Every political discussion always boils down to the opposition 'not understanding human nature' or 'the world' this is always backed up by 'history'. I won't a

Every political discussion always boils down to the opposition 'not understanding human nature' or 'the world' this is always backed up by 'history'. I won't accuse you of not understanding humans since it seems none of us do (and it drives us mad!) but I think it's fairly clear what an ideal society looks like: Free. Now do we want to accomplish this with thought policing (something we've been trying to build forever and we're getting closer) or by giving individuals more responsibility along with the education needed to handle it. For me that is the only question. Edit: I realize the irony of calling a thought policed society free but the Utopian vision of authoritarians is one where they can destroy all the people and knowledge that don't fit with their vision and thereby reach a 'steady state'. Libertarians definitely have the harder problem to solve: Creating a fundamentally agnostic society. The point is that both complete authority and complete liberty are unsolved problemsm, but we (as a society) seem to be much more excited to solve the first one. This worries me and others like me and so we say "Hey what about we use all of our amazing technology to answer that second question instead" - it really rubs me the wrong way when the answers we get are some defeatist attitude about 'human nature' and the impossibility of equality. I recommend reading 'The Dominant Man: The pecking order of human society' for some interesting perspectives on human nature. There's no doubt in my mind that we can design a decentralized global society where the only hierarchy is the one we naturally (read: unconsciously) establish within our tribes.