The ideal government.

[Duvniask]

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.

"In this system of egalitarian communes, it is certain that the cost of the daily food supply, calculated in terms of the hours of labour of all the adult members of the community (leaving aside the niggling question of those who didn't want to work, and who would compel them to do so!) would be more than if production was organised at the level of the nation, take modern France for instance, where there is a continuous and regular economic traffic between the different communes, and a given manufactured article is obtained from the places where it is produced with least difficulty; even if the “hundred families” still gobble everything up for free.

In fact, these various communes would have no option but to trade amongst each other on the basis of free exchange. And even if we admitted that a “universal consciousness” would suffice to peacefully regulate these relations between the different locally based economic nuclei, there would still be nothing to prevent one commune extracting surplus value from another due to a fluctuating equivalence between one commodity and another.

This imaginary system of little economic communes is nothing more than a philosophical caricature of that age-old petty-bourgeois dream self-government. It can easily be seen that this system is just as mercantile as the one which existed in Stalin's Russia or in the increasingly anti-proletarian post-Stalinist Russia, and it is equally clear that it involves a totally bourgeois system of monetary equivalents (without a State mint?!) which is bound to weigh down the average productive labourer far more than a system of national or imperialist, large-scale industries."

[Kaczynskisatva]

Also, many people found the criteria constraining, that was not the intent. But then, here is another way to think about it, what is a system that will have the most people getting what they want/happy ?

Build a robot army to put everyone in warehoused pods, pump them full of happiness drugs and plunge them into a VR matrix, and suspend them in that state until the sun burns out.

If this isn't the result you wanted, you asked the wrong question.

What is the system, that is best for everyone.

I explained this all here. I'm sorry that it's a five-minute read - when someone asks me "what is the ideal form of government" and implicitly "what is the meaning of life and the destiny of human civilization" it takes me a few paragraphs to answer. I'll edit it down so it's easier to consume.

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.

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.

[Hemakral]

Chakun is a very quick and easy way to determine one's ability to differentiate between preformulated humor and original wording, you should try it

This six-letter word is not of sufficient minimal length to return mostly non-random results when searched, and you knew this when you wrote it.

Eh? I was trying to set you up for a joke, my dude
Don't worry, you aren't missing anything
it wasn't especially funny

[Radiatia]

There is no ideal government.

Governments are like underwear - they should be changed often and usually for the same reason.

I'm always strongly sceptical of any attempt to create or define a 'utopian' system of government because not only do these so-called utopias inevitably end up being short-sighed and unable to comprehend anything beyond the circumstances of the world in which they were dreamed up, but also because most mass graves throughout history are filled with the victims of people that believed they were creating a utopia.

My view toward the subject is very Burkean - keep the status quo, evolution not revolution.

Whatever we get will inevitably turn out to be terrible, so let's accept that government will always be flawed and try and deal with that rather than try in vain to create a perfect system that can never exist.

[Kaczynskisatva]

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.

"In this system of egalitarian communes, it is certain that the cost of the daily food supply, calculated in terms of the hours of labour of all the adult members of the community (leaving aside the niggling question of those who didn't want to work, and who would compel them to do so!) would be more than if production was organised at the level of the nation, take modern France for instance,

None of this even attempts to answer the OP question. Economics is a core pillar of society, it is not society. Defining society as such, and neglecting other aspects of it, is responsible for a lot of system failures in this century and the last.

Justify your social objective before you plot a course to achieve it.

[Duvniask]

"In this system of egalitarian communes, it is certain that the cost of the daily food supply, calculated in terms of the hours of labour of all the adult members of the community (leaving aside the niggling question of those who didn't want to work, and who would compel them to do so!) would be more than if production was organised at the level of the nation, take modern France for instance,

None of this even attempts to answer the OP question. Economics is a core pillar of society, it is not society. Defining society as such, and neglecting other aspects of it, is responsible for a lot of system failures in this century and the last.

Justify your social objective before you plot a course to achieve it.

Who asked?

I'm telling off someone who thinks they're creating a revolutionary new society when they are in fact not doing so. Also, you misunderstood the point by singling out only the first bit of it.

[Kaczynskisatva]

There is no ideal government...

Whatever we get will inevitably turn out to be terrible, so let's accept that government will always be flawed and try and deal with that rather than try in vain to create a perfect system that can never exist.

This is cancer.

If the system cannot be improved, there is no meaning to "try to deal with that" in this context.

If it can be improved, there is a more ideal government.

If it can be improved, but only to a limit, then a government which hits that limit of minimum problems is the ideal government.

[Cameroi]

an inverted pyramid of many layers, that sees its reason to exist, as not to rule or control, but to serve, and to serve all, without regard to social or economic status. a village of many villages, with not itself at the top, but with each living self aware person, and yes that means cats and cows to some degree, as well as the sapient species of its world, as being served, by its local village, a neighborhood, or space, with a population of at most a few hundred, that their village would serve and protect them, as best it could, from starvation, hypothermia and each other. that succeedingly more consolidated layers would serve these villages, to provide things even one village could not, the larger scale aspects of infrastructure and environment, and to protect the rights of individuals to relocate without hinderance, unless they have committed some act for which it would be logical for them to be detained.

actually a kind of small government socialism with a small "s".
one that understands the dependence upon environment of all life, and upon its diversity.

a government that most of the time, you wouldn't even know it was there, nor need to,
as long as you lived by universal and mutual consideration, and logic in the service of universal and mutual consideration.

[Kaczynskisatva]

I'm telling off someone who thinks they're creating a revolutionary new society when they are in fact not doing so.

Yes. Like I said, none of this answers the OP question. This someone made a proposal about economics and mistook this for a proposal about society. Since he's missing the point, any response to this, except to say that he's missing the point, also misses the point. You may have made a good point about the tangent he ran off in, but it still doubles down on a tangent. It's not worth doing.

[Kaczynskisatva]

an inverted pyramid of many layers, that sees its reason to exist, as not to rule or control.

This is a good case to propose the "Why?" recursion test.

We run it as such.

You write all of this:

an inverted pyramid of many layers, that sees its reason to exist, as not to rule or control, but to serve, and to serve all, without regard to social or economic status. a village of many villages, with not itself at the top, but with each living self aware person, and yes that means cats and cows to some degree, as well as the sapient species of its world, as being served, by its local village, a neighborhood, or space, with a population of at most a few hundred, that their village would serve and protect them, as best it could, from starvation, hypothermia and each other. that succeedingly more consolidated layers would serve these villages, to provide things even one village could not, the larger scale aspects of infrastructure and environment, and to protect the rights of individuals to relocate without hinderance, unless they have committed some act for which it would be logical for them to be detained.

actually a kind of small government socialism with a small "s".
one that understands the dependence upon environment of all life, and upon its diversity.

a government that most of the time, you wouldn't even know it was there, nor need to,
as long as you lived by universal and mutual consideration, and logic in the service of universal and mutual consideration.

Now, here is my question:

Why?

To this, there may be some response. To this response, I also ask:

Why?

Let's just do this until we hit a loop, or an axiom. Then, it will be clear if we are talking about something, and if so, what we are actually talking about.

[Duvniask]

I'm telling off someone who thinks they're creating a revolutionary new society when they are in fact not doing so.

Yes. Like I said, none of this answers the OP question. This someone made a proposal about economics and mistook this for a proposal about society. Since he's missing the point, any response to this, except to say that he's missing the point, also misses the point. You may have made a good point about the tangent he ran off in, but it still doubles down on a tangent. It's not worth doing.

Human society is invariably connected to this "economics" as you call it, that is, the (re)production of our material life.

[Nolo gap]

why what?

why environment? because we don't exist without one.

why a government at all? because we have yet to find a way that works in the sense of not making life miserable, that could prevent the existence of a government in some sense of the word.

and what is the GOOD excuse to have a government? to make life easier, not harder, to what extent it can do so at all.

to these there are good answers,
but they why the why the why, is a child playing game of recursion for no reason the a kind of self perpetuating addiction to itself.

[Duvniask]

A confederation of freely associating municipalities governed by directly democratic neighborhood assemblies.

Where booze is free.

Voting on everything would be hell.

[Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum]

I think the best is a social democratic liberal government. The worst government is an Islamic communist separatist ''government''

[Hemakral]

The worst government is an Islamic communist separatist ''government''

What would such a government look like?

[Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum]

The worst government is an Islamic communist separatist ''government''

What would such a government look like?

The best example can be seen in the middle east Arab communist parties. It would be like a so-called government trying to impose fascist superstitions on people who do not understand the power of unification.

[The Second JELLIAN Republic]

Spoilered because it got too long, basically me responding to Kaczynskisatva

I left them vague, as to encourage creativity.
As for your other post, yes, they may compete, or contradict with each other.
The trick is to balance it.

Okay, but, if you are aiming to balance two or more objectives, then your "objective" is the scale, not the two things you are balancing with it. Your primary civilization is for the scale to be in balance, and secondary metrics are the different things - like, for example, environmental safety and individual autonomy - which will result in the balancing of the scale, your final objective.

The problem then, aside from not quantifying some of these things in themselves (by explaining what they are) is that there is no clear way to balance them, in relation to each other. If my objective is to fill up all the space in my car and spend all of my money, and I am at a store which sells gold and rice, there is only one balance between purchases of gold and purchases of rice which will both spend all of my money and fill up my car. This is because these things have comparable measurements, of cost and weight.

If two social objectives like environmental safety and human autonomy have a comparable measurement, like "human well-being", then that measurement is the actual objective, and the other two things are means.

This may surprise you, but it's a proven historical fact: when you start a mission without clearly defined and achievable objectives, you tend to get a clustershow. This is true not only of particular modern military campaigns, but particular modern civilizations.

I don’t believe you truly can quantify some of the aforementioned things. For instance, as soon as you calculate the worth of a human life, you say there is an exchange of life to worth. When there is not.
(At least, unless you are purely utilitarian, which is by no means a consensus)
There is no comparison, thus there can be no measurement.
The philosophical and moral ambiguity is the same for social objectives.
Environmental safety, does have perhaps direct quantifiable repercussions like the economy, but also things like safety. And to quantify safety is to quantify human life. (Besides the very real ambiguity, there is also moral unease at trying to place specific value on things like safety., at least from a public perspective).

And yes, to the extent that we can vaguely define and work with things, I completely agree that a system would be the scale, not the components. You seem to reply as though I disagreed with it, and if so, sorry for not being clear. (Of course, there are ways possibly to balance things that might satisfy everything).

In any event, for other reasons, (and kinda for the reasons you presented here), the attempt to define parameters was flawed, and has now been fixed.

————————————————————————-

Also, many people found the criteria constraining, that was not the intent. But then, here is another way to think about it, what is a system that will have the most people getting what they want/happy ?

Build a robot army to put everyone in warehoused pods, pump them full of happiness drugs and plunge them into a VR matrix, and suspend them in that state until the sun burns out.

If this isn't the result you wanted, you asked the wrong question.

What is the system, that is best for everyone.

I explained this all here. I'm sorry that it's a five-minute read - when someone asks me "what is the ideal form of government" and implicitly "what is the meaning of life and the destiny of human civilization" it takes me a few paragraphs to answer. I'll edit it down so it's easier to consume.

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.

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.

Ahh but this would be the system deciding what people want.
Don’t you think people want to decide what they want ?
Or that most people would not approve of going into such a system ?

Also, going from, what is the ideal form of government, to, what is the meaning of life, and humanities density, is a bit of a stretch.

Also also, some morals include sacrificing. There is such a thing as altruism. You are essentially saying that when it comes to survival, the ends justify the means. Not all moral codes follow this. And a moral code can go from existing to not existing.

And with regards to the crisis management section, you are essentially asking people to sacrifice their lives in the achievement of something better. (Unless the work takes less than one lifetime, or lifetimes are extended ?) which could be an interesting example to the point above.

At the end of the day though, this is mostly based on the op before it was updated.

[Unified Communist Councils]

One simply needs to get themselves well-acquainted with the Darwinist theory of Evolution to realize our innermost drive is not one of selfishness, but self-preservation. Not of ourselves, but for the SPECIES as a whole to be successful. From a Kantian perspective, we generally tend to act upon our self-interests in a way that would not lead to your own suffering if everyone else were to practice such. The government is but a social construct to ensuring quality of life for its residents, on the Maxim A of the lowest possible suffering, secondary to this being Maxim B; the maximization of happiness and arriving at a central compromise where Maxim A and B are least contradictory.

In order to reconcile this hypothetical ideal, the government must therefore be able to satisfy the aforementioned imperative:

1) We would be able to measure civil satisfaction through the society's radicalization and political apathy. For instance, in the United States there is no shortage of non-voters and actors of inaction who do not feel like it is even remotely possible for their status quo to be anything BUT the current. However, the polarization of their society is a clear indicator that the status quo is not one that favors the maxim of highest possible happiness.

2a) The government must be accountable to the people above all else, as our goal is the collective preservation of the species from Extinction by being able to afford our species members the lowest amount of suffering and highest possible happiness.

2b) Therefore this system must be democratic, Dictatorships are too reliant on the good will of benevolent dictators, individuals are biased. They can be robbed by special interest groups and subversive agents acting upon self-interest to morph into an ogliarchy or plutocracy. Organic grass-roota democracy is not perfect but with the right checks and balances, it has the ability to correct itself without resorting to extreme action (I.e. Revolution, military coupe, totalitarianism) that will cause a contradictions between the minimization of suffering and the greatest pursuit of happiness.

2b) Votes must translate proportionally to the voted party, allowing for more accurate representation in the governing body. This takes place at all levels. Electoral collages and such are simply not required, as they add more ways for the will of the people to be subjugated. Direct democracy must therefore be pursued, via electronic medium. Cyber attacks launched by terrorist will incentivize active government and private industrial defenses, it is not a fault of the system that cannot be defended against so it is a plausible idea.

2c) Voted officials must be able to be impeached and replaced by another official via vote to minimize corruption. For this to work most effectively, politics must be made a transparent process. Additionally, people will trust an open system more than a closed system, feeding into societal contentment and a "realism effect" where no other option can be plausibly conceivable.

3) Society cannot stagnate, politically, socially, technologically, ecologically nor economically. These are the five fundamental forces essential to the organization of civilization. Without harmony of these five forces our government will be set to fail, so it must actively harmonize all five. So if there is an imbalance in one of these forces, we can predict a crisis will occur that will increase the dissatisfaction within society. Crisis management is therefore important, as the governmemt being unable to satisfy Maxim A and/or B will be interpreted as weakness— spawning radicalization.

4) EDUCATION is the champion of rational decision-making. Education is paramount as the steam driving technological innovation, social progressiveness, economical growth and environmental sustainability. The government must subsidize and increase access to institutes in order to encourage data and empirical evidence based decision-making. Education must be made universal, there-by maximizing the amount of informed decision makers in society.

5) Ethicality is just as important as effectiveness and the efficiency of a decision. Ethics dictates the decision-makers ability to reconcile their solutions with our aforementioned maxims. Without ethics, the government would condone extremism, which will lead to a less than optimal state of governance. The constitution must be as fair and just as possible in respects to our categorical imperative, of which shall be the foundations for all legal and jurisdictional ethics. Power of amendment is also needed, as being unable to change Edicts that may become outdated will pose a systematic flaw exploitable by radicals.

6a) Economics must operate, not on profit, but the most sustainable concession possible that is mutually beneficial for the land and air which civilization is built upon, while also maintaining and increasing the freedom of our own individual lives. A combination of nationalized industries and private firms will be necessary to meet both societal needs while encouraging enterpreneurial-directed innovation. Technological innovation is the key here: Exploitation of space, squeezing the greatest amount of productivity while reducing water consumption from new agricultural techniques, solar powered atmospheric water harvesters distributed to takle the needs of communities suffering from water shortages. These technologies alone mean nothing, it is society's ability to make use of technologies for species sustainability rather than for the sake of money that gives them any merit.

6b) The goverment plays an important role here by incentivizing sustainability and deincentivizing harmful activity (Through tax, subsidy, technological grants, arranging and sponsoring civilian programmes, media campaigns, etc).

6c) Independent trade unions must be allowed by the government to buy ALL common stocks in the stock market, thus granting the working class democratic voting rights over the respective companies they may happen to work at. No longer shall the corporate board of CEOs autocratically vest within themselves absolute decision-making authority, all the workers shall be stockholders while executives are devolve to advisory boards regarding employee-led consensuses.

7) Internet infrastructures must be immensely expanded for worldwide coverage, in order to permit the aforementioned electronic voting means. Adoption of personal cellular devices must also be encouraged, enshrine it as a human right just like personal property because its very much required for our hypothetical direct democracy to function. Global interconnectivity and Multiculturalism will also increase as a side-benefit to a universal internet, and as we are not necessarily worried about profitability, state-owned telecoms servers and what not can be expanded upon.

To summarize, our world government is a world federal republic with directly elected governance at all strata of administration with universal sufferage and proportional representation of voted parties. An amendable constitution, ability to instantly impeach, and code of ethics protects our institutions from human fallibility without resorting to draconian measures of authoritarianism. Economics is based on compromise and with worker voting rights, economic decisions will be handled in a diplomatic matter as opposed to profit seeking. State-owned industries will strive to minimize unemployment, while private enterprise will exist for innovation. Regular government intervention takes place for redistribution of wealth, incentivize compliance with any other regulatory policies and de-incentivize harmful practices. Immense infrastructure projects distributed across the world with a priority of the poorer regions have been made for the sake of our electronic democracy. This entails increased employment, spread of workers rights and universal sufferage, infrastructure development (Existing logistics chains expanded, new ones built according to engineering needs), and a democracy with checks and balances against corruption and radicalization. Education is well-funded as to further enhance our voting base by making sure they're not all idiots, and this organic direct democracy will trickle into every other faucet of government I haven't covered— be it military matters, welfare, Healthcare, etc. All demographics are equalized by universal sufferage and worker voting rights, allowing for class self-management and greater freedoms that enable minorities.

In conclusion my government is one where all decisions are deliberated taking into account the harmonization of the five forces, on the metrics of minimizing suffering and then maximizing happiness. This ideal government is the best model for preserving first world living standards while continuing to protect our species from Extinction.

[Kaczynskisatva]

I don’t believe you truly can quantify some of the aforementioned things. For instance, as soon as you calculate the worth of a human life, you say there is an exchange of life to worth. When there is not.
(At least, unless you are purely utilitarian, which is by no means a consensus)
There is no comparison, thus there can be no measurement.
The philosophical and moral ambiguity is the same for social objectives.
Environmental safety, does have perhaps direct quantifiable repercussions like the economy, but also things like safety. And to quantify safety is to quantify human life. (Besides the very real ambiguity, there is also moral unease at trying to place specific value on things like safety., at least from a public perspective).

And yes, to the extent that we can vaguely define and work with things, I completely agree that a system would be the scale, not the components. You seem to reply as though I disagreed with it, and if so, sorry for not being clear. (Of course, there are ways possibly to balance things that might satisfy everything).

In any event, for other reasons, (and kinda for the reasons you presented here), the attempt to define parameters was flawed, and has now been fixed.

I'm having trouble making sense of this - the signal is coming in and out. The system would be the scale, but it would measure the relation between things which have no comparison or measurement between them?

This is what you get, when you try to have more than one objective.

————————————————————————-

Ahh but this would be the system deciding what people want.
Don’t you think people want to decide what they want ?
Or that most people would not approve of going into such a system ?

I do think people want to decide what they want. However, they are forced into a social contract with constrains their ability to get what they want. All forms of civilization have this feature.

Also, going from, what is the ideal form of government, to, what is the meaning of life, and humanities density, is a bit of a stretch.

The use of the expression "a bit of a stretch" does not prove a non-relation here. The question "what is the ideal form of government" and the question "what is the meaning of life" may be transformed to "what is the correct way to manage human lives." There are two schools of thought here: kill them, or don't. Within the "don't" camp, everyone agrees upon the primacy of survival. The ones in the other camp should be given the right to suicide, and perhaps the right to secede into virtual reality and happy drug boxes, as long as conditions can be maintained so that this is only an attrition rate and not something everyone wants to do.

We are running, now, a voluntary participation society, where anyone can choose to kill themselves, or jerk off and play videogames forever. The attrition rate is higher than anything we're used to and the birthrate is unsustainable.

Also also, some morals include sacrificing. There is such a thing as altruism. You are essentially saying that when it comes to survival, the ends justify the means. Not all moral codes follow this. And a moral code can go from existing to not existing.

And with regards to the crisis management section, you are essentially asking people to sacrifice their lives in the achievement of something better. (Unless the work takes less than one lifetime, or lifetimes are extended ?) which could be an interesting example to the point above.
At the end of the day though, this is mostly based on the op before it was updated.

Moral codes are constraints. The concern here is how to constrain human life, not how to fit it into previous systems of constraint. Directly related to an ideal government is an ideal moral code - you cannot have one without the other.

A civilization is the higher order organization of human life - it is, to the individual, what the individual is to the cell. Cells, interlinked. A system of cells interlinked within cells interlinked within cells interlinked within one stem. It makes sense to prioritize this, as it makes sense to prioritize you over one of your organs.

Everyone has to make sacrifices for civilization, in all known modes of it. The difference, from the participant perspective, is what you get out of it.

To say, logically, that civilization itself should be prioritized as a higher form of life does not prescribe radical collectivism in the Maoist sense - the people who argue for radical individualism argue, essentially, that civilization itself performs better when authority over people's lives is more widely distributed to them. Extreme cases of Soviet-style economic collectivization and extreme counter-cases of Somalia-style anarchy have both proven to be less efficient and stable than systems which contain elements of both central authority and distributed autonomy, the existence of both private and public spheres. Since everyone is arguing for a single objective here, the performance of civilization, the balance between private and public can be determined based on evidence and testing. Still, while this makes concentration / distribution of authority a practical question, it does not make it a moral question. The moral consensus on all sides is "collective good" or the good of civilization, and the debate is simply over the mechanisms to achieve that end, a strictly political question.

So, yes, I am saying that the end, survival, justifies any means.

In response to your concern about human "consent to be governed", we can consider a second-order objective: consent.

The simplest test of consent, is to see whether or not everyone wants to kill themselves, or run off and live in the woods. People are usually free to do this, some do, and others don't. All civilizations pass this first consent test, except for maybe North Korea, which does not let people run off. Though, I don't know if they let people live in the woods, as long as they don't cross the border.

A second consent test, is to see whether or not everyone wants to jerk off all day, play videogames, be warehoused in happy drug VR metaverse boxes, and not reproduce.

Society, in its current form, is failing this test.

I will simply state that, if we got to a point in civilization where every last living person wanted to do this, we would have to pull the emergency stop lever on "individual human freedom" and fix this problem. A generation of people does not have the right to end all generations.

So, I will allow one "human freedom" constraint on the survival objective: people should be free to kill themselves, or leave civilization. This is standard policy and it isn't a problem.

I will also propose a secondary objective: to get civilization to the point where most people would rather contribute to it and sacrifice for it, than be warehoused into happy drug VR metaverse boxes. This is, itself, an environmental safety concern, so it doesn't entirely depart from the survival objective. It makes sense to have this as a pressure release valve, the way elections were supposed to be a pressure release valve.

Really, the more I think about it, there may be no conflict between the survival objective and "consent of the governed" since the safest thing for the government is for everyone to be okay with it. Simply sticking with the survival objective, you may find that the amount of resources you have to spend on meteor defense systems, and the amount you have to spend on keeping people content enough to not revolt and smash their own meteor defense systems, is enough to satisfy most concerns about the consent of the governed. Many more known civilizations have failed to survive due to individual discontent, than due to meteors. It's a greater risk, warranting greater investment.

[Kaczynskisatva]

One simply needs to get themselves well-acquainted with the Darwinist theory of Evolution to realize our innermost drive is not one of selfishness, but self-preservation. Not of ourselves, but for the SPECIES as a whole to be successful. From a Kantian perspective, we generally tend to act upon our self-interests in a way that would not lead to your own suffering if everyone else were to practice such. The government is but a social construct to ensuring quality of life for its residents, on the Maxim A of the lowest possible suffering, secondary to this being Maxim B; the maximization of happiness

Nope.

if you want to do that, you just make a robot army to warehouse everyone into metaverse VR boxes and give them constant drips of forever happy drugs, and sustain their lives with advanced technology until the sun starts to burn out, at which point, you may want to think about shooting their pleasure pods off into deep space.

We literally already discussed this. You wrote that long thing, but we already did this one.

Are you late to the conversation?

It looks like you just got here late. Hi. Welcome.

[Union of Socialist Council-Republics]

As others have pointed out, you have selected a very narrow set of features that your ideal government must possess. Ultimately, what you have asked for boils down to an idealised liberal democracy, free from the numerous flaws that plague actually existing version of this system. The problem with this is that the values upon which you have built your 'utopia' are rooted in a particular ideological-historical paradigm constructed to justify the transformation of society from feudalism to capitalism about 250 years ago. Given that these principles have been dominant for some time, why have they not been actualised in the manner you have described? The fact is that the society you describe cannot exist in reality, but this does not mean that a better society cannot exist. It simply requires stepping outside of the liberal-democratic ideological framework and considering how things are and then the processes by which they may be improved.

[Unified Communist Councils]

robot army to warehouse everyone into metaverse VR boxes and give them constant drips of forever happy drugs, and sustain their lives with advanced technology until the sun starts to burn out

The OP states that the utopia has to be realistic, and between a direct democracy and a technological utopia dependent on far-future technologies— on that account my proposed solution is definitely more easier to realize on the hypothetical that there was enough political will for such a model.

There is currently no reliable and tried life support system capable of keeping people alive indefinitely, nor do we have automation that is at a point where civilization could rely on them to do all of our labour. A moralistic democratic socialist world government is much more plausible, in-fact the ideas I've mentioned are ideas that have been thought thought of, or are currently pursued by real governments of different agendas, they are viable practices. For the more hypothetical methods, the theory behind them are consistent at a glance and you will need to address them with your own critiques if you want to reveal the shortcomings of this ideal government rather than base your argument on one assertion.

There's also the debate of whether such an outcome is truly the desired state of humanity. Again that alternative is an extreme approach of the imperative mandate governing my hypothetical government. Acknowledge that the centralist compromise thought is diametrically opposed to such extreme takes, to my speculation as to how such an idea would be received. Many may find the idea dehumanizing, and on that point, allow me to stress that your single vision of transhumanism is not the only way in which it can be exacted.

On the good side, such an idea is not inherently wrong on the account that if the people truly willed it, then the government system is an enabling platform rather than one that oppressors the collective will. If people do not want to be involved in such an "ascension", then they can opt out of it, much like how there exist non-voters in every democratic society. You have the freedom to choose without fear or repercussion of oppression, this is one way of viewing the ideal manifestation of minimizing suffering while maximizing the happiness of all parties.

[Ispravlennaja Tsekovija]

good old-fashioned dictatorship of the proletariat,ideally matriarchal.

[Ispravlennaja Tsekovija]

I think the best is a social democratic liberal government.

dream bigger

[Union of Socialist Council-Republics]

robot army to warehouse everyone into metaverse VR boxes and give them constant drips of forever happy drugs, and sustain their lives with advanced technology until the sun starts to burn out

The OP states that the utopia has to be realistic, and between a direct democracy and a technological utopia dependent on far-future technologies— on that account my proposed solution is definitely more easier to realize on the hypothetical that there was enough political will for such a model.

There is currently no reliable and tried life support system capable of keeping people alive indefinitely, nor do we have automation that is at a point where civilization could rely on them to do all of our labour. A moralistic democratic socialist world government is much more plausible, in-fact the ideas I've mentioned are ideas that have been thought thought of, or are currently pursued by real governments of different agendas, they are viable practices. For the more hypothetical methods, the theory behind them are consistent at a glance and you will need to address them with your own critiques if you want to reveal the shortcomings of this ideal government rather than base your argument on one assertion.

There's also the debate of whether such an outcome is truly the desired state of humanity. Again that alternative is an extreme approach of the imperative mandate governing my hypothetical government. Acknowledge that the centralist compromise thought is diametrically opposed to such extreme takes, to my speculation as to how such an idea would be received. Many may find the idea dehumanizing, and on that point, allow me to stress that your single vision of transhumanism is not the only way in which it can be exacted.

On the good side, such an idea is not inherently wrong on the account that if the people truly willed it, then the government system is an enabling platform rather than one that oppressors the collective will. If people do not want to be involved in such an "ascension", then they can opt out of it, much like how there exist non-voters in every democratic society. You have the freedom to choose without fear or repercussion of oppression, this is one way of viewing the ideal manifestation of minimizing suffering while maximizing the happiness of all parties.

I believe their description of the above scenario is intended to serve as a rendition of the experience machine argument against utilitarianism and its objective of maximising happiness rather than being a genuine proposal for an ideal system of government/society.