AmonRa said:
my empire probably couldnt really be called an empire, but i think the lives of the people within the society would be more prosperous than most of those living in a hierachal war state.
No, organisation is the heart of empire (doesn't mean I approve, just that empires do) And though the lot of the common peple in an empire might not live a particularly agreable life, they generally dislike the "I'm stronger than you so I can take anything I want" mentality more.
AmonRa said:
I'd abbollish all Major religions, i.e. let the people find their own personal beliefs through life instead of brain washing by the power mad.
Most hunter gatherer societies had deeply entrenched belief systems, common for the culture. Those who did not share these beliefs weren't considered human. Certainly an oath or promise required a common deity to be binding- trust requiring an equivalence of understanding.
AmonRa said:
i'd abollish money - i cant say it causes greed, but it is catalyst that breeds it. without money, there will still be greedy people, but it would be a lot less evident, there would not be a problem of debt, or not enoug money for food or housing.
without money we rely on barter- but any society which has property will have inequality. Certainly housing would cease to constitute a difficulty, as presumably there wouldn't be any. Food, however would go to everyone in times of plenty, and in lean times the old, the weak and the badly connected would die of starvation and exposure.
AmonRa said:
we would not 'settle' as this polutes, destroys the earth and kills animals and plants - which we need to survive!
Indeed, agriculture enables a much higher population density- but in several corners of the world increased the diversity of wild plants and animals. Irrigation in particular brings in waterfowl and nasty biting insects, and if well done can continue for centuries improving the land for all its inhabitants, however many legs they may have. And every time a hunter gatherer culture has come in contact with a more sedentary tribe, or even nomadic herders, it's the former who have gone to the wall. For several not particularly meritous reasons- the fact that a society with greater surpluses and a larger population can field a larger army, the lower population densities not encouraging resistance to develope to dieases, the ability of a hierachical organisation and a currency based economy to coordinate available resources.
AmonRa said:
we would 'move wih the heard' living as hunter/gatherers, not allowing settlement which always leads to corruption in some form
Many native american tribesmen lived like that and have the most impressive record of large mammal extinction on the planet, until modern times. Man is just too good a hunter- mastodons, the camel things, the equines, big cats- nothing survived but bison, wolves and a few species of bear. (OK, I'll accept climate change as a factor- but climate change was everywhere, while the mass extinctions were concentrated in North America) And they warred between themselves, more so than their more settled neighbours down south (though these too missed exemplary in my rating of cultures)
AmonRa said:
the law/millitary/monarchy should not decide what is 'right' or what is 'wrong' - the reason being, there is no true right or wrong. this will be decided for the individual
With no fixed legal or moral system someone can (and, knowing humanity someone will) decide that, for him, murder, rape, or slavery are acceptable choices, and none can say him nay.
AmonRa said:
there will be no hierachy other than a representing chieftan for each tribe/guild etc - but this person should not make the decisions soely, but be a voice for everyone else.
And each such chief needs to be a paragon of virtues, and pass this wisdom and probity on to his successor- who will, automatically be someone who doesn't want the job.If he's charismatic, there's no one above him but god, and you've removed the authority of god. If he isn't, it's effectively mob rule, with wide scope for witch hunts and victimisation.
AmonRa said:
...*oh if only in a perfect world...*
In short, there may be species on this planet of whom you could trust the members to give according to their abilities, and only take according to their needs- but homo sapiens is not one of them .
Oh, dear I have been negative again, haven't I? But I don't believe in anarchy as a workable system, except on a very limited scale (say, less than fifty people) Nor do I expect humans to work selflessly for the public good except very temporarily, in disasters or crises. And I consider myself optimistic.