I have taken the civility to start this thread because Nanos is so nice to enligthen us about his ideas on all threads regarding NET, sometimes ignoring to point out that his ideas on a lot of subjects differs from NET in general.

I wonder if Nanos could be so nice and enlighten us about how his ideal society is supposed to be functioning?

I'll try more to point out my thoughts are not necessarly those general acceptanced here.

At the moment I only have a vague idea on what might work, I've some experience of what doesn't work though.

Ideal.. mmm..

One with more wealth/resources for people at the bottom so their lives are more enjoyable, far less crime, a technologically advanced community, yet one which is ecologically sound. One with less stupid people making decisions which effect many of us, one which hard decisions are made if need be for our collective benefit.

A place with a spirit of cando attitude, one which celebrates hard work, encourges reaching for the stars (More space than pop..), and has lots of countryside with trees and woodland settings for picnics.

Starting all of this, I've mentioned about building cheap rented homes.

I'll build my own home, then build homes for 10 others, employ those in building more homes, and working at the local shop.

If the new homes get rented out, then build more.

Beyond that, I'd want to build a geothermal plant to provide cheap electric for population expansion.

Further beyond that, I've no real thoughts on what to do for sure, all I'm fairly sure on is that cheap rented homes would get tenants, and cheap electric would be needed to allow for expansion of population, oh and that keeping everything rented would mean people could not come in and buy up property and resell it and increase the price beyond that which ordinary folk could afford.

So I see similarities with a Technate design, and whatever I do, I'm keen to document it so we know if it really is working better or not than other approaches, and also help others to copy the idea if it is a good one.

I also want to go for earth sheltered housing, made from waterproof concrete to keep costs down, security up, noise pollution down, reduce the impact on the view and allow topside to be used for countryside/woodland/farming/etc Also reduce heating/cooling costs, good shelter from bad weather, very fire resistant, and with ultra low maintence to keep costs down in the future.

A design which has a basement/jeffory tube area that all services run for easy access, and everything surface mounted in the way of wiring/plumbing, again for ease of maintence, as that is one of the key failings I hear about when it comes to design mistakes.

Walls to have regular fixing points built in, so things are not drilled and screwed/bolted to walls, allowing for more modular design approaches, and thus easier to change with less damage.

Outside concrete to be faced in panels styled in the form of fake rock, rather than plain concrete which looks dirty and drab after a few years. In an attempt to make the community appear more back to nature, and hiding its technological aspects from view.

My thoughts on a police state are that to deal with crime a cop on every corner is needed, rather than having so few that there are not enough to go around.

I see in todays news in the UK a mob of 100+ attack a police station!

www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007380525,00.html

It looks to me like you're already living in a police state. A failing one at that. The article you linked to just shows why a police state would not work. The fact is, power corrupts. The same thing is happening here; police are becoming more and more brutal and using more unnecessary force. I see the UK becoming exactly what George Orwell predicted in Nineteen-Eighty-Four.

correction: unchecked power corrupts.

This is a very poor and shrill slogan as a totally transparent society in which there are no secrets that could not be demanded to be publicly exposed does not exist yet. Today's society is also an overtly political society where means of control over people is justified as "wealth".

Can anybody just walk into a police station and demand to view their records and their daily operations which is actually the public's records? Last time I checked police computers have their own secret databases holding information on the public. Why the secrecy? If neither the police nor the potential criminal has anything to hide then there's nothing to be afraid of. The only way corruption could exist is if there is a means of political control over people and hidden information with the given "right" to hide secrets both of which exist in tremendous amounts in the present society.

Post edited by: technatezin, at: 2007/08/21 06:57

That's true technatezin. You make a good point. Of course the police would also have to follow a strict code of conduct. With the transparency, they'll know they can't get away with breaking that code.

I'm a big fan of transparency myself.

technatezin wrote:

Can anybody just walk into a police station and demand to view their records and their daily operations which is actually the public's records? Last time I checked police computers have their own secret databases holding information on the public. Why the secrecy? If neither the police nor the potential criminal has anything to hide then there's nothing to be afraid of. The only way corruption could exist is if there is a means of political control over people and hidden information with the given "right" to hide secrets both of which exist in tremendous amounts in the present society.<br><br>Post edited by: technatezin, at: 2007/08/21 06:57[/quote]

Police fight crime. Criminals commit crime. If criminals knew everything about police routine and if they knew everything that the police know, it would be a lot easier to commit crime.

Right?

Do we like crime?

Criminals already know everything about police routine, they tend to be the experts in the field, often knowing more than your average policeman.

Its a classic problem though, do you tell your enemy about your security procedures, if you do, they might find weaknesses and exploit them, but if you do not, then your friends can not find weaknesses and tell you about them to get them fixed.

When you get a security flaw in windows, would you rather the world know about it and someone come up with a fix, or would you rather have just a few hackers know and exploit it, and be unaware of its existance..

Elias Salmonsson wrote:


Police fight crime. Criminals commit crime. If criminals knew everything about police routine and if they knew everything that the police know, it would be a lot easier to commit crime.

Right?

Do we like crime?[/quote]

In Sweden, we do in fact have a high level of police transparency. So high that high-case crimes, like the murder of Anna Lindh, tend to create real problems for the police since the reporters are spamming the police with inquiries and their own investigations based on police material, complicating the search for the villain.

Yeah, i know, but would you please specify how that adds anything significant to the discussion?

So you're saying that every criminal there is knows more than all of the police force?

And yes, i'd rather just a few hackers knew about it than every darn hacker in the world.

Most successful criminals have a very good network of associates who can tell them very quickly how the entire system works. I learn't far more listening to such people than asking police friends/relatives who often had a narrow experience slot of their job.

With every hacker in the world knowing, it forces the company to rapidly respond and fix the security issue, rather than stick its head in the sand and deny there is a problem.

I'm reminded some years ago when AOL had a hole in their security which allowed anyone to very easily get name/address/phone number details of its customers, and this hole existed for several years before they fixed it.

Due to a lack of publicity about the issue, it wasn't fixed quickly.

That depends on when and where. The truth is that Sweden for example is ill-prepared to fight organised crime,partially because of too much transparency.