Based on this definition, I guess I'm more of an anti-Utopian (perhaps a C-Utopian?), since I believe in the strength of the Individual and minimum (if any) "government".Paul deLespinasse wrote:Dangers of Utopias
The dangers of utopias have become well appreciated in modern times. As Friedrich Hayek correctly notes, "Utopia, like ideology, is a bad word today." [Footnote 3] When different conceptions of utopia are compared, we find striking differences in values and prescriptions. One person's utopia may be another's hell.
If proposed utopias have any common denominator, it is probably egalitarianism. But there is more consensus that equality is good than about the meaning of equality. Since equality can refer to natural endowments (brains, beauty), to distribution of production, to contributions to production, to treatment by government, agreement that equality is good need not constitute any agreement at all. The key question, according to John Hospers, is "equality of what?":
Would it be desirable if everyone in the world had an equal supply of insulin, an equal number of electric fans, an equal number of potatoes, and equal number of books? Such equality would be about as absurd as anything could be . . . . Footnote 4
Among socialist images of utopia, the dominant kind today, the drive towards equality of consumption--not in the absurd sense of equal insulin suggested by Hospers, but in the sense of equal purchasing power--is very strong.
Politically decreed equality of consumption removes a strong and civilized incentive for people to participate in producing the goods to be distributed. One must then distribute equal shares of a smaller total, or use some power other than that of the purse to get people to produce. If the socialists' preferred solution to this problem--the power of the pen--does not deliver the goods, the only remaining alternative is the sword.
Utopias present another danger. When combined with the approach to rational action expressed in A ---> X + Y, they provide justification for outrageous actions. There is a tendency to equate a utopia, the best possible way a human society could be arranged, with infinite value. The utopia is seen as literally priceless. If this desired state of affairs is the goal X then any action promising to deliver it or even bring it closer appears to be both rational and moral, no matter how bad the side effects Y For Y is always a finite quantity, and when you subtract a finite amount of evil from an infinite quantity of hypothetical good, the good always greatly outweighs the bad. Utopia thus appears to be a good bargain even if you have to kill and torture billions of innocent bystanders in the process.
Finally, utopias and utopians have had a strong tendency to exaggerate the importance of politics in human life. The dangers of doing this will be explored in Chapter 17.
What my goal has been as the eventual outcome of the Sanctuary project, is to provide an environment that is conducive to the evolution of consciousness--and not just for man, for all the animals, minerals and vegetables that are part of that environment.
In order to achieve that goal, as Paul documents so well, a variety of paths to that goal must be examined along with the benefits and dangers of each path (the Robinson Crusoe methodology). So, if the goal is the evolution of consciousness, I guess it makes sense to take a look at what consciousness IS, and how it has been evolving in the three densities we can readily examine.
Man, for the most part, is still a 2nd-density thinker. Social-group oriented, reactive, only uses his brain when he absolutely needs to. That is part of the local environment we must deal with.
I consider freedom more important than socialization. Socialization has its place--to teach basic rules of society. But when it is used to impose the will of a few over the will of others without their consent, or "implied consent" as is SO popular these days with things like Uniform Commercial Code.
IMHO, the best form of government is no government; but I also understand the need to limit the behavior of those who are not used to thinking for themselves. Diana Trent of the BBC series, "Waiting for God" has always said it best...
"No one is capable of making moral decisions, so they invent laws to preclude the possibility of having to think for themselves!"