Utopia, Your Ideal Society

[Hubriss]

Personally I would go for some kind of Oligarchy or tribalism where resources were used to maximize well-being and the common good. The leaders would have to be benevolent, and there would need to be some sort of check by the people on their decisions while not being an actual democracy where peoples’ opinions can be manipulated. There would be strict requirements for the leaders based on intelligence and competency in whatever specialized field, rather than being hereditary positions.

You would not want a monarchy. Hereditary systems are not good. You also don’t want fascism because they’re usually the furthest from imagined Utopian societies. I think if you want to go for a state church, a “benevolent dictatorship” would be the best term.

It will be an interesting talk. I’m willing to bet any state church you put out there will be thrown out and ignored very early on, though.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

For twenty years William Wilberforce fought in parliament to get slavery abolished and lost every time. On the twenty first year he came up with the winning argument…

At some point we shall all have to stand before God, how are you going to justify your stance on slavery, and he won a landslide victory.

Utopia would be when we can all put God first, our neighbours second and ourselves third.

Kennedy said it is not so much what America can do for you, but what can you do for America.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

…]Kennedy said it is not so much what…

I put in my time in uniform and paid the dues, fees and taxes, now I’d rather America just left me alone to continue on with this decent life I’ve got. As my favorite website proclaims:

Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

That’s Utopia.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

Personally I would go for some kind of Oligarchy or tribalism …

The way this usually works is that its ok as long as you’re the oligarch or the tribal leader.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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.

Canuk has a point.

The idea of religious freedom (or freedom of conscience) was not something the Catholic Church officially endorsed until Vatican II. In fact the doctrine that “error has no rights”
was an official Church teaching until the mid 20th century. This doctrine essentially said that people had no right to spread heresy or other misinformation (and all viewpoints and teachings contrary to official Church doctrine were considered misinformation).

I heard ‘error has no rights’ most recently mentioned in this ZENIT article:zenit.org/article-8747?l=english

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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.

If there is a parliament then the ‘ball’ has already started to roll. Establishing a parliament would be a progressive act.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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.

The Americans from the 18th and 19th centuries were far more concerned about regulating sex and keeping out alien (to them) influences like Islam. But in many respects they were FAR LESS moral than their modern descendants.

The most glaring examples of their immorality was their attitude towards slavery, racism, and genocide.

Even their ‘sexual morality’ wasn’t that impressive, because the DOUBLE STANDARD when it came to the sexual behavior of men and women was firmly in place.

A wealthy womanizer could sleep around as much as he liked and still be considered a relatively respectable member of the community, at least as long as he confined his attentions to ‘safe’ targets like prostitutes, slaves, and other women who didn’t have a man to ‘defend’ their virtue.

While a woman’s life could be ruined by a single accusation of sexual immorality.

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

The Americans from the 18th and 19th centuries were far more concerned about regulating sex and keeping out alien (to them) influences like Islam. But in many respects they were FAR LESS moral than their modern descendants.

The most glaring examples of their immorality was their attitude towards slavery, racism, and genocide.

Even their ‘sexual morality’ wasn’t that impressive, because the DOUBLE STANDARD when it came to the sexual behavior of men and women was firmly in place.

A wealthy womanizer could sleep around as much as he liked and still be considered a relatively respectable member of the community, at least as long as he confined his attentions to ‘safe’ targets like prostitutes, slaves, and other women who didn’t have a man to ‘defend’ their virtue.

While a woman’s life could be ruined by a single accusation of sexual immorality.

Number 1, I was referring to the West in general not America. I am not saying they were perfect by any means but the “morality” of this generation is tolerance of immoral lifestyles, the rape of our culture and the murder of babys. For all its faults I would prefer the morality of our forefathers… thank you!

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

…For all its faults I would prefer the morality of our forefathers… thank you!

Slavery or just Jim Crow? Voting restricted to white male property owners or would you include women?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Number 1, I was referring to the West in general not America. I am not saying they were perfect by any means but the “morality” of this generation is tolerance of immoral lifestyles, the rape of our culture and the murder of babys. For all its faults I would prefer the morality of our forefathers… thank you!

I was referring specifically to the United States because I am a U.S. citizen, but everything I mentioned applies to the West in general too.

Moreover don’t thank me.

If your serious about working to restore a system that includes things like institutionalized racism, slavery, and legalized misogyny I will gladly oppose you. As would any decent person.

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

I was referring specifically to the United States because I am a U.S. citizen, but everything I mentioned applies to the West in general too.

Moreover don’t thank me.

If your serious about working to restore a system that includes things like institutionalized racism, slavery, and legalized misogyny I will gladly oppose you. As would any decent person.

I just love it when liberals pull the discrimination card when they lack a reasonable arguement or refutation. Excuse me but I do not think I was the one who brought race or gender into this. Frankly, I’m absolutely sure you are a decent person but pulling the race card (completely unrelated to the topic) will not make me renounce my views which are not racist.

“Slavery or just Jim Crow? Voting restricted to white male property owners or would you include women?”

Resovoir dog, I would like to remind you of the Underground Railroad to Canada. I am a Canadian, my forefathers provided a haven for freed slaves from America. how do you feel about their morality?

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

I just love it when liberals pull the discrimination card when they lack a reasonable arguement or refutation. Excuse me but I do not think I was the one who brought race or gender into this. Frankly, I’m absolutely sure you are a decent person but pulling the race card (completely unrelated to the topic) will not make me renounce my views which are not racist.

“Slavery or just Jim Crow? Voting restricted to white male property owners or would you include women?”

Resovoir dog, I would like to remind you of the Underground Railroad to Canada. I am a Canadian, my forefathers provided a haven for freed slaves from America. how do you feel about their morality?

I don’t care what your forefathers did. I’m wondering why you are blind to aspects of the past – I’m getting the distinct impression that you’re learning more about history in the thread than you learn in school.

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

I don’t care what your forefathers did. I’m wondering why you are blind to aspects of the past – I’m getting the distinct impression that you’re learning more about history in the thread than you learn in school.

Really? I do not mean to be impolite but please tell me a reasonable refutation so we can have a polite debate instead of insulting me by questioning my knowledge or implying that I am a racist.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

Really? I do not mean to be impolite but please tell me a reasonable refutation so we can have a polite debate instead of insulting me by questioning my knowledge or implying that I am a racist.

I don’t think you’re a racist, I don’t think you know enough about morality of your forefathers in the Good Ol’ Days to be a racist.

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

I don’t think you’re a racist, I don’t think you know enough about morality of your forefathers in the Good Ol’ Days to be a racist.

I never said the actions of my forefathers were all perfect. However I am a Canadian and am writing from a good old Cannuk perspective. I assure you, the Good Ole days here in Canada were we did not have slavery were vastly different from those of America. I wish to go back to the morality of MY forefathers not AMERICA’S.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

I never said the actions of my forefathers were all perfect. However I am a Canadian and am writing from a good old Cannuk perspective. I assure you, the Good Ole days here in Canada were we did not have slavery were vastly different from those of America. I wish to go back to the morality of MY forefathers not AMERICA’S.

Before or after the Numbered Treaties? Before or after universal women’s suffrage? Just trying to be clear.

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

Before or after the Numbered Treaties? Before or after universal women’s suffrage? Just trying to be clear.

Ok let me be clear, I am nostalgic for the old days but when it comes to civil rights, after women got the vote and before political correctness in all its forms reared its head. When we recgonized all people are equal but before we gave into gay marriage, abortion etc.

 

[OldSchoolChops]

Originally posted by Crusading Canuk:

Ok let me be clear, I am nostalgic for the old days but when it comes to civil rights, after women got the vote and before political correctness in all its forms reared its head. When we recgonized all people are equal but before we gave into gay marriage, abortion etc.

I see what you’re trying to say, but if I were to venture a guess, the resistance you’re seeing in others’ responses (mine included) to your original post on this forum is the method by which you propose to get there.

Take a moment to evaluate the logic of your premises. Just because some form of monarchy happened to exist at the same time when society was generally more conservative in your country does not mean the relationship was one of cause and effect; just because Aquinas favored a monarchy does not automatically impute legitimacy to his political decrees as it might with matters of faith.

If I had to guess, I’d say your profound love for the Catholic faith impelled you to to suggest it would best be promoted in the way you describe; by way of a “state religion.” Although your motivations are admirable enough, the manner in which you suggest it be implemented falls short. Just think: Western Europe in the Middle Ages was full of the states you describe. See how well they turned out?

Again, no disrespect, Canuk. Peace be with you.

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

I see what you’re trying to say, but if I were to venture a guess, the resistance you’re seeing in others’ responses (mine included) to your original post on this forum is the method by which you propose to get there.

Take a moment to evaluate the logic of your premises. Just because some form of monarchy happened to exist at the same time when society was generally more conservative in your country does not mean the relationship was one of cause and effect; just because Aquinas favored a monarchy does not automatically impute legitimacy to his political decrees as it might with matters of faith.

If I had to guess, I’d say your profound love for the Catholic faith impelled you to to suggest it would best be promoted in the way you describe; by way of a “state religion.” Although your motivations are admirable enough, the manner in which you suggest it be implemented falls short. Just think: Western Europe in the Middle Ages was full of the states you describe. See how well they turned out?

Again, no disrespect, Canuk. Peace be with you.

Yes the Middle Ages were not perfect, the tecnological advancement was not great nor was the hygiene, but they seem to be more ideal from a moral perspective and the Faith was never under all the threats the Church faces today.

Also no matter how much I may disagree with your post I thank you for using actual logic and reason instead of just suggesting undereducation or racism (like some other posts…).
God Bless