Gue isn't posting his views, making him biased, and even then all we'll learn from this thread is the same thing we learn from every thread.
Irtar's not funny. Beff doesn't like Gue, but loves his beef porn. Telan is an Imperialist German. Wes likes his Jesus. Demos is a dick. Dolash likes to believe in the best of people. Simon Kaine is the Chuck Norris of TRF.
I just saved forum memory for far more important things like non-existant Wii pissing contests.
@Gue: You never specified that. And what you proposed is not making the optimum number of people happy. It is making the optimum number of individuals in certain groups happy. There is a vast difference between the two. As such, I am even more against whatever type of government you now propose simply because to have the minority rule the majority is just as bad as having majority rule the minority.
Basically, what you propose cannot exist unless your statement "having the optimum number of people happy" is rephrased to "having the optimal number of people from specific groups that I choose happy." In the latter case, you can succeed. In the former, under your restrictions and what I believe from your comments is your perspective, you will inevitably fail.
Personally, I think the best system of government is one modelled after a combination of the government styles of Israel, Great Britain, and the US, with certain Old Testament principles such as the institution of the Jubilee and Sabbath Year included.
For those who don't know what the Jubilee and Sabbath Year are, I'll explain later - it would take too much work right now, and I have a lot of schoolwork to do.
@ Irtar: I completely agree. Except I don't recall mentioning Jesus in this thread, or anything about the Bible for that matter except in this post (and then only by way of mentioning a system of economy that I think would work well).
Again, I must ask, what is the meaning of the word 'harm?' Do you mean it in the sense of physical injury? Mental distress? Economic distress? What about the loss of property? Would a socialistic system be considered harmful? What about a capitalist one?
In that case, I propose a semi-Republican (meaning of a republic, not the political party), semi-parliamentary system of government, with a mid-sized central government, mid-sized national governments, strong state/provincial governments, and strong local governments. It would be a system of representitive government, where the local and state governments are elected by popular vote, as is one house of each county's legislature and one house of the central government's legislature. The state governments elect the other house of the national government's legislature, and the national governments elect the second house of the central government's legislature. Each nation will have a national figurehead, un-elected (like Britain's monarch) who can speak on moral issues and each have one vote in the central government's upper house. Each national government elects a President, who runs the nation (much like GB's Prime Minister). The central government also has a figurehead. However, the central government would have three Ministers: one elected by the Upper House, one by the Lower, and one elected by the National Governments. They would share power, and every decision would require 2/3 of the Ministers to be in favor of it.
Solution: Ignore those that cannot be brought to complacency unto the point where-by the variables inherit are disregarded.
It seems to me that, at its core, your question and the purpose of this thread is to define utopia as pertains to each individual. But this precludes resolution as utopia is purely subjective and cannot be rationalized as a global norm.
Insular communities composed entirely of like minded individuals given reign and rule over their own fiefdom, removing the already present global community, would allow those demographics to deceive themselves to the point of illusion. City-States governed by each group of people as they so choose prohibited from interacting with other similar bodies could allow the world, as a whole, to exist in varied states Utopian bliss however, I propose that there would remain an unquantified value which would not be satisfied with this solution, those who espouse the values of global interaction.
