Happy New Year, folks!

No matter what system you use- the people who are managing the system, who control the system- they allocate goods and services. They decide if there is only enough wood for building wagons or building a new school this month- which gets built. They decide who does what job (easy or hard etc.) and being in control they can give their friends and those who “kick back” better positions and more. They an make sure they have more. That’s what always happens with any system of government of any scale because that is human nature.

Social control is the only method to overcome that nature- and that brings us to fundamental debates about freedom, what it means to different people- and more importantly the fundamental backbone of almost every social/political system and debate: Individuality vs collective good.

Apple vs. PC. If you want a system that is as safe as possible, a system where thins work 99% of the time and work well- you have to have control of the system. Open world fakes are notoriously buggy. The bigger and more complex- the buggier right? This is because the developer has less control. You ant get the level of polish and guaranteed play experience in an open world game that you can in a linear one because you don’t have control of the system. People will do things you can’t anticipate. On the other hand- the more centralized control is- the easier it is to make things work in harmony.

If you have an absolute monarchy- and a “perfect” monarch- life will be good for everyone. But what happens when that monarch does and you can’t find another like them within a generation or even 10? The system no longer works. Society changes, people change, technology changes and it changes those things. Therefore- just as perhaps one might say a program from 1976 was “perfect”... it is no longer “perfect” in 2020 because it lacks the ability to integrate into modern life, it can’t do what a user in 2020 needs it to do. The program didn’t change- so how could it be perfect one day and not the next? Well... the world changed.

So people are the biggest variable- and without solving that variable- how do you solve the equation? You can’t- not in a neat tidy package that is definitive and actionable.

So the world IS an experiment in systems of government. Wars and revolutions are indicative of the chaos caused when you change these systems. It isn’t prudent to “switch on the fly” with large systems. The bigger the ship, the slower it turns, or else it capsizes or throws everything about.

I was more thinking small city scale. Any good system of government should be made to grow with the times and people maybe add a reformat into it every 25 years. And your last point about history being a example is very true there is loads of data if you look. The problem is no one cares about the data they just want to do what will serve there own interests ( morality included). For example the us outlawed alcohol then admitted that it was a bad idea. The some one came along and completely ignored the facts and started the war on drugs witch does nothing but lock up people throw money at criminal organizations and make the drugs stronger. At the end of the day I don't care about anyone's opinions (even my own ) I just want to see governments get off there corporate funded asses and make the world a better place. As it is now they just sustain the status quo and the rich get richer as the poor watch them wipe there ass with things that would save there lives.

Nah. I can largely agree. That’s the nature of power though. It is just a tool for those with it to shape the world, and most people’s vision of the world is at least influenced by self interest. Consolidation of the small to the large serves both the power of those at the top, but also allows feeding the appetites of a “middle class.” It isn’t possible to have disposable everything for cheap when everything is sustainably sourced artisanal etc. the world is a sealed ecosystem, there’s only so much here and most people want as much as they can get. The things we consider “bare minimums” like toiletries and multiple outfits, new shoes or cars etc regularly... it’s all “luxury.” So either everyone in developed countries lives with WAY less and has to care for what they have so that everyone else can have it a little better... or someone gets screwed. Can’t blame the rich and powerful for hoarding wealth and not wanting to get screwed when we are largely the same.

To put it in perspective- taking the money of every billionaire AND millionaire on earth would only net each person a few thousand dollars/ not enough to buy a new compact Toyota, if it were split evenly among the world population. So Bill gates would lose private jets and his nice home and etc etc- so Some Guy could go buy a used Corolla. Of course... if we continue that trend and take the money from people who are tens or hundreds of times richer than others... most muddle class people wouldn’t get any of it and would have to give up huge chunks of their money just in order to make the 90+% of the world poorer than them even Stevens. It’s all just a game of who gets screwed so we can enjoy the things we have- starting with the first cave men.

I do think about a system where you get to create a new world as young people, live in it and raise your kids in it, and then you no longer get a say or can participate in politics or business- instead they take over and repeat. There are questions and nuances but your revolving governments idea is interesting and has an appeal even if it is impractical.

Of course- until we make machines smart enough to make smarter machines we can’t rely on machines to run the world- but that’s one way, a somewhat scary and potentially dangerous way- to eliminate the human element and the self interest and corruption. Turn over running economies and society to machines that weren’t tampered with by humans. Unbiased machines that hopefully we also have figured out how to teach them some elements of human compassion and “humanity” so that they don’t run things on cold logic and practicality by numbers. But that I think is at least several thousand years away at present.