We obviously have different ideas about what's utopian and what's not. I think it's utopian to believe a centralized, federal government has all of the necessary knowledge and best intentions to make blanket decisions for hundreds of millions of people.

This really goes to prove my initial point in all of this: Why can't we get to a place where you can live somewhere more aligned with your utopian vision, and I can likewise live somewhere more aligned with mine? Why must either of us force our vision on the other?

Because, under your 'utopia', we never would have had the civil rights movement. Or woman's suffrage. Or gay marriage.

If that's what you believe my utopia leads to, then you're completely misunderstanding my worldview. The principal of non-aggression means no one would be allowed to enslave or suppress anyone else. Period. Everyone has equal rights: black, female, gay, whatever.

> The principal of non-aggression means no one would be allowed to enslave or suppress anyone else.

Except, of course, the wealthy.

No, sorry, you're confused with our current system of centralized power in the hands of a few who doll out rewards to their crony friends.

Who gets the money printed by the Federal Reserve first? Banks, where wealthy bankers then loan the money to others who are wealthy enough to be accepted for the loans. By the time the money reaches the poor and needy, inflation has already taken hold.