Log in

December 2007

Powered by LiveJournal.com

lunatick41389 in utopia_project

Hi there everyone.

I have just sort of watched others posts a little bit before trying to write up mine. This is a pretty basic overview, and very specific cases will be handled with more specific laws, but I can't really type every one of those out.

Yea. I know its very very socialist, but I believe that competition and strife in the realm of economics causes the instability and exploitation now a days that we hate so much.
1.Criminals are placed in hard, easily monitored working conditions. [Example, prison mining camps] In very crime stricken regions, surveillance is allowed, but all surveillance records are sealed requiring a warrant to open up, and this warrant is exclusive for that crime.

2.Social Equality, emphasis on tolerance, etc. [Sorry, that one is a standard, can't help but stick that in there]

3.Most material goods require proof you will use them [example provide reason to drive a giant truck, or reason to own a gun, and killing people isn’t legit] In order to assist this, advertising is illegal. Corporate sponsors are allowed, but there is a thin line.

4.Each household is allowed a certain gross income based on number of occupants. Children are a special case, because substantial amounts are provided for the first child, enough to get by for two children, but none for more than that, discouraging uncontrolled growth. Jobs pay different amounts based of difficulty and required skill, but the total amount coming into a house hold is heavily taxed above the household limit.

5.All food must be raised with minimal machinery and live stock must be completely grass fed. Limiting massive production of unhealthy foods [Including grain fed beef]. But, small vegetable gardens are encouraged because they are providing food, but not taxed or included in income for the household [home made pottery and goods that aren’t sold are included in this category] This is to encourage people to be self sufficient and skilled artisans, but not encouraging growth of the population, as much.


By minimal machinery, do you mean just get rid of most of it, or only enough so that farms can support the populous? The first means you're unlikely to support a large population without a huge amount of manpower, while the second will result in a kind of "power creep", where the industry becomes more and more industrialised as the population grows, which it probably will no matter how much you try to control growth.
On that note, the thing about children is a bit unclear. Is it a lump sum when the first child is born, or is it a slow, over time payment, like a salary for the work of taking care of the kid? I really can't see the former ending well.
Minimal Machinery means as little as is required, this bans the use of the large machines employed primarily by large industry, thus making the use of hired workers necessary. Yes, it is to limit growth, but more importantly to pull people back to agriculture and promote appreciation of farming and in that way reduce waste.
As for the children, it isn't actually a sum paid by the government to the household group. What it is, is an addition to the amount that that household is allowed to make so that the parents and others are capable of providing for their child. The reason it is not continued after two children is to prevent abuse of the system and to encourage a stable population without uncontrolled growth, while allowing people who still want to have more than two children the right to do it. Those children can be provided for if the family works together and finds creative ways to get the needed goods (making clothing, having vegetable gardens, etc.)
I was just curious as to what size you think an ideal population would be. You've talked about limiting uncontrolled population growth and I agree with that, but I was wondering if you had an idea of what size you think the population should be. A certain amount per a certain area (allowing of course for variations in farming vs town regions)?
Huh. I would say a good population size would be one which could exist without an impact which wouldn't adjust itself and could balance itself out at the rate which we require it to. For example, a population that, with substantial planing and effort, could grow enough trees to supply our need for lumber and maintain water and air pollution at a rate which the earth could balance out. I couldn't say people per acre numbers, it'd take a large number of people to obtain that figure. But, that is the type of size I would find ideal.

Correction on that last one.

The first 'wouldn't adjust' should be a 'is capable of adjusting'
So you're saying that the population should be big enough to form a working society but small enough not to have a detrimental affect on the environment? (to put it very simply).
Yes, that would be the best. But, considering how small a 'working society' has been in the past, I think that humanity would never allow itself to drop that low in numbers again. And everything has a detrimental effect, I want that effect to be negatable by natures natural balancing mechanisms, though.