money isint the only influince but its the strongest right now. but trust is another which is why some very rich people arnt trusted and some are and some arnt for good reasons because of who else does trust them

so long as resources are finite, the top will always exist. money really means nothing. its resources and the ability to control those resources that get you to the top. doesn't matter how you do it.

so its pointless trying to get rid of the top. and anyone who wants to get rid of it, is not actually trying to get rid of it. they are just looking for some way to join it.

because you can't get rid of it

not while resources are finite

not while that 90% can't ignore the rest of humanity and still get what they want.

and so long as the top is not static, which so long as there are people it won't be, then society is not under the control of any one group really. society is under the control of society.

key isint getting rid of the top, the key is getting the top to act in the best interests of the people and allowing the 2% to grow. heirarchy of influince and power is still important to the function of a society however it needs to be a healthy relationship between top and bottom not onesided

The biggest problem is defining what is the best interests of the people?

i think that is important, i dont know if its the biggest problem. one issue of it though is humans will defult to a way of living in complacency that isint actually very good on a sociatal level

i think most people tend to know right now one of the issues of society is due to how complacent everyone is and careless for the future of the next generation and those after. but no one really had an agreeible solution

Everyone has their own Utopia. There is not "best for society" because what is subjectivity good for one person is bad for another

there is good for society though, we have a wealth of history to draw from

I'd disagree, Grenade.

I think the concept of a Utopia is a way to justify authoritarian action.

The problem with utopian goals are that they generally lead to homogeneity of one sort or another

They invariably require a person to give up their autonomous rights for the greater good, in some way or another.

I think it's particularly telling - and one of the quirks of the American system - that when power changes, the powers that the previous administration crafted for the sake of chasing their utopia are suddenly vilified when used by the new administration, whatever administration that be.

Republicans didn't particularly care about the Patriot Act until Obama wielded that power.

Democrats didn't mind the 'Nuclear Option' for congressional power until the Republicans used it.

I'd argue that it's not utopian to push for a system where individual responsibility is the standard by which rules are made and people are judged - it's just the rules of nature that people keep trying to overcome with their utopian ideas.

~~~@Grenade123 for good measure.~~~

@RyeNorth everyone has their own version of what utopia would look like. Therefore utopia cannot exist. As such, you are right, anyone promising or working towards utopia is going to be authoritarian. Because they are working towards their utopia, which is not utopia for everyone else.

The divergence in opinion is that i think Utopia isn't really just an ideal world that someone has. part of the problem with the idea of Utopia is that it persists in ideology as a promise on the other side of suffering. It's bait to get people to do something they would not do otherwise, a sociological exploit in humanity for the preservation of the species.

It's what separates someone who wants people to just acknowledge the thresholds between their own sovereignty and that of their peers, and someone that wants to replace social structure with one where money no longer exists, or races are separated to solve sociological problems.

They're different levels of victory.

In order to build a culture of personal responsibility, you need only convince an individual. In order to rebuild society's values, you have to subjugate the individual.

Granted that might be my view due to the fact that personal responsibility is still the closer cultural infrastructure to what exists...

I just don't see that as a utopian worldview

i wouldn't define the idea of utopia as being just a bait used in some ideology. Everyone or near everyone has their fantasy version of events, of stuff that they wish had played out. That is utopia. And certain ideologies promise that as bait. And that is where they become dangerous, because they are promising a new version of the world that will somehow simultaneously exist along side very other version of the world from every other person subscribing to that ideology. This is obviously a false promise as only one version can come out the other side and you don't know whos but its not yours. making the definition of utopia so narrow as to only be the bait of an ideology means we need to come up with a new name for everyone's own perfect world they have in their head.

and i got tired of having to make new words for stuff when they rebranded racism and had to come up with colorism

lmao

I guess you're right on a strict definition sense.

The danger comes in depending on how devoted you are to Utopia, not based on your vision of it.

I guess that's what I was outlining. My Utopia would just be where people aren't absolute dicks, and I'm only devoted to it insofar as I believe people can with towards that personally.

Utopia becomes a problem when you force me to be on it.

Your Utopia ends at your property line.

I don't want to genocide people with popped collars or anything.

Is it bad my idea of Utopian society is the society depicted in Alfred Huxley’s “Brave New World”

Because while reading that novel I knew I was suppose to find the “dystopian” future horrifying, but I actually just found it efficient.

It was literally just the exact opposite of the Orwellian dystopia.