A 3 Islands Experiment - a thought experiment opinion question about which political philosophy would perform the best or worst

[Stevicus]

One thing that comes to mind regarding this experiment is that it seems to imply that success or failure is solely dependent upon whatever abstract "system" is implemented. I've always considered this to be a flawed approach, since it seems that, historically, there are myriad factors which can be cited regarding the success or failure of a given nation or empire. History and human politics are far too complex to be reduced to such simplicities and canned perceptions about "systems."

The system-builders throughout history are like those who keep trying to build a better mousetrap.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

This is a slight variation of something called The Island Experiment, in that all 3 islands are identical in terms of size, environment, and raw resources that are available on it, and each of the 3 basic types of political ideologies (anarchism, socialism, and libertarianism) are assigned to each island.

The idea is to get an equal number of volunteers (they would all receive compensation for participating in this experiment) who subscribe to the political ideology assigned to each island onto each island; the anarchism island would only have volunteers who subscribe to anarchism, the socialism island would only have volunteers who subscribe to socialism, and the libertarian island would only have volunteers who subscribe to libertarianism.

By subscribe, I mean that they both advocate for and wish to practices their respective ideologies.

By anarchism, I'm referring to the philosophy that the individual gets priority over the collective.
By socialism, I'm referring to the philosophy that the collective gets priority over the individual.
By libertarianism, I'm referring to the philosophy that neither the collective nor the individual gets priority over the other (i.e., there has to be equilibrium between the two).

The experiment I would like to do is for much greater than Dunbar's number (which is around 150) of people on each island, so let's say 1,000 people per island. Let's also make this a 5-year experiment.

After 5 years, which one in your opinion would be in the best shape overall, and which one in your opinion would be in the worst shape overall?

Not only would there have to be an equal number of individuals on each island (1,000 per island), but they would also have to be equal in collective background, experience, profession, intelligence.

For example, if there's a cardiologist with 25 years of experience for one island, there have to be cardiologists with 25 years of experience on the other 2 islands; if there's a 30-year old math wiz on one island, then there have to be 30-year old math wizzes on the other 2 island; if there are 50 experienced carpenters on one island, there have to be 50 experienced carpenters on the other 2 islands; if there are no retired commercial airline pilots on one island, then there cannot be any retired commercial airline pilots on the other islands; if 10 individuals are 6'5" tall on one island, there have to be 10 individuals who are 6'5" on the other 2 islands.

The point is that the experiments have to be identical in population content; if this experiment were to actually be conducted, then some slack and tolerance for slight variations would have to be allowed, such as substitution with a retired pleasure cruise captains in lieu of a lack of availability of retired commercial airline pilots, etc.

For practical reasons, initial supplies of certain kinds of basic materials, such as concrete, bricks, nails, wiring, electric motors, batteries, windmills, solar panels, pots, pans, light bulbs, hammers, saws, tape measures, wire cutters, wire strippers, pens/pencils, paper, etc. that would be suitable for eliminating the need to have to develop technology from scratch in order to catch up to where we're at within a century, would be provided to each island in equal portions.

Same with food and drinks; an initial supply of food and drinks (water, juice, milk, etc.) would have to be provided in equal portions to each island. An equal amount of cattle and seeds could also be provided to each island.

I think, for the sake of having reliable results, availability of news and means of communication with the outside world would not be permitted, but within each island, they may have communication systems that work only within the islands. The reason for not allowing communication or information from the outside world would be to prevent skewing of the progress of each island, resulting in it being a closed-loop feedback system competition against each other (meaning how hard they work won't increase or decrease based on how they compare to the other 2 respective islands, or get incentivized or demoralized by false progress reports, etc.).

The criteria for being best or worst would be determined based on the overall quality of life, standard of living, comfort, health, happiness, how well volunteers got along, and how economically efficient each island is at the end of the experiment.

The only need for any political system or philosophy is to create a framework for resolving conflict within a socially interacting group of people. Given your initial conditions of plenty of supplies for everyone, and presumably plenty of space in which to live, I don't think you will find much difference between any of the islands within 5 years time. It is how a society deals with limits and inequalities regarding needs and wants that becomes the test of that society and its political structure.

Also, whether prioritizing individual rights or collective rights is preferable is subjective and my judgement as an outside observer would be arbitrary and irrelevant. If your volunteers are predisposed or pre-socialized to prefer a particular social structure, presumably they will be happy in that structure filled with other like-minded individuals. You may get equally high reported happiness ratings from each island at the end of the five year experiment.

I would also add that absent ubiquitous plenty and no conflicts ever arising, anarchism is a fantasy and not possibe in the real world.

 

[anotherneil]

Once we recognize that the well being of the collective and the well being of the individuals within the collective are the same well being, all this contention vanishes. So it's basically the premise, here, that is flawed. That premise being that the well being of the individual and the well being of the collective are divergent, and in antipathy with each other. When they are not. So the solution is for the people living on all three islands to raise their awareness to a level that enables them to recognize and respect their own collective reality.

The solution to the question is "none of the above". None of these political ideations will be successful because none of them are based on recognizing and acting on the simple fact that the well being of our collective and our own well being are one and the same. That we are not actually in contention with each other, in life, as our dumb animal natures and the poison of capitalism run amok have so thoroughly convinced us all that we are.

Really? Then how do you explain things like war, crime, poverty, homelessness, and political corruption?

 

[anotherneil]

For 1000 people I’d guess socialism would do best (on average), but unless we are running the experiment many times a lot would depend on randomness for small populations and short time periods.

I’m not sure any of these philosophies scale particularly well into the tens of millions in most modern nations though or that such a thought experiment tells us much about the real world.

I almost agree with you, but I think you're missing some things and you might want to consider looking into these concepts, if you're not already familiar with them:

Dunbar's number - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Gift economy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Socialism, or something like it, might work well in Smurf village, which has a population of about 100, but once a population exceeds 150, socialism or gift economies scale up very poorly.

 

[Augustus]

I almost agree with you, but I think you're missing some things and you might want to consider looking into these concepts, if you're not already familiar with them:

Dunbar's number - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Gift economy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Socialism, or something like it, might work well in Smurf village, which has a population of about 100, but once a population exceeds 150, socialism or gift economies scale up very poorly.

1000 is small enough that there is generally going to be collective self-interest in many policies, although large enough that the society would benefit from some form of centralised authority able to enforce majority opinion on collective good.

I don't see socialism as being a 'gift economy', just one in which wealth would be redistributed for collective good. It is also not pure communism.

1000 people is basically a village, and personal relations would still play a major role at that scale. Lacking a central authority would probably result in various cliques developing and ultimately competing in a manner that may well become antagonistic over time, especially if significant inequalities emerge.

Provision of public utilities, economic planning and R&D is more easily done with a central authority at this scale, and at small scale is not unduly complex.

 

[anotherneil]

I legit wonder where you got those definitions from because they are messed up.

It's called "defining the parameters".

Both anarcho-capitalists

Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. Something can't be both anarchist and capitalist; they're mutually exclusive to each other.

Anarchism is opposed to having the state and government; capitalism cannot exist without the state and government.

and communists are anarchists,

Ok, if that's the case, then communists can sign up for the anarchist island.

but by your definition communists are not.

I never used the word "communist" or "communists" in my OP, so I don't even know how you conjured up this claim.

Curiously, a philosophy where the individual gets the priority would include libertarianism, but you have created another category for this one and provided another messed up definition.

Well, I don't agree with this; I think you're wrong.

What you are calling socialism is properly called collectivism.

Then we are in agreement, since I'm referring to socialism as the political ideology that prioritizes collectivism over the individual.

Would both fascists and communists be in the same island then?

Since fascism is socialism, and according to you, communists are anarchists, the answer would be no, they would not be on the same island.

Socialism is supposed to be a transition between capitalism and communism.

If your definition of a communist is that they're an anarchist, then you're claiming that communism is anarchism. The economic aspect of socialism is state capitalism, and it doesn't do any transitioning to anarchism; it only does things like centrally concentrate political power.

If you are starting an island from stratch, you wouldn't have socialism.

It's not from scratch in this experiment; as I already explained, they would initially be provided with limited resources.

It doesn't have to "have" socialism; all that's required is for volunteers who sign up for that island to be pro-socialism.

After 5 years, that island will be the product of pro-socialism.

The middle ground between the individual and the collective would be found in a constitutional republic with some form of welfare state. Definitely nothing to do with libertarianism.

I agree that a republic is necessary for the "middle ground", since something like a monarchy has no equilibrium between the individual and the collective (it puts a certain individual - the monarch - and the individual members of the monarch's family, before the collective), I think I can agree that being a constitutional republic (it's just overall a better form of a republic than any other), I might agree with the idea that it has to be what some might refer to as "some form of welfare state" (depending on what you mean by this - if you mean something like a dividend-based UBI), but I don't agree at all that it has nothing to do with libertarianism.

Libertarianism has everything to do with this, more than socialism or anarchism.

Obviously anarchism has nothing to do with it, and socialism at least appears to be about this, but socialism actually doesn't, since it ignores economic principles (such as the economic calculation problem).

 

[Shaul]

No political system is an island.

 

[anotherneil]

I don't think this can work (as a thought experiment or in reality) with singular labels. As other replies have pointed out (or demonstrated), the definitions and interpretations of those terms can vary massively. I'd argue the most fantastical element of the thought experiment you propose is having a thousand people with the same ideology.

For a viable thought experiment, I think you'd need to define the different socio-political principles and structures in much more detail. There are all sorts of vastly different social structures that could work if they were perfectly applied as designed. The fundamental problem will always be the same one though; people. Even those who share the same ideas and principles aren't necessarily going to follow them in the same way, especially in difficult times. To a great extent, the nature of the system is only as important as how that system is implemented and managed in practice.

A benevolent dictator is likely to be better than a corrupt elected government, but that doesn't mean dictatorship is better than democracy.

The experiment isn't necessarily for finding out what works and what doesn't, only to determine which works best and which is the worst (for the stated criteria).

I think the socialist island has a somewhat fair chance of being able to perform ok, but it won't be anywhere near as good as the libertarian island.

I don't think the anarchist island would be able to perform at all; I think it would actually end up being such a bad disaster that for this island, the experiment may have to be aborted within a matter of days & even if it doesn't, it'll eventually have to be aborted very soon after the initial rations are depleted. That's just my humble opinion, though.

A "benevolent dictator" might be useful for something like going to war to defend its borders, but the plan, desire, or intent isn't for the islands to go to war with each other (that won't be permitted since they won't have contact with each other & that includes even knowing where the other islands are located) or to have infighting, but if they do have infighting, then it'll be up to them to decide if they want to have "benevolent dictators" - that would just be part of what happens with the experiment.

There won't be any harming or killing of each other, because the legal jurisdiction and its laws still apply. Law enforcement can still enter the islands with warrants and arrest anyone who commits a crime that involves harming or killing any other volunteers (or observers, monitors, referees, etc.).

The thought experiment involves 3 islands, which implies that they're in a large body of water & surrounded by ocean, but an actual experiment doesn't have to utilize literal islands - it could be "towns" on land that are set up in the middle of nowhere.

 

[anotherneil]

I don't think there would be much difference. The one thing that is not compatible with reality, is that people agree about which system would be best. That never happens in the real world. IRL you have friction losses because of disagreement, in your experiment there would be no such thing.

That's exactly what I want - yes, it doesn't happen in the real world & the disagreements in question wouldn't be there, which is the point of this experiment - to isolate the different ideologies to try to reveal in an objective and impartial way what works well and what doesn't.

And not only do the people agree about the system, but also on the goal. I.e. what you call "anarchists" would easily work together towards the common goal, making them not that different from those you call "socialists".

I think you'd be right if this experiment were only for a week or two, maybe even a month or two, but 5 years is a pretty long time. I think within a year or so they'll settle into taking an approach based on their ideology, and the experiment will be able to yield some rather contrasting results.

 

[anotherneil]

Would there be communication between the islands?

No; as I stated, no communication with the outside world and no communication between the islands.

Would they have trade or diplomatic relations with each other?

No; there wouldn't be and there can't be, since that requires communication between the islands.

Is there a possibility they could fight or go to war with each other?

No; part of the communication restriction is that they won't be able to communicate with each other locate or find each other.

The islands could (and would) be way too far apart from each other, and would be out of sight & out of mind.

In fact, when volunteers sign up, they might not even know that there are other islands, or how many there are, or when the experiments start or end for each one, etc.

In practice, sure, they'd have to start and end simultaneously, as a method of controlling the experiments (they'd be sort of like "controls" for each other or relative to each other, by taking place simultaneously).

 

[anotherneil]

I did a copy/paste of the OP in Gemini and then spoilered the results below

Spoiler: Gemini thoughts on the OP

​

Disclaimer: While this is an intriguing thought experiment, it's important to note that real-world implementation would face numerous challenges, including ethical considerations, logistical complexities, and the unpredictability of human behavior.​

Hypothetical Outcomes​

Given the controlled conditions and equal initial resources, the hypothetical outcomes of this experiment could be influenced significantly by the inherent characteristics of each political ideology:​

1. Anarchism:​

• Potential Challenges: Without any form of governance, coordination and cooperation could be difficult to achieve. This could lead to conflicts, resource depletion, and a lack of infrastructure development.
• Potential Benefits: Individual freedoms would be maximized, potentially leading to innovation and creativity. However, without a system to protect individual rights, there could be a risk of exploitation and oppression.

2. Socialism:​

• Potential Challenges: Centralized planning and decision-making could be inefficient, leading to resource misallocation and a lack of responsiveness to local needs. There's also a risk of stifling individual initiative and creativity.
• Potential Benefits: A focus on equality and social welfare could lead to a more equitable distribution of resources and a strong social safety net.

3. Libertarianism:​

• Potential Challenges: Without a strong government, there could be challenges in providing essential public goods like infrastructure, defense, and law enforcement. This could lead to instability and a lack of social cohesion.
• Potential Benefits: Individual freedoms and economic liberty could foster innovation and economic growth. However, without regulations and social safety nets, there could be a risk of inequality and exploitation.

Predicting the Outcomes​

Based on these factors, it's difficult to definitively predict which island would be in the best or worst shape after five years. However, some potential scenarios could play out:​

• Anarchism: While there's potential for innovation, the lack of governance and coordination could lead to significant challenges, potentially resulting in a relatively poor outcome.
• Socialism: The centralized planning and decision-making could be inefficient, but the focus on equality and social welfare could lead to a reasonably stable and equitable society.
• Libertarianism: The emphasis on individual freedoms and economic liberty could foster innovation and growth, but the lack of government intervention could also lead to inequality and instability.

Ultimately, the success or failure of each island would depend on a complex interplay of factors, including:​

• Human Behavior: How well individuals within each ideology cooperate, resolve conflicts, and adapt to changing circumstances.
• Cultural Factors: The cultural norms and values that develop within each community.
• Environmental Factors: The impact of natural disasters or resource scarcity on each island.

It's important to note that this is a highly simplified model, and real-world outcomes would likely be much more nuanced and unpredictable.

Pretty cool idea - thanks for sharing this.

 

[anotherneil]

There is no solution, for a time period one or maybe all would succeed but in the end all would fail because humans don't follow ideals for long and change based on slight discomfort or success.

That's fine, if that's what were to happen; I think this would mean that it would only produce inconclusive results, basically.

I do think that the libertarian island is guaranteed to succeed for the entire duration of 5 years, and I think the anarchist island is guaranteed to fail before the 5 years is up. I think the socialist island may stand a good chance of succeeding for the 5-year duration, but it wouldn't surprise me if it runs into difficult problems; I'm pretty sure the socialists will be able to outlast the anarchists, though.

 

[anotherneil]

I think that a communities happiness would often lead to an individuals happiness, so socialist island.

Happiness is something that first has to be reached and maintained, and it seems like you're just jumping to your conclusion.

One could just as easily say "I think that a communities happiness would often lead to an individuals happiness, so anarchist island," or "I think that a communities happiness would often lead to an individuals happiness, so libertarian island."

Strong, free and cunning people do not always want what's best for the greater good....hello Donald

I suppose you're referring to Donald Trump; although this isn't a thread about him, I'm curious (since you've brought him up), which island do you think he'd pick?

 

[Twilight Hue]

We all have -
View attachment 98347
within us

I really got to read that book.

 

[anotherneil]

Okay I can’t hold my tongue. Though others have pointed out the problems of definitions…

Good luck trying to get self proclaimed anarchists to agree with each other that the other one is an anarchist. @Heyo and I are both anarchists, but we are not at the same time we have different views on what anarchism is even though we have overlapping thoughts.

This experiment doesn't need such luck since it's not calling for self-proclaimed anarchists to agree with each other that the other's an anarchist.

It's not even calling for anyone to identify as anarchist, either; it's only calling for volunteers to select the political ideology that they agree with: individual before the collective, collective before the individual, or equilibrium between the two aspects of humanity.

Anarchists would probably be the ones who have the easiest time agreeing with each other about what anarchism is, since anarchism is a political ideology that means something very simple and straightforward in what they desire, which is to abolish the state & government.

Since libertarians and socialists don't want to abolish the state & government, it's a little more involved with either one about how to best or correctly achieve their political ideologies.

I would equate libertarianism to anarchism, synonyms if you will. Others would not.

They don't equate with each other at all; they're basically on opposite sides of each other. Only anarchists oppose the existence of the state & government, and libertarians do not.

If you want a simple political spectrum that is accurate, I suppose you want the impossible. I personally like to divide people up into 2 categories: 1- Statist 2- Anarchist but there are even problems with this.

If by "statist" you mean anyone who isn't for anarchism, then libertarians would be "statists"; if not, then it's a false dichotomy, since you'd be leaving out libertarianism and ignoring the possibility of a political ideology that favors equilibrium between the individual and collective.

 

[anotherneil]

You must misremember that. I have never been a communist, not even a socialist.
My form of atheism is most accurately described as mutualism, which in turn fits the OP's definition of libertarianism best.
The idea is that co-operation is best for the economy, while retaining personal freedom on all other personal matters.

Atheism? Did you mean something else?

 

[an anarchist]

Anarchists would probably be the ones who have the easiest time agreeing with each other about what anarchism is, since anarchism is a political ideology that means something very simple and straightforward in what they desire, which is to abolish the state & government.

Oh, if it were only that simple. Example - I say capitalism is the way to abolish the state and government. @Heyo says that capitalism would create a de facto state (correct me if I’m wrong fellow anarchist). So we wouldn’t even be able to start up a cohesive system at all since we disagree with each other at the start about what anarchism is and how to go about it.

 

[anotherneil]

One thing that comes to mind regarding this experiment is that it seems to imply that success or failure is solely dependent upon whatever abstract "system" is implemented. I've always considered this to be a flawed approach, since it seems that, historically, there are myriad factors which can be cited regarding the success or failure of a given nation or empire. History and human politics are far too complex to be reduced to such simplicities and canned perceptions about "systems."

It's not necessarily or just a measure of success or failure; it's mainly a measure of performance.

The system-builders throughout history are like those who keep trying to build a better mousetrap.

Sure & in a free market, the better mousetraps are the ones that are sold and used, and the ones that don't perform as well, or do worse, aren't sold and used. When there's central planning (socialism), individuals don't get that choice - whether it's literally for mouse traps, or figuratively speaking, for the type of political system for their government. When there's no state/government infrastructure (anarchism) to enable the market to exist at all, no one except those who know how to make a mousetrap at all have mousetraps; this is also true both figuratively and literally for anarchism.

 

[an anarchist]

They don't equate with each other at all; they're basically on opposite sides of each other. Only anarchists oppose the existence of the state & government, and libertarians do not.

If by "statist" you mean anyone who isn't for anarchism, then libertarians would be "statists"; if not, then it's a false dichotomy, since you'd be leaving out libertarianism and ignoring the possibility of a political ideology that favors equilibrium between the individual and collective.

And here we are back to the problem of definitions. Capital L (L)ibertarians are statists, sure. They believe in limited government and have an official party. Lowercase l (l)ibertarians believe in personal liberty and that makes pure libertarians anarchists as the existence of a state counters personal liberty/individualism.

 

[an anarchist]

When there's no state/government infrastructure (anarchism) to enable the market to exist at all

The market exists despite of the existence of a state.