Democracy is viewed as the motherhood of political systems — the bedrock of freedom and prosperity. But recent evidence no longer supports this view. All democracies, be they direct, constitutional or representative, have eventually devolved into either an aristocracy, as in ancient Greece, or to authoritarianism, as we are now experiencing. Democracy seems to be “the God that failed.” However, many still support it, some begrudgingly, because they cannot think of a better system, but also because the archetype of a centralized governing structure is so deeply embedded in our psyche.
I like the idea of this “sweet-spot” that you propose -- somewhere between totalitarianism and anarchy. But I am not sure what you mean by "Even the rules themselves would constitute market demands." Are you suggesting if we take care of "protection of life, property, and agreed-upon contracts" that market will take care of the rest?
I don't really see how societal problems can be solved by the "innovation of free communities without the need for any coercive programs". Big societal problems often need structural adjustment and governmental support (where in ideal situation the rule of law would be upheld).
"But through trial and error, the nature of societies at criticality will dissipate those problems/demands by spontaneously self-organizing into new complex structures and solutions. This would be dynamic and flexible"
hmm...I like this as an idea but this is a bit fluffy. Complicated societal problems cannot be solved by "spontaneously self-organizing" new complex structures and solutions. Maybe you can give an example?
I like the idea of this “sweet-spot” that you propose -- somewhere between totalitarianism and anarchy. But I am not sure what you mean by "Even the rules themselves would constitute market demands." Are you suggesting if we take care of "protection of life, property, and agreed-upon contracts" that market will take care of the rest?
I don't really see how societal problems can be solved by the "innovation of free communities without the need for any coercive programs". Big societal problems often need structural adjustment and governmental support (where in ideal situation the rule of law would be upheld).
"But through trial and error, the nature of societies at criticality will dissipate those problems/demands by spontaneously self-organizing into new complex structures and solutions. This would be dynamic and flexible"
hmm...I like this as an idea but this is a bit fluffy. Complicated societal problems cannot be solved by "spontaneously self-organizing" new complex structures and solutions. Maybe you can give an example?