this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2023
0 points (50.0% liked)
Quark's
1097 readers
10 users here now
Come to Quark’s, Quark’s is Fun!
General off-topic chat for the crew of startrek.website. Trek-adjacent discussions, other sci-fi television, navigating the Fediverse, server meta (within reason), selling expired cases of Yamok sauce, it’s all fair game.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Anarchism. Not the radical burn-the-world-to-ashes kind but rather the kind where power is given to the individuals as a whole and every one of them directly decides how society is shaped. A society with no authority that can turn to tyranny and where everyone's needs are satisfied and everyone contributes on the field they are best on (to each according to their needs, from each according to their ability).
So a direct democracy?
WIth some differences, but yes.
Just asking for clarification. I'm not for direct democracy because it seems like democracy just for the elite.
According to the school of thought I follow, every individual on a society has a direct say on everything discussed. Rules, or laws, are defined through a consensus between every individual. If a single individual disagrees, provided they present valid arguments, then the rule must be expanded in a way everyone agrees with it.
On this society, everyone's basic needs are a core right that cannot be taken or restricted in any way, shape or form. That includes, but not restricted to, proper housing, including electricity and Internet, food and water infrastructure, education and healthcare. That explains the "to each according to their needs" part partially.
Having their needs, therefore their survival ensured, individuals can dedicate themselves to the field they prefer, ensuring no-one is stuck on a job they hate, they can at any point change, and society as a whole benefits from this liberty. Of course there are some fields that individuals with some kinds of disabilities physically cannot work on normally, but there can be jobs that are adapted to their condition, if possible. That covers the "from each according to their ability".
Those two statements allow for an economical reform. The basic needs of an individual are fulfilled from the get-go, but if they desire some other commodities, they can work for them. Money, if needed at all, would only be needed for those commodities, while favoring trading between individuals. Again, society as a whole would determine how much a product would be worth comparatively to others, creating something more akin to a measuring scale of worth rather than a currency.
I don't think you can have a direct say in everything in society, trying to make such a society sounds like a nightmare IMO.