Okay, so I wasn't sure if I wanted to put this here or in the debate section. Seemed like it could go either way.
The idea of utopia isn't new of course. The word itself is based off the Greek, ου "no/not" + τοπος "place." Which is why this is all hypothetical.
What I propose though, is that a so-called perfect nation would be based in large part on these three things: equality, responsibility, and love.
Equality is broken down into marriage equality, religious equality, etc. Pretty self-explanatory.
Responsibility is broken down into personal responsibility, familial responsibility, and societal responsibility.
Love I say could practically void laws.
Perhaps equality hits on a more macro scale, whereas responsibility, I think, could make the country great starting at such a small level, the individual would affect the family in a good way would affect more families in a good way would affect whole societies in a good way would affect the nation in a good way. On the other hand, I feel that a lack of responsibility can fracture people's understandings of sections of society, creating stereotypes where the overwhelming majority are misjudged based on the irresponsibility of a few. In our society currently there are instances where we are reminded of this, that the actions of a few bad apples don't reflect the majority. yet in other instances I feel that society contradicts itself and perpetuates such stereotypes.
Love. If people in this contrived country of ours would love one another, then I think it would pretty much destroy the need for laws or much legal convention. There'd be no motive for crime, and thus no reason for written down laws and no reason to have law enforcement. Laws and the like would basically be irrelevant, they basically wouldn't even need to be spoken or debated about. Theoretically. And if everyone was accepting that everyone is equal, then loving each other would be much easier.
But then you get into more difficult things. So we have our country. What happens if we got a billion people from around the world all trying to get in at once, and we can't support them all. I guess we'd have to start being selective. But how do we do that? Admit who is the 'most qualified' (best able to support themselves and community, most productive to economy, etc)? But how do we define that, and furthermore what if it happens that x amount of y people are accepted but not x amount of z people because those y people would be 'best,' and the z people accuse us of discrimination? This is something that seems to be a bit harder when it comes to being perfect.
Of course who knows who may fancy our land, but not for immigration, rather for conquering. We may not be interested in war, but war may be interested in us. Perhaps a somewhat small professional army combined with a significant portion of the population being comfortable in the operation of firearms would be a good option. I saw something awhile ago that said "at the time of the first world war, Switzerland had a tiny standing army, but a populace of skilled riflemen. In 1912, Kaiser Wilhelm II asked what a militia of a quarter million Swiss would do if he invaded with an army of half a million Germans. Their response? 'Shoot twice and go home.'" This way we avoid the potential for too much military spending while still being able to put up a fight (hopefully). Exact location could make a difference too; terrain, for instance, and also allies. But still. A potential enemy having to not just worry about the military, but much of the population of our country to boot, might reconsider. Meanwhile that 'much of the population' is doing their normal jobs productive to the economy and all. But if need be they'll put down their tools to "shoot twice" and go back home (or, shoot however many times they're outnumbered by I guess
)
Now it seems to me like with the population being responsible, liking each other, and supporting each other, the government wouldn't be terribly involved. You may label me/this as something from the American political right, but think, doesn't it make sense that if society can already figure itself out in many aspects, the government doesn't need to intervene as much? Maybe they'd need to fund some stuff, sure. But they wouldn't tell you in a more direct way how to run yourself.
It's getting late here and I could probably ramble on for years talking about this, bringing in things from Plato's Republic for instance, but I must cut myself off here.
Once again, any effort like this would probably fail right quick. I guess that coming up with "what" we'd want this hypothetical country to be is the easy part, "how" to execute it is the tricky (understatement) part.
Just note that if it were to be a place like Rapture from Bioshock, I'd just put a self destruct feature in it. Things start getting out of hand...MMKAYBAI!
Besides, I kind of don't like going over bridges or walking out onto piers, not sure I could handle living on the bottom of the ocean.
The idea of utopia isn't new of course. The word itself is based off the Greek, ου "no/not" + τοπος "place." Which is why this is all hypothetical.
What I propose though, is that a so-called perfect nation would be based in large part on these three things: equality, responsibility, and love.
Equality is broken down into marriage equality, religious equality, etc. Pretty self-explanatory.
Responsibility is broken down into personal responsibility, familial responsibility, and societal responsibility.
Love I say could practically void laws.
Perhaps equality hits on a more macro scale, whereas responsibility, I think, could make the country great starting at such a small level, the individual would affect the family in a good way would affect more families in a good way would affect whole societies in a good way would affect the nation in a good way. On the other hand, I feel that a lack of responsibility can fracture people's understandings of sections of society, creating stereotypes where the overwhelming majority are misjudged based on the irresponsibility of a few. In our society currently there are instances where we are reminded of this, that the actions of a few bad apples don't reflect the majority. yet in other instances I feel that society contradicts itself and perpetuates such stereotypes.
Love. If people in this contrived country of ours would love one another, then I think it would pretty much destroy the need for laws or much legal convention. There'd be no motive for crime, and thus no reason for written down laws and no reason to have law enforcement. Laws and the like would basically be irrelevant, they basically wouldn't even need to be spoken or debated about. Theoretically. And if everyone was accepting that everyone is equal, then loving each other would be much easier.
But then you get into more difficult things. So we have our country. What happens if we got a billion people from around the world all trying to get in at once, and we can't support them all. I guess we'd have to start being selective. But how do we do that? Admit who is the 'most qualified' (best able to support themselves and community, most productive to economy, etc)? But how do we define that, and furthermore what if it happens that x amount of y people are accepted but not x amount of z people because those y people would be 'best,' and the z people accuse us of discrimination? This is something that seems to be a bit harder when it comes to being perfect.
Of course who knows who may fancy our land, but not for immigration, rather for conquering. We may not be interested in war, but war may be interested in us. Perhaps a somewhat small professional army combined with a significant portion of the population being comfortable in the operation of firearms would be a good option. I saw something awhile ago that said "at the time of the first world war, Switzerland had a tiny standing army, but a populace of skilled riflemen. In 1912, Kaiser Wilhelm II asked what a militia of a quarter million Swiss would do if he invaded with an army of half a million Germans. Their response? 'Shoot twice and go home.'" This way we avoid the potential for too much military spending while still being able to put up a fight (hopefully). Exact location could make a difference too; terrain, for instance, and also allies. But still. A potential enemy having to not just worry about the military, but much of the population of our country to boot, might reconsider. Meanwhile that 'much of the population' is doing their normal jobs productive to the economy and all. But if need be they'll put down their tools to "shoot twice" and go back home (or, shoot however many times they're outnumbered by I guess
) Now it seems to me like with the population being responsible, liking each other, and supporting each other, the government wouldn't be terribly involved. You may label me/this as something from the American political right, but think, doesn't it make sense that if society can already figure itself out in many aspects, the government doesn't need to intervene as much? Maybe they'd need to fund some stuff, sure. But they wouldn't tell you in a more direct way how to run yourself.
It's getting late here and I could probably ramble on for years talking about this, bringing in things from Plato's Republic for instance, but I must cut myself off here.
Once again, any effort like this would probably fail right quick. I guess that coming up with "what" we'd want this hypothetical country to be is the easy part, "how" to execute it is the tricky (understatement) part.
Just note that if it were to be a place like Rapture from Bioshock, I'd just put a self destruct feature in it. Things start getting out of hand...MMKAYBAI!
Besides, I kind of don't like going over bridges or walking out onto piers, not sure I could handle living on the bottom of the ocean.
Comment