NationStates Jolt Archive

On what criteria (if any) should a society be judged?
yes, if anyone's wondering I am incredibly bored
On the standard of living of the lowest of it's members
On it's civil liberties
On it's economy.

Discuss, or not:

Whatever society gives me the most money is objectively the best.

Whether or not you're in it.





Is it a compliment, an insult? Who knows, who know...

I like the first question when you create a nation here-Judge a nation by the way it treats the least of its citizens. Every country has managed to have rich people.

If a society has good taste for fashion, then it is great.

Take France, they love Dior.

You give me booze, you're a good society. :)

It depends how you define a "society."
One seemingly objective way to "judge" countries is the UN's Human Development Index.

I would judge a society based on the amount of law enforcement required to maintain order. In a kickass society, police would be redundant, because there wouldnt be any wankers commiting crimes. whereas in a shit society, like Iraq at the moment, you need military to keep it from turning into anarchy. (if it hasnt already).

i dont know that i judge societies.

but thinking of those that i think of as "bad"....

in this order:

the rule of law. its essential that laws are fair and fairly enforced. each person should be able to avoid trouble by understanding the law and following it even if they dont agree with it.

peace. not having to worry about revolution, outside invasions, being drafted into wars of conquest.

opportunity. there will always be poor people. to me the test would be how hard it is to rise out of poverty through your own efforts. the more hard work rewards a person the better a society is. this includes the opportunity for education.

the big freedoms. freedom to worship (or not) as you please, the freedom to criticize your government, the freedom to marry who you please (or not to marry at all), the freedom to pick your own associates, the freedom to live where you please, the freedom to live AS you please.

democracy. the freedom of the people to decide who governs them and how. the freedom to change laws, the right to remove corrupt officials from office.

I think in order to answer the question, another question should be asked prior: for what purpose should society be judged?

Quantity of pastries consumed daily.

how well the rule of law is applied, and how people on the street respect each other

also how well it looks after its most disadvantaged (OAP's, Disabled people etc)

how accountable bumbling politicians are as well, i suppose

also how well it looks after its most disadvantaged (OAP's, Disabled people etc)

What's an OAP?

Errinundera']What's an OAP?
Old aged pensioner.

Old aged pensioner.


Thanks. Obvious once it's explained.

Quite simple, how well that society kicks @$$. I mean, if the society is good at that goal then I am not going to make fun of it out of fear... but seriously, societies should be judged based upon their relative power to other societies and their ability to create technological advancement. If a society is weak in power then it will have little influence over its own destiny, if a society cannot advance technologically then its future will be decided by the societies that do advance technologically. Pretty much societies need to make sure that they do not get screwed.

I would think that the true standard for a society would be how well it treats it's least powerful people--it's weakest, the poor, the helpless.

I think it has to be a combination of the proposed aspects. If a society has great civil liberties, great economy, but shithouse standards of living, it's not very good. likewise if either the economy or the civil linerties are shot, that ruins the whole thing. There has to be a good balance of redeeming qualities. For example; The USA has a great economy, and awesome civil liberites (even after recent events), but their standard of living (average Standard of living, including the poor) is somewhat lower than their peers' because of the absurd amount of people living under the poverty line for a nation of its wealth. In contrast, somewhere like Canada has not as high ratings in the economy or civil liberties(remember that the USA has a very very strong libertarian streak), but a higher average livng standard, putting them IMO above the USA.

I do beleive it is important to include the least fortunate citizens in the appraisal in the terms of an average. You simply cannot just look at the upper bracket. If you did, China, which has a great economy, but shithouse average civil liberties and living standards, would be one of the greatest nations in the world.

Furthermore, a consutative appraisal must be made of the standards of the soceities poorest and least fortunate. Sometimes an average doesn't communicate everything. Imagine a country with a the best living standards, civil iberties and economy averages in the world. However, if anyone fell below tthe poverty line, the government would shoot them. This way, the vast majority live a great life, but the very small minority live terrible lives. The average in this situation is dominated by the well-off majority, failing to show the plight of the poverty stricken minority.

Australia is like this. In terms of averages, I would rank Australia somewhat higher than the US. However, the 2% aboriginal population in Australia , while they aren't under the poverty line (Thanks to exorbidant welfare), are faced with shocking living standards. They have well over ten times the national average of domestic violence, child molestation, incarceration, and alcoholism. Their life expectancy falls some 10-20 years short of the national average. Government policies favour throwing money at the problem rather than actually attempting to address key issues of cyclical tenure. For that reason, I would actually rank Australia as on par with the US, simply for the treatment of it's least fortunate members.

I'm going to go with civil liberties here. That and how they treat people that they hate.

Australia is like this. In terms of averages, I would rank Australia somewhat higher than the US. However, the 2% aboriginal population in Australia , while they aren't under the poverty line (Thanks to exorbidant welfare), are faced with shocking living standards. They have well over ten times the national average of domestic violence, child molestation, incarceration, and alcoholism. Their life expectancy falls some 10-20 years short of the national average. Government policies favour throwing money at the problem rather than actually attempting to address key issues of cyclical tenure. For that reason, I would actually rank Australia as on par with the US, simply for the treatment of it's least fortunate members.
what do you think that australia should be doing that it isnt doing to help the lowest economic classes?

I would judge a society based on the amount of law enforcement required to maintain order. In a kickass society, police would be redundant, because there wouldnt be any wankers commiting crimes. whereas in a shit society, like Iraq at the moment, you need military to keep it from turning into anarchy. (if it hasnt already).

So a country with no laws would have none that could be broken. Police and courts would be redundant. Voila! Utopia!

with a completely hyporitical and prejudiced perspective based on all the things you say and do not do and all the things you do and do not say.

what do you think that australia should be doing that it isnt doing to help the lowest economic classes?
Anything. At least we upkeep them for now, but we aren't making any real steps towards anything resembling progress. The aboriginals, as it currently stands are a class of welfare-dependant, delinquent, alcoholic, wife-bashing, child-abusing, criminal, drug-addicted, bludgers. They are suspended in a system of institutionalised welfare-dependancy mixed with a particularly vicious and complementary poverty cycle. A aboriginal youth has to conquer an abusive family, an abusive society, an influential and negative peer group, an extremely powerful self-fulfilling prophesy, a complete lack of positive role-models, and a welfare program which disencourages effort. The unfortunate fact is that most of them do not. Nearly all of them do not. Aboriginals are loathed by local white-Australians as a class of destructive, delinquent theives. In school, aboriginal students get a mountain bike if they attend every class for 1 month straight. This breeds a lot of discontent amongst white students (against both the government and aboriginals). As you can see the problem is very complicated, and very messy. Most polititians prefer to do the done thing and maintain the status quo, rather than risk their career with a messy attempt for change.

If you want an alternative, I can give you my idea. I will acknowledge that it certainly isn't perfect, but I think it is the only real option. The thing which is killing the aboriginal culture is welfare. They are entirely welfare dependant, and that fact in itself precludes any effort to do anythin about it. The reason they have access to an unending stream of government welfare, is because the government and people of Australia stole their country and destroyed their culture so many years ago. Now, the way I see it, the government needs to reform a credible ATSIC (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Council) and ask them to put a price tag on all of the suffering and loss of the Aboriginal people. It doesn't matter how much they ask, give it to them in a lump sum (be it several billion or one hundred billion). Now, ATSIC is responsible for Aboriginal welfare. If/when the money is eventually squandered away, the aboriginal people will have to compete. And they will. The aboriginal people would still have access to all of the other welfare benefits every other Australian citizen does, just not more. This way, Aboriginals would have to struggle like any other marginalised cultral group (jews, asians, muslims...) and at the very least will have a well funded council of their own to manage their interests. I just think that the aboriginal people need a bit of hard love. Further, I think struggling for a living will give them a bit more pride in their culture (something they desperately need).

"A nation's progress can be judged by how they treat their animals." - Mahatma Gandhi

The quality of life of all its people, though particularly its most disadvantaged. Now, it may need a good economy for this, but that should not be the end in itself, but a means to an end.

I presume good civil and political rights to be a prerequisite to having a higher standard of living.

On what criteria (if any) should a society be judged?
On the standard of living of the lowest of it's members
On it's civil liberties
On it's economy.

Discuss, or not:

I judge first by the standard of living of the lowest of its members, then by civil liberties, then by economy.

"A nation's progress can be judged by how they treat their animals." - Mahatma Gandhi
I eat hamburgers, does that mean that I am bringing my society down?

I eat hamburgers, does that mean that I am bringing my society down?

Exactly. Steak is a superior treatment.

I would think that the true standard for a society would be how well it treats it's least powerful people--it's weakest, the poor, the helpless.
I agree. And what does this say about the US since the Reagan Revolution?

I would think that the true standard for a society would be how well it treats it's least powerful people--it's weakest, the poor, the helpless.
Why single out the poor?

On what criteria (if any) should a society be judged?
yes, if anyone's wondering I am incredibly bored
On the standard of living of the lowest of it's members
On it's civil liberties
On it's economy.

Discuss, or not:
On what I highlighted. I consider its culture of importance as well.

Why single out the poor?
Did you ever see a society that treated the rich and powerful badly?

I would probably judge a society by how conformist it is.

On what criteria (if any) should a society be judged?
yes, if anyone's wondering I am incredibly bored
On the standard of living of the lowest of it's members
On it's civil liberties
On it's economy.

Discuss, or not:

On the quality and availability of Sunday brunch.

On what criteria (if any) should a society be judged?
yes, if anyone's wondering I am incredibly bored
On the standard of living of the lowest of it's members

I think I might say this. Generally, the standard of living for its members in general and the standard of equality in th society.

My criteria is on how the average person lives. However, if there are a large number of poor in the society, that will drag down the "average". And how the rich live is irrelevant, since they live well in ANY society.

I would judge a society purely on the level of freedom they afforded to _all_ of their citizens, because liberty is the only thing that society itself can directly control. The economy can be manipulated by outside influences, for example UN sanctions, or the Cuba embargo. And as for cultural worth, you pretty much only have what you are given, the earliest work in the Kazakh language for example only is only around 300 years old, but you cannot then blame present Kazakhs for being culturally devoid.

So liberty it is. Complete liberty is such a rare and beautiful thing in todays (or any other days world), any society that manages to bring its people anywhere close to it have really done something special and deserve all the respect I can muster.

My criteria is on how the average person lives. However, if there are a large number of poor in the society, that will drag down the "average". And how the rich live is irrelevant, since they live well in ANY society.

In the majority of societies the "average person" made up an important part of the tyranny. The "average" South African supported apartheid because they thought it protected them from crime, the "average" Third Reicher supported the Nazis because they were improving the economy. The "average person" is pretty ignorant and willing to accept all kinds of infringements so long as he himself is protected. That is why when judging a people you _must_ look to the lower echelons, as it is likely that it is on their back that the "average person" remains comfortable.

The extent to which it protects propery rights.

A strong economy flows from that. Civil liberty flows from that.

In the majority of societies the "average person" made up an important part of the tyranny. The "average" South African supported apartheid because they thought it protected them from crime, the "average" Third Reicher supported the Nazis because they were improving the economy. The "average person" is pretty ignorant and willing to accept all kinds of infringements so long as he himself is protected. That is why when judging a people you _must_ look to the lower echelons, as it is likely that it is on their back that the "average person" remains comfortable.

In your ideal society, is the optimal level of failure zero?

Because I think that's unrealistic.

The average South African was right. Apartheid did protect them from crime.

Did you ever see a society that treated the rich and powerful badly?
yes

peoples republic of china under mao

very scary place to live no matter what level of society you were at.

yes

peoples republic of china under mao

very scary place to live no matter what level of society you were at.
:rolleyes:

In that society Mao and his party were the rich and powerful.

*