Utopia



  • You completely missed my point. Both Spain and Portugal were similar in that their colonial empires were built on conquest much like Spara, whereas the empires of the Dutch, England and France were built on trade like Athens. Similarily France, Holland and England are among the most developed and wealthy nations in Europe, but Spain and Portugal are some of the poorest. The lesson is that any empire built solely on conquest will crumble, and the benefits of this empire will dissappear with the empire. However, a trade empire can far outlive the military dominance of the parent nation.



  • For my utopian community the export will be textiles. Like armstrong. Then my commie gov’t will use the money from the exports to import clothing, food, furniture, books, school supplies, etc. Also, there will a college that will earn money from tuition, and that will also go to the treasury.



  • @AgentSmith:

    You completely missed my point. Both Spain and Portugal were similar in that their colonial empires were built on conquest much like Spara, whereas the empires of the Dutch, England and France were built on trade like Athens. Similarily France, Holland and England are among the most developed and wealthy nations in Europe, but Spain and Portugal are some of the poorest. The lesson is that any empire built solely on conquest will crumble, and the benefits of this empire will dissappear with the empire. However, a trade empire can far outlive the military dominance of the parent nation.

    no, i got you. in fact, the point hit me pretty hard when i was there looking at gold-plated churches in a fairly impoverished nation. i just forgot the “tongue-in-cheek” emoticon.



  • Anarchy could never be Utopian because everyone is working toward their individual good, instead of a common good. For instance, if you NEED a hospital in the middle of a population in order to provide the best care for everyone, you could not build it. Even if everyone was really nice, without any authority or governing principles, the group would immediatly start to crumble. Good government manages the sacrifices of it’s people. Anarchy has no such overriding principle. It is a failure as soon as it exists.
    I suppose in a population that is extremely small, where NO public works where needed or expected it would cause Utopia to fail more slowly, but even there it would create friction as people saw untapped potential.



  • @Desertfox:

    For my English class which has just completed The Giver

    Dude, how old are you? That book’s recommended grade level is grade 5. But isn’t making up a utopia a little advanced for grade 5’s? This is confusing.



  • well if we would say which government typr would have the best chance to lead to utopia i huess it would be a democratic socialism.

    There are always two questions you need to ask

    1:is this system safe from parasites? (with communism and socialism you have to worry about this)
    2:is this system safe from dictators or other ruthless power hungry people?

    as humans are imperfect there can be no utopia, but the democracy with a social safety net is probably one of the better.

    A enlightent supreme ruler would be good too (as in most fairy tales with the good king, arthur and his knights etc.) but as soon as his son turn out to be hitler you go wrong. so it isnt save from scenario 2



  • @GeZe:

    @Desertfox:

    For my English class which has just completed The Giver

    Dude, how old are you? That book’s recommended grade level is grade 5. But isn’t making up a utopia a little advanced for grade 5’s? This is confusing.

    In Seventh Grade. Also, I had read the book before when I was in 5th grade or the summer before between 4th and fifth.



  • @Lizardbaby:

    Anarchy could never be Utopian because everyone is working toward their individual good, instead of a common good.

    I thought that system would be called capitalism. Anarchy is different.

    For instance, if you NEED a hospital in the middle of a population in order to provide the best care for everyone, you could not build it.

    I think you still miss the point of anarchy. Everyone would feel the need that the hospital has to be built, and they all would gather and just do it.

    Good government manages the sacrifices of it’s people. Anarchy has no such overriding principle. It is a failure as soon as it exists.

    It has this principle in each person. Each person is willing to sacrifice.
    I repeat: Anarchy is not the most selfish system, that’s capitalism :).
    That is why this “Manchester capitalism”, or “robberbraon capitalism” is so frightening.

    I suppose in a population that is extremely small, where NO public works where needed or expected it would cause Utopia to fail more slowly, but even there it would create friction as people saw untapped potential.

    In Utopia, they would tap it as soon as they notice there is untapped potential.



  • Mutha Russia is right so far in that fascism and other repressive regimes could give their populace the feeling it is an utopia and that all bad things comes from enemies outward. Anyone disagreeing would just “disappear”

    the book 1984 gives a bit of an explanation.
    Propaganda, keeping the people dumb and creating a common enemy who is to blame for all the bad things would be a stabile regime no matter who evil. If those indoctrinated hitlerjugend ever would grow up in the reich and gain power they wouldnt think wrongly of fascism.

    I’m not supporting the nazi’s or anything i’m just saying that it is easy to corrupt and distort people into believing and rooting for a wrong regime. One of the reasons i believe we have to be extra alert and not afraid to use force when confronted with such a thing, instead of thinking, well the people of those country will surely rebel in a matter of time no need to do anything.



  • 1984 is supposd to be the opposite of utopia, in my opionion. But what is your defenition of utopia?



  • No its my opposite too. I think a democracy with a social safetynet would probably be the best.

    I just meant that its possible for an non-utopian regime to make its citizens believe its an utopia and that all bad things (which makes life far from utopic) isnt there fault, but from some outward enemy.

    But it doesnt really depend on the system moreso the ppl. If they change into utopian like human beings most of these systems would work and the opressive ones wouldnt occur.

    If the humans would not change none of these systems would be really an utopia as we all know from real life experiments. The system thats fairest but resilient to parasites and dictators should then be chosen.

    I mean communism is a great idea with good intentions. two problems, it never made it past the, all powerfull party who needs to start revolution and change the world and then give up all its power to the people (yeah that really happened) and if everyone gets the same, ambition and self initiative is down the drain while lazyness and other bad traits are encouraged. I find it just funny that some humans can corrupt even the best intentions.

    Like with all those ppl saying religion is evil. It isnt. Its clearly with best intentions and tries to stimulate people into good humans beings. I mean, thou shallt not kill and you think its your holy duty to slaughter entire villages, man, woman, child to even the dogs? (some crusader hardline order called the slaughters or something)



  • What about a Democratic Communist Republic? There is a president elected by the citizens, a senate to make and change laws, and the government takes all the money, buys goods, and then gives everyone the same things. No taxes to complain about, no neighbor rivalries over lawnmowers, everyone is equal and has equal things. Everyone is also egually important. (The trash guy is just as important as the doctor because without the trash guy, the town would be so unsanitary that the doctor would be over whelmed. )



  • What about a Democratic Communist Republic? There is a president elected by the citizens, a senate to make and change laws, and the government takes all the money, buys goods, and then gives everyone the same things. No taxes to complain about, no neighbor rivalries over lawnmowers, everyone is equal and has equal things. Everyone is also egually important. (The trash guy is just as important as the doctor because without the trash guy, the town would be so unsanitary that the doctor would be over whelmed. )

    I agree with you completely on the democratic part, but with the garbage man/doctor analogy your arguement fails. If the garbage man and a doctor got the same exact rewards, even if their jobs are equally important, no one would be a doctor. This is becuase i, as a sixteen year old, could be a garbage man right now, but to be a doctor i would have to go to eight years of college. Furthermore, i would work nearly twice the hours of a garbage man. Now i personally would make the sacrifice, but most people would not, since their is no incentive. Therefore, you need to have some different classes in order for their to be any doctors, engineers, etc.
    I like to twist the definition of Communism from “everyone equal” to “government controlled economy”. The government controls all aspects of the economy, and gives everyone a job. Then, it gives everyone thier basic needs, such as food, clothing, healthcare, etc. Then, based on a combination of the effort, skill, and importance of your job, they give you a certain amount of “dollars” to buy luxury goods from the government. To combat lazyness, you simply cut the luxury funds of anyone who is not working, or who’s supervizors think are workering well below compacity. They would still be fine, but they would not be very happy and would have ot get back to work. injured people would still recieve luxury funds, obviously. Jobs would always be available, because the government could always build another factory, even if there is no demand for the product. I am a communist, but more of a realist.

    On the topic of anarchy, i think it is going to fail pretty bad. I beleive Falk said the people would band together to build a hsopital if need be, but once it is built staffing it would be horrible. Under anarchy, the doctors could just go as the please, and if they did not like a patient, they just would not treat him. Furthermore, individual doctors may have been making mroe money before the hopsital showed up with private visits, and would sabatoge the operation. With no laws, their are just too many unkowns.
    On a philisophical level, it just could not exists for long. First, i you had no laws, the peole would become increasingly slefish and amoral, becuase thats what anarchistic society breeds. Wihtout a government to initiate propoganda, the people would be more prone to follow instinctive urges. Second, it simply would not last do to desires of power and control. Groups would band together to structure their soictey out of saftey, and to be able to oppress others. Within this society, thye would create their own laws, which would make it something else. With such structure, these groups would more powerful than the inidividual (the group is alwys more powerful and more important than the individual 😛 ) and owuld be able to conquer the surrounding land. As long as the original people were not fascist dictators, life would be safer under their rule, and the poeple woudl most likly welcome a relief form the constant battle of survival that occurs in an anarchist system. Anarchy could only be temporary, like in Civilization III :lol: .
    Wow, that was alot longer than expected, ill stop now



  • Well, I do cut food if people are lazy. Also, college is free and I’ve heard that college is one of the best times of a person’s life.



  • It’s done! 😄 😄 😄 😄 Tell me if you want to read any of it.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 10
  • 1
  • 6
  • 2
  • 29
  • 24
  • 1
  • 14
I Will Never Grow Up Games

38
Online

13.4k
Users

33.8k
Topics

1.3m
Posts