6 votes

Your Sim City: Anarchist, Socialist, Other?

The real world exists right now, while potential worlds exist in the future. In order to achieve a higher state of civilization, it is not enough to imagine it, the society at large must take steps to get from here to there. Equality is a fine ideal, but how do we get from inequality to equality without forceful redistribution? Violent revolutions are attempts to perfect society without the forethought necessary to finesse a society into a better future. A violent revolution is like hammering a screw into a board: it won't be pretty, but it will get there!

My question is, if you could start from scratch and design a society, with or without government, what would it look like and what would sustain it? If you've never read Isaac Asimov's "Foundation," its a brilliant novel that relates to this. Anyway, being raised on scifi, I envision a Star Trek TNG sort of world. Clearly socialistic, but with respect for human rights. The greater good, without sacrificing the dignity or autonomy of the individual. Gene Roddenberry conveniently left out the few hundred years between now and his future... I think that with modern technology, we must learn to integrate and cooperate. I honestly would enjoy it, just as long as humans don't become numbers, a la Brave New World.

So, how would you structure a society to be successful in the short and long terms?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options


I think this question is more relevant than people think

first of all in a society you have to have people who have simular beliefs and customs. This is why imigration is such a hot issue, you have people coming to a new land any new land and trying to make it more like home but the people who are already there resent it. Or look what happened when england colonized india, England was Christian and they ruled the hindues but before long they outlawed a lot of hindue practices because it was an abomination to their Christian beliefs (we are talking child sacrifice and burning a life wife/wives on her dead husbands funeral pyre). Then there were the hindues that killed other hindues who converted to Christianity. Simply put similar beliefs are necessary for a stable society.

Lets say we terriform mars and start a new nation there or some place that doesnt already have people. I would first suggest that only the people who actually do something with the land own land. The government can not unilaterally decide that one person owns the whole planet and then they sell bits and pieces, virgin land is free for whoever wants to work it, and once it is worked it then becomes someones property.

I would suggest getting rid of the executive person in government, let everything be ran as a true republic. Make it easier to repeal law than make law. Every who is elected into the republic serves until the job overwhelms them, they are allowed no staff, and once they step down at least two people take their job and split up the people they represent. The purpose being to make sure no one can accumulate too much power. All the representative stay home and meet by video conference, and only when there is actually a need for the government to do something. these people should keep their day job.

Every male would be part of the militia, there would be no standing army. Every male would be deputized and an elected sheriff's job would be to investigate crime not stop crime, and he would call on his people to help apprehend the subject. All trials would be by jury. There would be no lawyers just the accused and the accuser and any relevant witnesses. No prisons but flogging and execution would be the punishment for crimes. No taxes either, the people are the court, the army, and the police what do they need to pay taxes for?

The church would take care of anybody who needs a helping hand and do everything that it is commanded to do.

This is basically How I think society should run if man somehow terriformed a world or started over somewhere else. I dont think there is room for this on earth.

A Great Response

A new frontier, like Mars, is just the scenario I had in mind. I like what you wrote about the citizenry being the corps of law enforcement and the militia. I hope that when we are settling Mars, the incentive of greed has diminished in favor of more noble incentives.


Last month

I finished a 80,000 word science fiction book where people leave earth for freedom, but they only take people with the same beliefs (Christians). I figure that if you leave earth its going to be either for profitable reasons (mining) or religious/political reasons (think mayflower). Historically the guys who go for money plan on going back home and spending it but the guys who leave for religious/political reasons go to make a new home.

In my story they have around a 125,000 people start a new colony and they just dont have enough people for a police force or a military so everyone has to be a part of it. This story is more about the disagreement they have with earth, but the next one will deal with learning about their culture a thousand years after the events in the first book. I like the idea of discussing how events can effect things hundreds of years in the future.

I think you make a very valid point

with your first sentence. I think forced integration is one of the worst things about our society.

yeah tolerance only goes so far

Just think about the country of chad (I think) almost everyone in the country is part of nomadic tribes that move around to feed their herds, their idea of property rights is far different than the rest of the world, so lets say a country with ideas on property rights like ours merges with them, all of a sudden one of the countries has to change their laws on property rights or both countries have to come to a compromise nobody likes. or we can leave each other alone, and accept that their beliefs are different and they have no need for our input.

I would not be a good one to trust in this one

My last sim city died in the fire of forty volcanos. But at least I was equal and non discriminatory with my god-like wrath.

I'll give it a go:

Recognizing the value of the individual and property rights...
A community would own certain property and services in common.
This would give every individual a legal claim to those things because he has a stake in them.
And different management boards could be established to administer the property/services and would be limited in power to the laws of agency...therefore would not have the power micromanage the private affairs of individuals acquiring or using their own property.
or limiting competing privately owned services from being formed.
This system would extinguish the ability for any entity to grant itself or another limited liability, tax, or do any of the other terrible things government does on a daily basis.
-one of those services would be an apex judiciary with the power to authorize the necessary force to restore victims of crimes and settle disputes. Grand jury majority, unanimous petite jury authorizes force, and a judge to ensure both parties get to make their case. Even an appellate system.

This technically would be classified as an anarchy because there is no government but most would call it a minarchy because of the court system. however this errant view is held because of the lack of understanding of the origin of courts versus the origin of government. where the latter is born out of societies need to settle disputes in an equitable manner.

Crimes could be enshrined in the courts charter, and only altered by a majority of registered voters. The charter could only be altered by a super majority of registered voters (not just those who show up to vote.)

Who wants equality? Not me...

Equality under the law? Sure, absolutely.

But equality, equality? No, not possible, not desirable.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Cyril's picture

+10 if I could.

+10 if I could.

Indeed, not desirable, because : who will define such equality, if not solely under law?

History's lesson : self-proclaimed supermen, who consistently, indefectibly put themselves (and their inhumane bureaucracies) above all others.


For the worst to happen next against humanity.





I have always understood the concept of Sim City, but how exactly does it work? Since you can build a society and watch it fail, does it even mention politics or even identify political ideologies?

I guess Civilization

would have been a better game to use as an example, which does allow for societies to be monarchies, theocracies, democracies, socialist, communist.


First, I would never presume to "structure a society"

I believe that's the problem that has plagued humanity throughout history, the assumption that some person(s) must take it upon themselves to organize society.

However, the answer lays in your question...

How do we get from inequality to equality without forceful redistribution?

Realize that forceful redistribution is inequality. Someone or something is being acted upon in a unilateral fashion. That's inequality! So really your question is how do we achieve equality without inequality, and the answer should be blatantly obvious -- you will never achieve equality by unequal means.

I believe the sooner humanity figures that one out the better off we'll all be.


I don't think I get what you're saying

What if all the land and resources are owned by a tiny minority, call it a nobility or elite class? I think a society has the right to the means of its survival. Nobody has the right to claim total ownership of natural resources and deny access "the rest of us."

Anyway, doesn't society need leaders and organization? Even a small group of friends on a camping trip might divide the labor, designate a leader. etc.


Lolarchy. Rule by the funniest.

But on a serious note, the only way for a society to be successful is to exist.

And, since our society has a sub-replacement level birth rate, western society is actually NOT viable.

Some of the only places in the world with a growth-level birth rate are those that view women as cattle and don't believe in germ theory.

What does this tell us about the long-term stability of western culture versus the backward, Subsaharan African and Middle Eastern countries?



Also author of Stick it to the Man!