I'd have an army just for show. It wouldnt be big, and our arms would be horible. I'd never use any money at all to make it better. I'd dropp it as soon as I'd have signed a contract with the surounding countries and agreed uppon certain anti-war issues.
Then you'd get trampled over by another country with a much stronger army. A small, ill-equipped army for show is little better than having no army at all.

I agree that an utopian society might look impossible in our curent state, however as close as we can get is however a posebility.
What makes war?
Money, therfore we need to dropp money.
Religeon? we need to make sure freedom of speech is a respected reality in this field.
Also, pollution destroys humanity and animals, therfor we need to derstroy pollution.
Decease kills everyone, therfor we need to fight deceases, and we need to give people free health care so everyone can have a chance at this.
Takes us right back to socialism, which we've already pointed out doesn't work. However, I'm more than happy to do so again. Destroy money? Destroying money effectively eliminates any incentive to work. If you're given the same things no matter what you do, why bother? Money is IMPORTANT. It developed for a reason. Money allows humans to be given a deep-seated need: compensation for the work they do. If there is no money, humans have no incentive to try hard. It's happened before and it will happen again. I've heard a story of someone who was in a communist country. They went to eat at a restaurant. After eating, they noticed no bill came. Eventually, they gravitated towards the counter and asked. The owners simply replied that they were given the same amount of materials to make the food every day. They had no real reason to try to collect on the bill (the money would be taken by the government to propogate the system anyways) and they had no real reason to try their hardest to make the food good.

And yes, if sommeone protested, they would go in charge, I could of course take him to jail if I wanted to, becouse I would not be using violence to do that. If hes words reached to a majority, I'd just give him my possition. But I wouldnt be alive for that decission, I'm just saying that if I was alive, and everyone's admin, I'd do that.
So if someone disagrees they go to jail? Some utopia.

I'm more concerned about how much freedom we can make.
We could remove Nazism. Some might dissagree and say that this is just the same as preventing the valuable "freedom of speech," but it isnt. It's just the same as to teach a child a different, more logic way of thinking then what theyr nazistic parents might teach them, they get to chose wether their parents are right about jews and niggers, or wether the friendly foringer isnt an exeption to hes race and nationality.
We need to start with the kids.
And here we get to the crux of the argument. We do NOT have the right to tell ANYBODY how they should think. Do you have any idea how easily that lends itself to being abused? We start with that, OK, things are going great. But wait! There's this other way of thinking that doesn't conform to our narrow vision of what the world needs. Time to outlaw that! Hey, maybe we can get a group together, let's call them the "Thought Police", to incarcerate or "reeducate" everyone who isn't thinking right. Isn't that a great idea!?