We are ambivalent about utopia. Classless societies minimize competition, but we see competition as separating worthies from the less worthy. That bosses reach exhalted positions inclines us to follow their orders. And there's always hope that someday we will be boss. Besides, utopia strikes us as boring. We prefer tension to calmer states of mind.

If you think this the best of all possible worlds, visit The Garden of Eden for different social possibilities. Eschew pessimism. You can get it back any time you want. How would you improve society?

The recent mass suicide of the cult in California gives us pause. No space ship rode the tail of the comet, so they ended it. Bo and Peep decided. The others followed. We think if the others were more independent (individual), they would not have done themselves in.

What we call democracy supposedly upholds individual rights, but legislatures everywhere pass laws telling us to do this and prohibiting us from doing that. Collectives, whether a random mob or the state in all its majesty, sometimes crush individals

With the advent of the Internet, electronic democracy, becomes a possibility. It will not eliminate collectives or diminish their power, but it can assure us that collective actions reflect the opinion of no less than a majority of the individual members. Most see electronic democracy as a device for the majority to opress the minority, a perception that depends on our view of our fellow man. Since we see them as unsympathetic, we see them pursuing collective ends at individual expense.

Do we want unbridled individualism? Should individuals be permitted to destroy a forest because they "own" it? Do we insist on individualism no matter how much harm individuals do in order to turn a profit? Who decides? Why not everyone? Why does the idea bother you?