Your Utopia

Lately I've been reading a lot on Marx and his ideas, most of which make perfect sense on paper, but I think self-interest is currently too ingrained in our brains for his system to work today. Just look at many of the leaders who have pushed for communism, most became power-hungry dictators. Not to mention the rich of today, who I'm sure would not so willingly take part in a system that would redistribute their wealth and make them equal to the rest of society.

But lets face it, our current system simply does not work. By this system I mean today's Capitalism, which I find completely unfair. Call me an idealist, but I believe the world should move towards bringing the most happiness to the largest amount of people possible. Sure, here in the U.S. and most parts of Europe, not too many complain: we have it easy compared to many poor parts of the world. But tell me, is this fair? Is it fair that by way of mere chance I was born in this country and experience many luxuries while others are born into a poverty that they will struggle with for the rest of their painful lives? This is why I think this system does not work. Sure, it works for the rich, but not for humanity in general.

Sorry for the bit of a rant, but with that said I'll present some ideas on what I think would be a(n) Utopian world. For starters, we humans should live life as one world, not as a cluster of many nations. This only brings imaginary differences between people, brings unnecessary war, and an unfair amount of power to certain nations. This would be the foundation for my society; the rest, in terms of economy and all, I'm yet to figure out

Anyway the point of this thread is that I would like to hear some of your visions (as idealist as they may be) of a more perfect, happier world. Also, share your ideas on how we can transition from this system to yours.

Include ideas on economy as well

You really need to understand that we don't have a capitalist economy anywhere in the world right now, so to blame the world's problems on capitalism is a bit foolish.

there will never be a utopia as long as humans are around. Unless we can come up with a political system ran by computers, greed and jealousy play too big a role.

The word Utopia was invented by some British Saint using the Greek words for: not and place. It is a place that can never be. Sorry bro.

But my idea of an ideal society would be something close to a direct democracy at the state level. Control closer to the people. The states should fund and run there own social programs as each state sees fit.

The Federal Government would keep a standing army but only in our borders or in Countries that want us to stay- national referendums to vote on us staying- or we pull out. The Federal government would give up most of it's taxation and surrender it's right to the states. The states would be required to give money to the Federal for the military and other select functions e.i. Nation Park Service, FBI, environmental protection ect. The military would be much smaller and more focused on very well trained small groups of home defense forces. No more corporate nanny state.


I'm not decided on central planing in the economy. I do know the Fed needs to be opened for review -that is for sure.

But I don't really know. There needs to be a honest vigorous public debate about these issues so we can really find out what is going on. But I have been reading as much as I can get my hands on and I'm about to go to school and really get my research on

But the really important part of this is the internet. The internet is the key to having a direct democracy. I think it would be too easy to set up a voting system via the internet that everyone in any given state could at any time vote on issues put before the people. It's a really ruff idea but it's something that needs to be thought about and figured out so we can save America. She is so sick and it makes me so sad.

Not to mention the rich of today, who I'm sure would not so willingly take part in a system that would redistribute their wealth and make them equal to the rest of society.

This is why socialism and democracy fails. It does not abide by the maxim that unprovoked violence and theft is wrong. People do not like being robbed and they will fight you.

By this system I mean today's Capitalism, which I find completely unfair.

In a mixed market where wealth is transferred from taxpayers to the corporations through inflation and subsidies, capitalism does not exist. What we have is fascism, or corporatism.

Call me an idealist, but I believe the world should move towards bringing the most happiness to the largest amount of people possible.

Then you'd be a utilitarian, which means you have no respect for individual rights.

For starters, we humans should live life as one world, not as a cluster of many nations.

Competition is the key to progress. Granting a monopoly on law to some global power, based on democracy I presume, would only further compound our problems.

This only brings imaginary differences between people, brings unnecessary war, and an unfair amount of power to certain nations.

There are real differences between people, we do not all hold the same culture and beliefs.

Wars are not the result of borders, it is the result of a powerful state with a central bank capable of financing it. "War is the health of the state".



My ideal government is described in the Articles of Confederation.

My "utopia" is a place where people strive to respect one another's property rights including the right to self-ownership.

You really need to understand that we don't have a capitalist economy anywhere in the world right now, so to blame the world's problems on capitalism is a bit foolish.

Sorry, what I meant to say is that whatever current system we have, particularly in the U.S. (under whatever name) is one that is not just. Its not the cause of all the world's problems, but definitely a major contributor to global inequalities that exist today, particulalrly the great gap in wealth between nations.

Then you'd be a utilitarian, which means you have no respect for individual rights.

Utilitarian, maybe, but I wouldn't say I have no respect for individual rights. I do think, however, that some of these rights, particularly superficial ones, can be sacrificed in order to achieve the greater good for the greatest number of people.

In a world where many have very unique and contradicting views, it is of course impossible to please everyone. Doesn't it seem right, however, to try to accomodate the majority of the population, as opposed to the select few?

Competition is the key to progress. Granting a monopoly on law to some global power, based on democracy I presume, would only further compound our problems.

The statement I bolded is true, but what are we progressing towards? At this rate, the gap between the rich and the poor is only increasing. As we all know, the poor, on a global scale, make up a great majority. What is also increasing within this majority is injustice.

There are real differences between people, we do not all hold the same culture and beliefs.

Wars are not the result of borders, it is the result of a powerful state with a central bank capable of financing it. "War is the health of the state".

Of course there are difference between cultures, but I don't think any of them should bring hostility and violence between different groups of people. I know this is not the case, but in my eyes all these differences can be easily reconciled.

And as far as war goes, I don't believe any war to be justifiable, unless it is a result of a revolution to overthrow an unjust system.

And why finance war when you can finance other things that would bring much much more good to our society?

Utilitarian, maybe, but I wouldn't say I have no respect for individual rights. I do think, however, that some of these rights, particularly superficial ones, can be sacrificed in order to achieve the greater good for the greatest number of people.

Utilitarians generally do not mind trampling individual rights (especially property rights) so long as the majority seems to benefit.

Doesn't it seem right, however, to try to accomodate the majority of the population, as opposed to the select few?

To me, not really. To you, as a utilitarian, I can see why you believe this. I think we should try to accommodate the individual (the smallest minority).

At this rate, the gap between the rich and the poor is only increasing. As we all know, the poor, on a global scale, make up a great majority. What is also increasing within this majority is injustice.

I believe that the farther away from the majority (the people) the power structure gets the worst it get's for the people. A global government will only take the power further away.

Doesn't it seem right, however, to try to accomodate the majority of the population, as opposed to the select few?

No, equalization is not equality. We should all have equal opportunity to succeed. Equality of opportunity doesn't exist today so I admit we have a problem, "special interests" run the show.

But some people ARE better than others, they shouldn't be forcefully prevented from succeeding so that others can enjoy the benefits of their hard work. "Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

What are we progressing towards?

I dunno, a higher standard of living I guess. Innovations in technology so that we can do more chilling and less slaving away?

At this rate, the gap between the rich and the poor is only increasing. As we all know, the poor, on a global scale, make up a great majority. What is also increasing within this majority is injustice.

Agreed.

And why finance war when you can finance other things that would bring much much more good to our society?

Because war is a racket. Eliminate the states unchecked ability to finance war and you eliminate wars.

To me, not really. To you, as a utilitarian, I can see why you believe this. I think we should try to accommodate the individual (the smallest minority).

I see what you're saying, and in part, I agree. Yes, we should accommodate the individual, we should try to accommodate as many individuals as possible. The smallest minority, greatest majority, and everything in between are all composed of individuals, and to me, the role of life should be for each individual to seek happiness, perhaps with a bit of help from the state.

I guess I just wish everyone would have an equal opportunity to reach happiness.

No, equalization is not equality. We should all have equal opportunity to succeed. Equality of opportunity doesn't exist today so I admit we have a problem, "special interests" run the show.

But some people ARE better than others, they shouldn't be forcefully prevented from succeeding so that others can enjoy the benefits of their hard work. "Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Yes, agreed. This is one of the several flaws in socialism and ultimately communism.

I wouldn't mind living in a place where no one tells me how much of my income I get to keep (as extreme as that may sound:rolleyes:) or what I can and can't consume. Bunches of large-breasted women would be nice too.

. Call me an idealist, but I believe the world should move towards bringing the most happiness to the largest amount of people possible.

Remember when that was exterminating the jews?

Remember when that was exterminating the jews?

This Jew cries: Reductio ad Hitlerum!!!


Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Jew cries: Reductio ad Hitlerum!!!


Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lol good stuff

Capitalism good.

Capitalism good.

I disagree sir. Respectfully, of course.

I disagree sir. Respectfully, of course.

What do you suggest?

At this rate, the gap between the rich and the poor is only increasing. As we all know, the poor, on a global scale, make up a great majority. What is also increasing within this majority is injustice.

I see this argument a lot and I don't entirely disagree. I just feel sometimes the "only increasing" part of it is sometimes used to push utilitarian ideals by comparing the social inequality today to that of a supposed time of economic equilibrium. My question is, when is it that our humanity had such justice. I would argue that the Pharaoh's, Caesar's, Monarch's, Expansionist's, and even Robber Barons all had a social divide that was, at the very least, equal to ours today. I have a hard time finding this moment of equality that corporatism is constantly moving us away from.

I'm really not trying to prove the statement wrong or right but honestly would like a better understanding of it.

Simple argument, utilitarianism bad, totalitarianism bad, authoritarianism bad.

Libertarianism, good

Capitalism leads to innovation which leads to a higher grade of life