While that’s a bit exaggerated, we do have at least one generation of children who were reared in community group instead of families and which have been evaluated by psychologists/ sociologists as to how this affected them: children in Israeli Kibbuzim, which try the whole communal living style. While the scientists did find interesting differences between children reared “normal” = inside a family, plus kindergarden, the kibbuz children were still capable, stable, normal happy people when grown up.
The idea of the thread was to post the most extreme beliefs you have. Which I did. I don’t believe those things will ever actually happen, or necessarily that they should - I can’t imagine any way of implementing them short of a societal collapse or a bloody purge that would put Stalin to shame.
But yes, basically the idea I was getting at was to create a society where people aren’t given a priveliged atvantage in life based on who their parents were, nor effectively doomed to poverty because of the same, and where familial/fraternal loyalties wouldn’t cause conflict with one’s duty to society.
I would also like to say that it’s a bit flattering that after ten years, I finally have a pit thread directed at me. 
Kibbutzim kids weren’t removed from their families and all bonds of blood, though.
I thought I had extreme ideas, but credit where credit’s due … I mean, I’m all for abolishing private real estate property and even a 100% inheritance tax (although that’s just redundant if you have no private property, unless you want, like, Granny’s lace scarf returned to the common weal, which is just stupid) - but then you marry that with public execution for perjury? That’s just incoherent - one is an anarchist position designed to reduce the power imbalance in society, and the other is a vulgar display of power if ever I’ve seen one - any time you have executions, society is unequal and really built around the threat of deadly force.
My beef isn’t with all private property - just land and buildings. I believe (though as I stated above my belief is impractical and not implementable in today’s world) that the modern system of property ownership is an archaic relic of feudalism, and that society would be served better if all land were held directly by the state and leased to individuals or companies as benefits the needs of the population. Within that framework, i’m all for people starting businesses and making money for themselves, but when they die, that money they’ve earned forfeits back to the state. Since family does not exist in this hypothetical society, “granny’s lace scarf” isn’t a concept that has real meaning, but I imagine that the state would either resell chattel and personal belongings of no particular value, or allow the deceased’s friends to have them.
Corruption is probably the foremost problem that has plagued “revolutionary” governments throughout history. Leaders tend to feel they’re above the laws they’ve established for the “proles” and give themselves special exemptions, priveliges, make themselves “more equal than others”. Really, as some of the previous posters have pointed out, it is human nature to tend towards tribalism, and familial favoritism, and want to accrue more power and wealth for yourself. In order to counteract that desire, there has to be a strong disincentive for leaders who try to use their authority to exempt themselves from the rules - execution as the punishment, and making it public as a demonstration and reminder to the rest of society that the new order is to be taken seriously and not trifled with.
I’ll grant that my vision is pretty out there and maybe a little incoherent - if I had to summarize it, i’d call it “Benevolent fascist communo-libertarianism”. One of these days I should write it all down and see if I can patch all the holes, but’d be just for fun more than anything else.
Didn’t Plato propose a similiar idea?
Yes, almost exactly. I imagine Smapti was just paraphrasing The Republic.
Don’t ever let anyone tell you that you’re pointless. You serve as an absolutely undeniable litmus test for stupidity. If you agree with something, then it’s clearly fucking insane.
Smapti, are you a Greener?
Can I just move to Pala instead?
First of all, condolences on your eyes. I hope you see a doctor about it.
Second, making sure public officials don’t lie to us is totalitarian? And I totally agree with getting rid of religion, we just don’t need it. I don’t agree with the other things, but given his stated goal of making a more egalitarian society, my disagreement isn’t that he holds those beliefs, but that I think the goal can be reached through other, more efficient means
Smapti, are you a Nutter?
Are spouses forbidden too?
As Smapti points out, the purpose of the linked thread was to post one’s most extreme ideas. I read the first few posts fully expecting to be shocked, shocked at how crazy our fellow Dopers are, and then figured out that most of what was there wasn’t more unusual a belief than “legalise all drugs”. Yawn.
Kudos on Smapti for at least going for something eyebrow-raising. Qin Shi Huangdi, why are you pitting somebody for a belief that he himself agrees is extreme?
The kibbutz system is similar, and yet different. Kids were allowed to visit parents–they knew who they belonged to and knew they were loved. And there was freedom for parents to take the kids and get out, if they wanted to.
I think there’s something to be said for familial love, parental bonding, and all that jazz. Rotating kids in different homes just creates instability and emotional detachment. You think people are neurotic now? Imagine a society full of people who are either so desperate for love and connection that they fuck everything in sight or who are so alienated that they can’t attach to anyone or anything, including themselves. All the egalitarianism in the world isn’t worth that.
Do consider this other part however:
As far as I know, the kibbutz children were allowed friends, for example. Nor were they deliberately shunted from kibbutz to kibbutz. The whole point of ZPG Zealot’s plan appears to be to prevent the children from experiencing any normal human connections while growing up. As far as I can tell the kibbutz experience was a whole lot more normal than that. What ZPG Zealot is suggesting is the social equivalent of locking the kid up in a dark box until adulthood; what comes out of the box isn’t going to be healthy.
She didn’t say they had to be *Catholic *orphanages ! 
I think this Pitting is in bad form.
The OP in the thread in question invited people to express their most extreme opinions. Everything I’ve read (even stuff I thought was nuts) was within the bounds of the OP’s request, and, if not exactly (IMO) well thought out in terms of consequences, they were all within the bounds of the OP and generalyl decent taste in manner of expression.
And I’m pleasantly surprised that there has been very little debate about the various positions; mostly people just asking for clarification of someone else’s position.
SO, you pretty much want to raise all children in an environment where forming bonds with other humans is very hard, because you would keep moving the children to different orphanages? I think that would just raise a generation of children who don;t know how to interact with others, and who don;t care to.
There are a lot of proponents for breaking up the nuclear family.
Notably in ‘Brave New World’, all children all raised in creches.
They are created in ‘testtube’ environments. (mind you, I don’t remember the details of this)
Some are deliberately stunted in their development by the introduction (of all things) alcohol.
That created a deliberately caste-like system. “I am an Alpha, and I better than a Beta”.
The only way they (the society proposed by Huxley in ‘Brave New World’) could do this is because human society (almost universally) has been built around attachment between the children and their parents. There are some who assert that that attachment is contrary to the needs of the society. The problem here is that there are always people who define the needs of the society. Usually (again almost universally) these folks are those who hold the reins of power. They define what is good and what is evil; what is acceptable and was isn’t.
In Huxley’s SF, they did a decent job of doing so.
You didn’t have strife warfare between classes for a long time.
Until they did.
If we posit that these people are enlightened despots, then I suppose things won’t be horrible. Perhaps, they will be able to instruct their dependents, (and that isn’t the right word… perhaps inscripts) in ethical manners. But, usually power-mongers don’t really care for the individuals. They care about the masses in a way that employs ‘the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few’ in such a way as to ot even THINK about the few or the one.
This is why a democratic republic is superior to such a totalitarian regime.
…
Qin, in this case I agree with you. But, you probably already know I ‘like’ you even when I don’t agree with you. You are worthy of respect, if only because you really can write well.
*I would appreciate a PM from you that tells me more about you.
*
Honestly, most folks here think you are just trolling… or that you are a crazy teenager.
Heck… I was a crazy teenager and if the Internet existed back then, I’d probably similar to you.
So would a bunch of other older folks who would recognize that if they would discount your earlier posts. You are getting better at thinking. I have seen that over just 18 months.
Maybe I am suffering from empty nest, because I am recently widowered. But heck, I promised myself I would always be honest on this forum.
Oh… and to everyone else, what do y’all think about my post? Decent, crappy or meh?
I can’t speak for everyone, of course, but I know that I am censoring myself to only post things that aren’t too far over the line.
This thread is probably a good idea; perhaps it should be expanded to have heated discussions about any views on that thread that people disagree with.