In Harrison Bergeron and Anthem the societies depicted both strive for equality in dramatically different ways, yet Anthem’s society is much more successful in achieving true equality, due to the way that the state influences its citizens and penalizes them for improper actions. The physical control of the citizens in Rand’s Anthem is much more
Brave New World, a novel written by Aldous Huxley explores an utopian future where embryos are chemically engineered to fit in a certain class and soma suppresses negative feelings providing its captor with spurts of energy. The people living in this “new world” are born into different castes such as alphas, betas, gammas, deltas, and epsilons. The alphas are the highest ranking people in the world state while the epsilons are the lowest ranking members and do all the jobs no one wants to do. This book is relevant today in the society in which we live. From relationships to technology, to economy many of the ideas and struggles in this novel have very much translated into our society today.
Imagine a world, a society, where personal beliefs and interests mean nothing. A society where the self is worth nothing, but “we,” the people, means all. That world is Anthem, by Ayn Rand. In that world of Anthem is Equality, a young man who eventually breaks the bonds placed on him of collectivism. Anthem is defined as a dystopian work of literature seeing as the conflicts Rand uses such as man vs. society, man vs. technology and man vs. self.
Ayn Rand once said, “Collectivism holds that the individual has no rights, that his life and work belong to the group (to ‘society’, to the tribe, the state, the nation) and that the group may sacrifice him at its own whim to its interest.” In Ayn Rand’s novella, Anthem, she depicts an anonymous, communist city in which no individual has any rights, they only exist for their “brothers”. Equality 7-2521 is a very venturesome and curious character that wants nothing more than to be an individual and live with no limits. The complication with Equality 7-2521 wanting to be his own individual is the rules and controls that comes with his collectivist society.
All people are given the numbing safety of having no talents, no favoritism, and no ego. “Preach Selflessness. Tell a man that he must live for others. ”(The Soul of a Collectivist) By being one and the same, everyone is promised a sense of equality, something mankind fights over relentlessly.
The Candor of An Authoritarian Government Controlled Utopia Government control affects lives daily, some more than others. Brave New World by Aldous Huxley and “Harrison Bergeron” by Kurt Vonnegut are both satirical writings that take place in the future all over the world. In both writings, the government have completely disenfranchised citizens in attempt to create an utopia. Aldous Huxley’s satirical novel Brave New World and Kurt Vonnegut’s satirical short story “Harrison Bergeron” both depict the disenfranchisement and ultimate disabling of citizens by the government in effort to create an “Utopia”. In Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and “Gaza Rebuilding Awaits Palestinian Government Control” an article by Daily Sabah, foreshadowing is used to predict the possible effects on citizens and outcomes of certain acts of governmental control.
Thomas More had an abundance of revolutionary ideas for his time, many of which he penned down in his famous work Utopia. More’s greatest focus in this short book is placed on exploring the possibilities and benefits of a new kind of government. His views on such things as freedom, community, and the innate nature of man were all considered when creating what More views as the epitome of a successful government. It is baffling to realize that, using these same principles of freedom, community, and the innate nature of man, another author could come to a conclusion in direct opposition with More’s outcome.
Barry Schwartz wants to speak about the official dogma of western industrial societies. In maximizing the welfare of citizens, we must maximize individual freedom. If we all have freedom then each of us can act on own and not have to rely on anyone else to maximize our own welfare. The way to maximize freedom is to maximize choice.
Political theorists, whether they are realists, or liberalists, over the centuries, have come into conflict over what they believe to be the utmost important task of the state. Hobbes believes the most important task of the state is to ensure law and order, rooting his argument in the idea of a sovereign ruler. On the other hand, Rawls, a modern theorist, firmly believes that a state should focus on realising justice within their society. While a utopian society cannot be achieved by either of these theories, I will highlight why Rawls was right in his assumption that the main focus of a state should be to ensure justice for all within their nation, through analysing and comparing the conflicting arguments of Hobbes and Rawls.
Everyone is equal. No one is rich. No one is poor. Everyone has a fair hand in everything. There are no classes.
The Not So Perfect Utopia When someone hears the word Utopia everyone thinks of a perfect Bliss town. Where people are outside selling their fresh food at a marketplace, bakers selling their gluten free bread, tailors tailoring. As well as people getting their suits super fitted, boats bringing goods from around the country coming in and out of the port, people wearing matching sweaters outside in the winter, people sipping chai tea lemonade in the summer, and people just having pleasurable days. Just try to reimaging the utopia i'm talking about the complete opposite of that. Instead of it being a perfect utopia seeing signs of restaurants like deliciosos tacos and burritos.
In the conclusion of the book she creates a list of methods that cities and governments may use to further of equity, diversity, and democracy and achieve social justice. The list, as she argues, is very ‘‘context-dependent’’ and‘‘assumes societies with a preexisting commitment to democratic-egalitarian norms as well as a history of applying such norms’’ (p. 171). This is one of the many reasons why I feel that Fainstein's work is not truly applicable and relies too heavily upon idealistic views and perfect
My Utopia I believe that the ideal community is where no one is jealous of each other, where we all have the same clothes, toys, accessories, and where everything is basically the same. The perfect society is when everybody gets along. There are no differences. The citizens can all have fun without very strict rules.
Preventive and preemptive war in Utopia, Book II. When we saw the title of the chapter for the first time, we thought that it would deal with how Utopians prevent war, but what More is trying to say goes far away from this. In fact, the chapter is a detailed exposition of casus belli, military strategies and techniques. The meaning of Utopia is connected to America’s discovery, the world that serves as the location of fictional presentations of political ideas. At the same time, “this production means for the author to express genuine and real political views about his own circumstances” (pp. 57, The Ethics of Foreign Policy).
There is a contention between what people need and what serves their interests and what is required for the welfare, wellbeing and security of the whole gathering. Government needs to direct that contention. Contingent upon the kind of view that is agent concerning the idea of the social course of action and the idea of government, the contention will be settled for either sets of interests Furthermore, we need to debate the question whether self-interest has gained the upper hand in recent times, whether there is a tendency away from the common good towards self-interest and even more problematically: egoism (i.e., distinction between self-interest and egoism), whether there is a primacy of self-interest in our economic system, and whether we are living in an era of self-interest, in a self-society or within an utilitarian regime? Finally, is there a change in values and a ‘trans-valuation of values’ (Nietzsche) in our
