TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Why don't we try a grand social experiment?

Everyone has a different idea of what the laws should be, some even claim their way of living is the best. So my question is why not have a grand social experiment and let government be run on a very local scale. I think the most interesting findings would be how those fare that choose a large intrusive government versus those that choose to live under a small limited government.

It seems silly to me that civilization has been around for thousands of years and the scientific method for hundreds but people still can't agree on how to live. It's about time we stop relying on majority opinion or some so-called prophet to decide the best way to live.

0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Sep 6 2013: This social experiment has been conducted in the history of Europe, which, at some time, was divided in hundreds of small kingdoms, duchies and city states and each of them was on a 'very local scale'.

    Besides an ridiculous amount of 'traveling taxes' and local wars and quarrels, there also was as a vast diversity in 'local laws' and 'rules', units of measurement and currencies ... All in all, those were not the best times to life in ...

    Additionally there is to say, that there is no fundamental way of 'how to live', as each generation, each century has to figure it out for itself. And so the 'majority opinion' is actually nothing but the fairest way to install the best possible compromise for a number of people who, more or less, choose to life together and to reduce the numbers of individuals, who keep trying to rule them.

    This is an ongoing experiment ever since, but I agree with you, that this process is not based on self-improving mechanisms and does not converge towards fundamental principles of improved life quality.

    And as humans are 'social animals' and tend to form communities, I haven't seen any working and self-organizing concept of 'anarchy' so far, in which no 'government' has formed or was needed.

    A 'government', at least a truly democratic one, is no entity in itself, as it is the representative form of 'the people'. So if your wish was to reduce or to remove this 'government', you had to reduce or remove 'the people' as well, which, in its highest form was pure anarchy consisting out of individuals which does not form any social group at all, of which I think this won't happen due to our biological nature.

    And the very moment groups are getting formed, the experiment starts anew ... :o)

    Nevertheless, I think we have a high potential for optimization in our modern societies, and as long we manage to continue to exist, we should try to improve the life for as many people possible.
    • Sep 6 2013: I agree having a diversity of laws also has its downside. I contend that since it is in a communities financial best interest to keep standards for things like currency (precious metals), measurements, and transportation the same, the downsides don't outweigh the upsides.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.