouldn't the rich just go and send their children abroad to study at a better school- even to a neighboring country?

There are more than enough goods available for communism to be possible. At least in the western world

It has to be this way. Every child must be indoctrinated into loving their country and rational methodologies in an environment which is totally devoid of local prejudice. An exception could be made for higher institutions like MIT, which are privately financed research institutions. But young kids aren’t improved by “the Hogwarts Experience” at exclusive private schools while the masses languish without opportunity in the public system

The point is lavishing public institutions so well as to favor the middle class over the others. Sure, if the wealthy need their exclusive pedigree in some foreign college, they can go there and stay there. We’d rather keep the ones who are willing to work hard without demanding special privileges

No one said that the public system has to suck, but banning homeschooling and private education just reeks of an authoritarian attempt to ban diversity of thought.

Wait, the other user is Jon Snow?

America prior to the Mexican-American War, which was based on the farmer-citizen of the Roman Republic.

>Every child must be indoctrinated into loving their country and rational methodologies in an environment which is totally devoid of local prejudice.
Except that doesn't fucking work.

>being bombarded by "FUCK WHITE PEOPLE" and drugged repeatedly
Nah but nice try

>But young kids aren’t improved by “the Hogwarts Experience” at exclusive private schools
Huh, that's weird considering my kid grew up with a classical education, can speak Latin, and is going to a prestigious business uni whereas most kids raised by the state and public schools are high-functioning retards that can't spell "definitely."

Nonsense, diversity of thought is fostered through localism. The point of school is to prepare students for a life of fruitful diversity of thought by teaching them methodologies that actually work.

>hey, my kid does well when saddled in the lap of privilege
At the cost of hundreds of enterprising young minds who deserve it more than they do

Nazi Germany with Islam.

The hell are you on about.

>The point of school is to prepare students for a life of fruitful diversity of thought by teaching them methodologies that actually work.
That's an incredibly naive perception of public schooling. "Fruitful diversity" equates to intellectual dilution and lowering of acceptable academic standards.

A society where women are treated like shit all the time.

...

>posts something that never existed

Sounds like a "benevolent" dictatorship. I hate it.

Nonsense, that’s just an illusion of public schools formed from generations of underfunding and declining regulatory standards turning them into shitholes. In the places with well funded public schools, they are among the finest schools in the world, and attract the finest talent. You get what you pay for

Nah, the point of decentralizing the economy is that you can promote increasingly democratic forms as a larger number of property owners promotes civic participation and prevents one person or institution from monopolizing political power

>diversity of thought is fostered through localism
Then the entire thing is pointless. What could be more local than the individual and his family?

His extended family and his local community, obviously.

Men are not islands unto themselves, they base their sense of meaning as a sense of belonging, and localism promotes that

>His extended family and his local community, obviously.
No, that's less local. The more you expand it the less local it is.

>Men are not islands unto themselves, they base their sense of meaning as a sense of belonging
Any proof of this? Because I don't think that meaning need derive from others, and in fact I think the best meaning and morality is located entirely in yourself, separate from any other person or entity.

Through all my studies of History and human societes I went to different ideas of what an ideal society would be.
Each time I am disapointed by how any ideal form of society would immediatly be corrupt or inefficient.
>Libertarianism
A society that is unable to take care of its poors is doomed to fail. Every civilization must have a way to insure distributivism.
>Communism
Any instance where it is tried, petty competitions for local power allows corruption and ambitious people to thrive.
>Religious universalism
Any theocracy would just become the new core of corruption, with bishops or imams using their unquestionnable authority to live in luxury at the expanse of society
>Local democracy
Eventually only those who have the priviledge to pursue a political career will keep on representing the 'interests' of their community ; Any democracy soon turns into oligarchy.

For a perfect society to come in place, you need to erase competition for natural ressources, you need to control lands and the geography ; But Earth isn't just a big map. You would have to erase national borders, languages, traditions to impose this ; and it is always at the expanse, often violent, of someone else, so I wonder if it is always worth it.
In the end I think that no society could ever be ideal and we have to do with what we have today, and answer to problems instead of concepts.

Mamluk Egypt but with German occultism

The only proof I need is the 99% of human history when people belonged to small, tight knit communities that leave us feeling satisfied and part of something bigger. Large, impersonal institutions simply lack long term viability because they simply don’t jive with human evolutionary values, as the communists learned so painfully in their attempts to centralize the entire economy in the 20th century. The point of these “ideal” societies is that everyone feels like they contributed something meaningful.

Enlightened absolutism (under my rule)

Hyperborean proto fascism led by divine Wotanist shaman kings
>t. Von List

the united states of america

We must have different ideas of what it means to have a satisfied life then. For me the ideal time to be an American was during the expansion of the frontier, when you could go out and settle the land with nothing but you and your family, alone on the farm in the middle of the wilderness. I don't feel like community has given me meaning, in fact the times I've felt the most meaning are when I've been alone in nature, not with other people.

2010's USA

I don't know, your whole argument sounds pretty fucking gay

Different strokes for different folks my man. I hope you can still find what you are looking for some place.

My hope would be to set up a cabin in Alaska someday and maybe go there on the weekends and vacations

>erase competition for natural resources
What about competition for attention? Or for social status or influence? Is motivation a resource? Do you want to take all resources away from all people?
>You would have to erase national borders, languages, traditions
>Destroying things is a good idea.

>answer to problems instead of concepts
That I agree with

>most ideal society
Almost all possible labour replaced by machines. For the small number of human labourers who remain, labour is their part-time job: their primary jobs are either in service or in research like most people. Population size is constant due to naturally low birth rate. Low stress because there can't be a housing crisis and everybody shares the same core culture. If a drop in the number of workers for some kind of job occurs, the problem isn't to be solved by importing lots of foreigners but by retraining natives. Strong emphasis on education, with teachers who are given great freedom.

To achieve this nothing would have to be destroyed: people naturally develop tools and technologies to make life easier and birth rates in developed countries are decreasing. Perhaps the only thing that would need to be destroyed is citizens' feelings of inadequacy of they don't really contribute enough as they (or we) would like, which is where education and society come into play.

Fuck off Plato

The Culture

>Other than checks on corporations growing too large, regulations are kept light and labor laws are kept pro-employer.

Explain how this is a good thing.

I also don't think completely limiting the chances for corporations to get mega-huge is a good idea. Obviously you need limitts to prevent them from amassing absurd power, but so many things we have in society is only possible thanks to the insane captial that mega-corps like media companies and google can throw around.

I'd rather you limit what corporations can do via making employees have more power and via regulations, that still allows companies to get big enough to do shit like fund multi million dollar movies or research shit in google's case but stop them from abusing society and their workers

>Almost all possible labour replaced by machines. For the small number of human labourers who remain, labour is their part-time job: their primary jobs are either in service or in research like most people. Population size is constant due to naturally low birth rate. Low stress because there can't be a housing crisis and everybody shares the same core culture. If a drop in the number of workers for some kind of job occurs, the problem isn't to be solved by importing lots of foreigners but by retraining natives. Strong emphasis on education, with teachers who are given great freedom.
>To achieve this nothing would have to be destroyed: people naturally develop tools and technologies to make life easier and birth rates in developed countries are decreasing. Perhaps the only thing that would need to be destroyed is citizens' feelings of inadequacy of they don't really contribute enough as they (or we) would like, which is where education and society come into play.

This has the same issue communism has: the people controlling the resources/machines are the ones in power, and petty bullshit and greed wiill cause them to abuse it.

Switzerland

Touché

>Switzerland
Best answer
t. Swiss

The Third Reich

Bhutan

Fully automated luxury tribal primitivism.

Agricultural-industrial-technological civilization so far caused more suffering than it prevented, tribal hunter-gatherers had a much less stressful and more pleasant life than even modern first world men, not to mention the average prole in a country like India or China, working 12 hours a day in a polluted shithole. Civilization also disrupted the natural small human communities, creating huge, depressing cities and civil strife.

However, it's unfair to deny the benefits of technology, such as modern medicine, food and water security, transportation. So the best way to create an ideal society is to mix the benefits of primitivism and modernity, tuned to maximize human contentness and minimalize suffering.

>the land should be divided between the living area and where production takes place
>in the production areas, automated factories producing medication and basic food items that get distributed to the populace
>hospitals are available for more advanced health care
>in the living areas nature is restored to pre-civilization state
>people however live in tribal villages
>basic canned foods are provided for free so noone starves but to eat well you need to hunt and gather
>no settlement with a population over 1000 people, because humans evolved to live in small scale, close knit societies
>tribes have monogamous families but homosexuality or not marrying is tolerated
>religion is practiced because it's proven that religious people tend to be more content. Buddhism or Taoism seems like a good choice.
>travelling abroad is permitted because couriosity is a natural trait, transportation technology is provided.
>a central government exists to oversee the production and maintain the status quo, tribal chiefs report to them
>tribes must provide some of their youth to be trained as technicians and administrators and work with the central government - it would be a harder life but considered a great honor.

bump

Ancient Israel.

If people deserve something they have it.

>Libertarian gommunism
????????

>this thread

America circa 1957

Today's Switzerland. It's very decentralised with more power to local governments(with a federal rule of law). An ideal society would be anarchists one, where everyone just gets along with each other (which I don't think is possible any time soon)

t. Cuck

>Anarchist

So just a nightmare composed on the whims of an autist?

Imagine an Islamic state with Confucian bureaucracy and a populace with a philosophy similar to Confucianism, minus the whole ancestor worship bit.

My nigga

This