"Everyone's vision of Utopia is different..."

I have seen several postings with frequent references to this notion that "everyone's vision of utopia is different" , therefore there is conflict or disappointment, etc..

I would like all of us to think a little beyond this notion. Yes, it is true that everyone's vision of utopia is different from everyone's else, even in the slightest way. What then?

First - are we assuming that in utopia, everyone must think and feel alike? That everyone must share in this one, unified vision of utopia?

Second - If the society or government presents a certain vision of utopia (be it the world of the Utopians or Oceanians), and it is different from one's own, what is there to do? Should one rebel? Adapt? Run away? Or, as most narrators-protoganists in utopian writings would do, they ANALYSE what is different between their vision and what they see before them, and try to find out what this difference means.

If the world they see troubles them, the question would be - what went wrong? What will happen? If they like what they see, they might then pose questions about their own vision (or world of origin, as in the case of Raphael, for example) - what's wrong with ours/mine? [thus setting the stage for satire].

Which leads me to another issue, something very much in line with what we are also doing for GP - can we have an anarchic vision of utopia? Since we complain that utopias can never be realised as everyone's vision is different, would this problem be solved in an anarchic world, where there is no government to impose its ideology, no social or cultural pressures to accept a certain kind of vision, but where anything goes, and all views are acceptable? What then? Is THAT the ultimate utopia?

My point is: Do not stop at just noting that everyone's vision of utopia is different. What then? ...