The ideal government.

[The Second JELLIAN Republic]

Old version, It has now been refined some amount.

Here I give you a simple yet very complex question. What would the ideal structure for a government, meant to administer all of humanity, be? of course, many people have many opinions, ranging on multiple different Axies.
But for the purposes of this thread. The government will be bound the following criteria.

The system must:

Represent the wishes of the people.
Ensure minority protections.
Guarantee liberty.
Protect individual rights.
Maintain a safe environment.
Uphold justice.
Protection against tyranny.
Upholding human rights.

(Criteria selected based on the ideals of modern democracies)
(Also note how I say system, and not government. If you believe for instance that the best way a system can uphold justice, is for the government to stay out of it, then by all means, go for it. The criteria are mostly meant to keep things democratic and away from things like the Soviet Union or nazi Germany, but if you are able to get it to work following the criteria)

One of the interesting things about this system needing to administer the entire world. Is that there is no “foreign”, only domestic. (Unless aliens come and say him )

Basically, for a government administering the world, what do you think the best, most ideal system would be? (Following the criteria).
(Or at the very least, what is one major feature you would like to see).

I bring you a simple yet very complex question.
What could a realistic utopia look like.
The ideal government system, meant to administer the entire world.

The term utopia is itself a vague, and poorly defined word, and I leave that up to you on how to define it.

One of the interesting things about this system needing to administer the entire world. Is that there is no “foreign”, only domestic. (Unless aliens come and say him )

So here it is.
What would a feasible utopia look to you?

[The Second JELLIAN Republic]

I for one believe that in a situation like this, federalism would be important to protect against tyranny.
I also am of the opinion that rehabilitation should largely replace the small-crime parts of the justice system we have today.
Also that whatever democratic process is used, it should have majority rule and minority rights.
I would also say that I believe the economy should be capitalism, but there should be a very strong goverment education system, strong small business subsidies, goverment funded r&d, and government intervention in any sector of the economy that reaches economic failure.
(Like utilities or healthcare, as the consumer can’t fight those monopolies).
I also believe in certain situations, ranked choice voting may be more democratic than winner take all voting.
So all in all, a strong but decentralized federal government, with more creative democratic processes, and with an economic model that gives everyone a very good start, but no guarantee of success.

[Page]

I think the world would be best served by hundreds of thousands or even millions of sovereign autonomous communities which form mutual aid and defense federations with their neighbors, and those federations cooperate with other federations up several levels.

Basically, highly decentralized and local rule with an infrastructure in place for temporary centralization when necessary.

[Kubra]

Communism
Next question

[Kaczynskisatva]

The system must:

Represent the wishes of the people.
Ensure minority protections.
Guarantee liberty.
Protect individual rights.
Maintain a safe environment.
Uphold justice.
Protection against tyranny.
Upholding human rights.

(Criteria selected based on the ideals of modern democracies)

Well, on the one hand, someone has finally asked me an interesting question.

On the other hand, you've worked yourself in a box, here.

Here's some basic logic for you: you cannot have more than one primary objective to any design of a system. This is nonsensical. You can have one primary objective. If you try to have two or more primary objectives, they will eventually come into conflict with each other.

For example, "represent the wishes of the people" here may potentially conflict with everything else on that list, since the people may have wishes which conflict with anything, or everything, on that list. An internally consistent civilization goal definition might be, for example, "Uphold the Will of God", and as long as there is a stable liturgical and institutional basis to figure out what is in known cases and to decide what it is in new cases, you have yourself a functionally defined objective.

A logical civilization goal might be, for example, "ensure the survival of humanity." Derived from that first-order objective, immediate subordinate objectives manifest: "ensure the survival of this civilization," because if the civilization does not survive, no one will be ensuring the survival of humanity. If we define anything that causes civilizational collapse as a "catastrophe", this objective may be tautologically reworded as, "prevent civilizational catastrophe."

Suddenly, we have put ourselves into a situation where:

1) We have one, clear objective
2) We have information, data, on the nature of the obstacles to the completion of our objective

This data comes mostly from history, though some of it comes from the material sciences. The problem with human civilizations is that they collapse, the problem with life-forms is that they go extinct.

This has happened to the overwhelming majority of civilizations which we know to have existed, and to an unidentifiable number of civilizations we do not even know to have existed, but which have implied their previous existence through the remains of megalithic structures, such as the Pyramids of Giza, which indicate a high state of organization and technology - specifically, the means to transport enormous solid pieces of stone over very long distances and perform very precise masonry on them which we only know how to achieve with machine tools.

This has also happened to the overwhelming majority of life forms which we know to have existed. Glacial periods, or ice ages, appear to be a recurring risk.

So, as a third order objective, "become capable of surviving a glacial period, as a civilization" appears necessary, since the odds of encountering such a period appear to be 100%. Other survival concerns include solar EMPs (EMPs naturally occurring from solar weather) and massive volcano eruptions, which are also long-term inevitabilities with possibilities of occurring the short term which represent floating year-over-year risk. There is also an order of man-made risks, such as nuclear wars and revolutions.

So, out of your list, I am taking "maintain a safe environment" and promoting it over everything else, defining "safety" as "minimum risk of civilization collapse (which contains within it minimum risk of human extinction)" and defining "environment" to include both the physical, and social environment. Once that has been achieved - probably, through the redundancy and membrane insulation of necessary components, and mechanisms of self-replication or regeneration (same action, different target) as in all stable and complex systems - then, having secured our lives, we can reconvene to discuss what we actually want to do with them, and how to live them. For now, it is too early to seriously entertain such a discussion, we are still in crisis-management mode. The only reason that anyone might think we are not in that mode is because individual people live very short lives and have very narrow ranges of experience. Considering our existence on a mature timescale, we are in that mode.

[Kaczynskisatva]

The system must:

Represent the wishes of the people.
Ensure minority protections.
Guarantee liberty.
Protect individual rights.
Maintain a safe environment.
Uphold justice.
Protection against tyranny.
Upholding human rights.

(Criteria selected based on the ideals of modern democracies)

Considering, then, the box you have worked yourself into, and not the sphere that we are stuck on, together:

Why?

Why is it "ideal" for your system to do these things?

Also - what do some of these terms, even mean? What is the difference between "protection against tyranny" and "upholding justice and human/individual rights and guaranteeing liberty?" What is the difference between "upholding human rights" and "protecting individual rights"? What is "liberty" if it isn't just a human/individual right? If it's just one of those, why did you write a tautology?

What are these, "human/individual rights?" Where did they come from? How did they come from that thing, which you have not demonstrated? You are surely about to demonstrate this, since you think that these things, "human rights", as things which exist, originate from something.

For comparison, I can explain where "survival" as a civilizational objective comes from - it comes evolutionary psychology, so it represents the objectively proven natural interest, or invariable interest of people - even though they are not always effective individual agents in the pursuit of their own collective interests. It also predicates any other moral system, including the one of "human/individual rights, justice, liberty, anti-tyranny" which are slogans to refer to Liberalism. All moral systems, including this one, are predicated upon the notion that there must be people alive in order to execute the system. So, it is a pre-moral, or meta-moral imperative, to which moral systems or objectives are subordinated.

Can you explain where your thing comes from?

[A m e n r i a]

If you really wanna know the answer for every (proper) NSer, just look at their factbooks.

[Ethel mermania]

Assuming we all share your definitions of your goals.
What does protecting human rights mean for example.

They are somewhat contradictory, a society that prioritizes protecting minority rights will trample on the individuals or majorities right to be discriminatory.

There is no ideal form of government, government is a necessary evil and by definition is an impingement on personal freedom

[Kaczynskisatva]

Policy decisions are made in context. Some people may be running ideal governments - Kaczynskisatva is a transitional government, theatre about the stages of civilization. It has not reached the final stage.

[Greatest States Of America]

Nowadays people are too soft and indoctrinated that even telling them to get vaccinated is considered an assault upon their liberty.

[Kaczynskisatva]

There is no ideal form of government

Is there such a thing as an ideal?

If so, then there exists an ideal form of government, in relation to such an ideal.

Is there such a thing as an ideal ideal, or an ideal of ideals?

If so, then there exists an ideal form of government, in relation to the ideal ideal, or, the ideal of ideals.

The answer, at any rate, is yes. Life is the ideal of ideals, as all other ideals exist only within its scope. Survival is the action of not losing this, and with it, all ideals.

[The eternal swedish empire]

A democratic goverment
Proportional representantion
A constitutional monarchy(best democratic system imo don't @ me)
Federalism
Official religion but freedom of religion like in the uk
Distribuism
Maybe an ubi

I think the world would be best served by hundreds of thousands or even millions of sovereign autonomous communities which form mutual aid and defense federations with their neighbors, and those federations cooperate with other federations up several levels.

Basically, highly decentralized and local rule with an infrastructure in place for temporary centralization when necessary.

Anarchism?

[Kaczynskisatva]

I think I'm hitting a critical low point in the ROI I get from this forum. The last ideas I put in here worth exploring was just identifying the difference between data-driven opinions and narrative-driven opinions, and lecturing someone about the null hypothesis. Putting those two together, I think you can sum up most of the error that goes on here. Narratives have no evidentiary value, and so opinions derived from them can be dismissed automatically and with prejudice, in favor of the null hypothesis.

This place, generally, is a great laboratory for experimenting with text inputs on captive subjects to see how they deal with the provable fact that they things they they write make no sense, and they do not know the things they think they know. It provides case examples for the anatomy of error, which informs theory of error, which controls the theory of true conclusions.

Still, it is becoming clear to me that this is just not the place for thesis. If I come here, propose a social objective, and briefly demonstrate its superiority over all social objectives, I don't think I'm likely to get any interesting feedback. Most people seem to not know how to respond to novel concepts, and if they haven't already modeled a response based on previous input, they freeze up. They will probably just go back to saying the things they know how to say, and thinking that they believe them, because I did not have a crown on my head and the implicit threat of punishment for non-conformity when I explained a thing.

I understand now, why this guy apparently always had this look on his face.


I don't think he, himself, understood though. He was so piously devoted to answering stupid questions, he wasted most to all of his time.

[Thermodolia]

The system must:

Represent the wishes of the people.
Ensure minority protections.
Guarantee liberty.
Protect individual rights.
Maintain a safe environment.
Uphold justice.
Protection against tyranny.
Upholding human rights.

(Criteria selected based on the ideals of modern democracies)

Ewww no! Gross!

The ideal government should be one led by me and my party the American Workers United Front, with me as it’s General Secretary.

Then you’d have a all powerful state security service that would make the KGB and Stasi blush in order to maintain order.

[Washington Resistance Army]

There isn't one. Government must be fluid and adaptable because the world is ever changing.

[Umbratellus]

If your requirements are "based on the ideals of modern democracies," doesn't that then follow that "modern democracies" are your ideal government?

[Western Fardelshufflestein]

Nowadays people are too soft and indoctrinated that even telling them to get vaccinated is considered an assault upon their liberty.

And that is why there are still mandates!! Because PEOPLE DON'T GET VACCINATED. And because
Wait for it
Viruses spread


(This is directed at government officials and anti-vaxxers. Not you.)

[-Azteca Mexico]

One in which the people are put first. A government that care for their peoples well being. A government runned by Socialism would do all these things and not a capitalist government runned by profit.

[Andronya]

Well... it's right here that I have to say that no such thing as an "Ideal government" or "society" exists, that's why people use the term "utopic" to refer to something that is impossible to achieve, and that's not so much a matter of that it's impossible to establish the circumstances for X, Y or Z government to be established, but rather that it simply wouldn't be ideal for everyone.

It's just a fact that a man's utopia is another man's dystopia, if you established a country that ensured, let's say, LGBT rights will probably be hell for anyone that is homophobic, and a country that ensured strict gun control, or furthermore, compeltely banned guns would be hell for a person that likes firearms.

Every person has a very different idea of an ideal society and government, and I think that's exactly why NS exists. It's gullible to think we could make a world where absolutely everyone is happy, since happiness differs from person to person.

[Roegerland]

...is no government.

I don't really mean that from a literal point of view but it symbolises how I currently feel rather well.

[Kaczynskisatva]

Subjectivists are the lowest form of life.

If you don't exist, no one is having this conversation, and you aren't participating in it.

If you do exist, there is a thing which can be known.

Other knowledge can be derived.

[Neo Infinitium]

It's next to impossible to have a perfect government, because someone will oppose you.

[Andronya]

Subjectivists are the lowest form of life.

If you don't exist, no one is having this conversation, and you aren't participating in it.

If you do exist, there is a thing which can be known.

Other knowledge can be derived.

Well I actually agree, and make no mistake, I'm not exactly a subjectivist.
What I'm saying is that it is essentially impossible to create a perfect government. Some people want an authoritarian government, but that government would be terrible for the people that want a more liberal government, and viceversa.

[Roegerland]

I think I'm hitting a critical low point in the ROI I get from this forum. The last ideas I put in here worth exploring was just identifying the difference between data-driven opinions and narrative-driven opinions, and lecturing someone about the null hypothesis. Putting those two together, I think you can sum up most of the error that goes on here. Narratives have no evidentiary value, and so opinions derived from them can be dismissed automatically and with prejudice, in favor of the null hypothesis.

This place, generally, is a great laboratory for experimenting with text inputs on captive subjects to see how they deal with the provable fact that they things they they write make no sense, and they do not know the things they think they know. It provides case examples for the anatomy of error, which informs theory of error, which controls the theory of true conclusions.

Still, it is becoming clear to me that this is just not the place for thesis. If I come here, propose a social objective, and briefly demonstrate its superiority over all social objectives, I don't think I'm likely to get any interesting feedback. Most people seem to not know how to respond to novel concepts, and if they haven't already modeled a response based on previous input, they freeze up. They will probably just go back to saying the things they know how to say, and thinking that they believe them, because I did not have a crown on my head and the implicit threat of punishment for non-conformity when I explained a thing.

I understand now, why this guy apparently always had this look on his face.
(Image)

I don't think he, himself, understood though. He was so piously devoted to answering stupid questions, he wasted most to all of his time.

I'm hardly surprised by your response. I realize that your indoctrination was rather inevitable therefore I don't begrudge you your ignorance: however I will never take you seriously simply because your philosophy is so elementary. It's hard to agree with a philosophy built upon false pretense and promises unfilled. Your ideas aren't original, your philosophy isn't proven and your character is a fabrication of ideological imcompetence. Fear and ignorance control your opinions like most peoples and this only exacerbates humanitys tragic condition. But don't worry about what I think, I'm just a crazy invalid who can't keep his thoughts to himself…

This is a copypasta btw

[Senkaku]

I think I'm hitting a critical low point in the ROI I get from this forum. The last ideas I put in here worth exploring was just identifying the difference between data-driven opinions and narrative-driven opinions, and lecturing someone about the null hypothesis.

This place, generally, is a great laboratory for experimenting with text inputs on captive subjects to see how they deal with the provable fact that they things they they write make no sense, and they do not know the things they think they know.

Still, it is becoming clear to me that this is just not the place for thesis. If I come here, propose a social objective, and briefly demonstrate its superiority over all social objectives, I don't think I'm likely to get any interesting feedback. Most people seem to not know how to respond to novel concepts, and if they haven't already modeled a response based on previous input, they freeze up. They will probably just go back to saying the things they know how to say, and thinking that they believe them, because I did not have a crown on my head and the implicit threat of punishment for non-conformity when I explained a thing.

It must be very hard to be so smart; did you have anything to say related to the thread