William Sidney Harper: Utopia 2001: An ethical approach to religion, government, economics and the law.
Previous page | Next page | Page: 3 of 8 |
Jump to page:
Page 3
Let it continue, as a form of spiritual entertainment. But it must keep out of the ethical or Utopian debate. Nor do we need that most famous of all religious journeys- the guilt trip. The only ethic that has a chance to restore order and happiness to a troubled world is a rational one, tempered by the realities of evolution. Not an ethic based solely upon obedience to God, as interpreted by very human, and very fallible, priests.
Government
Turning from the bizarre to the ridiculous, just how would a rational society approach the vexing question of government? Anyone who gets beyond the funnies in the morning paper can't help but notice that the world is in a mess, and our major institutions have lost the script.
Most of humanity still suffers under totalitarian governments of one sort or another, and human rights abuse is widespread. All forms of autocratic government have one thing in common, which is a fundamental focus on personal power in the minds of the ruling elite, backed up by the conviction that people exist to benefit the state, i.e. them. In short, they lack a rational ethic.
In the meantime, those fortunate enough to live in one of the world's democracies have things better than has generally been the case throughout history. They of course have other problems, but at least the need to confront the voters every few years keeps their ruling class moderately honest. Modern democracy may be the best approach currently on offer, but Utopians would consider that in its present form it has several flaws.
The Party System
The party system, as an extension of the instinctive group syndrome which has caused so much harm to humanity, would probably be scrapped by Utopians. Political parties by their very nature have an axe to grind. As long as you have groups pursuing their own ends, some elements of society will be disadvantaged, and what group is more likely to pursue its own ends than a political party?
Yet we cling to the party system and witness the result by the quality of debate and the "us-them" mentality exhibited during parliamentary or senate sessions, when almost any legislation brought in by the current government brings about a knee-jerk counterattack, whether the issue has merit or not.
How many large corporations could function efficiently in this sort of atmosphere where mudslinging is the norm? To inject confrontation between board members into the scenario is a sure-fire recipe for problems in any business. Yet that is exactly what the party system does to the biggest business of all- government.
Electoral Machinery
Since political parties are out, campaign donations would also go, for these represent yet another way of trying to influence government. What merit would Utopians see in a system that allows pressure groups to make large tax deductible donations to the political party most sympathetic to their interests?
Previous page | Next page
