Utopia, Your Ideal Society

  • Thread starter Thread starter Crusading_Canuk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Crusading_Canuk

Guest
Good Day, today my english class has started looking at Utopias in literature and as a class project we have to debate until there is a concensus as to the ideal one. We need to decide on social issues, the role of religion and types of government. So far the stance I have taken is fascist or monarchist with a state religion (I think we can guess which one I picked but it’s side tracked language arts not theology). Where do you think I should go with this one?
 
What about the namesake FOR Utopia, Thomas More’s UTOPIA?
 
Fascism or monarchy as a state religion? Wow. Count me OUT of that line of argument!
 
Crusading_Canuk said:
Good Day, today my english class has started looking at Utopias in literature and as a class project we have to debate until there is a concensus as to the ideal one. We need to decide on social issues, the role of religion and types of government. So far the stance I have taken is fascist or monarchist wit a state religion (I think we can guess which one I picked but it’s side tracked language arts not theology). Where do you think I should go with this one?
Click to expand...
You are Canadian? Canada lost about 45,000 men killed in the war against fascism, '39-'45, and you chose it as a utopia? Are you serious?
 
Reservoir_Dog said:
You are Canadian? Canada lost about 45,000 men killed in the war against fascism, '39-'45, and you chose it as a utopia? Are you serious?
Click to expand...
Democracy is out in this scenario the alternatives are anarchism communism etc.
 
Sorry, my reading skills are a bit tired this morning 🙂

Are you picking fascism with a state religion or monarchy with a state religion? Why did you pick what you picked (that might help get the creative juices flowing).

A quick question though, is communism with a religion permitted? In that scenario you could use the pilgrims to Massachusetts as an example (although that really didn’t work out well in the long run). But essentially they practiced a form of communism (not to be confused with Marxist communism) where all work was for the communal good. You could even bring Shirley Jackson’s short story, “The Lottery” into it.
 
In the control-freak environment of public education, this wouldn’t work, but, from:
Maggies Farm
We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn’t pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does “try my best to be just like I am,” and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Click to expand...
 
“Representative Communism”

A personal mixture of different constitutions and societies.
 
radical anarcho-syndicalism. you’ll get extra points for knowing that it exists.
 
Originally posted by Crusading Canuk:
Click to expand...
So far the stance I have taken is fascist or monarchist with a state religion (I think we can guess which one I picked but it’s side tracked language arts not theology). Where do you think I should go with this one?
Click to expand...
Forcefully imposing anything on society inevitably results in the exact opposite of the intended effect. I’m curious as to why you would want this. God granted free will to his creation as an ultimate expression of His love for us, it is said. Why would you deny your “subjects” this very basic human freedom to choose?

Why even have “subjects” to begin with?

We already had numerous examples of monarchist states with state-imposed Christianity as the official religion. None were utopias, by any stretch of the imagination.

Try something novel that’s never been done before, like a libertarian, truly lassez-faire system of governance (yes I’ll admit, I’m partial to that philosophy :))
 
OldSchoolChops said:
Forcefully imposing anything on society inevitably results in the exact opposite of the intended effect. I’m curious as to why you would want this. God granted free will to his creation as an ultimate expression of His love for us, it is said. Why would you deny your “subjects” this very basic human freedom to choose?

Why even have “subjects” to begin with?

We already had numerous examples of monarchist states with state-imposed Christianity as the official religion. None were utopias, by any stretch of the imagination.

Try something novel that’s never been done before, like a libertarian, truly lassez-faire system of governance (yes I’ll admit, I’m partial to that philosophy :))
Click to expand...
Libertarianism? I have no doubt you like most of the people on these forums are a good and moral Catholic and would never seek to abuse freedom to commit immorality; however the same can not always be said of the majority of people in general. If the people want something, that dosen’t mean it always good for them. The logic in your post could be used to justify anything for example one could say that drug laws impede ones ability to choose and should be repealed. Many states have given their citizens choice regarding abortion the result is millions of innocents murdered each year. Libertarianism would only work if humans were perfect. However, we are quite falliable and thus need some guidence in our lives. Still though I do not advocate absolutism, I do believe in the right to parliament however the (generally traditional and conservative) royalty and nobility should have enough power to protect society from “progressive” mob rule before that proverbial ball even has a chance to start rolling.
 
Originally posted by Crusading Canuk:
Click to expand...
Libertarianism would only work if humans were perfect. However, we are quite falliable and thus need some guidence in our lives. Still though I do not advocate absolutism, I do believe in the right to parliament however the (generally traditional and conservative) royalty and nobility should have enough power to protect society from “progressive” mob rule before that proverbial ball even has a chance to start rolling.
Click to expand...
What happens when the “generally traditional and conservative” royalty you would put in charge of our lives succumb to immorality and begin to issue edicts that run contrary to natural law?

It’s going on right now; constitutional monarchies like Britain and other commonwealth countries (like Canada, which by your username I’m presuming you’re from) have embraced abortion, euthanasia, and all manner of disordered behaviors in more than full force. What then?

There’s a thread going on in the Moral Theology section about a parent concerned that his or her child is falling away from the faith. The overwhelming flavor of the responses all hold that to force the child to accept something against his protestations is demonstrably unwise.

I mean no disrespect to you, expecting any kind of government involvement in personal matters, especially faith, to have positive results reflects a juvenile sense of how government works.

Leave people alone to make their own decisions. Even if in your example we leave those disposed to drug abuse to their own devices, how does that harm you?

Once you try to force people to accept a particular mode of behavior, you’ll get the exact opposite result, much like the concerned parent. I’ll decide for myself how to run my life, and no monarchical edict will change that for better or worse.

Please see the light, my friend.
 
OldSchoolChops said:
What happens when the “generally traditional and conservative” royalty you would put in charge of our lives succumb to immorality and begin to issue edicts that run contrary to natural law?

It’s going on right now; constitutional monarchies like Britain and other commonwealth countries (like Canada, which by your username I’m presuming you’re from) have embraced abortion, euthanasia, and all manner of disordered behaviors in more than full force. What then?

There’s a thread going on in the Moral Theology section about a parent concerned that his or her child is falling away from the faith. The overwhelming flavor of the responses all hold that to force the child to accept something against his protestations is demonstrably unwise.

I mean no disrespect to you, expecting any kind of government involvement in personal matters, especially faith, to have positive results reflects a juvenile sense of how government works.

Leave people alone to make their own decisions. Even if in your example we leave those disposed to drug abuse to their own devices, how does that harm you?

Once you try to force people to accept a particular mode of behavior, you’ll get the exact opposite result, much like the concerned parent. I’ll decide for myself how to run my life, and no monarchical edict will change that for better or worse.

Please see the light, my friend.
Click to expand...
I was referring to a scenario where the royalty and nobility actually had power, Her Majesty dosen’t have any left and needs to listen to her people. That is the reason she “supports” it although it still isn’t an excuse. When it comes to my juvenile sense of how government can work, I am merely supporting what the Church has supported for about 2000 years. St Thomas Aquinas, a Doctor of the Church supported monarchy so perhaps he needs to “see the light” as well. In regards to a case where there is vice and how it affects me, such as drugs let me explain. If a single person does drugs and ruins their life, you would be right it would not affect me or society. But the problem is it never is just one person, vice spreads like plague, drugs are expensive and highly addictive leading to addicts to turn to crime to feed their habbits, I dear say crime has negative effect on the whole of society.
 
Crusading_Canuk said:
… I do believe in the right to parliament however the (generally traditional and conservative) royalty and nobility should have enough power to protect society from “progressive” mob rule before that proverbial ball even has a chance to start rolling.
Click to expand...
You’ll find on this forum that many people gave a few good years of their lives, and others gave more than that, to ensure that this juvenile interpretation of the role of government never happens here.

The day “nobility” decides what’s best for me is the day the knives come out.
 
I am under the impression that there have been many Americans who have responded to this, your independence was won on the battlefield and as a result is much respected even by monarcists including myself. You in America have no tradition of monarchy so why would you have a king. In such a country in my opinion at least, laws would need to be put in place and worded VERY clearly to uphold traditional values. Example the definition of marriage in many countries is roughly along the lines of between two people, citizens etc and gender is not mentioned because to our generally moral forefathers, gay marriage was on unthinkable perversion and thus clarification was not necessary.Look where this has led.
 
Crusading_Canuk said:
I am under the impression that there have been many Americans who have responded to this, your independence was won on the battlefield and as a result is much respected even by monarcists including myself. You in America have no tradition of monarchy so why would you have a king. In such a country in my opinion at least, laws would need to be put in place and worded VERY clearly to uphold traditional values. Example the definition of marriage in many countries is roughly along the lines of between two people, citizens etc and gender is not mentioned because to our generally moral forefathers, gay marriage was on unthinkable perversion and thus clarification was not necessary.Look where this has led.
Click to expand...
You live in Canada? right??? What kind of government do you think you have???
 
Reservoir_Dog said:
You live in Canada? right??? What kind of government do you think you have???
Click to expand...
Um yes… a constitutional monarchy with a Westminster style Parliament. I believe in the peoples right to parliament just as I believe in the necessity for the aristocracy and royalty (or here in Canada the Governor General) to reatain enough power to prevent mob rule from forming and preserve tradition. Of course such would only apply in countries such as Canada which have a tradition of monarchy.
 
Crusading_Canuk said:
Um yes… a constitutional monarchy with a Westminster style Parliament. I believe in the peoples right to parliament just as I believe in the necessity for the aristocracy and royalty (or here in Canada the Governor General) to reatain enough power to prevent mob rule from forming and preserve tradition. Of course such would only apply in countries such as Canada which have a tradition of monarchy.
Click to expand...
ok, I see this isn’t going anywhere.

carry on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top