[Brutha]

Originally Posted by Keith

Socialism is more than just communism. There's plenty of room in (some versions of) a socialist society for competition.
[...]
The ideal is possibly a society where a minimum standard of living (free healthcare - especially preventative, basic living quarters, etc.) is guaranteed for all and competition for jobs exists above that level.

We have this in our (german) democracy.
Is it perfect? No, it isn't. But our democracy produces it.

Certainly government punishes citizens if they commit violence (if they're not clever enough to avoid detection or rich enough to afford a good lawyer), but does it significantly prevent violence? It's hard to say without a basis for comparison.

In history we had a lot of countries where there wasn't a state with a power monopol we can use as comparason.

You and I are looking at two different stages in the process. You say "people run amok and need a government to control them". I say "if you resolve what is causing them to run amok in the first place then you don't need a government to control them".

People don't run amok. They make decisions that are advantous for themselves, but aren't for society as a whole.
You need some force that balances that. That may be forcing people who pollute the climate to buy licenses for their CO2 emisions to make decisions that are best for them, the same decisions that are best for society as a whole (reduce CO2 emisions).

Reputation certainly isn't everything. But I was responding to your statement that there is no motivation to work in Communism - and as implemented in the USSR that seems to have been the case. But money is far from the only possible motivator

Worthwhile things aren't produced by single individuals.
They are produced by groups of people who need ressources to get their job done.
Even non-profits need their money donations.
You may object that non-profits could also receive non-money donations, but those people who donate aren't in pocession of the specific thing that the nonprofit needs. It is simpler to transfer money, and let the nonprofit buy the thing on the free market.

It's not real safe to be unpopular in a democracy. Because sufficiently unpopular things have laws passed against them, and if you do them you end up in jail.

I am not talking about things. I am talking about people.
Sure a democracy isn't perfect, but it is good at prevent the mob from hanging someone.

A centrally-controlled society does not value personal responsibility

You overrate the effect of goverment on culture. People are free to value personal responsibility in their friends regardless of the existence of goverment. Culture almost never develop the way some goverment wants it to develop.

You work to obtain a consensus by actually talking to people.
Voting a representative is a vast improvement over hereditary dictatorship, but it's a still a poor substitute for genuine consensus.

You still fail to give reasons why in an society where there is someone who organises (or governs) that talking, is less effective than a society where nobody moderates the talking.

I'm tempted to start a whole new thread just called "a better society" where we can discuss how things would ideally work without all the labels...

The question is not how would a certain system ideally work. It is about who would a system work in practice.

You say, ideally a anarchy would work.
Then I say, anarchy wouldn't work in pratice.
Then you say but if there weren't any problems anarchy would work.
Without problems any system would work.
Systems that deal better with problems have the advantage over those that do worse.