maybe this discussion was getting off-topic in another thread or maybe not:
Well it’s obvious you personally don’t like the word utopia - now whether or not your conclusions lead otherwise is what’s being debated.
The idea of being utopia has to do with Moore’s “Utopia” which was a book about a society running about in a state of perfection. How will it happen? Well those that insist that a government, a geographical monopoly instituted by people over others, is the curious thought. It’s a claim that people can’t naturally order voluntarily (and the non-utopian aspect of free-willing beings is what statists point out to instill their so-called model of a better world aka utopia). So there are people that think a government actor needs to be instilled to solve the so called problems that occur by voluntary interactions.
1 - These are all people. They are government actors/people and/or people in civil society (contraries of government). So it’s still people making the decisions. Thus nothing has changed as to who is conducting operations - it is still one individual with another individual.
2 - The whole thrush of a government is to coercively push actions along that are made by people (economic good regulations are accidents).
3 - The government in and of itself is redundant and coercive. pure and simple. cause civil society/free market are acting on their own motivations/desires, but then a government’s ONLY job is to so-call perfect it thus a utopia. And since the government is made up of individuals making decisions those ideas will be enacted arbitrarily by whomever pulls the government buttons, widgets, and levers. Free choice happens, but with government actors their choice is mechanized by coercion. The whole idea is redundant unto itself to begin with.