What is the basis for why some people react with violence or verbal combativeness to a situation that imposes on them (either directly toward the source or toward some outside thing or person), while others do nothing?  Which is the right response?

Much of the decision-making process a person goes through in deciding how to act in a given situation is to a large extent learned, mostly during childhood.  People who are more exposed to negative aspects such as violent media or verbal or physical abuse are desensitized to them.  Indeed, they may consider those who do not share their negative attitudes as weak and deserving of any bad results.  The one thing that everyone needs, regardless of whether antagonistic or negative attitudes are accepted, is an awareness of the consequences of any action.

We need to get past having to scrutinize every action we make or else we get bogged down and we'll get nothing done.  We need a well grounded code of conduct that we have learned to the point it is second nature so that we tend to make good decisions by second nature instead.  We need to have practiced examining both (or the several) sides of many situations, starting at an early age, so that we come to know almost instinctively what are the physical and mental reactions to any action we might make in the future.

As a final recourse, Utopia needs a peer review available that can be brought to bear on any action, as in a jury trial accompanied by commensurate response.  If we have a way of keeping a record of everything that happens to us that we can present to our peers, actions and situations will speak for themselves, whether good or bad.  As long as we retain the right not to be forced to expose our records but retain our choice to show them, it is not the onset of big brother.

If we decide that we want to move toward less negative, it takes providing an environment as free as possible from the need to be antagonistic that will minimize children's exposure.  The less negative the environment into which the child will grow and become a part, the less he needs the exposure in youth.  Conversely, the more antagonistic the environment into which the child will grow, the more the child needs to be aware of the brutality and how to fend it off.

If we decide for ourselves that we want as constructive an environment as possible, with the least amount of negative, and do our best to actually deliver that for our children, they will grow up expecting that.  This means we need to decided how we want to deal with raising children in general.  Do we want to develop moral training for very young children, or older children?  Do we want to require parents attend training on parenting?  Do we attempt to draw ourselves into small communities to share our experiences and capabilities on a small scale for our children?  Do we let this issue remain the private domain of each child's parents?

A side issue is who should have children, but no one is God, with the moral perogative to say who may or may not have children.  Religion and society for a long time had very rigid rules about that, and the people then accepted the dogma.  The sexual revolution of the 1960s has drawn that belief structure into question.  We need to answer that question.

This whole area is central to how Utopia holds itself together.  It demands the greatest of care and consideration to keep from overrunning our individual rights while balancing what is best for all people as a whole.  It is one of the aspects that will probably be best handled by having different locations trying different approaches.