Utopia?
by Dr. Doug Cardell
Imagine a realm where every individual is free to pursue a fulfilling life, untouched by the influence of others. This realm is the concept of Utopia, a term introduced by Sir Thomas More in 1516 in his book Utopia. In its original context, Utopia was a fictional island society where all facets of life were flawless. But can Utopia truly exist? What truly defines the 'best' world? Are these queries truly answerable? Let's embark on a journey to define the conditions of an ideal world. In this world, you and every inhabitant could not fathom another, better world that would satisfy everyone and improve the world for at least one person. In this world, everyone agrees that a better world for everyone is impossible. There is another condition: that the world consists of humans as we know them to be rather than imaginary humans with traits and characteristics unlike those of the actual inhabitants of that world. So, the Utopia we seek is a world where all the people you know and all those you don't, while remaining individually unchanged, all agree that any world they would prefer would make at least one other person worse off. If you have already read some of my past articles on value, 'Value and Worth', you are familiar with the concept of personal value. Briefly, each of us has within us an ever-changing but relatively consistent list of values: what we value most, second-most, third-most, and so on. These lists are unique. No two individuals have the same list, and the same person may not have the same list at two different times. This statement may seem extreme, but consider this: do you know even one person with whom you agree on EVERYTHING? If you think you do, a brief conversation with them will reveal many things you disagree on. They may be trivial things like a favorite color, singer, or artist. Or they may be more substantial, like which is more important, morality or money. This diversity of values is what makes our exploration of Utopia so worthwhile. As we delve deeper, we must confront the challenge of creating a world accommodating diverse personal values. Consider the extremes. The ideal world would not impose any value system on its inhabitants, even if the majority agreed. Such imposition would inevitably favor some and disadvantage others. Conversely, anarchy is incompatible with Utopia. Anarchy allows the strongest and most determined to impose their values on others. This balancing act is the crux of the challenge. Therefore, Utopia must have at least a limited government. But how limited? The government must have the power to prevent anarchy and make rules governing behavior that deter, punish, and prevent harm to its inhabitants' lives, liberty, persons, and property. For instance, it could establish a legal system to resolve disputes, enforce contracts, and protect property rights. It could also provide public goods and services, such as infrastructure and national defense, necessary for a functioning society. A government that allows its citizens to actualize their values however they choose as long as their doing so does not infringe on others' ability to actualize their values. The defining conditions set out above must bind the government as well as the people since the government is a creation of the people. As a result, the government may only attempt to improve the world by means that would satisfy everyone and enhance the world for at least one person. Therefore, the government can take no action that will make the life of any citizen worse, no matter how many people it helps. Now comes the tricky bit: How does the government protect the people from harm without the funds to do so? The simplest, fairest way would be a national sales tax exempting food and medicine. It is fair because it affects everyone equally and taxes spending rather than earning. It is simple because most of the required infrastructure is already in place. However, it must be tweaked to make it compatible with an ideal world. When making purchases, the shopper would add one more step: To respond to an addition to the usual checkout procedure. This step would involve selecting from a list of a few, at most a dozen or so, and choosing how the government would use their taxes to support government functions. That list might include disaster relief, national defense, local police and fire departments, social programs, the arts, national parks, etc. In this way, each person would have the right to decide what the government spent their money on. They would be free to commit their share of the common good fund to their vision of a better world. However, this system could lead to underfunding of essential services if individuals prioritize their personal values over the collective good. This dilemma would addressed naturally by interest groups campaigning much the way they campaign during elections. The government would also keep free markets free by preventing government favors or aid and policing market misbehavior. In an ideal world, no one must be able to employ the government to restrict anyone's harmless value expression. This balance between individual freedom and societal harmony is a crucial aspect to consider in the feasibility of Utopia. In a world structured this way, everyone would be free to self-actualize as they see fit and live in a world in which they have done their part to contribute to a better world for everyone. Properly policed free-market capitalism combined with a limited government directly answerable to the people is as close to Utopia as we are ever likely to experience.
If you found this article stimulating, please share it with other folks who might enjoy it. And please share your thoughts below. Dr. Cardell would love to hear from you.
Responses