Lest we forget wrote:

---

...I agree that there is no perfect system and I assume that a perfect system is probably impossible to achieve.  This is why I am suspicious of utopian thinking.   I would suggest that we will probably get an improved system if we maximize economic freedom and choice.  The twentieth century has a very sorry record of replacing flawed systems with systems that would supposedly lead to utopia but that actually led to disaster and mass murder.  This is why the "utopian temptation" needs to be resisted. ...

  If you could point to a real society that is an improvement on ours, doing so would give your suggestions greater credibility. For instance, I could say, "I want a society that does not use fossil fuels."  (Actually, I DO want such a society.)  However, the fact that no such society presently exists implies that there are difficulties in achieving such a goal.  I am not saying that the goal cannot be achieved; I am simply suggesting that it may be a more difficult goal to achieve in reality than it is to imagine in some utopia.      

---

Sorry, LWF, the discussion has become confused.  I was trying to point out that your opponents were discussing the flaws in our present system, but you accused them of unfairly comparing our system to utopia.   You demanded they point out a system that was better that actually existed.  I was trying to show that is not the question to ask because it doesn't lead anywhere. 

You use "word association" to relate the word "utopia" to relatively modern systems that failed. It is possible to discuss problems in our present system (which may be the best yet) and how to improve it without ever trying to answer the question you ask.

Question:  Do you think our modern society which only existed a few hundred years so far is better than primitive societies that have existed for eons without destroying their environment? Is a few people living "high on the hog" for a short time better than many people living "low on the hog" for eons?

Question: Do you think our modern society which only existed a few hundred years so far is better than primitive societies that have existed for eons without destroying their environment? Is a few people living "high on the hog" for a short time better than many people living "low on the hog" for eons?

The short answer is yes. The long answer is yes, and anyone who says no can demonstrate that they prefer the previous standard's of living by giving their resources to charity and go live a miserable life in poverty.

Patriot wrote:

---

 Sorry, LWF, the discussion has become confused.  I was trying to point out that your opponents were discussing the flaws in our present system, but you accused them of unfairly comparing our system to utopia.  

---

Yes, I did accuse them of doing that, because that is what I think they are (and have been) doing, on this thread and on previous threads.  All I am asking is that they point to an actual system that really does exist (or has existed) that is superior to western capitalism.  The fact that they continually ignore this simple request speaks volumes.  It is easy to criticize western capitalism; it is much harder to point to an alternative system that has ever worked better.

As for your other question (about the virtues of primitive societies), I think that Cossack's response is about right.  In the meantime, if you have some practical, workable suggestions for solving the problems created by western capitalism (suggestions that do not involve the slaughter of millions of people, since those kinds of solutions have already been tried), I am sincerely interested in hearing them.  Thanks!

Cossack and Superannuated didn't really answer my question.  I didn't ask, "What system/culture you like the best?" I asked what system is better.  So you have to consider what better means.  I tried to suggest a definition by pointing out the more primitive culture can last eons in their environment, while our current system may be winding down after a couple on centuries.  It really depends, among many other environmental problems, on our planet making a transition from fossil fuel in the next few decades as China, India and other nation further develop.  LVN comes closer to an answer.  The point I tried to make is the life expectancy of the individual is not as relevant if the system can't last.  (Long time low on the hog vs. short time high on the hog) 

In my opinion, this is why the question Lest We Forget asked ("What system is better than we have now"?) is a question to end discussion.  At best you are left with the answer, "Our present system is the best yet, I love it, but it has major problems so let us get back to the real discussion.  

Finally, I'm not suggesting we return to primitive society.  I'm not even suggesting how to correct the problems we presently have.  I was following and enjoying the discussion between Off the plantation, Lest We forget, Mr. Capitalist and others.  When LWF asked the question above, I took it as a "USA, Love it or Leave it" type statement.  I just wanted to point out it doesn't lead anywhere except the ending of discussion.  Note the discussion did end.  I would like that discussion to continue so we can find was to solve our problems. I'm sorry if I contributed to that discussion ending.

Patriot wrote:

---

  In my opinion, this is why the question Lest We Forget asked ("What system is better than we have now"?) is a question to end discussion.  At best you are left with the answer, "Our present system is the best yet, I love it, but it has major problems so let us get back to the real discussion.   Finally, I'm not suggesting we return to primitive society.  I'm not even suggesting how to correct the problems we presently have.  I was following and enjoying the discussion between Off the plantation, Lest We forget, Mr. Capitalist and others.  When LWF asked the question above, I took it as a "USA, Love it or Leave it" type statement.  I just wanted to point out it doesn't lead anywhere except the ending of discussion.  Note the discussion did end.  I would like that discussion to continue so we can find was to solve our problems. I'm sorry if I contributed to that discussion ending.

---

Patriot,

Bidness Person has actually tried to answer the question I have been asking.  We are now in a position to have a real, empirical discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of US capitalism vs the systems in the Netherlands and Scandanavia.  We are no longer in the frustrating position of comparing the US to Utopia; we can now compare and contrast the US with countries that really do exist.  I look forward to this discussion (although I have to get to work right now, so I won't be able to contribute to it immediately).

The only reason discussion had ended whenever I asked the question previously is that OtP, Angeline, and others apparently never had the intestinal fortitude to step up to the plate and try to offer an answer, as Bidness Person has now done.  Frankly, I was surprised that the others never offered the answer Bidness Person has now offered; it seems the obvious answer to my question.  Who knows, though?  Maybe even the kind of economics practiced in Scandanavia is insufficiently socialist to satisfy OtP and his comrades.

A bidness person wrote:

---

The closest to a “utopia” appears to be the societies of the Netherlands, Norway and a few of their neighbors. Not perfect, but stressing equal opportunity and freedom. A bit less “cowboy capitalism” than we find here as we enter what seems to be a new gilded era.

---

I've lived in both these countries.Your idea of utopia is ridiculous. If you like living in a dwelling of 800 square feet and you like taking public transportation everywhere and you enjoy paying the majority of your income in taxes and you think $7 a beer is about right and you are happy to support a public family of drug addicts ,these are the spots to be.

LWF-these are great links.I thank you

Cossack wrote:

---

Patriot, The word better has no meaning without metric of measurement. It is equivalent to "greater than" which requires a comparison between two objects based on a metric. You have not defined the metric. Do we have more and better food? Do we have more and better health care? Are we safer from physical danger? Do we have longer expected life spans? The answers to these questions are yes. If you are going to ask the question, provide the metric by which you want the comparisons measured. You appear to have some metric in mind, it is not obvious, but I have a feeling that you want the answer to be that today is not better than 1000 years ago. I have heard about folks who want to go back to the good old days, but the Amish and some other sects are the only ones I see acting on their beliefs.

---

Yes, Cossack, that is why I kept bring up more primitive societies.  I consider the "best" system to be one that can last eons in harmony with the environment.  More of a steady state system than what we have now.  Most posters here seem to only look at what they get out of the current system now with little view of the future.  They look at Gross National Product and ignore Entropy or the destruction of resources.  We must consider both Entropy production in addition to GNP.   If you look only at what you like then the "best" system is you as emperor of the planet.  I'm discussing what is best for the most people over the longest period of time.

I don't think the discussion leads anywhere when we answer Lest We Forgets question.  Poster  A states country Y has a better system and then several links are posted showing why that isn't true.  In my opinion, all discussion of how to correct our problems ends and is replaced by canned political positions of the left and right.  

I will sit back and read the discussions if posters ever start addressing solutions to our problems instead of patting our system on the back for currently being the best. 

Lest - your post could be countered on so many levels, but let me start with one: tell me where you will find clean natural water in the United States that you can safely drink directly from the stream or the river or the lake?  You can't - it is all contaminated with pollution and bacteria.  Could you do this 150 years ago in most parts of the country?  Yes.  So, what happened?

Black Cat wrote:

---

Lest - your post could be countered on so many levels, but let me start with one: tell me where you will find clean natural water in the United States that you can safely drink directly from the stream or the river or the lake?  You can't - it is all contaminated with pollution and bacteria.  Could you do this 150 years ago in most parts of the country?  Yes.  So, what happened?

---

We developed an industrial economy that produced a high material standard of living and an agricultural system that doesn't require that 95% of the population be involved in farming. FWIW the water in the U.S. is much cleaner than it was 50 years ago.

Lest we forget wrote:

---

Black Cat wrote: Lest - your post could be countered on so many levels, but let me start with one: tell me where you will find clean natural water in the United States that you can safely drink directly from the stream or the river or the lake?  You can't - it is all contaminated with pollution and bacteria.  Could you do this 150 years ago in most parts of the country?  Yes.  So, what happened? If you'd prefer to have lived in the US as it was 150 years ago, I wish you well.  I'd prefer to live in the US as it is today, with clean tap water, sanitation systems, flush toilets, and all the other evil consequences of rampant capitalism.

---

We seem to talk past each other.  I never said I preferred to live in a primitive society, because I'm not discussing "what I like".  I'm discussing what is best for the most people for the longest period of time.  While you say, "I'd prefer to live in the US as it is today, with clean tap water, sanitation systems, flush toilets, and all the other evil consequences of rampant capitalism."   But will you like to live here 100 years from now, or longer? 

Would you like to be king for life if it meant everyone else must suffer?  This is why we talk past each other with no progress.  In my opinion, our present system is in trouble and can't last.

In an earlier post you state:

"I would suggest instead (1) that predictions of ecological disaster in the past have been greatly exaggerated and also self-contradictory (back in the 70s people were predicting the coming of a new ice age; now they are predicting global warming), and (2) that the same technological skills that cause problems can also help solve them, and therefore (3) that, on the whole, we are better off with a technological society than with a primitive, non-technological one."

(1) essentially says the problems I see don't exist.  (2) and (3) seems to say technology is magic and will solve our problems without us changing our system.  

 

I'm discussing what is best for the most people for the longest period of time.

This statement is nonsensical. Again your posts consist of general statements about incredibly complex issues. There is no way to determine the best for the most over time because this means that you have knowledge about conditions over time, which you do not. Also, you presume to know the utility function of individuals who will live in the future. Human beings have never taken into account the ramifications of their actions in the future if the future is a century away. All humans have a rate of discount about the future that varies from one to the other. But, they all have a positive discount rate and that means that the value of something 100 years from is worth zero to them. Hence they will not change their activities today to save the world for people who will live 100 years from now. If you have an answer for your own question, spit it out and we can have a meaningful discussion. Otherwise, the discussion will continue to be a game of semantics about what you really mean.

Three R's wrote:

---

Your time frame of 150 years is an unrealistic comparison. A better comparison is 50 years ago. I'll go first. The public schools were much better 50 years ago than they are today. I have no doubt about that.

---

I suspect you're right; technologically we have improved in the last 50 years, but in many other ways we have declined.

Three R's wrote:

---

Your time frame of 150 years is an unrealistic comparison. A better comparison is 50 years ago. I'll go first. The public schools were much better 50 years ago than they are today. I have no doubt about that.

---

Schools may or may not have been better, but they did turn out a better product. That was primarily a reflection of the fact that lots of poor and minority children dropped out quite young, and families were much more stable then. Also, society tended to respect/fear authority much more then. Today's teachers must deal with psychological and social problems not seen by the teacher of the 50s, and they must endure parents and administrators who do not support them.