What is your definition of Freedom - Is a Utopia possible

[TheEvolutionist]

The first question is pretty straight-forward; what do you believe freedom does or should mean? And just for fun do you believe you are Free by your definition; for more sh**s & giggles, if not how does one achieve your definition of Free or Freedom in our present society. The second question is a little more complicated. Please don't use that lame cop-out about how all books about a utopias say it is impossible or that a Utopia is communist or fascist or whatever. First question: Do you even think a Utopia is possible? Explain Second: What would the most basic Utopia look like, that is what do you think most people on the planet would agree to. Third: How does one achieve this Utopia with the smoothest transition possible. If any are really interested in this topic I would highly recommend that they do some looking into what is called the Venus Project, the first resource based economy, as opposed to a monetary based economy. This is an economy that looks at a project, for example, and doesn't say do we have enough money for this but do we have enough resources for this. It is a world that would replace 90% of jobs with machines, making money unnecessary & "work" irrelevant. Instead of having people to work we have machines to make everything faster & more efficient. That means every time you want something you can just have it and then a machine will make another. It is a world were humans are truly free to do whatever they want, read, write, created, explore, relax, have genuine fun, live anywhere you would like. The Venus project isn't the best model for a Utopia but it sure is better than the one we have, that is the monetary economy. Just to be clear this is not my idea of a Utopia, if you want just ask and I will post mine.

[Meakel]

Freedom - I think that freedom in the present can be defined as a life without worry. People who are free to enjoy their short lives as much as they can. So simple provisions of basic human rights like an education, safety, and health so that a person can enjoy the world at it's fullest. Utopia - I don't. Not without some sort of suffering. There will always be issues with humans and never will there be an issue that every single human being will agree on. 2nd Utopia Question - Most would agree to? Considering the amount of the impoverished, their utopia would be a radical redistribution of wealth. 3rd Utopia Question - Even to strive for some sort of Utopia we need to educate people. It's not until we get rid of ignorance and change people's mindsets about things that we can experience real change. I've read about the Venus Project. Not entirely sure about it.

[TheEvolutionist]

Wouldn't everyone on the world agree that everyone on the world should be educated, wouldn't everyone agree that they would not like to be impoverished, wouldn't most agree to peace, in regard to war & killing each other, as to live a life without worry, wouldn't most agree to equality so that they can believe in whatever they wished without ridicule. I think there are SOME things that most humans would agree they would like to have.

[Meakel]

Sure, but it's the method that people disagree on, and any way you hash it, you can't please everyone. That's why different political parties exist haha.

[Original Poster]

I don't know how you define Utopia. You cannot completely end suffering without ending existence. I also do not believe there is a set and complete code of laws humans could live by that would never need changing or adjusting. The closest thing I can think of to a Utopian society would be one with as much freedom as possible and as much regulation as necessary. People should be rewarded for the fruits of their labor and are entitled to their success but a ladder is necessary so good seeds on the bottom have any easier climb to the top. I'm not talking about some sort of welfare safety net for lazy people to glide by on. I'm talking about providing opportunity for those with the initiative to achieve it. Project Venus in any form is some time off. But I hope in the mean time we can at least change our food market and the way food is distributed. Putting food in a supply/demand dichotomy focuses its value on its scarcity when farmers ought to be rewarded to abundance. I cannot imagine another way to do this besides socializing non cash-crop farming. Socializing anything is tricky though because in reality there's not much difference between a government institution and a private company. I don't even think it's something that could occur in a world still competing on an import/export basis.

[Meakel]

I don't know how you define Utopia. You cannot completely end suffering without ending existence. I also do not believe there is a set and complete code of laws humans could live by that would never need changing or adjusting. The closest thing I can think of to a Utopian society would be one with as much freedom as possible and as much regulation as necessary. People should be rewarded for the fruits of their labor and are entitled to their success but a ladder is necessary so good seeds on the bottom have any easier climb to the top. I'm not talking about some sort of welfare safety net for lazy people to glide by on. I'm talking about providing opportunity for those with the initiative to achieve it. Project Venus in any form is some time off. But I hope in the mean time we can at least change our food market and the way food is distributed. Putting food in a supply/demand dichotomy focuses its value on its scarcity when farmers ought to be rewarded to abundance. I cannot imagine another way to do this besides socializing non cash-crop farming. Socializing anything is tricky though because in reality there's not much difference between a government institution and a private company. I don't even think it's something that could occur in a world still competing on an import/export basis. This. System's too fucked to change anything and too many people are ignorant. Sad face

[TheEvolutionist]

This. System's too fucked to change anything and too many people are ignorant. Sad face I personally would define a Utopia as a society that constantly changes, with advancement in science & technology happening everyday with no limit to the budget b/c there is no such thing as money, people are learning new things b/c they don't have to work at a mundane job everyday. With the new technology we are now able to go great distances in space in a matter of seconds, we have new understanding of life and reality that get constantly updated, people, when not thinking about how they need a job & money to live, can start to think about more philosophical questions about life, freedom, happiness, love, etc. To Omnis Dei, you are very correct is saying that there is no definition of Utopia, in the sense that there is no ONE definition of Utopia, everybody has there own subjective idea of what a Utopia would be. It is with the collection of all the subjective ideas, finding the similarities in them, and then using the similarities as a starting point that would be the truest form of a Utopia. However to say any one's definition of a Utopia is wrong is just plain ignorance. Also there are many people in the world that would argue the statement "you can't please everyone," that is a generalization that just has no evidential foundation.

[Original Poster]

I agree, you can please everyone. And when that day comes the universe will cease to exist. Your ideas are good, I also like a society without money but to obtain that we need to take a good hard look at some issues Food and Food Distribution Shelter, Furniture, Appliances, Electronics, etc... Transportation and Energy Police, firemen, Justice and Incarceration Healthcare, and care for the Elderly and Disabled These are things that are basically required in civilization and are jobs people mostly won't want to do for free. What kind of incentive is there to make sure people are still maintaining everything? Human beings are naturally very intolerant of mooching and in my experienced inclined to mooch whenever possible. While the latter aspect of humanity may subside without money it will still exist in element enough that you cannot really just provide for everyone. But if you place a system in place that means people need to run that system and those people are going to be power hungry moochers.

[Laughing Man]

The first question is pretty straight-forward; what do you believe freedom does or should mean? And just for fun do you believe you are Free by your definition; for more sh**s & giggles, if not how does one achieve your definition of Free or Freedom in our present society. The second question is a little more complicated. Please don't use that lame cop-out about how all books about a utopias say it is impossible or that a Utopia is communist or fascist or whatever. First question: Do you even think a Utopia is possible? Explain Second: What would the most basic Utopia look like, that is what do you think most people on the planet would agree to. Third: How does one achieve this Utopia with the smoothest transition possible. If any are really interested in this topic I would highly recommend that they do some looking into what is called the Venus Project, the first resource based economy, as opposed to a monetary based economy. This is an economy that looks at a project, for example, and doesn't say do we have enough money for this but do we have enough resources for this. It is a world that would replace 90% of jobs with machines, making money unnecessary & "work" irrelevant. Instead of having people to work we have machines to make everything faster & more efficient. That means every time you want something you can just have it and then a machine will make another. It is a world were humans are truly free to do whatever they want, read, write, created, explore, relax, have genuine fun, live anywhere you would like. The Venus project isn't the best model for a Utopia but it sure is better than the one we have, that is the monetary economy. Just to be clear this is not my idea of a Utopia, if you want just ask and I will post mine. Another Venus Project advocate, ugh. Freedom - The state of being that does not involve coercion or the threat of coercion from other parties or towards other parties. Can a utopia exist? It depends on what you define as a utopia. The problem with these Venus Project individuals is that they have no conception of what a proper economy is suppose to be. They want to "eliminate money" without realizing that money is just a generally accepted medium of exchange. If they wanted to get rid of legal tender laws then I would be more sympathetic toward them to some degree but they think all money is useless. It isn't as long as you want to have an industrialized society that is capable of trade and services. Humanity will never reach the point where we just sit around eating grapes and not engaging in work simply because our wants will never be fully satisfied. There will always be the next want and that will compel people to work toward it. I can give a list of reading materials to those who subscribe to this Venus Project which will properly educate you on matters of economics.

[ThePreserver]

I define freedom as the ability to do what you wish, without causing direct or indirect harm to others. It is also the responsibility to do so. You cannot have freedoms without fulfilling your responsibilities to ensure that society runs as smoothly as possible for everyone. Utopia for me would be having a society made up of free, yet responsible citizens who contribute to society while enjoying their freedoms. VERY unlikely. Just as unlikely as Communism working in a macro-economic scale.

[TheEvolutionist]

I define freedom as the ability to do what you wish, without causing direct or indirect harm to others. It is also the responsibility to do so. You cannot have freedoms without fulfilling your responsibilities to ensure that society runs as smoothly as possible for everyone. Utopia for me would be having a society made up of free, yet responsible citizens who contribute to society while enjoying their freedoms. VERY unlikely. Just as unlikely as Communism working in a macro-economic scale. I can agree with your definition in many ways especially the "unlikely" part and the responsibility part, but just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it is not possible; people once thought it was unlikely the earth was a sphere due to their perception of how the ground looked. Just because something seems unlikely due to your perception doesn't mean it is not worth trying and just because something seems unlikely doesn't mean we should ignore the possibilities of it being possible. Based on my perception of the world a Utopia does not only seem possible but very close it is only restricted by the amount of respect a person has for everyone on the world. Once we can have common respect for every person on the planet then we can start to realize that money is useless if everyone could have everything that they wanted but could also respect that everyone in the world wants things. For example wanting a nice house with nice things is perfectly respectable, wanting to own a jet or a golden toilet seat is just not respectable, it is excessive. The only thing that is stopping us is respect and that is the reason it is so "unlikely," because treating your fellow human with respect and empathy is no where near common, not that it is not possible it is just no one really wants to try to do it; kind of like a "so close yet so far away" situation.

[ThePreserver]

I can agree with your definition in many ways especially the "unlikely" part and the responsibility part, but just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it is not possible; people once thought it was unlikely the earth was a sphere due to their perception of how the ground looked. Just because something seems unlikely due to your perception doesn't mean it is not worth trying and just because something seems unlikely doesn't mean we should ignore the possibilities of it being possible. Based on my perception of the world a Utopia does not only seem possible but very close it is only restricted by the amount of respect a person has for everyone on the world. Once we can have common respect for every person on the planet then we can start to realize that money is useless if everyone could have everything that they wanted but could also respect that everyone in the world wants things. For example wanting a nice house with nice things is perfectly respectable, wanting to own a jet or a golden toilet seat is just not respectable, it is excessive. The only thing that is stopping us is respect and that is the reason it is so "unlikely," because treating your fellow human with respect and empathy is no where near common, not that it is not possible it is just no one really wants to try to do it; kind of like a "so close yet so far away" situation. Based on human nature, I use the word "unlikely" as a "almost absolute certain no". Sure, there is a VERY SLIM chance that it could happen, but with an increasing population and increasing reliance on technology, it seems much more difficult to find reliable, responsible citizens who contribute what they SHOULD, not what they do currently.

[Dannon Oneironaut]

Freedom is not freedom from worry. If you are prone to worry, the more free you are the more you will have to worry about. Fascist governments take away freedom by offering security. In a jail cell, you have a bed and a roof and meals guaranteed to you. The person living in the wild, or at sea in a sailboat has ultimate freedom, but a lot more to worry about. If there is a state of freedom that also is free of worry it is not in this world, it is in the dreamtime or the next world, until one realizes one's true nature and gains lucidity in this life. As for Utopia, yes it is possible, anything is possible, especially with humans. In fact, there have been many Utopias before that have lasted a long time, until some greedy bastards came in and wiped them out. But I suppose that was necessary because it wasn't the ultimate Utopia which is our destiny. But we have a lot of evolving to do, and I do not mean physically, but mental and emotional evolution. If we can go to the Moon, if we can split an atom, then we can create Utopia. In fact, it is our mission as the human race. That is the most worthwhile application of our special talents as humans. And it is a great challenge: to put aside petty differences and work together for the good of all. But greed, fear, anger, and other negative emotions will have to be skillfully processed, and as humans are right now that is quite an overwhelming challenge. But it is always getting better, and slowly humans will reach their potential as stewards of the Earth. It took hundreds of thousands of years before humans were able to reach the Moon or split an atom, but now growth is increasing exponentially. But we cannot measure the wisdom of our species by our technology. Our technology got ahead of our wisdom. We have all the ingredients for Utopia except for wisdom. Let us just hope our ignorance doesn't kill us. Each person must do their own part by processing negative thoughts and emotions and be a mentally, emotionally mature adult capable of seeing beyond the shadow of the ego. Each person must be willing to sacrifice what they would like to have for what is best for their community, their environment, their descendants, and the World. And yes, we cannot end suffering. But we can try.

[Meakel]

Freedom is not freedom from worry. If you are prone to worry, the more free you are the more you will have to worry about. Fascist governments take away freedom by offering security. In a jail cell, you have a bed and a roof and meals guaranteed to you. The person living in the wild, or at sea in a sailboat has ultimate freedom, but a lot more to worry about. If there is a state of freedom that also is free of worry it is not in this world, it is in the dreamtime or the next world, until one realizes one's true nature and gains lucidity in this life. Maybe worry was a bad way to put it. Being able to enjoy life to the fullest was the gist of what I was trying to say. And that just includes being healthy and able to understand the world.

[TheEvolutionist]

Freedom is not freedom from worry. If you are prone to worry, the more free you are the more you will have to worry about. Fascist governments take away freedom by offering security. In a jail cell, you have a bed and a roof and meals guaranteed to you. The person living in the wild, or at sea in a sailboat has ultimate freedom, but a lot more to worry about. If there is a state of freedom that also is free of worry it is not in this world, it is in the dreamtime or the next world, until one realizes one's true nature and gains lucidity in this life. As for Utopia, yes it is possible, anything is possible, especially with humans. In fact, there have been many Utopias before that have lasted a long time, until some greedy bastards came in and wiped them out. But I suppose that was necessary because it wasn't the ultimate Utopia which is our destiny. But we have a lot of evolving to do, and I do not mean physically, but mental and emotional evolution. If we can go to the Moon, if we can split an atom, then we can create Utopia. In fact, it is our mission as the human race. That is the most worthwhile application of our special talents as humans. And it is a great challenge: to put aside petty differences and work together for the good of all. But greed, fear, anger, and other negative emotions will have to be skillfully processed, and as humans are right now that is quite an overwhelming challenge. But it is always getting better, and slowly humans will reach their potential as stewards of the Earth. It took hundreds of thousands of years before humans were able to reach the Moon or split an atom, but now growth is increasing exponentially. But we cannot measure the wisdom of our species by our technology. Our technology got ahead of our wisdom. We have all the ingredients for Utopia except for wisdom. Let us just hope our ignorance doesn't kill us. Each person must do their own part by processing negative thoughts and emotions and be a mentally, emotionally mature adult capable of seeing beyond the shadow of the ego. Each person must be willing to sacrifice what they would like to have for what is best for their community, their environment, their descendants, and the World. And yes, we cannot end suffering. But we can try. I have to compliment you on your wonderfully written response it was quite refreshing to hear, and I thank you. I completely agree that we technologically advance far too quickly than our wisdom does but since we have it now why not use it to our advantage; what if we used the technology as a means to accelerate our growth in wisdom. The reason I think our wisdom is so hindered is that the world is in such disarray, we have countries that have thousands of people dying every day due to hunger or some preventable disease, not because there is not enough food but because they do not have enough money. Poverty has struck the world like a black plague that only spreads the more it exists, 1% of the population owns 40% of the wealth and it will only get worse; people need to start to realize that if poverty could happen in Africa, Russia, even America, supposedly one of the most prosperous nations in the world, then it could very well happen to you. Once we realize that if slavery could happen in Africa, Asia, EVEN America, then it could happen to you; we have to help our fellow human rise up from oppression, slavery, poverty, sickness, manipulation, mutilation, exploitation, and all of the things that you, me, and everyone who is alive doesn't want to happen to them. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. With the technology we have today, like the work of Nikola Tesla who was close to giving the world free electrical power, we can feed, clothe, shelter, educate, & free every nation on this planet & the best part is it doesn't require any money, just the ingenuity of the all mighty human. Because if every human being could have everything they could every need and want, worry starts to dissipate or better yet shift into a new direction. Instead of worrying about the massive debt you have to pay back, or the crappy job most have to get, or the boss that treats you like sh** but you have to keep your mouth shut b/c he owns you in some sense, once money is gone people will start to worry about how to explore space, or how they can make life in general better for everyone, or worry about the meaning of life and try to explore reality for themselves, or learn about the things that they wish to learn, with people that wish to learn, by people who are furthering their knowledge in that subject; all that will be left is to learn and to grow, to ask questions and seek answers, to explore and to create, once that happens the human being itself, not just their wisdom or intelligence, will grow at an optimal rate. Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power - 1% owns 40% ‪The Story of Nicola Tesla 1‬‏ - YouTube - In case you are interested in the great Nikola Tesla

[Laughing Man]

once money is gone people will start to worry about how to explore space, or how they can make life in general better for everyone, or worry about the meaning of life and try to explore reality for themselves, or learn about the things that they wish to learn, with people that wish to learn, by people who are furthering their knowledge in that subject; all that will be left is to learn and to grow, to ask questions and seek answers, to explore and to create, once that happens the human being itself, not just their wisdom or intelligence, will grow at an optimal rate. Once money is gone then humans will revert back to hunter gather tribes and more then 50% of the world's population won't be able to survive. People won't care about space if they can't specialize and industrialize in the the economy. The ability to ask the questions concerning the meaning of life are only possible because we aren't constantly plowing fields or growing gardens. Leisure time increases with capitalization and capitalization is only possible with an industrial economy that necessitates the advent of money in order to eliminate the problems of barter.

[juroara]

The ability to ask the questions concerning the meaning of life are only possible because we aren't constantly plowing fields or growing gardens. Leisure time increases with capitalization and capitalization is only possible with an industrial economy that necessitates the advent of money in order to eliminate the problems of barter. Wait! Aha! You got me! That's sarcasm right?

[Laughing Man]

Wait! Aha! You got me! That's sarcasm right? No it's not. Who were the writers, teachers and lecturers of old society? The peasants? How do you think Aristotle and Plato were able to philosophize? Because they were in the fields instead of the Peripatetic and Academy?

[Laughing Man]

If we can go to the Moon, if we can split an atom, then we can create Utopia. In fact, it is our mission as the human race. Because creating the "perfect society" is just like those things. This is sarcasm. Just because the US government made a pointless space trip to the moon and scientists were able to split mass doesn't mean that there exists the ability to create an environment in which all parties prosper. We have all the ingredients for Utopia except for wisdom. Let us just hope our ignorance doesn't kill us. Each person must do their own part by processing negative thoughts and emotions and be a mentally, emotionally mature adult capable of seeing beyond the shadow of the ego. Negative thoughts aren't "unwise." They can in fact be very wise. And what is this "beyond the shadow of the ego?" What is beyond the self? Obviously people exist in the world, but their goals are no more grander then mine. They have no additional political rights beyond me. So what is beyond me that I must develop this slavish attitude toward? Each person must be willing to sacrifice what they would like to have for what is best for their community, their environment, their descendants, and the World. And yes, we cannot end suffering. But we can try. That's a terrible thought. You start off denouncing fascist governments for taking away liberties but end it by saying each person must be willing to sacrifice for the "greater good." Who's greater good? What exists beyond the individual? You might also place "the state" in that list which we are suppose to sacrifice ourselves for.

[Dannon Oneironaut]

We used to have so much more leisure time.... Even in the recent past. You sacrifice for your family don't you? That is not fascism, that is family. You sacrifice to the state right now. In fact you probably sacrifice more to the state than you are able to sacrifice for your family. Do you live in a town, or a city, or in the country? This topic seems a bit over your head since you either deliberately put a spin on my words or that is the only position you can understand.

[Laughing Man]

We used to have so much more leisure time.... Even in the recent past. Define what you mean by "recent." You sacrifice for your family don't you? That is not fascism, that is family. Such sacrifice is voluntary. No one is compelled to do it. If you want to persuade others to sacrifice "for the greater good," then I wouldn't be so aggressive in my statements. Yet you say "must" and with so many idealists who want to make the world a better place, they often turn to compulsion because persuasion isn't always effective or as effective as they would like. You sacrifice to the state right now. In fact you probably sacrifice more to the state than you are able to sacrifice for your family. Do you live in a town, or a city, or in the country? This topic seems a bit over your head since you either deliberately put a spin on my words or that is the only position you can understand. The injustices experienced now is not justification for their existence. Many people's rights are aggressed against in the world today, but that doesn't make aggression acceptable. Libertarians aim at what should be, irregardless of what is.

[Dannon Oneironaut]

Define what you mean by "recent." In this case, sixty years ago at most. Such sacrifice is voluntary. No one is compelled to do it. If you want to persuade others to sacrifice "for the greater good," then I wouldn't be so aggressive in my statements. Yet you say "must" and with so many idealists who want to make the world a better place, they often turn to compulsion because persuasion isn't always effective or as effective as they would like. Of course it is voluntary to raise your children. But if one was asking how to have a happy family, I would say that you 'must' raise your children instead of abandoning them to an orphanage or foster home. If somebody is asking about Utopia, I would say that one 'must' be aware of what is good for the whole and what is not good for the whole. I see that you took that to mean some kind of fascist authoritarian statement and I am sorry for perhaps coming across that way. Part of my idea of a Utopia is anarchy. In this case there is no authority to lay down laws rather than the whole deciding through council what it wants for Utopia. As far as the peasant thing goes, peasants are a product of the class system, which capitalism depends on. Capitalism needs peasants. So only some people are able to have the leisure to philosophize while others are needed to toil. This is also rather recent in terms of human history. Organized religion being at most 10,000 years old while humans have been around for what? At least 300,000 years? Tribal societies are extremely artistic and religious, although their religion is not an organized one where there are priests who interpret the scriptures for the iliterate. Everyone shares the work and the leisure. The Native American Indians were/are extremely skilled artists and craftsmen. Native American leather being the finest tanned leather in the world. Look at their pottery. Look at the Indians' philosophies of democracy which is more sophisticated than the Greeks. It was the Indians, and not so much the Greeks, who inspired the American forefathers regarding democracy. Too bad it ain't a democracy anymore. In tribal societies, it is not the rich who get the leisure time to do what they will with, it is the elderly and the young children. Now, don't get me wrong. My idea of Utopia is not living in teepees and hunting and gathering and tanning hides. But I think that we should be aware that we all have that as our history, and that is the default mode for a natural human, not this society based on economics (which is a false ecology). Looking at how happy tribal people are consistently, and how much of our happiness and leisure we have sacrificed for progress and technological dogma, we can become aware of how to enjoy an enlightened technology with the enlightened social/political aspects of tribal living. When I think of Utopia I see greenhouses, wind/wave/solar powered energy generators. I see no waste, nothing to throw away. No harmful bi-products. I see lots of fruit trees and nut trees. I see polyhedron domes for buildings. I see less people. I see more animals. I see more forests and pristine nature. I see people living in harmony with their ecology. I see all people being equal and enjoying the same rights. I see people deciding on their village's rules being decided by an open council. Rules such as "don't build a house in the watershed" or "do what you want as long as it doesn't violate anyone else's freewill" etc.... But how to create a global Utopia? The injustices experienced now is not justification for their existence. Many people's rights are aggressed against in the world today, but that doesn't make aggression acceptable. yes, and...? Of course the decision to live in a Utopia is voluntary as long as there is another option. But if you are harming people (the greater good) say by cutting down trees in the watershed and building your house there and dumping your shit in the water, I don't think that it is fascist for the community of people who depend on that watershed to go remove that person and show him an acceptable place to build his house. This is what I am talking about when saying that people need to sacrifice their personal desires for the good of the community. The desire to build your house in the most beautiful place and that place happens to be where the presence of your house will endanger your community, then that is a personal greedy desire and not part of any Utopian vision besides maybe the rich elite whose vision of Utopia might be that of two classes: the rich and the peasants (or the slaves). And for the last time, capitalism only increased leisure time for the elite class at the expense of the rest of humanity. Perhaps your vision of Utopia includes an elite class of rich people that do all the thinking and art making while the rest toil to make ends meet. try living with a tribal society and see how most of the time people are hanging out enjoying each other's company while making works of art and occasionally going on a hunt while it takes only a few people an hour a day of gathering the plants to eat. Any and all tribal societies have this in common. Even the Inuits, who arguably may have it the roughest still enjoy a high degree of happiness and more leisure time than the "civilized" do today.

[Laughing Man]

In this case, sixty years ago at most. Caught up in romanticizing the past? You think that the 1940's presented greater leisure time then today. Do you have any evidence to support this assertion? Of course it is voluntary to raise your children. But if one was asking how to have a happy family, I would say that you 'must' raise your children instead of abandoning them to an orphanage or foster home. Are you ready to use force to ensure that people raise their children? If not then don't use the word 'must,' use the word like. It is more factual in its presentation of your ideas. If somebody is asking about Utopia, I would say that one 'must' be aware of what is good for the whole and what is not good for the whole. If that is your mind set of a utopia then you would not even know where to begin because you cannot quantify what is "good" and "not good" for millions of people or even a group of people. You can't add up qualitative differences so you're pretty much screwed to the point of not even being able to imagine what a utopia would be like. I see that you took that to mean some kind of fascist authoritarian statement and I am sorry for perhaps coming across that way. Part of my idea of a Utopia is anarchy. In this case there is no authority to lay down laws rather than the whole deciding through council what it wants for Utopia. Then you don't understand what anarchy means. Don't worry, it is common for anarcho-socialist types to get caught up in this problem. You don't want authority but you want a council of individuals deciding everything for everyone....that sounds like authority. As far as the peasant thing goes, peasants are a product of the class system, which capitalism depends on. Capitalism needs peasants. Peasants is a term from Feudalism. Do you mean to say that Capitalism needs workers? If so then can you establish what constitutes a "worker class?" So only some people are able to have the leisure to philosophize while others are needed to toil. Philosophizing is toil. Some people don't even consider it leisure. This is also rather recent in terms of human history. Organized religion being at most 10,000 years old while humans have been around for what? At least 300,000 years? Tribal societies are extremely artistic and religious, although their religion is not an organized one where there are priests who interpret the scriptures for the iliterate. Everyone shares the work and the leisure. I think you over romanticize the past again. Did the chief engage in labor in all societies? The elders? Many tribal societies engaged in oral tradition which could include religious myths but these religious myths might not have passed into this generation because they are oral traditions. The Native American Indians were/are extremely skilled artists and craftsmen. Native American leather being the finest tanned leather in the world. Look at their pottery. Look at the Indians' philosophies of democracy which is more sophisticated than the Greeks. It was the Indians, and not so much the Greeks, who inspired the American forefathers regarding democracy. Too bad it ain't a democracy anymore. In tribal societies, it is not the rich who get the leisure time to do what they will with, it is the elderly and the young children. Yes yes, it was the Iroquois' who stoked the fires of democracy. I mean let us disregard that democracy was created in France. It was actually from the people that many considered savages. Now, don't get me wrong. My idea of Utopia is not living in teepees and hunting and gathering and tanning hides. But I think that we should be aware that we all have that as our history, and that is the default mode for a natural human, not this society based on economics (which is a false ecology). Looking at how happy tribal people are consistently, and how much of our happiness and leisure we have sacrificed for progress and technological dogma, we can become aware of how to enjoy an enlightened technology with the enlightened social/political aspects of tribal living. Yes, outliving 40 is certainly a sacrifice to our happiness. Being able to specialize in a field of study which interests us and is allowed by the division of labor is certainly cutting into our happiness. You have this naive Rosseauian concept of the natural man as if he is lounging by the lake side, picking berries from the tree he is under. When I think of Utopia I see greenhouses, wind/wave/solar powered energy generators. I see no waste, nothing to throw away. Waste is a natural product of expended energy. No harmful bi-products. I see lots of fruit trees and nut trees. I see polyhedron domes for buildings. I see less people. I see more animals. I see more forests and pristine nature. I see people living in harmony with their ecology. I see all people being equal and enjoying the same rights. I see people deciding on their village's rules being decided by an open council. Rules such as "don't build a house in the watershed" or "do what you want as long as it doesn't violate anyone else's freewill" etc.... Well you probably see so few people because they are all dead because a tribal society cannot sustain a mass populace or an advanced economy/division of labor. You wouldn't have doctors or scientists or teachers. You would have Joe the pecan picker and Mary the cow milker. If people all enjoy the same rights then by what ability does a council dictate to another where they can build? What if I wish to build on the watershed? By what right does the council stop me from doing such thing? yes, and...? Of course the decision to live in a Utopia is voluntary as long as there is another option. But if you are harming people (the greater good) say by cutting down trees in the watershed and building your house there and dumping your shit in the water, I don't think that it is fascist for the community of people who depend on that watershed to go remove that person and show him an acceptable place to build his house. Well you are presenting the same principle that a fascist would present. "We know what is best for this person in terms of their position amongst the majority" You can change the wording but its still the same principle. This is what I am talking about when saying that people need to sacrifice their personal desires for the good of the community. The desire to build your house in the most beautiful place and that place happens to be where the presence of your house will endanger your community, then that is a personal greedy desire and not part of any Utopian vision besides maybe the rich elite whose vision of Utopia might be that of two classes: the rich and the peasants (or the slaves). If it is a place which harms people then let those people seek restitution against the perpetrator. If someone pours bleach onto my lawn and kills my grass, that doesn't afford me the right to kick him off his/her land. And for the last time, capitalism only increased leisure time for the elite class at the expense of the rest of humanity. Perhaps your vision of Utopia includes an elite class of rich people that do all the thinking and art making while the rest toil to make ends meet. try living with a tribal society and see how most of the time people are hanging out enjoying each other's company while making works of art and occasionally going on a hunt while it takes only a few people an hour a day of gathering the plants to eat. Any and all tribal societies have this in common. Even the Inuits, who arguably may have it the roughest still enjoy a high degree of happiness and more leisure time than the "civilized" do today. Right this minute only elites are benefiting from the internet, sitting here having a ridiculous discussion about our richness. I mean Steve Jobs doesn't work...he philosophizes and the money rolls in, from out of nowhere. You ever wonder why there are such a small niche of people in actual tribal living? It is because they cannot sustain large populations on primitive surroundings. New York City can't all go out berry picking for subsistence. Small populations usually mean an undeveloped division of labor. The larger a population, the more diverse a division of labor usually is. You may want to read more into the Inuits also. There seems to be a correlation with them and a higher rate of suicide. It's probably because they are so extremely happy.

[Savy]

Freedom is being able to do whatever you want-- basically having free will. So, yes, I am free. Technically. I am free right now to run away into the wilderness and evade my taxes, to kill people and whatever else, or I am free to trap and entangle myself within debts and responsibilities. Though these actions will have repercussions, and I may become imprisoned (which would make me.. not free) right now I am able to do any of these things. I am free to do nothing too, but then I am likely to starve. So I can definitely see how someone could make the case that I am not really free, but since I can do whatever I please, I would still classify myself as free, though loosely. First question: Do you even think a Utopia is possible? Explain Yes, if by Utopia you mean an ideal society within the laws of this world. Suffering can never be completely eliminated. Second: What would the most basic Utopia look like, that is what do you think most people on the planet would agree to. I don't know what most people think of as a Utopia, but I think that it would be like back in the hunter-gatherer days, maybe a society similar to the American Indian society before Europeans came to North America. I think it's the best environment for man, honestly. There's not too many people back then, so you rarely come into contact with other groups, thus you also rarely go into war. Also, because there are more animals than there are people, you rarely starve unless you get separated from your group. Though there are still wicked people in the world, there is no way for them to come into control of all a huge number of people like they can today. People never get fat because they are constantly working their bodies. You can believe in the comfort of gods and fairytales, because there is no science to disprove it. There is no technology to take time away from your family. There is no money in the world, so there is no division between poor and rich. The only way you become powerful within your tribe is by your own strength and intellect, not by the money in your pocket. There's many many other things I haven't listed. I just think that in this world, if I had to pick the environment the closest to utopia as possible, this would be it. Third: How does one achieve this Utopia with the smoothest transition possible. In this day and age? I don't know if it's possible. You would probably have to first eliminate the majority of mankind by some kind of plague or natural disaster, then give the earth a couple centuries to heal itself (if not a couple millennium), plus the time it takes to almost completely eradicate this time from human memory. By then, maybe. Or maybe not. Maybe those surviving humans just rebuilt the world we know today. I wouldn't call it smooth, anyways.

[Dannon Oneironaut]

Caught up in romanticizing the past? You think that the 1940's presented greater leisure time then today. Do you have any evidence to support this assertion? From being alive then and seeing how one person could support a family of 3 while working minimum wage. If that is your mind set of a utopia then you would not even know where to begin because you cannot quantify what is "good" and "not good" for millions of people or even a group of people. You can't add up qualitative differences so you're pretty much screwed to the point of not even being able to imagine what a utopia would be like. I CAN decide what is good for everybody, and that is what I act on. I don't do anything that harms anybody. And you can also. Then you don't understand what anarchy means. Don't worry, it is common for anarcho-socialist types to get caught up in this problem. You don't want authority but you want a council of individuals deciding everything for everyone....that sounds like authority. I do understand anarchy, and have lived in anarchistic societies. The council is open to the whole community and anybody can take part in the process of self-governing (which is the definition of anarchy). Anybody who doesn't show up forfeits their right to be a part of decision making. Peasants is a term from Feudalism. Do you mean to say that Capitalism needs workers? If so then can you establish what constitutes a "worker class?" Please don't argue semantics. Peasants = worker class. Philosophizing is toil. Some people don't even consider it leisure. Well at least they know where they are going to sleep tonight and where their next meals are coming from. If the REAL needs aren't met, philosophy is a luxury. I think you over romanticize the past again. Did the chief engage in labor in all societies? The elders? Many tribal societies engaged in oral tradition which could include religious myths but these religious myths might not have passed into this generation because they are oral traditions. I don't understand your point. I think you are trying to counter point everything I post without having a clear argument. Yes, the chiefs in Indian society also worked to ensure the survival of their people, or else they wouldn't be chief....duh. The elders didn't have to work if it wasn't needed because they already did their work helping the more recent generations possible to survive. Yes yes, it was the Iroquois' who stoked the fires of democracy. I mean let us disregard that democracy was created in France. It was actually from the people that many considered savages. ????? France was inspired by the USA to have a revolution and become democratic. Yes, outliving 40 is certainly a sacrifice to our happiness. Being able to specialize in a field of study which interests us and is allowed by the division of labor is certainly cutting into our happiness. You have this naive Rosseauian concept of the natural man as if he is lounging by the lake side, picking berries from the tree he is under. The American Indians generally lived into their 60s. Yes, people can and do live as if lounging by the lakeside and picking berries from bushes and trees, and some hunting to provide enough protein. You call it naive, but it is the reality. I live this way. Waste is a natural product of expended energy. But in nature nothing is wasted. Well you probably see so few people because they are all dead because a tribal society cannot sustain a mass populace or an advanced economy/division of labor. You wouldn't have doctors or scientists or teachers. You would have Joe the pecan picker and Mary the cow milker. If people all enjoy the same rights then by what ability does a council dictate to another where they can build? What if I wish to build on the watershed? By what right does the council stop me from doing such thing? That is why a mass populace is unsustainable. The ecosystem of the planet cannot support it. Our population started increasing exponentially since +- 150 years ago and you see where it has got us? And we are all teachers. And yes, tribal societies have doctors. Modern Anarchistic societies also have doctors. There are anarchist doctors in our midst, but you have to live in an anarchistic society to meet them. If you build your house in somebody's watershed, the people have the right to remove you because they are the majority and their survival depends on it. Your survival depends on them. What right? The right of the living! If you go into a restaurant and start shooting people, what right do they have to tackle you and take your gun and beat the crap out of you? The right of the living to stay alive. This is an inalienable right. Please don't waste my time with stupid questions. What right do you have to fight back against unwarranted aggression? It is not the council who will stop you, it your friends and family who will tie you to a tree until you see the error of your ways if you keep asking such stupid questions. I have tied someone to a tree before who abused freedom and raped an innocent woman until he saw the error of what he done. He was tied to that tree for over a week until the council decided to untie him. The woman who was raped was in the council, and so were many women. We didn't untie him until we ALL decided it was time. What RIGHT do YOU have to go against your community and build your house in the watershed? I don't think you know the consequences of building in a watershed. Don't you know that all the drinking water necessary for survival comes from a watershed and living in the watershed pollutes the water? Don't you know that most epidemics in the past have been from polluted water? Don't you know that all watersheds in America at least, and probable Europe and most communities across Asia all protect their watersheds and forbid people living there? What right does modern society have to enforce this? The same right that a tribal society does. Duh, this is not a philosophical political issue, this is common sense survival. Please think for yourself and stop trying to assert your intelligence by coming up with half-hearted arguments that aren't thought through. It seems that you like argument for argument's sake. Well you are presenting the same principle that a fascist would present. "We know what is best for this person in terms of their position amongst the majority" You can change the wording but its still the same principle. Some people deserve and need to live under fascist rule. Until people can be responsible for themselves, fascism will be an unfortunate necessity. If you don't like fascism, then be responsible for yourself. Obviously you don't have any children. If it is a place which harms people then let those people seek restitution against the perpetrator. If someone pours bleach onto my lawn and kills my grass, that doesn't afford me the right to kick him off his/her land. your response does not apply to my statement. The land does not belong to us, we belong to the land. Right this minute only elites are benefiting from the internet, sitting here having a ridiculous discussion about our richness. I mean Steve Jobs doesn't work...he philosophizes and the money rolls in, from out of nowhere. You ever wonder why there are such a small niche of people in actual tribal living? It is because they cannot sustain large populations on primitive surroundings. New York City can't all go out berry picking for subsistence. Small populations usually mean an undeveloped division of labor. The larger a population, the more diverse a division of labor usually is. You may want to read more into the Inuits also. There seems to be a correlation with them and a higher rate of suicide. It's probably because they are so extremely happy. I don't know who Steve Jobs is. I know what happens to the people who are living tribally: they get killed so the greedy can exploit their land. We don't need large populations of people for a Utopia. We don't need to cover the Earth with people. Small populations mean everybody shares in the labor because survival is more of an immediate concern. The Inuits have roughly the same rate of suicide as anybody from the northern latitudes. A little higher perhaps because their land and their ways of living off of the land were taken from them. Toothache was the highest cause of suicide until recently, what is your point?