Utopian dreams have to consider the society in which they originate. The processes that would lead to a utopia for one culture would lead to a nightmare for another culture. This is simply because a utopia is the utmost expression of cultural values, rituals, and expectations that have become realized.

That is my highly inhibited two cents.

__________________
My enduring personal, original quote: Many mistake what should rightly be called "passivism" for pacifism. Pacifism and passivism are COMPLETELY different.
-----------------
"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." --President George W. Bush.
-----------------
-----------------
Everything about the War on Terro(ism) is aggravating.

1. What is an anarcho-capitalist?

2. Are you really expecting me to believe that Washington, Adams, and the Federalists were nice leeb-uhr-uhls compared to such mean, nasty conservatives as Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans?

__________________
Theodore Lamar Heiks
BA, History/Political Science, Western State College of Colorado, 1984
MBA, Entrepreneurship/Marketing, City University of Seattle, 1993

They most certainly would. And one indicator is the dogma that insists that it could not.
Besides Jefferson's utopia required a permanent stunt of social progress and remaining stuck in an agrarian economy.
And it was based on very idealized assumptions about human nature and very idealized assessments of primitive cultures.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

That's true.
But when you take time and the scope of a nation-state into account, it's impossible to keep culture constant in the narrow way required for a working utopia.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

Basically someone who doesn't want a government and wants everyone to be able to do anything they want. They differ from so-called left-wing anarchists because most left-wing anarchists aren't anarchists at all but simply want to replace the government with some form of social authority to force collectivization (though they don't say force, that is what it would require. Read about what happened to all of the so-called left-wing anarchists in history, particularly in Spain)

By either modern day ideological standards of left or right or by the philosophical interpretations of left and right at the time, the Federalists can be seen as the left-wing party. The ideological indication is their support of much greater government intervention in the economy coupled with greater government power in general and a loose interpretation of the Constitution. The philosophical interpretation of the party of change and the party of the status quo indicates that the Federalists were indeed the party of change at the time. The Jeffersonians had the Constitution and they wanted it to stay like that. The Federalists sought to change how the political structure worked, even though one can say that the Federalists were in power first.

__________________
.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

--Murray Rothbard

It all depends on if you define the utopia by how its creators say it would be or by what would be necessary to maintain your utopia. If there just happened to be a perfect Jeffersonian soceity out there somewhere, it would not end in dictatorship. The yeoman farmer would run the government purely democratically and the government would have very limited powers. It is hard for any society like that to end in dictatorship. But what would happen is that the people would vote more power to the government in order for economic growth, such as that seen under many of the Federalist platforms. So long as there were not any additions to the Jeffersonian utopia to force it to remain like that, it would not end in dictatorship, but it would end in general.

__________________
.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

--Murray Rothbard

The dictatorship would come if the powers were not voted in but people wanted them. That would lead to either revolution or a military police state.
The addition of new powers by popular demand would be a change of system.

The equivalent would be if some utopian communist democracy decided to go capitalist.

Utopias can change into other forms of government... but then they cease to be utopias as they could not remain perfect in any existing time and circumstance.
They are likely to become dictatorships when those in charge do whatever it takes to resist the natural change of time and circumstance.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

That is why constant vigilance is also necessary, along with the flexibility that goes along with it. The goal is as close to perfect constant societal and personal happiness as possible, not constancy of conditions. Conditions change as time changes and they must be met with the proper processes and conduits of change in order to properly concede to, or counterbalance, such change.

__________________
My enduring personal, original quote: Many mistake what should rightly be called "passivism" for pacifism. Pacifism and passivism are COMPLETELY different.
-----------------
"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." --President George W. Bush.
-----------------
-----------------
Everything about the War on Terro(ism) is aggravating.

Sounds pretty much like the definition of a democratic republic.
I guess we don't consider that utopian anymore.
"Utopia" makes me think more of things like communism, technocracy, anarco-capitalism... stuff tied to an ideology.

Democracy isn't really thought of as an ideology because we take it for granted...

So I wonder... if an ideal communist state exists, would they just consider it normal and consider some new idea "utopian"?

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

Well, then you recognize that it depends on whether the utopia is there or whether it is forced to remain.

Revolution does not necessarily include violence or dictatorship (see Jefferson's own "Revolution of 1800" or the American revolution (just about dictatorship))

__________________
.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

--Murray Rothbard