What is a Utopian state?

Describe your ideal society or state in depth. Its politics, governance, culture, language, religion, etc. What would it look like? Whatever it is could tell is a lot about your political views.

A state where women are divided based on beauty. At the age of 12, ugly girls are sent to cook, clean, and a few sent to make babies. Beautiful girls are reserved for the sexual pleasure of men.

Girls will be allotted to men based on the merit of men. The least beautiful of the beautiful girls will be awarded to lower class men on a lottery system.

At the age of 35, all women will be relegated to cooking and cleaning, with termination at age 85. Except for the top men, all men will be terminated at the age of 65.

Beautiful women will have a life of ease. Everything will be provided for them. Their only obligation will be to service the men they have been awarded to. Refusal will not be an option.

Men will be divided on the bases of intelligence. Stupid men will do manual labor. Smart men will become leaders. No voting or democracy. Position, status, and careers will be awarded soon after birth and are unchangeable.

There will be no marriage. Schools will segregated by gender. Murder, rape, assault, fraud, and theft will be punishable by death for anyone above the age of 16, except for the most beautiful women. They will be relegated to sexual pleasure for middle management men.

That would be a Utopian state.

A state where women are divided based on beauty. At the age of 12, ugly girls are sent to cook, clean, and a few sent to make babies. Beautiful girls are reserved for the sexual pleasure of men.

Girls will be allotted to men based on the merit of men. The least beautiful of the beautiful girls will be awarded to lower class men on a lottery system.

At the age of 35, all women will be relegated to cooking and cleaning, with termination at age 85. Except for the top men, all men will be terminated at the age of 65.

Beautiful women will have a life of ease. Everything will be provided for them. Their only obligation will be to service the men they have been awarded to. Refusal will not be an option.

Men will be divided on the bases of intelligence. Stupid men will do manual labor. Smart men will become leaders. No voting or democracy. Position, status, and careers will be awarded soon after birth and are unchangeable.

There will be no marriage. Schools will segregated by gender. Murder, rape, assault, fraud, and theft will be punishable by death for anyone above the age of 16, except for the most beautiful women. They will be relegated to sexual pleasure for middle management men.

That would be a Utopian state.

A state with a system where only home owners and their spouses are allowed to vote. A state where you are penalized for forcing a child to grow up in a single parent family. A state that erases the commerce clause in the constitution and replaces it with a hands off clause to eliminate crony capitalism. 

Just these 3 things would eliminate 90% of the current problems America has.

I'd be willing to compromise on the voting requirement which would permit voting if you currently serve in the military, or were discharged after at least 4 years without a dishonorable discharge, or pay at least a 5% income tax in any year before an election cycle. A constitutional amendment where a government can only spend so much GDP on welfare in any given year would be added. The current system that allows people with absolutely nothing invested in the country to vote has directly led to the situation we have now where we have trillions of dollars of national debt; and a huge, bloated, wasteful government in charge of charity. America's democracy needs to work like a stockholders meeting. Only people who have something invested should be allowed to vote. Taxation with proper representation for a change.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

People are not naturally productive when needs are met. Starvation or the threat of starvation, or the threat of the loss of liberty and conveniences is what motivates the vast majority of people to be productive. Only a rare few are genetically predisposed to work and add productivity to society after all needs are met (the super wealthy)...People will literally drop their pitchforks in the fields if they believe they can get all their needs from an endless breadline.

I don't believe that a feudal monarchy has ever posessed divine authority over earth.

Independant of government, A society that approaches the ideal ought to be allowed to prosper, and a society which doesn't must be accountable for the greater debt accrued.  

Lots of cultural, religious, and linguistic diversity, but with generally shared values of some level of liberalism (I use "liberalism" not in the sense of "political liberalism" but in a similar context as one would use "liberal" in the phrase "Western liberal democracy," e.g., opposition to racism, sexism, and similar forms of prejudice, sufficient political and cultural representation of social minorities), even if those values contradict those of the specific cultures that exist (e.g., with moderate Christians and Muslims rather than orthodox Christians and Muslims). Very little social and economic inequality, with a decent quality of life for everyone, and access to universal free healthcare, education, good-quality infrastructure, and full employment with high minimum wages. 

Governed by a liberal democratic government, perhaps in a Westminster-style parliamentary structure of governance and instant-runoff voting, with high levels of trust in the government, very high voter turnout (perhaps 100%), and high amounts of other forms of political engagement such as freedom of information requests, direct representative-to-citizen interaction, and political activism. I would like some amount of significant influence within administrative processes given to people in a meritocratic manner, e.g., involvement of respected economists in economic policy, international relations theorists, political scientists, and experienced diplomats in foreign policy, military generals, former special force operatives, political scientists, historians of war, and military strategists in national security policy, and so on. Highly globalized, socially, culturally, and economically. Little to no barriers to free trade, immigration, and emigration. A few key areas of comparative advantage that are exploited well, as far as industries go. Relatively low taxes for the middle-class and low-income individuals, without taxes on investment and savings. Lastly, a relatively free market in non-key areas such as health, education, and infrastructure -- free both from too much government intervention and from monopolies, oligopolies, and other harmful market forces. 

I'd also like a strong culture of respect for academia and the sciences. Significant government investment in scientific and economic research. Lots of respect for accumulation of knowledge and research culture, including constantly improving the quality of education, encouraging people to become academics, increasing pay for government academics, etc. Adaptation to technology. The one bit of technology I'm very worried about is automation, especially if this society needs to maintain full employment -- I guess either figure something out or substitute with an unconditional basic income to assure a decent standard of living. 

Peasant culture, family stewardship of land, frequent hanging of politicians. Catholic, large amounts of land held by monastaries. High reproduction rate, with little medical technology. Basically if the Amish were TradCath and founded an empire. Obviously close to zero immigration.

Do you mean the endgame or the means and intermediary stages/societies?

To me, application and theory should never be separated.

As a socially conservative Catholic, I don't think adapting to technology is a bad thing if done right. But I see where you're coming from.

I think that medical technology in particular is pernicious. Because despite dumb people screaming that it's a right, it literally isn't. It's a labor-intensive way to cheat nature with diminishing returns, and it by necessity accrues to the economically privileged members of any society. In a decadent society like ours, this translates to 'dumb rich people'. I see no reason to keep them alive any longer than necessary.

It has eradicated all death, suffering and injustice.

Medical advances can expand the productive lifespan, particularly among elders and you have to try.  There's nothing wrong with being able to contribute to your community or spending more time with your family. I have to say its a good point you won't hear from politicians that the people trying to cheat the nature of life will ultimately yield more suffering. 

But there are diminishing returns. The resources devoted to keeping elders alive could accomplish much more if redirected to the support of children.

That's a really weird problem to expect of people, taking resourses your whole life, and deciding when someone should no longer receive them.  I'm an optimist in this respect.  I think medical advances are nothing to be afraid of, and the will to survive is a very strong influence on people in general.  The knowledgeable years are particularly applicable today, and the human population is approaching carrying capacity.

The fundamental issue with utopias is that humans are ugly, toxic creatures, as is life on Earth. It's only due to human's woeful nature that anything as stupid as religion could be necessary. Humans are eternal consumers, never satisfied with what they have for all kinds of reasons (boredom, jealousy, physical hunger, sexual desire etc.) Conceptions of utopias often manifest as Police State extremes, as we can see in this thread, and as we can see in Thomas Moore's famous Utopia, in order to counter-act the pathetic, corruptible nature of humans.

I think there is a case to be made for ending life on Earth, due to the pointless mass suffering. There's nothing to be won. There is no grander goal to accomplish. It's just wicked creatures trying to fill bottomless holes. You either consume until you get to the top, and then fall into oblivion like everything else (making your efforts and suffering all for naught), or you live an unfulfilled life in attempting to satisfy your perpetual hunger to consume (this is what the majority does), only to find that you are unable to do, and so you suffer until you die. It's like a crazed heroin addict constantly looking for his/her next fix -- he/she never realises how possessed and miserable he/she is. Thus, it is likely that you were better off never coming into existence, in that the utopia for life is death.

If life needs to be sustained in its current form, perhaps virtual reality would be the best utopia for human life. That way, all of the suffering could be removed, and we could structure such an existence with a continual bettering of the individual's state (all done in isolation, away from other real humans).

If transhumanism is capable of totalling redesigning the human mind, then perhaps many of the current human flaws could be removed. However, I don't have a clear conception of what this would look like. I also think this is highly dangerous, if the redesigning process fell into corrupt or ignorant hands. It's still a possibility, nonetheless.

It's refreshing to see a godist promoting euthanasia.

Once you start supporting abortion you'll be half-human.

Euthanasia means to deliberately end someone's life, which I am against. I think that the technology shouldn't exist in the first place. Giving people the option to consume ever increasing amounts of resources to prolong life isn't a positive development. Of course, we can't rationally expect people to just give up and stop spending, but the other option is a society which neglects the young in order to prolong life, which is suicidal in the long-term, especially coupled with the poisonous individualism which has gripped the West.

If you are against keeping people alive, you are in favour of euthanasia.

No response? Ok, off you go now.

Recognizing that God is sovereign over all things, and it is a government without end.

Textbook false dichotomy. 

Explain.

Will somebody be terminated if they go trans? (In your utopian state). Would they be like untouchables? What do you do with them, or do you just ban the operations to become trans?