The most good for the most people, with enough leeway that those who feel unsatisfied can find a constructive outlet and/or isolate themselves. Look at Star Trek TOS for a good representation of what a post scarcity world might look like.
Ah so then the end goal of a totalitarian country would be the most good for a small group of insiders. I think this makes sense from a game theory perspective – the reason people would support the defector (in the prisoner’s dilemma) is because they think he has the capacity to succeed and they believe he’ll bring his supporters along with him into the group of beneficiaries of inequality. I think in most of human history it might have worked. So there’s some dysfunctional thing going on where the people support the party who is exploiting them in exchange for a hoped-for advantage over the other members of the exploited class.
My personal favorite Kurt Vonnegut book is ‘Mother Night.’ At one point the narrator is in an Israeli prison awaiting trial for war crimes. He has a conversation with one of his guards. The guard was a prisoner in a concentration camp. Every day the guard would hear an announcement, “Corpse carriers to the guard house.” Every day he heard it, and finally he volunteered for the job.
The question mark at the end of a sentence usually denotes a question. What you said seems to me to imply that we don’t have any non-totalitarian countries because I don’t see any that have these things as end goals (outside of empty promises from politicians).
For that matter, I don’t even know what an “end goal” for a country would be. That’s what I was trying to get at originally. Countries don’t have end goals, beyond “stay existent”.
What is the end of goal of a non-totalitarian country?
The most good for the most people, with enough leeway that those who feel unsatisfied can find a constructive outlet and/or isolate themselves. Look at Star Trek TOS for a good representation of what a post scarcity world might look like.
Ah so then the end goal of a totalitarian country would be the most good for a small group of insiders. I think this makes sense from a game theory perspective – the reason people would support the defector (in the prisoner’s dilemma) is because they think he has the capacity to succeed and they believe he’ll bring his supporters along with him into the group of beneficiaries of inequality. I think in most of human history it might have worked. So there’s some dysfunctional thing going on where the people support the party who is exploiting them in exchange for a hoped-for advantage over the other members of the exploited class.
My personal favorite Kurt Vonnegut book is ‘Mother Night.’ At one point the narrator is in an Israeli prison awaiting trial for war crimes. He has a conversation with one of his guards. The guard was a prisoner in a concentration camp. Every day the guard would hear an announcement, “Corpse carriers to the guard house.” Every day he heard it, and finally he volunteered for the job.
So you’re saying we don’t have any non-totalitarian countries?
If you’re going to put words in my mouth, please order me a large Diet Coke and some waffle fries as a side.
The question mark at the end of a sentence usually denotes a question. What you said seems to me to imply that we don’t have any non-totalitarian countries because I don’t see any that have these things as end goals (outside of empty promises from politicians).
For that matter, I don’t even know what an “end goal” for a country would be. That’s what I was trying to get at originally. Countries don’t have end goals, beyond “stay existent”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question
Maybe you are unfamiliar with the term ‘rhetorical question’ so I linked you to an article explaining why you are confused.