Utopian States: Striving for Perfection

Democracy is allegorically like a society where the sheep vote for the obedience school that trains the sheep dogs that heard the sheep.  In the USA, the two main obedience schools are called the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.    The sheep dogs are allegoric to the police, the judges and the teachers in that democratic society. 

Webster defines democracy as a government by the people; rule by the majority.   An alternate definition is a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.

Seriously, the definition given by Webster is too flattering and too idealistic.  The people of world democracies are being domesticated just like farm animals.  The brains of domesticated animals are significantly smaller than their wild cousins.  Likewise, the brains of the modern domesticated man are smaller than their predecessors.  Yes, the brain of the Neanderthal was significantly bigger.

From page 56 of the September 2010 Discover magazine:  “Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1500 cubic centimeters to 1350 cc losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball.  The female brain as shrunk by the same proportion.”  Later on the same page: “Still others believe that the reduction in brain size is proof that we have tamed ourselves, just as we domesticated sheep, pigs and cattle, all of which are smaller –brained than their wild ancestors.”

The Utopian States is all about decreasing the domestication of man by creating governments that are nearly invisible, but more effective so that man will have more freedom and more opportunity.  Opportunity is what gives individuals their security.  With more jobs available for each individual, people don’t need government assistance.  Ownership of a small business will replace social security, unemployment and other government assistance programs.  It has been shown that an abundance of jobs virtually stops crime.

If the lack of a dominant and domesticating government causes an increase in brain size, then citizens of the Utopian States will have the largest brains in the world.

Would you drink muddy, rancid milk?

No, of course not. It is filled with dangerous and unhealthy impurities.

Same with governments.

Utopian governments are, by definition, more perfect. Utopian governments have the impurities removed. As with the milk, there is a big difference between the pure and the impure.

There is a reason why this happens. It’s probably related to greed and ignorance. Each keeps the other in place. Lack of proper common principles is both the symptom and the cause. Too often greed has been confused with success and conventional wisdom has been confused with intelligence.

Webster defines Utopia as follows:

Main Entry: uto•pia
Pronunciation: \yu̇-ˈtō-pē-ə\
Function: noun
Etymology: Utopia, imaginary and ideal country in Utopia (1516) by Sir Thomas More, from Greek ou not, no + topos place
Date: 1597
1: an imaginary and indefinitely remote place
2often capitalized : a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions
3: an impractical scheme for social improvement

We at UtopianStates emphasize the second definition: A place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions. We believe that governments and social conditions can only be improved by first determining the ideal. It’s not important that we can’t totally reach the ideal. The important concept is that we use the ideal as a goal so that we can chart our course. Knowledge about what is real or perfect is the only way that any government, leader or politician can chart a viable course for his group.

Some people see perfection as having a billion dollars or winning the gold medal. This is an illusion. True that those would be perfect goals to achieve, but they go beyond perfection. With another reference to Webster:

Main Entry: per•fec•tion
Pronunciation: \pər-ˈfek-shən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English perfeccioun, from Anglo-French perfection, from Latin perfection-, perfectio, from perficere
Date: 13th century
1: the quality or state of being perfect: as a: freedom from fault or defect : flawlessness b: maturity c: the quality or state of being saintly
2 a: an exemplification of supreme excellence b: an unsurpassable degree of accuracy or excellence
3: the act or process of perfecting

We at UtopianStates emphasize definition one for defining Utopian perfection. A perfect society therefore is free from fault and defects; it is flawless and mature. The UtopianStates therefore constantly looks for faults and defects and strives to eliminate them. It isn’t sufficient to cause stress to some inhabitants in order to improve the situation for others. Causing one defect to eliminate another is not a viable solution. Nor is it sufficient to get the approval of the majority and the leaders. Any solution must be perfect for all the people.

The wealthy have the right to own property and earn money that is proportional to their risk, effort and skill. Others with lower effort and skill still have the right to food, shelter, clothing and a job without life threatening stress. Living frugally does not imply that a person has to be unhappy. Some of the happiest people are those that live frugally with limited resources.

Those obsessed with power, superiority and domination, apart from any role playing for mutual amusement, should not join the UtopianStates.

The UtopianStates strives to create a society where all can have equal fun living on this beautiful planet. The UtopianStates does NOT socialistically distribute the wealth. The UtopianStates endeavors to socialistically distribute the fun and enjoyment of life. Life should be a celebration. Life is wonderful.

Capitalism, in the extreme, can be thought of an auction type trade system with no regulation. Pure capitalism could happen in a system of anarchy (no government). Pure socialism could be thought of as a system where government controls production and the distribution of goods and services.

In pure capitalism we would see prostitution, drug trade, trade of slaves and trade in all types of weapons. Even parts to make nuclear weapons could be bought and sold. Military secrets could be bought and sold. Capitalism is an auction where the highest bidder gets what he wants.

In pure socialism, the government would force workers to produce. The production would be grabbed by other workers and distributed to all. There is no auction. Money could be a coupon.

Then there is what I call cultivated capitalism which is analogous to a garden, nursery or farm. The parasites and predators are controlled. Water is supplied when there is a drought. Fertilizer is added when needed. The soil is tested and the acidity/alkalinity is controlled. Regulations are made as to what plant grows where. Blights and diseases are controlled. Farmers have the choice to grow what they want, how much they want and by what method (organic or chemical).
Isn’t it obvious which system is best?

The God Damn List is a list of those people and groups that have made mountains out of mole hills or mole hills out of mountains. This is not a thought crime. Force has to be also be used that causes loss, harm or injury.

A judge would make the God Damn List if he allowed incriminating evidence to be exaggerated while simultaneously allowing exculpatory evidence to be minimized. The resulting verdict would also have to cause harm, loss or injury.

A government would make the God Damn list if that country exaggerated the benefits of a program while simultaneously minimizing the cost of a program or policy.

The flat tax could be made viable if there was a large enough deduction. If there were NO taxes or social security deductions for the part of an individual’s income that was essential for food, shelter, clothing and health care, the flat tax would work and be reasonably fair. There should not even be property taxes on the portion of a person’s property that is absolutely essential for shelter. These deductions would have to be several times larger than the current deductions.

A person with opulent wealthy accumulates wealth easily because most of his income can be invested to make more money. A person with average wealth struggles because government takes so much from the income stream that is absolutely essential for food, clothing, shelter, clothing and health care.

Near most metropolitan cities, a family of four would require that NO taxes or social security deductions be taken from the first $50,000 worth of income. That family would also require that the first $200,000 worth of property that he owned have NO property taxes. The actual amount would vary from state to state and from area to area.

After these deductions, a family could invest the remainder of their income. It would be possible. Consequently, they have a level playing field with those of opulent wealth, with one exception. Those with opulent wealth still don’t have to spend the majority of their income on food, shelter, clothing and health. However, the playing field has been sufficiently leveled that the taxes and social security contributions could flat for the remainder of their income for both those with average wealth and those with opulent wealth.

The tax rate for the opulently wealthy would probably increase by 5%. This change in the method of taxation would provide a considerable stimulus to the economy. Those with incomes under $100,000 would see a substantial reduction in their tax liability. People could even afford to retire, if they could buy a small property that had no property taxes.

The following definitions are given to clear up words that are often mangled by political candidates that wish to re-define their opponents.

Conservatism:
Synopsis: Conservatism is the tendency to prefer existing situations and support traditional power structures rather than change.

Conservatism received its classic formulation in the works of the British statesman Edmund Burke, notably his Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), in which he rejected the principles of the French Revolution and presented a comprehensive philosophy of society and politics. Burke viewed society as an organic whole, with individuals performing various roles and functions. In this society a natural elite—by virtue of birth, wealth, and education—is supposed to provide the leadership. The community is held together by venerable customs and traditions; gradual changes can be made, but only when they have gained wide acceptance. – From MSN Encarta

Liberalism:
Synopsis: Liberalism is the tendency to prefer the modification of existing situations and power structures in order to improve individual rights for all.

An influential early liberal was the English philosopher John Locke. In his political writings, which deeply influenced the framers of the U.S. Constitution, he argued for popular sovereignty, the right of rebellion against oppression, and toleration of religious minorities. According to the thought of Locke and his many followers, the state exists not to promote people’s spiritual salvation, but to serve its citizens and to guarantee their life, liberty, and property under a constitution. – From MSN Encarta

Radicalism is avocation of the views, practices, and policies of extreme change. The bill of rights is an example of a radical change. This bill was ratified in 1791, three years after the Constitution.

The word was first used in the political sense in England, when the British statesman Charles James Fox asked for “a radical reform” that would extend the franchise to universal manhood suffrage. The term radical afterward indicated those in support of parliamentary reform. After the passage of the Reform Bill of 1832, a measure primarily benefiting the middle class,[…] – From MSN Encarta

Reactionary:
Synopsis: Resistance or opposition to a force, influence, or movement frequently with a tendency toward a former and usually outmoded political or social order or policy.

Reactionary comes from the French word réactionnaire, coined in the early 19th century. It was the first of the two words coined (the other being conservative, from the French word conservateur) for the opposition to the French Revolution. “In parliamentary usage, the monarchists were commonly referred to as the Right, although they were often called Reactionaries.” This is the first time the word was used to mean “A movement towards the reversal of an existing tendency or state” or a “return to a previous condition of affairs.”

The earliest English-language use cited in the OED is by John Stuart Mill in 1840: “The philosophers of the reactionary school—of the school to which Coleridge belongs.” – Wikipedia.org