Gulliver and Horses and Yahoos - -Oh My!

 In Part IV of Gulliver’s Travels, Lemuel Gulliver is abandoned by his mutinous crew in the Land of the Houyhnhnms, a country ruled by rational horses but also inhabited by human-like brutes called Yahoos.  Gulliver says of the Land of the Houyhnhnms:

I had not yet been a year in this country before I contracted such a love and veneration for the inhabitants, that I entered on a firm resolution never to return to humankind, but to pass the rest of my life among these admirable Houyhnhnms, in the contemplation and practice of every virtue, where I could have no example or incitement to vice.

Clearly, Gulliver believes he lives in a utopia – but is he correct?  Is the novel proposing that the Land of the Houyhnhnms is a utopia?  A dystopia?  Is it satirizing the entire concept of a utopia?  Or is something else going on?  And what is the role of the Yahoos in your interpretation?

Equality and Private Property

In Utopia Thomas More argues that in order to achieve equality it is necessary to abolish private property.  In his vision of a utopia, the state provides everyone the same food (which they eat in common dining halls), lives in the same kinds of home and wears the same kind of clothing.  Condorcet, appealing to principles in the new science of economics, argues that the best way to achieve equality is to abolish the privileges of the nobility and create a free market.

Which view, if any, is correct?  Is equality even a important political value?  Is it even achievable?

Philosopher-Kings: Is Expertise All You Need?

Plato famously argues that the ideal ruler of a state is a philosopher.  He gives at least two arguments for this conclusion, one based on a philosopher's wisdom and knowledge and other about the philosopher's moral character (courage, incorruptibility, etc).  Focusing on ONE of these arguments, is Plato correct?  Is a philosopher an ideal candidate to rule?  Or is there something important for leadership that a philosopher may be missing?  

The Family and Utopia

Plato argues in the Republic that in order to create his ideal state the traditional family structure needs to be scrambled.  The traditional family of two parents and their offspring will be replaced by communities in which all people of a certain age will be considered parents.  Couples will have children but they will have sexual relations based on breeding rather than mutual affection -- and they will not know which children they have begotten.  Furthermore, women will no longer be second-class citizens whose primary role is in the domestic sphere: they too can be rulers and warriors.

 Is Plato correct that traditional family structures get in the way of utopian aspirations?  Would other utopian thinkers agree or disagree?  Do you agree or disagree -- and why?