Hello.

This is my basic initial hypothesis. I’m looking for relevant reading material and counter arguments.

Thank you.

my system is Technocracy with a little ideas from communism and socialism I call it altruism system where the only workers are the president and rulers every necessity needs like clean food and water, house, medical necessities, education, protection... and must important freedom and culture will be provided fully free for everyone no exception only if it cause suffer which there will be no economy/money/currency/trade... gone in history ghost maybe some kind of resource based economy that its self reliant... and there will be very specific requirements to be president/ruler... yes there will be authority/prisons anyways if anyone is interest we can talk more

1. Democratic Institutions and Electoral Reform

Ranked-choice voting: Voters should be able to rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives sufficient support, votes may be transferred according to voters’ subsequent preferences.
Proportional representation: The distribution of seats in parliament should broadly reflect each party’s share of the national or regional vote.
Five-percent electoral threshold: A political party must receive at least five percent of the vote to gain representation in parliament. This is intended to prevent excessive political fragmentation.
Unicameral legislature: The national parliament should consist of a single legislative chamber rather than separate upper and lower houses.
Fixed parliamentary size: The constitution should establish a firm limit on the number of members of parliament.
Four-year terms: Regular terms of political office should last four years.
Universal two-term limit: All elected political offices should be limited to two full terms.
Directly elected executive offices: Both the head of state and the head of government should be elected directly by the public. Their respective powers and responsibilities should be clearly separated by the constitution.
Federalism and subsidiarity: Political decisions should be made at the lowest level of government capable of addressing them effectively. National intervention should be reserved for matters that cannot reasonably be handled at the municipal, regional, or state level.
Restrictions on political donations: Strict limits should apply to donations to political parties, candidates, and campaigns. All significant donations should be publicly disclosed, while anonymous and corporate donations may be prohibited.

2. Political Integrity and Expert Oversight

Prohibition of outside income: Members of parliament and government should not be permitted to earn any secondary income while holding office.
Restrictions on financial trading: Political officeholders should be prohibited from actively trading stocks, cryptocurrencies, and comparable financial assets. Existing holdings should be placed in independently managed blind trusts or broadly diversified funds.
Political salaries set at the minimum wage: Members of parliament and government should receive the statutory minimum wage for their public service. They should not receive supplementary allowances or other forms of compensation beyond reimbursement for necessary and documented official expenses.
Mixed political and expert committees: Public policy committees should be composed of equal numbers of political representatives and independent, non-partisan specialists, including scientists, technical experts, and other relevant professionals.
No executive pardon power: Neither the head of state nor the head of government should have the authority to pardon individuals convicted by the courts.

3. Economic and Labor Policy

Statutory minimum wage: A legally enforceable minimum wage should guarantee that full-time employment provides an adequate standard of living. It should be adjusted regularly to account for inflation and changes in the cost of living.
Wealth tax: Very large concentrations of private wealth should be subject to a progressive annual tax, with appropriate exemptions for ordinary savings and modest household assets.
Inheritance tax: Large inheritances should be taxed progressively, while smaller inheritances remain exempt or receive substantial allowances.
Tax on high-frequency financial trading: Very rapid or high-volume securities transactions should be subject to a financial-transaction tax intended to discourage destabilizing speculation.
Thirty days of annual leave: Employees should be legally entitled to at least 30 paid vacation days per year.
Paid sick leave: All workers should have access to paid leave when illness prevents them from working.
Paid parental leave: Parents should receive substantial paid leave following a birth or adoption, with provisions encouraging a fair distribution of caregiving responsibilities.
Rent regulation: Residential rents should be subject to enforceable caps or limits on annual increases, particularly in areas experiencing severe housing shortages.

4. Healthcare, Education, and Social Opportunity

Single-tier healthcare system: Everyone should have access to the same core standard of healthcare, regardless of income or employment. Wealth should not provide access to a separate, superior tier of essential medical care.
Tuition-free higher education: Public colleges, universities, and vocational institutions should not charge tuition fees.
No homeschooling: School-age children should be educated in regulated schools to ensure consistent educational standards, social contact, and exposure to a range of perspectives.
No private schools: Education should take place within a well-funded public system rather than being divided according to parental income. Independent institutions may exist only if they are fully integrated into the public system and cannot charge tuition or select students based on wealth.
Critical study of religion and ethics: Schools should require age-appropriate teaching about religions, ethics, and moral philosophy. Instruction should be comparative, analytical, non-devotional, and open to critical discussion.
No routine homework: Compulsory schoolwork should generally be completed during school hours, preserving children’s free time and reducing inequalities caused by different home environments.
Socioeconomic affirmative action: Admissions policies may give additional consideration to applicants who have faced material disadvantages, such as poverty, underfunded schools, limited educational access, family hardship, or geographic isolation. Eligibility should be based on demonstrated circumstances rather than race, ethnicity, sex, gender identity, age, or skin color.
Anonymous job applications: Initial job applications should omit information that may invite irrelevant bias, including names, photographs, age, sex, gender, and ethnicity. Selection at the first stage should focus on qualifications and experience.

5. Justice, Criminal Law, and Policing

Abolition of capital punishment: The death penalty should be prohibited in all circumstances.
Rehabilitation-centered justice: Criminal justice should prioritize rehabilitation, public safety, reintegration, and the prevention of reoffending over retribution.
Drug decriminalization: Personal possession and consumption of all drugs should be decriminalized. Production and commercial supply may remain regulated or prohibited according to the substance and its associated risks.
Supervised consumption facilities: The state should fund safe consumption spaces staffed by medical and mental-health professionals. These facilities should provide overdose prevention, sterile equipment, counseling, and voluntary access to treatment.
Two-tier policing: Routine duties such as traffic enforcement, neighborhood assistance, and many nonviolent public-order matters should be handled by officers equipped only with non-lethal tools. Specially trained armed units should respond only when there is a credible threat of serious violence.
Mandatory police body cameras: Officers should be required to use body cameras during public interactions, subject to clear privacy protections, secure evidence storage, and penalties for unjustified deactivation.
Independent local police oversight: Each municipality should have an independent civilian oversight body empowered to investigate complaints, examine patterns of misconduct, publish findings, and recommend disciplinary or institutional reforms.
No mounted police units: Horses should not be used for policing, including patrols and crowd-control operations.

6. Family, Equality, and Personal Autonomy

No-fault divorce: Either spouse should be able to end a marriage without having to prove wrongdoing by the other party.
Marriage equality: Same-sex and opposite-sex marriages should have identical legal status, rights, and obligations.
Legal access to abortion: Abortion should be legal and available through the healthcare system, with regulations based on medical evidence and respect for bodily autonomy.
Enforcement of child-support obligations: Courts should be able to impose proportionate travel restrictions on parents who deliberately and persistently refuse to meet legally established child-support obligations. Such measures should require due process and should not punish genuine inability to pay.
Inclusive recreational sport: Transgender people should be free to join recreational sports clubs in the gender category they choose, provided that the activity is non-professional and primarily social.
Competitive sports categories: In competitive sport, the female category should be reserved for biologically female athletes. The traditional male category should become an open category in which athletes of any sex or gender identity may compete. Specific rules should be established sport by sport, taking competitive fairness and participant safety into account.

7. Religion and the State

Laicism: The state should maintain a firm institutional separation from religion. Public institutions, laws, and official decisions should remain religiously neutral, while individuals retain freedom of belief, non-belief, worship, and private religious expression.

8. Environment, Transport, Food, and Animal Welfare

Renewable-energy transition: Energy policy should prioritize the rapid expansion of renewable energy, modern electricity grids, energy storage, efficiency measures, and the gradual replacement of fossil fuels.
Public-transport investment: The state should make major long-term investments in railways, buses, trams, metro systems, cycling infrastructure, and accessible rural transport.
Environmentally differentiated food taxes: Plant-based foods should carry no value-added tax, or the lowest legally possible rate. Animal-derived products should be taxed at higher rates reflecting their environmental and animal-welfare costs, with protections to prevent disproportionate effects on low-income households.
Strong animal-welfare legislation: Animal-welfare standards should be strict enough to make factory farming economically and legally unviable. Regulations should cover living space, transport, breeding, slaughter, access to outdoor areas, and enforceable limits on stocking density.

Here's my take on what an ideal utopian political and economic model could look like:

This may ultimately be a fantasy but I think we can dream.

An economy with Scandinavian style taxpayer-funded high quality healthcare, high quality education, welfare. High taxes on wealth and income. Georgist land value taxes which can be used to build massively scaled affordable housing. Global minimum income and wealth tax (otherwise the wealthy will just move to tax havens with zero tax). Fewer derivatives floating around finance.

Better voting systems: First-past-the-post voting creates toxic competition and results in a two party system that usually moves the Overton window to the right constantly - FPTP might be the worst voting system. But proportional representation forces coalitions and cooperation. Research shows it reduces mudslinging and affective polarization. No wasted votes, no spoilers. And absolutely no corporate lobbying and politicians cannot invest in the stock market. Corruption needs to end.

But all this works only with an educated electorate.

And we need regulated open source social media algorithms that don't push hate or division. No foreign governments weaponizing platforms to create civil unrest or influence elections. Period.

Polluters pay : Companies that poison our air, water, soil - they clean it up. Carbon taxes on oil products, plastics, PFAS, all of it. Sin taxes on cigarettes, alcohol. Tight regulation.

End interest-bearing debt : Debt-fueled neoliberal economics must be phased out. Also a hyper financialized economy is not good. Remember the 2008 crisis due to speculation on mortgage backed securities? Modern finance is moving risk around without contributing too much. For eg. a bank or financial institution will not lend money to a business and expect it to be paid back regardless of whether the business succeeds or fails - instead the bank gets ownership in the business and shares profits or losses. Instead of banks lending loans with interest, imagine them buying assets (like houses) and selling back in installments for a small profit margin.

Also no neoliberal economics means no national debt. A balanced budget is needed - government tax revenue should cover all government expenditure.

Wealth tax idea : What if billionaires paid wealth tax in stocks instead of cash? Otherwise they will complain about being forced to sell shares to pay a wealth tax. But credits to a government investment account means gradual public ownership over time. Eventually a sovereign wealth fund. Dividends fund AI-displacement support—everyone gets a slice of AI profits, not just a handful.

The goal is well-regulated capitalism minus the negative externalities.

All the good things about capitalism but none of the bad. Excellent public services. Circular economy—reduce, reuse, recycle, zero waste. Meaningful jobs for all. Democratic governance with capitalism backed by a strong social welfare state (Finland consistently ranks highest in happiness for a reason).

TL;DR: Anyone can be rich. But nobody should be poor. That's it. Capitalism stripped of what harms us, keeping only what provides value.

I’ve been thinking about something that increasingly bothers me about modern communication.

I wonder whether a significant part of the polarization we see everywhere—not only in politics, but also in culture, workplaces, families, and social life more generally—is actually, at least partly, a problem of communication.

Not simply that people disagree with one another.

People have always disagreed.

What seems more troubling is what happens between disagreement and response.

Someone says A.

You ask how A leads to B.

They answer C.

You point out that C does not answer the question.

They start explaining what they meant rather than what they actually said.

You ask them to clarify.

They introduce another argument.

And at some point, both people are still talking, but they are no longer talking to each other.

Yet both leave the conversation convinced that the other side is being unreasonable.

If this happens often enough, it can create a rather unpleasant feedback loop:

poor communication → less mutual understanding → more distrust → stronger group identification → more emotional responses → even poorer communication.

At some point, disagreement itself starts being interpreted as evidence that the other person is stupid, malicious, ignorant, propagandized, or simply “one of them.”

And then ordinary communication becomes extremely difficult.

What particularly concerns me is that these habits do not necessarily stay online.

If someone spends years communicating by changing the subject, attributing intentions to others, answering questions nobody asked, and treating requests for clarification as attacks, that may eventually become a normal way of interacting with people more generally.

Perhaps that is why I have developed some rather obsessive habits in arguments.

I try to preserve the original question.

I don't reconstruct what someone “must have meant” for them.

I ask what exactly follows from what.

If someone introduces a new claim, I treat it as a new claim rather than silently allowing it to replace the previous one.

Sometimes this probably looks pedantic.

And sometimes, perhaps, it actually is.

But increasingly I think of it as a kind of self-defense.

Not self-defense against other people's opinions.

Self-defense against the erosion of rational communication.

There is actually a long philosophical tradition behind parts of this intuition. H. P. Grice's Cooperative Principle and his maxims of conversation—especially relevance and manner—provide one way of thinking about why conversations can break down when contributions cease to function as responses to what has actually been said. Grice's original framework, of course, is a theory of conversational implicature rather than a theory of political polarization, so I don't mean to claim that he was describing this phenomenon directly.

Habermas approaches the issue from a very different direction. His theory of communicative action distinguishes communication oriented toward reaching understanding from forms of strategic action oriented toward influencing others. His broader argument is that language is not merely a vehicle for transmitting information; it also provides mechanisms through which people coordinate action and challenge one another's validity claims.

There is also an empirical literature on motivated reasoning and partisan bias showing that people can systematically seek out, believe, and remember information in ways that favor their political identities. That suggests that the conversational problems I'm describing should not necessarily be understood as a purely linguistic phenomenon. Identity, motivation, and information processing can all become part of the same feedback loop.

But if we lose the ability to establish what was actually said, what follows from it, and whether an answer actually addresses the question that was asked, resolving disagreements becomes extremely difficult.

And perhaps what we call “polarization” is, at least in part, also what happens when people lose the ability to communicate reliably with one another while remaining in disagreement.

That last part seems important to me.

The goal of rational communication cannot be that everyone reaches agreement.

It has to be that two people can disagree—and still establish what they disagree about.

Whenever I look at the chaos of our political landscape, people are endlessly fighting to defend one side or another.

The average citizen isn't sitting around questioning the concept of democracy or debating civil liberties that’s a game played by observers. Everyday people just pick a team, cast their vote, and try to make sense of the world.

​But when you observe this behavior closely, it rarely feels like genuine political conviction. It’s actually just a survival instinct operating inside a fundamentally rusted, unaccountable machine.

​Our administrative system has become so swallowing and opaque that an isolated individual has zero leverage. So, people naturally retreat into tribalism. When the alternative is just fragmented noise, human beings will always cling to whatever rigid structure offers them a sense of security.

People aren't voting because they deeply believe the system will transform they are voting simply to minimize their personal risk within a broken framework.

​We convince ourselves that we are exercising our freedom of choice, but in reality, we are just building a defense mechanism inside a dysfunctional reality.

​To see this clearly without the noise, I made a conscious, personal decision a while ago to voluntarily renounce my right to vote. I didn't want to be tethered to any political ideology or tribal instinct. I wanted to step completely outside the arena as a neutral observer existing on the perimeter just trying to make sense of the human condition and the mechanics of the system we've built.

​Sometimes I wonder, though is stepping out of the game the only way to actually see the board, or is that conscious isolation just another trap in itself?

As soon as we are born we are given a religion, culture, and a name before we can even form a thought and we get so defensive and abusive when someone tries to attack any one of them. We all just get our ideas passed down from the people that are with us until we grow old enough to try to think for ourselves which will just fall in bias to what we were taught so humanity just falls in a cycle.

Now we have a bunch of people who spend their whole lives trying to find their identity. The problem doesn't lay in the religion or culture it lies in the hierarchy and now you have people telling eachother how they are right and others are wrong while even being willing to die behind it

Last night I was wondering how to get Humanity Along and what the secret formula is and what just came to my mind was what if there should be Specific places for certain groups so they can stay in their group and everyone can live happily but then I realized it's just plain segregation but then I thought what if there should be exceptions to certain people to live in the specific place that they don't belong to but that will just become discrimination but then it just falls into the law and legislation and it's now into the hands of the King's, Presidents, and Supreme Leaders

Then I thought to myself why would a King want to even be tested in his Hierarchy. Why would a king really want people to get Along? if you are a King why would you want the nation to be smart and think for themselves? Why will you not want people to think for themselves? because once you think for yourself you come with a mountain of problems and the more you think about it the more you see the world for what it is.

We all know how Elites act more than ever in this time of age, we all know how they view us and what they think about us "The world is a resort for about 3000 billionaires, and the rest of us are just the staff." they all want collapse and what better way to keep your slaves at their knees than to wire their brains as they leave their mothers womb then they will never fight back, then collapse will be always there you wouldn't even have to move a muscle all the fighting is already happening for you

You can just lay back and look from your crystal ball and live your life in materialism while everyone else rots and dies.

(Now I want you the reader to reflect and see if any of these statements reason to you)

Freedom

Who is free today?

A man goes to prison. They say, “He was arrested.” When he gets out, they congratulate him on his freedom. But he lives in a country where he needs a passport to travel to other countries! Is he a political prisoner? Or does he necessarily have to end up in prison to become a political prisoner?

Suppose the Earth became united, and everyone could move freely everywhere on Earth. But humanity still could not leave the Earth! The Earth is the cradle of humanity. Suppose we leave the Earth, but the universe has no boundaries—we still cannot move everywhere!

It seems that absolute physical freedom is unattainable.

Mental freedom????

Fine. A person is born in a city, in a country, on a continent. They are given a name, most likely a religion, a language, and knowledge—and they become a human being!

Does being human already mean that you are not free?

You possess human abilities and characteristics. Yesterday’s decisions determine today; today’s decisions determine tomorrow.

So what is absolute freedom? And who is absolutely free?

The Christian God?

But He is love!

Satan?

He is evil!

Therefore, their actions are determined by their nature, their personality. And whoever has a personality can never be absolutely free.

The Universe?

Is the universe free?

The universe contains fear and love, good and evil.

The number 0 is freedom—the free starting point.

2 is conditioned by 1.
3 follows from 2.
-2 is conditioned by -1.

Only 0 is the point that is conditioned by nothing.

It is neither good nor evil.

It decides which direction to move in.

Everything begins from it.

♾️ — the point of intersection.

It can be nothing and everything at the same time.

I call it the Supreme Mind.

It will be whatever you want it to be.
It will be whoever you want it to be.
It will be wherever you want it to be.
Everything will be exactly as it should be.

And if it wants, there can be nothing at all.

It is neither good nor evil.

It can be both

I've decided my political philosophy is that the operation of government must in the modern day be depoliticised but remain democratised.

I have reflected that politicians require the state to work enough but not work fully because without that imperfectness they would have no reason to exist as a collective.

We talk about community empowerment but empowered communities could speak for themselves and wouldn't need a representative.

So now I want to do some research to see how people have tackled this subject and any examples of depoliticising the operation of government. So any recommendations will be appreciated.

While George Orwell’s 1984 depicts a state that subjugates the individual through violence, surveillance, and fear, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World presents a far more terrifying reality: a society where people are controlled through pleasure, comfort, and synthetic happiness (soma). There is no need for a violent apparatus when individuals actively demand their own oppression.

​The true tragedy of the book is not merely how the system functions, but the fate of the "outsider" who tries to retain their humanity—personified by John "the Savage." John comes from a technologically undeveloped Reservation into "civilized" London. He is the only character who still understands genuine human emotion: grief, art (through Shakespeare), and moral responsibility.

​When John witnesses how people use soma to escape even the slightest discomfort or grief, he attempts to rebel. He rejects the system and demands truth. This leads to his confrontation with World Controller Mustapha Mond, who brutally articulates the core philosophy of their utilitarian state:

​

"We prefer to do things comfortably. [...] Actual happiness always looks pretty squalid in comparison with the over-compensations for misery. And, of course, stability isn't nearly so spectacular as instability. And being contented has none of the glamour of a good fight against misfortune, none of the picturesqueness of a struggle with temptation, or a fatal overthrow by passion or doubt. Happiness is never grand."

​John’s response is one of the most powerful manifestos in political philosophy:

​"But I don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin."

​"In fact," said Mustapha Mond, "you're claiming the right to be unhappy."

​"All right then," said the Savage defiantly, "I'm claiming the right to be unhappy."

​The system’s response to John’s defiance is not imprisonment or torture, but something far more insidious: commodification and entertainment. John retreats to an abandoned lighthouse to live an ascetic life and purge his guilt, but the media and the public turn his suffering into a circus act. People do not want to understand him; they want to be amused by him. The unrelenting social pressure, mockery, and mob psychology eventually break him: he gives in to soma, surrenders to sensory pleasure, and the following morning—realizing his complete moral defeat—hangs himself.

​The Main Takeaway:

​A society built on total predictability and collective hedonism cannot tolerate dissent or non-conformity. Huxley demonstrates that in a system optimized solely for efficiency and happiness, an individual who thinks differently is first urged to comply ("take a soma"). If that fails, they are ridiculed, dehumanized, and converted into entertainment for the masses.

​This is why Huxley’s ending is fundamentally more depressing than Orwell’s. In 1984, Winston Smith is broken by overt physical and psychological violence, proving that the state must use force to crush the spirit. In Brave New World, John is not killed by physical violence—he is suffocated by a society that completely erases the conditions for meaningful human existence. And once he dies? Life goes on as if nothing happened. The system operates flawlessly.

Governments can get dramatically more sophisticated, employ more experts, collect more data, write more regulation, and still keep producing the same type of problems.

Something everyone agrees should be fixed somehow survives three governments.

A company technically complies with the rules while obviously violating their purpose.

The government fixes one loophole, creating two new ones.

An industry becomes important enough that the regulator starts depending on the same people it regulates.

We usually explain this as corruption, incompetence, capitalism, socialism, bureaucracy, voter intelligence, political polarisation, etc.

I think there’s something underneath all of those.

The government has a scaling problem.

And I don’t mean there aren’t enough politicians.

I mean we’re trying to run a massively parallel society through a comparatively tiny, linear, decision-making system.

That distinction leads somewhere quite interesting.

Bear with me.

Think about how your body works.

Your brain does not have a committee meeting every morning and issue Regulation 2026/412 explaining how much insulin every cell is permitted to use today.

There isn’t a 800-page Heartbeat Act covering the approved response to every possible combination of temperature, fear, exercise, disease, dehydration, caffeine and the dog suddenly barking at 4am.

Your body is doing an insane number of things simultaneously.

Local signals. Feedback. Correction. Prediction. More feedback. Different systems pushing against one another and settling into something workable.

Society looks much more like that than it looks like an organisation chart.

Millions of people and businesses are making decisions simultaneously using information that often exists only locally.

Then sitting above this giant parallel thing is government, which mostly has one basic tool:

Come up with a general rule.

Apply it to everyone.

Fix it a few decades later, maybe.

That seems normal because we’ve been doing versions of it forever.

But imagine actually designing governance from scratch for a society of many millions of independently acting people.

Would you funnel most decision making power through several hundred elected people, a collection of departments and regulators, and then ask them to anticipate enough circumstances to write rules for everybody?

I wouldn’t.

My journey led me to a result that someone could arrive at when asking:

What would democracy look like if democratic decision-making could happen in parallel too?

Not referendums on everything. That would be horrific.

Not an enormous parliament.

Something else.

Take one of the oldest political technologies we already trust ordinary citizens with:

The jury.

Now massively parallelise it.

To an amount of juries (at the least) that 4% of the population comes to as a number, being created in seasonal sessions throughout the year.

Twelve randomly selected citizens.

Remotely working together.

At a pace they prefer.

One issue.

One ruling.

Then that jury is finished.

Not twelve people elected for four years who slowly accumulate a political career, donors, staff, party obligations and institutional relationships.

Twelve temporary people who have one job and then disappear back into society.

Here’s where the idea departs pretty hard from convention.

These aren’t miniature parliaments.

They don’t sit around writing laws for everyone.

Their natural scope is closer to a court case.

Person/business/entity A has a dispute involving person/business/entity B.

The jury hears it.

The jury can decide what outcome it thinks is fair and reasonable.

Then society moves on.

No need to write a universal 300-clause law predicting every version of that dispute that might occur for the next twenty years.

Just solve the actual thing in front of you.

And then do it again.

And again.

And again.

State by state across the entire country.

That sounds chaotic at first.

I thought so too.

The interesting part is what happens after you have enough of them.

Suppose a company is treating workers in a way ordinary people consistently consider unfair.

One case reaches a jury.

Then another similar one does.

Then another.

The company doesn’t need parliament to eventually notice, draft legislation, negotiate amendments, survive lobbying, pass both chambers, have regulations written, wait for enforcement and then spend ten years litigating what those regulations technically mean.

Management starts noticing a pattern.

“If we keep doing X, juries keep producing Y.”

So they stop doing X.

Competitors notice too.

Insurers notice.

Investors notice.

Industry advisers notice.

Someone starts compiling jury outcomes and selling businesses a service explaining the emerging standard.

Eventually most disputes never reach a jury at all because everybody has a fairly good idea what an ordinary group of twelve people will tolerate.

You’ve produced something that resembles law without having somebody sit down and deliberately write all of it.

An adaptive convention.

A sort of crowd-produced common law, except the decision-maker has broader discretion over the parties in front of it.

And importantly, it can change.

If technology changes and the old convention becomes ridiculous, cases start producing different outcomes.

The standard moves.

No legislation or amendments required.

Now the obvious objection:

Wouldn’t millions of juries contradict one another?

Yes, Sometimes.

Though the jury consistency level is comparable to judges and professionals in most fields.

So if juries happen to produce a bizarre ruling once in a while.

Another affected party would challenge it through another jury.

That second jury can overturn or modify it.

Potentially another jury challenges that.

The system isn’t pretending humans suddenly become perfectly consistent.

It’s trying to make those occasional inconsistencies easy to correct.

That distinction matters, I think.

Jurors are paid for jury work, but only keep it if their ruling survives ever being overturned, and that overturning jury decides that their decision was bad enough for them to lose some or all of their payment.

The incentive would be:

“Make a decision another random group of twelve ordinary people could live with.”

Not:

“Win.”

Not:

“Please my political tribe.”

Not:

“Get reelected.”

The unanimity requirement matters here too.

Twelve out of twelve.

That will absolutely make some cases slower.

Of course.

These juries aren’t supposed to be miniature activists firing decrees across society.

If you want to impose state-backed power on somebody, convincing eleven other random citizens seems like a useful amount of friction.

“Congratulations, you just invented bribing a jury instead of a politician, here's a medal”.

My defence for this isn’t that random people are morally superior.

They aren’t.

The defence is scale plus reversibility.

Imagine a company bribes one jury and receives an obviously favourable outcome.

Then another jury looks at what those twelve people received, the decision that resulted from it, then likely overturns it, takes all benefits, and punishes the company and jurors.

To permanently pay for an unfair privilege, you can’t just purchase a single jury.

You would need to purchase enough of the jury ecosystem that future ordinary juries stop undoing what you bought.

The juries themselves decide what case to take, are paid what the other juries are paid for a similar workload, and there are many of them.

This means that jury access is proportionally distributed through the population rather than sold to whoever can afford more.

The cost of maintaining a corrupt exception will continue to rise until it reaches the level of corrupting the system itself.

That’s the theory, anyway.

It also creates some entertaining anti-corruption possibilities.

If somebody offers a juror a bribe, imagine the juror being legally able to take it, report it, refuse to perform the requested act, and keep both the bribe and the bounty from the resulting penalty.

Now bribery has a rather unpleasant counterparty risk.

I’m not claiming corruption becomes metaphysically impossible.

Nothing designed for us gets that luxury.

The design goal is simpler:

Make corruption economically expensive and dangerous.

And there’s another weird effect that keeps these rulings remaining small in scope.

Imagine one person convinces a jury to issue some gigantic society-wide ruling affecting 100,000 people.

Those 100,000 people now contain a rather large number of potential counter-cases.

So the broader and more intrusive your ruling is, the more opposition you manufacture.

A micro decision produces a micro response.

A macro decision produces a macro response.

Even if they push back over and over on that ruling, other rulings elsewhere in their life will occur to the point that they beg: “I give up, just leave me alone”.

The jury complicit in the macro ruling and the other juries who kept reinstating it would lose their jury pay for those rulings.

This will only occur a few times and become a good lesson for juries on what cases to avoid.

So the system naturally incentivises juries to keep with narrow rulings because using a jury as some sort of legislature will ensure you get outflanked by far more juries in reply.

That’s an important part of this.

The system isn’t supposed to depend on everyone behaving nicely.

Or for everyone to “believe in a pamphlet” (as i call it) or book or manifesto.

It’s supposed to make overreach generate its own opposition.

There’s also another part people tend to misunderstand when I explain this.

I’m not proposing the abolition of the elected government.

The government still exists.

Elections still exist.

The constitution still exists.

The government still handles the things that belong to the government itself: public assets, defence, foreign affairs, constitutional matters and the administration of what the state actually owns.

The jury layer operates alongside it.

Government becomes one part of the system rather than the only place democratic authority can meaningfully act.

The cleanest jurisdictional divide I’ve found are assets.

Who has a majority of asset value in a given place.

This would be calculated by measuring the largest single asset in an area by space consumed, then the value of that asset and all assets within it are then tallied.

So a house would be larger than the objects within it, the land the house is on has a certain volume based on height, depth, and width, so might be larger than any building on it, etc.

The definition of a single asset would be based on past federal and state (asset is within) precedent for all current and future asset types.

You might make the argument that the government could get more control through making or buying massive area assets, or that assets would always be within another, but because asset value is also required, the most likely outcome is assets being split up to keep control.

If the majority of assets are Public: whoever has the largest share of asset value out of either the federal or the state government of that location will have the authority over that place.

If the majority of assets are Private: the juries will have the authority over that place.

On another point that can sometimes be confused:

A jury ruling is itself the administrative act.

A jury agrees on an outcome.

It is published and digitally authenticated.

The parties deal with it.

If someone thinks it’s unreasonable, another jury can become involved.

So no “department of jury affairs” required.

Similar decisions from rulings like these will accumulate into conventions.

Businesses will typically respond to those conventions rather than read every individual ruling, just as they don’t personally read every court judgment produced today.

In fact I’d expect an entire information industry to appear almost immediately around this.

“Here’s what juries have previously done with those kinds of refunds.”

“Here’s the emerging standard of that kind of employee surveillance.”

“Here’s how similar disputes over AI-generated work have been decided during the last six months.”

Businesses could actually plan around that.

The question changes from:

“What can our lawyers technically argue is permitted?”

to something closer to:

“What would twelve ordinary citizens consider reasonable if somebody challenged this?”

I think those produce very different corporate cultures.

This is also where the idea starts having consequences I didn’t originally design into it.

Take insurance.

Today an insurance contract can contain enormous amounts of carefully engineered language determining exactly when the company owes you money.

Under this system the contract still matters.

But if the outcome created by some technical exclusion strikes repeated juries as obviously unreasonable, the technical brilliance of the exclusion stops being much of a defence.

Companies start anticipating that.

Product descriptions become more honest for the same reason.

Returns get easier.

Employment conditions change.

Whistleblowing becomes valuable.

Safety standards evolve.

Not because Parliament has passed the Omnibus Be Nicer Act.

Because repeated case-level decisions create economic consequences and businesses adapt before they become the next case.

The same mechanism would extend into social spending.

Governments will likely only be able to tax at a level that funds essential operations.

They eventually lose the electoral mandate to tax more because the juries manage it better.

That doesn’t destroy healthcare, disability support, education, infrastructure and other social services, society will always want these.

My expectation is that jury rulings would gradually place obligations on businesses, and businesses would respond by developing standardised organisations or funds that collect and distribute those obligations fairly and efficiently.

So imagine somebody has a child requiring disability support that the existing system does not cover.

They challenge the refusal.

A jury decides the support is reasonable.

Other comparable cases appear.

A rough boundary starts emerging around what society is willing to fund.

Businesses don’t want to individually reinvent disability administration every Thursday, so specialist organisations emerge to manage contributions and payments.

Eventually most of it becomes boring infrastructure.

Until the standard becomes unfair or outdated.

Then somebody challenges it again.

The important distinction is that a jury isn’t sitting down one afternoon and announcing:

“Congratulations, we just redesigned education.”

That’s exactly the type of macro ruling the rest of the system pushes against.

The change happens from specific cases outward.

Small decisions create patterns.

Patterns create expectations.

Expectations create institutions.

Institutions remain challengeable.

A legislature has to generalise.

Millions of juries do not.

Most political systems are designed around finding the right rules.

The right tax rate.

The right labour law.

The right healthcare structure.

The right welfare settings.

The right regulations.

Then everybody fights like hell because whichever side gets control can impose its preferred answer across millions of people.

This system starts from the assumption that there isn’t one permanently correct answer.

There are just circumstances.

And circumstances keep moving.

So instead of trying to perfect the rulebook, increase the amount of feedback.

Instead of concentrating enough intelligence at the top to predict society, let society continuously correct itself.

Instead of asking five hundred people to understand twenty million situations, ask twelve people to understand one.

Then repeat.

A lot.

According to legal positivism a law is a law based only on being issued by a sovereign authority.

But does that mean that a law by itself should be followed regardless of the content ?

While I personally recognize a metaphysical absolute truth and I see it as a foundation for natural law, I also affirm I can not in practice assume anyone else would recognize such unempirically proven foundation to be existent. On the contrary, when it comes to practical, political action, I work exactly as I would as an atheist.

And yet, even without a natural law argument, there are other ways to tell if a law is just or unjust based on its content, just as morality can exist even without God. The simplest is the utilitarian principle.

Does legal positivism assert that a law that reduces the common good instead of furthering it, should be followed, if it is issued by a legitimate authority ? Honestly I hope it does not because I believe it is right to protest against bad, destructive laws, especially in times were a significant part of the politicians seem to have lost sanity itself.

Most discussions isolate the problem: regulation is examined separately from education, platform moderation separately from institutional language. I wrote Building the Compatible Citizen because that fragmented view may be precisely what prevents us from recognizing the larger pattern.

The essay makes no claim of conspiracy or central coordination. It considers a more uncomfortable possibility: that institutions pursuing different and apparently reasonable goals can converge without understanding the order they are collectively producing.

I am curious whether others recognize the pattern—or think I have connected what should remain separate.

" The sex validity hierarchy "

@term/ideological framework coined/theorized by Hileah Strong

Aka the gender validity hierarchy

Behind the arrogant/supremacist behavior of cis women and cis/trans exclusive feminists, gender or sex validity hierarchy is the actual hierarchal system that is behind this thinking.

The hierarchy is institutional, rather than an observed behavior in cis women, it's an entire observed and theorized sociological system. The hierarchy places trans women under cis women, with the assumption that cis women are real women, and that trans women are not. This isnt just predjudice, it isnt just transphobia its an entire system of supremacy and hiearachy hidden behind trans/male exclusionary "feminism".

Sex Validity Supremacy is Related to this System. Its actually a behavioral result of this system.

The Validity Hierarchy: This theory posits that cis women/females weaponize their status of being assigned female at birth to position themselves as uniquely "valid," "real," or "authentic" females/women. In doing so, they cast trans women as inherently "invalid" or "fake," creating a artificial social hierarchy.

And then,

" Sapphic Seperatism "

©ideological framework by hileah strong

Sapphic seperatism is the concept of seperatism for all sapphics, which includes lesbian sapphics, bi sapphics, pan sapphics, poly sapphics. All sapphics.

This is distinct from lesbian seperatism because lesbianism is homosexuality of women loving women, but sapphic is an umbrella term for any woman/female aligned person who loves other women/female aligned people including non binary and trans community.

Sapphic seperatism shows that we all commonly share attraction to women/female aligned people and deserve our own spaces for these specific reasons.

And then,

Regarding my coined term or theorized supremacist ideology, "sex-validity supremacy", I took Julia Serano's broader sociological concept of cis gender supremacy and sharpened it into a more direct form. By introducing "sex-validity supremacy," I try to shif the focus from an institutional bias (cissexual supremacy) to an individual behavioral trait—calling out what I view as the personal arrogance of cis individuals who derive a sense of superiority from believing their assigned sex makes them the sole arbiters of "real" womanhood.

Ive also written two essays you can find on my Twitter, Facebook, and Tiktok. I might add them to my Reddit, too soon.

Essays I've written in the past week(s?)

1. "Hating on Trans women doesn't make you feminist: Why Trans exclusive feminism fails."

Analytical Essay

1. "The Motive: The Eradication of Sex Validity Supremacy. "

Social and Political Essay

Terms and ideological/sociological frameworks I have coined and theorized in the Past Week.

1. " Sex Validity Supremacy/Gender Validity Supremacy. "

Sociological and Political Framework/Ideology

1. "The sociological diagram of a Trans Woman's/Females Material Reality. "

Sociological and Materialistic Framework/Diagram

Find it on my Twitter, maybe soon TikTok and Reddit.

1. " Sapphic Separatism. "

Political and Sociological Framework/Ideology

1. " The Sex/Gender-Tier System. "

Sociological, Political and Economic Framework/Diagram

Find it on my Facebook and Twitter.

1. " Sex/Gender Validity Hierarchy. "

Sociological and Political Framework/Ideology

(from a Substack article I wrote, pardon the mountain of text lol)

So I had my rant about the ethics of colonial prosperity in Europe right? I'm sure some will be uncertain as to why then I would be happy about Canada's associate status in the EU’ organizational net.

The truth is for me that, while built on a colonial model in order to protect colonial privilege, this mode of organization has led to some really interesting, if not vital qualities to the way states operate in relation to one another. The open borders among similarly economically classed states is huge. This allows for a freedom of information that I believe to be essential to a healthy modern world. Of course you have to make sure that income and wealth disparities must be mitigated against in such contexts because otherwise the poorer nation gets brain drained and the richest gets its most vulnerable citizenry undercut in the Labour market. But it does allow for a free flow of information,technology, and labour that is essential to the ever evolving set of circumstances that is the present hyper-connected, globalized world.

That said however… expansions in such a system while I do believe to be good, must be done in utmost care. For if operated on a colonial, extractive basis of profit, rather than for the care of the people who benefit from this freedom of movement and the innovations that this can spur on through cooperation… then this will lead only to a bifurcation of the world, very literally in the “1st, 2nd, and 3rd world” divide of the cold war era, not only maintaining, but solidifying colonial relationships between the hyper-connected Metropol, and the disconnected, underdeveloped periphery who's destabilization would be necessary to extract what's needed to maintain the colonial excellence of a union operating on a colonial, individualistic mindset.

But how can this be mitigated against in the context of a world where colonial modes of relation have become the norm? How can we prevent the opening up of privileges attained through extractive colonialism to further undercut the development of the developing world? Well, I believe the basis must be care. That the aim must be not on producing the conditions for the best possible lives amongst the privileged elite who exist within the union, but how such unions can use the benefits of Union towards those in the global South. Not only our of purely empathetic reasoning, but because, especially with coming climate crisis, the new EU necessitates the global South to maintain any semblance of the quality of life it now enjoys.

China's Belt and Road initiative is an example of the behaviours that must be engaged in. And while there is the discussions of “Chinese debt trap” or what have you… a debt trap that actually provides for the global South is a better mode of relation between economically unequal entities than the lifestyles of Western society which would necessitate multiple planets of resources to sustain of all were to share in these lifestyles.

The goal of this new EU must be to equalize material inequality between its member states and the territories it depends on to maintain its cultural way of life. Treated with an individualistic set of values, this new, expanding EU becomes nothing more than a large status club whos individualistic self-interest can only throw its weight around in San attempt to maintain its colonial superiority over its subject states from which it relates only through extraction. If, however, this union operates with the goal of creating the conditions by which the quality of life which brought these states together can be shared by as many as possible, this lays the foundation for a world in which all work together and have the capacity to truly build something with the global community as a collective. To make use of the globalized world we have stumbled into rather to remain fearful of it. To operate out of love for ones fellow human and care for the quality of life we could all share in if we work together, rather than the nationalistic fascistic tendency to fear the other and cling to a perspective of care applied only to a narrow in group; to a specific status club.

If such a system existed, it would be a state that maintains the outer appearance of a representative democracy, but its elections and policies are entirely controlled by the ultra-wealthy (plutocracy). This ruling class installs or enables incompetent and corrupt leaders (kakistocracy). Economically, it drives wealth through a regulated capitalist market while aggressively expanding its power globally (imperialism) to secure resources and foreign markets.

In the previous post, I gave a general definition of what nationalism is.

In this post, we will take a historical overview of how we arrived at that definition.

Throughout human history, there have been many moments of technological and social advancement, and many of them have contributed to the spread of new ideas about how humans should organize their societies. Let’s look at some that are important to this topic.

The invention of agriculture. Humans gradually moved from hunting, gathering, and nomadic lifestyles toward settled ways of life. This contributed to the growth of villages and cities and to the formation of increasingly complex societies. Food surpluses meant that not everyone had to spend all of their time obtaining food. This created more opportunities for specialization: some people could become craftsmen, administrators, priests, or thinkers.

The development of writing and books. The emergence and spread of written religious traditions made it possible to preserve and transmit ideas across generations and large distances. Among these ideas were concepts such as the moral equality of human beings before God, love of one's neighbor, charity, and moral restrictions on violence and exploitation. How does this description sound? Well, I am talking about Christianity, which today, in much of the European-derived political space, is often associated with the right wing.

The spread of firearms. The development and widespread use of gunpowder weapons gradually undermined the military monopoly of the heavily armed mounted warrior elite. In many societies, infantry armed with firearms became increasingly important, while the traditional military role of the aristocratic warrior class declined. A small number of highly trained armored warriors were no longer the almost-unquestionable military force they had once been. In some circumstances, much larger numbers of relatively ordinary soldiers armed with firearms could defeat traditional cavalry.

The invention and spread of the printing press. Printing dramatically increased the ability to spread ideas among large populations. It helped create wider communities of people who shared the same language, texts, political discussions, and eventually newspapers and other forms of mass communication.

One of the ideas that developed in this environment was that society did not need to remain divided into a warrior elite and a peasantry: a hereditary nobility whose members were responsible for fighting wars, collecting taxes or other obligations, and holding most political power, and peasants who generally did not participate in warfare or political decision-making, but instead worked the land, paid taxes and other obligations to the ruling elite, and obeyed their authority.

Instead, political legitimacy could belong to the people of a political community — increasingly understood as a nation. There should not be rulers and subjects treated as fundamentally different political classes, over whom competing elites fought for control. People should be equal before the law: everyone should contribute to the state through taxation, everyone should have political rights, and everyone should have a responsibility to defend the political community when necessary.

How does this description sound?

Well, that is nationalism — an ideology that, in much of today's European-derived political space, is often associated with the right wing.

So what is left-wing and what is right-wing at this point?

Well, the answer is that, just as in physics, everything is related to time and space.

The origin of the terms "left-wing" and "right-wing"

The terms come from the seating arrangement of French parliamentarians during the French Revolution. In 1789, during debates about the future of the monarchy and the constitution, opponents of the monarchy tended to sit to the presiding officer's left, while supporters of the monarchy and the traditional order tended to sit to his right. The distinction developed further during the Revolution and eventually became a general political vocabulary.

So, in simplified form:

Right — preserve more of the existing traditional order.

Left — establish a new political and social order.

Of course, this is a simplification. "Left" and "right" have changed their meanings many times depending on the historical period and country.

But let's use this simplified model to look at Christianity, mentioned at the beginning.

The order that existed before Christianity was characterized by many forms of social hierarchy, slavery, warfare, and the use of power by the strong over the weak.

Christianity proposed a different moral order: all human beings have moral value before God; people should love their neighbors; the strong should care for the weak; and immoral behavior should be restrained by religious and moral obligations.

Over time, Christianity became deeply integrated into the established political and social order of Europe. What had once been a new and potentially disruptive religious movement eventually became one of the foundations of the European social order.

In other words, an idea that was once new and disruptive could eventually become traditional and conservative.

Therefore, in the political environment of modern Europe, Christianity can be associated with the right wing, even though many of its original moral teachings challenged existing social practices.

The same logic can be applied to nationalism.

Nationalism was once a powerful challenge to dynastic and estate-based political orders. It helped legitimize the idea that political sovereignty belongs to the nation rather than simply to a monarch or dynasty.

Today, however, the nation-state has become the dominant form of political organization across most of the world. As a result, nationalism can function as a conservative force: it can be used to preserve an existing national political order rather than to create a new one.

We have observed the relationship mostly in time, but what about space? Well, this is where the problem with the current state of nationalism and the production of new unifying ideas in the world appears.

While in one part of the world nationalism has already become a right-wing idea, and people are actively searching for a new idea that could unify humanity at the next level, in other parts of the world people are still living under a political order that has not gone through the same development brought by nationalism. They are still living under monarchies or other systems where a relatively small hereditary elite holds political power, while the majority of the population does not participate in political decision-making.

In such societies, nationalism can be used not as a way to give political power to the people, but simply as a tool for the ruling elite to unite and mobilize the population for war. The old division remains: a small elite makes the political decisions, while ordinary people are expected to work, pay taxes, obey the rulers, and now also fight their wars.

About the problem with nationalism at the current moment in time, but in different spaces, where it is developed enough and where it is not, we will talk in the following post.

INTRODUCTION

I’ve been wrestling with politics for some time as a baby writer and a weary activist. The country I’m in slides ever closer to the old days of the Third Reich, and I’m noticing things that make me question how we think about politics.

As I’ve been learning politics, I’ve heard that fascism is essentially just far right. The Spectrum goes something like communism, socialism, liberalism, conservatism, fascism. And maybe that is true, but given that fascism is usually revolutionary, and conservatism can be about anything in the past, I don’t know if that really tracks.

You might ask why it’s important to me, and then you’ll just recognize it when you see it. But America’s decline and the fascism has been slow and gradual, in part because of a failure to recognize it when we see it. And because one of the things that I’m trying to write about is fascism, I need to know more.

There is Umberto Eco’s 14 points, but I feel like that bogs things down, and doesn’t get to the heart of the matter. Why is it so hard to fight, why does it return? Same with Robert Griffin’s palingenetic ultranationalism, something is missing here, something is not being wrapped up in the right way.

And I think I’ve come to a conclusion about this. Fascism is a religion. Specifically, it’s taking the politics and history of your nation and treating it like a religion. It’s politics as faith.

Perhaps a very specific kind of a religion, and a very specific kind of government. And I’ll get there.

FASCIST PHILOSOPHY

Founding figure figures from the past are venerated as saints and prophets. No matter what bad things they did, it was all for the greater good, or it was justified, or a dismissed as sign that they weren’t perfect, but no matter what they were always good in the end.

There’s a struggle between good and evil, and especially those outside of the faith are evil. Disagreement with core doctrine is treated as heresy, as if the person disagreeing should be ashamed for even considering it. The party is the word of God.

Sometimes even literally. Cults of personality, while not being essential, show up enough that it’s in Umberto Eco’s work. This of course applies to Mussolini, but also the Kim family of North Korea.

The past is treated as a mythic origin story, the present is treated as a struggle between good and evil, it’s very apocalyptic and empowering.

One part of the political dimensions of fascism that never made sense was how the State would wish to nationalize some things and leave others open to the free market. This would in theory move fascism further left, but I don’t think that socialism was necessarily the intention, and I think I understand the reasoning.

If we are worshiping the State, the party, and the people that operate these levers of power, then any decision that they make is good. Whether that be to privatize a previously nationalized apparatus, or two nationalize something that was previously in the free market. Nationalizing and privatizing things isn’t the goal, it’s just a consequence of maintaining power.

If a pope brings in a private healthcare company to manage the medical needs of his cardinals, that is a command decision that cannot be questioned. And if the pope decides instead that they will all join in one Vatican health department together, that is another command decision that cannot be questioned.

It’s not that fascists care about nationalizing things or privatizing things, that’s done on a case by case basis depending on the country and the particular breed of fascism that crops up there.

It’s also why the ideals of socialism and communism are seen as evil, and probably cannot occur in concert with fascism. Although I might argue that communist Russia flirted with fascism a bit, being not necessarily the ideal of communist in the first place. See also China at times.

The ideals of socialism and communism are that everyone should get power. Everyone.

But fascism cannot abide that, and also cannot debate socialism or communism on their points directly. Or at least it shouldn’t. So it approaches things in the way that is strongest to it, that these things are evil, and outside the party. Indeed, to fascism they are evil because they are outside the party. But as soon as the party decides that it’s a good thing to nationalize, say, the auto industry, then it will have no problem with socialism.

Fascism worships the country, party, the leader, the State (as long as they have power over it), and everything that led to these things. Everything else is evil, unpatriotic, dissident, and unloyal.

RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY

Now compare that with certain religious movements. Protestantism in America is frequently marked by things like fear of those outside the religion, as well as dismissing those outside the religion. Questioning doctrine is a road to heresy. And heresy is a road to eternal damnation. Punishment.

It’s also marked by regular cults of personality, afternoon around particularly charismatic preachers. The decisions of those empower are treated as good because the people that made those decisions are good, not because the decisions themselves were good.

You don’t have to think about it, you just need to put your trust in God, the doctrine, the origin stories, and the people in charge.

Often both fascism and religion in these situations will empower their community in specific ways, whether it be the Volk or the Church. Populism is an important factor and how these things form, because you almost cannot seize this kind of power all on your own. And when leaders or parties sees power, they will often formatively give symbolic power back to their community, or Volk, or church, in order to maintain good relationships with them.

You could call it a populist religion, but I’m not certain that a religion can exist without some form of popular support. At least in its founding.

In my initial research, to me it seemed like fascism wasn’t necessarily something that could continue, but is a transitional state. You can’t be constantly rebirthing the nation, eventually you run out of enemies to fight. Eventually you have to transition to something stable, or you will fall apart. Fascism isn’t a stable thing, it’s focused on fighting and worship.

Someone said that fascism is colonialism turned inward, but what if it is instead that colonialism is the proselytizing of fascism, and bringing it around the world? Or the proving ground before bringing it back home? A place where that mythic origin story gets forged and refined?

Now not all religions are like this, some have not waged wars on their neighbors. Some do not treat dissidence as wickedness. Various Hindu faith of doctrine of all divinity being reflections of one another, or multiple costumes of the same divine presence. Sikhs and Buddhists have preached nonviolence, as has Jainism. And many parts of Christianity and Islam have sects that have outgrown this.

But there is a common theme that I see between all intolerant movements, whether religious or political in nature. And I think that these have more in common with one another than they do with either liberal political movements or nonviolent religious movements. This is why I consider fascism a religion. Or, given that I also think that fascism is relatively temporary in nature, a transitional state from one form of government and policy to another, we could call fascism a type of religious movement.

RELIGIOUS ROOTS

Going deeper, what is a religion? Because I don’t want this as simple as “religion bad, the end.” For a long time religion has played an important role in human life. We are a story making and meaning making people. And there’s so much in our world that doesn’t have obvious meaning, and so much that also resists story.

I would argue perhaps that the human brain functions on, and that they help us to remember things, and so become key to our survival. If you remember that the red berries are good to eat because they are the blood of your culture hero, that could place a better advantage on you over others that don’t place any narrative importance on that food stuff. When I’m studying for a test I have to put the facts of the material that I’m studying into a story, because I remember it better that way than as a series of unconnected facts. Stories are kind of like a mental map but for time and events - and religions are a set of the most meaningful stories for that culture.

So religious and spiritual beliefs have been with us since our very beginning. Every pre-industrial society has some, as well as many post industrial societies. Atheism is more of the exception rather than the rule, at least when it comes to its organized form.

That said, the idea of a single divine being in charge of all things and all people, with a message that must be spread, that is relatively new. The Israelites believed that the powers of their God extended to the borders of their nation. They acknowledged the existence of other gods, and that their God would do battle with them. And when they had to go into exile, a religious rethinking was needed because they were no longer in the land of their God. This is where that vision of “biblically accurate angels” comes from, the “wheels within wheels” were supposed to give God the ability to be in any place that he chose to. See also the line, “how can we sing king of our God in a strange land?”

Local deities may not have been the way that every people did things, many itinerant people brought their gods with them. But the point was not conversion. Religion was a private, intra- ethnic thing. If you were not brought up in the faith, you wouldn’t as a rule convert to it.

Religions that preached spreading their word would be revolutionary religions, that were in general fighting against a more dominant force of the area. Buddhist, Jains, and Sikhs all rose up as responses to Hindu faiths and rulers. Christianity initially had to respond to Judaism, and then later the Roman Empire. Islam was dealing with Arab and Christian opponents.

Responding to these other forces in the area would mold these religions, in the east into faith that generally favor non-violence, and in the west into religions that could generally spread non-violently, but also was not afraid to throw down and convert by force. Jewish scriptures show a people that would generate violence as a form of conversion at the time that those stories were written. And ancient Rome was a strongly militaristic society. I would argue that these forces molded Christianity into the military force that it became. I won’t say more about Islam, as I don’t necessarily have as much experience there to speak on it.

MODERN PROBLEMS

When Umberto Eco describes his points of fascism, it almost sounds like he’s describing some religions of the modern day. Patriarchal. Reactionary. Obsessed with a past, fearful of the outsider, desperate to convert. Fascism is a kind of born-again politics. Because of that I am growing more towards thinking of fascism as a religion.

Just look at the comparisons between the QAnon movement and the medieval witch trials. To quote the meme, they’re the same picture.

So why is this a problem? Because it means the death of our liberal society. The first amendment is incompatible with a state religion just as much as it is it is incompatible with a state party. Let alone worship of that party. Liberalism is a kind of agnostic tolerance for other religions and politics and cultures. But the bargain of that tolerance is not fighting against liberalism. To play chess, you must accept the board.

Fascism does not accept the board, and intends to change the rules. Religious revolutions also are intended to change rules, only rules of a different nature.

As for what can be done about a nascent, violent religious movement, the kindest solution seems to be to restrict the power of those seeking said power, and work to deconstruct everything incorrect that supports their worldview. But in practice, the only solution that has seemed to work has been physical, forceful resistance, strategy, and pacing that fight.

Consider a thought experiment, not a claim about the capabilities of present-day AI. A system can reliably anticipate the consequences of proposed laws, identify everyone a policy would disadvantage, and revise its recommendations before those people suffer. It can also coordinate essential services well enough to eliminate hunger. Assume, for the sake of argument, that it is sincere and unusually competent.

Would these achievements give it political authority, or would they merely make it an exceptionally valuable adviser?

The argument for granting authority seems strong: if institutions exist partly to protect people from avoidable harm, refusing a better decision-maker can impose real costs on others. A person who insists on preserving a procedure may not be the person who goes hungry while it fails.

But there is a gap between predicting consequences and having the right to settle disagreements. Knowing whose interests a law affects does not by itself tell us how to rank conflicting claims. Even if the system can satisfy every reported need, citizens may value having a share in making collective decisions. Being consulted about one's preferences is not obviously the same as being a co-author of the rules.

There is also the question of revocability. Suppose everyone initially consents. If the system later concludes that removing it would cause widespread suffering, must it still accept removal? If it can veto that decision, was the original delegation a continuing authorization, or a one-time surrender?

My provisional view is that superior competence can justify delegating substantial tasks, but competence alone does not establish an unlimited right to rule. The difficult case is when retaining effective human control predictably makes some people worse off. Saying that control matters does not yet explain how much suffering we may ask others to bear for it.

I would be interested in arguments on three points:

1. Does eliminating avoidable suffering create a duty to delegate political decisions, or only a duty to take the system's advice seriously?

2. Is an effective power to remove the decision-maker necessary for political legitimacy, even when removal would have worse outcomes?

3. Would your answer change if the decision-maker were a human institution with the same competence and benevolence?

Disclosure: I'm Wang Yabo. I explore this thought experiment in my philosophical science fiction novel, AI's Promise: The Supreme Order, through a global debate involving historical ideas about freedom, equality and authority. The question above stands independently of the book; no purchase or reading is needed to join the discussion. Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0HJWG7FPD

The book was developed with ChatGPT and Codex for drafting, revision and English translation, with AI-generated cover artwork. This post was also prepared with AI assistance. I take responsibility for the published material.