Utopia

[dezrtfish]

From what I’ve read here you should look up some info on Sparta and base your project on them. The only problem would be the issues with the lower classes. But hey I’m sure you could figure it out.

[Guerrilla Guy]

@Desertfox:

@MuthaRussia:

Yeah, your right, but who says all fascist leaders murder all there citizens? :-?
Mussolini didnt, he was actaully quite nice to the italians, he just got numerous soldiers killed, because italians are lovers, not fighters!

Amore! :lol:

He killed them. He sent to war in metal coffins. (I am refering to the Italian tanks.) Anyone who sends his people to fight a war for which they are not prepared for is a murderer of his citizens.

But hey he got rid of the Criminals… :roll: Wether that matters or not…

[Desertfox]

@dezrtfish:

From what I’ve read here you should look up some info on Sparta and base your project on them. The only problem would be the issues with the lower classes. But hey I’m sure you could figure it out.

I’ve thought of Sparta. Right now in SS class we are studying the Athenians and the Spartans. I am learning nothing because I have watched this like 3 hr long history channel thing on the Spartans twice. There life worked for them and the only problem they had was with slaves.

[Janus1]

Therefore no one is really wrong here, its all a matter of opinion

yes, and in my opinion, you are totally wrong.

Thats in YOUR eyes!
Maybe in MY utopia it would be an expanionistic government!

maybe your an idiot.
expansionistic to what point? what happens when you become to big to govern yourself? what happens when there is nothing left to expand to? what then?

Mussolini didnt, he was actaully quite nice to the italians

right…thats why they hung him and his mistress, dragged him through the streets, and spit on his corpse…

It was not seen as the “chaos” that the conservatives tried to link with it, but as the absence of oppression, as total freedom

i didnt mean to call it “chaos” but it simply cannot last. human nature prevents it. the second anyone forms any kind of group, anarchism is gone. and people group together naturally. it does not work. period

And this “the nature abhorrs a vacuum” …. well, that has been proven wrong science more than hundred years ago.

figure of speech buddy

and last: 10*10^infinity = 10^(infinity+1) = 10^(infinity) = infinity …

exaggeration to stress a point, nothing more

Depends on your techers. A good teacher will accept an opposing view if you argue well to defend it at least against the first two “waves” of objections.

yes, but i think he meant it would be outside the boundaries of the assigment.

[MuthaRussia]

@Janus1:

Thats in YOUR eyes!
Maybe in MY utopia it would be an expanionistic government!

maybe your an idiot.
expansionistic to what point? what happens when you become to big to govern yourself? what happens when there is nothing left to expand to? what then?

Mussolini didnt, he was actaully quite nice to the italians

right…thats why they hung him and his mistress, dragged him through the streets, and spit on his corpse…

Actually, they cut off his genitals too…
And why do you always call me an idiot when i voice my opinion?

[Janus1]

well, i think you are an idiot anyway…when you voice your opinion, it simply gives me an opportunity to voice that thought

[Guest]

@Janus1:

It was not seen as the “chaos” that the conservatives tried to link with it, but as the absence of oppression, as total freedom

i didnt mean to call it “chaos” but it simply cannot last. human nature prevents it. the second anyone forms any kind of group, anarchism is gone. and people group together naturally. it does not work. period

Yes, of course it doesn’t work. It’s an utopia. That is the whole point about it. In an Utopia, it can work, it will work.
Just like in the real world communism and capitalism don’t work properly, so does anarchy not survive long. But, (again) in an Utopia all three work perfectly fine.

figure of speech buddy …exaggeration to stress a point, nothing more …

I suspected that, but wasn’t sure. So, forget about my comments there.

[Guest]

I’ve thought of Sparta. Right now in SS class we are studying the Athenians and the Spartans. I am learning nothing because I have watched this like 3 hr long history channel thing on the Spartans twice. There life worked for them and the only problem they had was with slaves.

The spartans were interesting to say the least. The Athens/Sparta lesson is seen again in the Spanish/English colonial approaches. Whereas the Spanish conquered and dominated, the English built up a mercantile empire which still benefits them to this day. However despite extracting much gold from Latin America Spain today is one of the poorer countries in Europe. In fact much of the gold ended up in Russia because of the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s.

What isn’t mentioned in that documentary is as a direct result of the Peloponesian War the dual hegemonic power of Athens and Sparta was weakened so much that Macedonia was able to conquer all of Greece less than 60 years later which led to Alexander the Great being able to conquer the Persian empire ushering in the helenistic age when greek culture was at its zenith.

[HortenFlyingWing]

A total utopia would probably be communist, but that’s not possible.

[cystic crypt]

@AgentSmith:

I’ve thought of Sparta. Right now in SS class we are studying the Athenians and the Spartans. I am learning nothing because I have watched this like 3 hr long history channel thing on the Spartans twice. There life worked for them and the only problem they had was with slaves.

The spartans were interesting to say the least. The Athens/Sparta lesson is seen again in the Spanish/English colonial approaches. Whereas the Spanish conquered and dominated, the English built up a mercantile empire which still benefits them to this day. However despite extracting much gold from Latin America Spain today is one of the poorer countries in Europe. In fact much of the gold ended up in Russia because of the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s.

What isn’t mentioned in that documentary is as a direct result of the Peloponesian War the dual hegemonic power of Athens and Sparta was weakened so much that Macedonia was able to conquer all of Greece less than 60 years later which led to Alexander the Great being able to conquer the Persian empire ushering in the helenistic age when greek culture was at its zenith.

i didn’t see this program,
however Portugal and Spain at one point divided the western world between the two of them (Portugal got Brazil, Spain got points north). Similarly Portugal basically took many thousands of kilograms of gold from Brazil, without establishing any kind of mercantile relationship. The same applied (largely) to Angola, Mozambique, and Macau, and Portugal was the equivalent to a third world country until the early 80’s, despite being a former world power only a few centuries ago.

So maybe there IS something to be said about “empiralism” as a Utopian gov’t. Garner resources from other countries, and use them to support your population.

[Guest]

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.

[Desertfox]

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.

[cystic crypt]

@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.

[Lizardbaby]

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.

[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.

[Herr Jurgen]

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

[Desertfox]

@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.

[Guest]

@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.

[Herr Jurgen]

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.

[GeZe]

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