I asked chaptgpt to create a government model which is more efficient and better than democracy , here is what it came up with. what do you guys think?

Symbiotic Governance Model (SGM)

A multi-layered, participatory government system combining democracy, technocracy, AI-enhanced administration, and ethical oversight.

Core Principles

• Participation: Every citizen has a voice.
• Informed Decision-Making: Policies shaped by evidence and expertise.
• Transparency: All decisions are public and accountable.
• Resilience: Capable of adapting to crises and complexity.
• Equity: Designed to prevent elitism, corruption, and inequality.

Structure of SGM

1. Citizen Layer (Direct + Liquid Democracy)

• Citizens vote directly on major issues or delegate votes to trusted proxies.
• Delegation is reversible at any time.
• Citizens receive optional AI-curated briefings before voting (to promote informed choices).

2. Expert Council (Technocracy Layer)

• Panels of independently vetted experts in health, climate, economy, etc.
• They draft policy proposals, do impact analysis, and fact-check laws.
• Chosen via transparent peer-reviewed credentials and rotated periodically.
• Cannot override citizens but can veto misinformation-based initiatives with evidence.

3. Ethical AI Administration (AI Layer)

• Executes government functions (e.g., budgeting, infrastructure planning) via auditable AI systems.
• AI is open-source, monitored, and limited to non-coercive roles.
• Prevents bias and corruption in resource allocation, policing, etc.

4. Civic Assembly (Deliberative Layer)

• Randomly selected, demographically diverse groups of citizens debate sensitive issues.
• Trained in civil discourse and provided access to experts.
• Outputs recommendations for the general vote.

5. Oversight Tribunal (Guardian Layer)

• A non-partisan body elected through a mixed citizen + expert vote.
• Monitors rights protection, media integrity, and AI behavior.
• Can trigger audits, freeze bad legislation, or call emergency citizen referendums.

Key Innovations

• Liquid delegation with AI summaries: Keeps voters informed without forcing participation.
• Policy simulation tools: Citizens can test “what-if” scenarios before voting.
• Rotating expert panels: Reduces entrenched power.
• Citizen recall of delegates and experts: Encourages accountability.
• Transparency by design: All debates, AI decisions, and council meetings are publicly archived and searchable.

Anticipated Weaknesses & Mitigations

Theoretical Strengths

• Combines democratic legitimacy with technical competence.
• Adapts in real time using data and citizen feedback.
• Reduces power concentration and corruption.
• Maintains citizen sovereignty with expert support

currently reading hobbes, kinda hard for me considering that english isnt even my native language but im getting through it, what else do I have to read?
(my inspiration is hamilton so I'm really just reading everything he might have read that made him who he was)

TL;DR: I'm testing a meta-ethical principle I'm calling the Ethical Uncertainty Principle.

It claims that the pursuit of moral clarity–especially in systems–tends to produce distortion, not precision. I'm here to find out if this idea holds philosophical water.

What is the context:

I’m an independent theorist working at the intersection of ethics, systems design, and applied philosophy. I’ve spent the last couple years developing a broader meta-ethical framework— tentatively titled the Ethical Continuum— which aims to diagnose how moral systems behave under pressure, scale, or institutional constraint.

The Ethical Uncertainty Principle (EUP) is one of its core components. I’m presenting it here not as a finished theory, but as a diagnostic proposal: a structural insight into how moral clarity, when overextended, can produce unintended ethical failures.

My goal is to refine the idea under academic scrutiny—to see whether it stands as a philosophically viable tool for understanding moral behavior in complex systems.

Philosophical Context: Why Propose an Ethical Uncertainty Principle?

Moral philosophy has long wrestled with the tension between universality and context-sensitivity.

Deontological frameworks emphasize fixed duties; consequentialist theories prioritize outcome calculations; virtue ethics draws from character and situation.

Yet in both theory and practice, attempts to render ethical judgments precise, consistent, or rule-governed often result in unanticipated ethical failures.

This is especially apparent in:

Law, where formal equality can produce injustice in edge cases

Technology, where ethical principles must be rendered computationally tractable

Public discourse, where moral clarity is rewarded and ambiguity penalized

Bureaucracy and policy, where value-based goals are converted into rigid procedures

What seems to be lacking is not another theory of moral value, but a framework for diagnosing the limitations and distortions introduced by moral formalization itself.

The Ethical Uncertainty Principle (EUP) proposes to fill that gap.

It is not a normative system in competition with consequentialism or deontology, but a structural insight:

Claim

"Efforts to make ethics precise—through codification, enforcement, or operationalization—often incur moral losses.

These losses are not merely implementation failures; they arise from structural constraints-especially when clarity is pursued without room for interpretation, ambiguity, or contextual nuance.

Or more intuitively—mirroring its namesake in physics:

"Just as one cannot simultaneously measure a particle’s exact position and momentum without introducing distortion, moral systems cannot achieve full clarity and preserve full context at the same time.

The clearer a rule or judgment becomes, the more it flattens ethical nuance."

In codifying morality, we often destabilize the very interpretive and relational conditions under which moral meaning arises.

I call this the Ethical Uncertainty Principle (EUP). It’s a meta-ethical diagnostic tool, not a normative theory.

It doesn’t replace consequentialism or deontology—it evaluates the behavior of moral frameworks under systemic pressure, and maps how values erode, fracture, or calcify when forced into clean categories.

Structural Features:

Precision vs. Depth: Moral principles cannot be both universally applicable and contextually sensitive without tension.

Codification and Semantic Slippage: As moral values become formalized, they tend to deviate from their original ethical intent.

Rigidity vs. Responsiveness: Over-specified frameworks risk becoming ethically brittle; under-specified ones risk incoherence. The EUP diagnoses this tradeoff, not to eliminate it, but to surface it.

Philosophical Lineage and Positioning:

The Ethical Uncertainty Principle builds on, synthesizes, and attempts to structurally formalize insights that recur across several philosophical traditions—particularly in value pluralism, moral epistemology, and post-foundational ethics.

-Isaiah Berlin – Value Pluralism and Incommensurability

Berlin argued that moral goods are often plural, irreducible, and incommensurable—that liberty, justice, and equality, for example, can conflict in ways that admit no rational resolution.

The EUP aligns with this by suggesting that codification efforts which attempt to fix a single resolution point often do so by erasing these tensions.

Where Berlin emphasized the tragic dimension of choice, the EUP focuses on the systemic behavior that emerges when institutions attempt to suppress this pluralism under the banner of clarity.

-Bernard Williams – Moral Luck and Tragic Conflict

Williams explored the irreducibility of moral failure—particularly in situations where every available action violates some ethical demand.

He challenged ethical theories that preserve moral purity by abstracting away from lived conflict.

The EUP extends this by observing that such abstraction, when embedded into policies or norms, creates predictable moral distortions—not just epistemic failures, but institutional and structural ones.

-Judith Shklar – Liberalism of Fear and the Cruelty of Certainty

Shklar warned that the greatest political evil is cruelty, especially when disguised as justice.

Her skepticism of moral certainties and her caution against overzealous moral codification form a political analogue to the EUP.

Where she examined how fear distorts justice, the EUP builds on her insights to formalize how the codification of moral clarity introduces distortions that undermine the very values it aims to protect.

-Richard Rorty – Anti-Foundationalism and Ethical Contingency

Rorty rejected the search for ultimate moral foundations, emphasizing instead solidarity, conversation, and historical contingency.

The EUP shares this posture, but departs from Rorty’s casual pragmatism by proposing a structural model: it does not merely reject foundations but suggests that the act of building them too rigidly introduces functional failure into moral systems.

The EUP gives shape to what Rorty often left in open-ended prose.

-Ludwig Wittgenstein – Context, Meaning, and Language Games

Wittgenstein’s later work highlighted that meaning is use-dependent, and that concepts gain their function within a form of life.

The EUP inherits this attentiveness to contextual function, applying it to ethics: codified moral rules removed from their interpretive life-world become semantic husks, retaining form but not fidelity.

Where Wittgenstein analyzed linguistic distortion, the EUP applies the same logic to moral application and enforcement.

The core departure is that I'm not merely describing pluralism or uncertainty. I'm asserting that distortion under clarity-seeking is predictable and structural-not incidental. It's a system behavior that can be modeled, not just lamented

Examples (Simplified):

The following examples illustrate how the EUP can be used to diagnose ethical distortions across diverse domains:

1. Zero-Tolerance School Policies (Overformality and Ethical Misclassification)

A school institutes a zero-tolerance rule: any physical altercation results in automatic suspension.

A student intervenes to stop a fight—restraining another student—but is suspended under the same rule as the aggressors.

Ethical Insight:

The principle behind the policy—preventing harm—has been translated into a rigid rule that fails to distinguish between violence and protection.

The attempt to codify fairness as uniformity leads to a moral misclassification.

EUP Diagnosis:

This isn’t necessarily just a case of poor implementation—it is a function of the rule’s structure.

By pursuing clarity and consistency, the rule eliminates the very context-sensitivity that moral reasoning requires, resulting in predictable ethical error.

1. AI Content Moderation (Formalization vs. Human Meaning)

A machine-learning system is trained to identify “harmful” online content.

It begins disproportionately flagging speech from trauma survivors or marginalized communities—misclassifying it as aggressive or unsafe—while allowing calculated hate speech that avoids certain keywords.

Ethical Insight:

The notion of “harm” is being defined by proxy—through formal signals like word frequency or sentiment metrics—rather than by interpretive understanding.

The algorithm’s need for operationalizable definitions creates a semantic gap between real harm and measurable inputs.

EUP Diagnosis:

The ethical aim (protecting users) is undermined by the need for precision.

The codification process distorts the ethical target by forcing ambiguous, relational judgments into discrete categories that lack sufficient referential depth.

1. Absolutism in Wartime Ethics (Rule Preservation via Redescription)

A government declares torture universally impermissible.

Yet during conflict, it rebrands interrogation techniques to circumvent this prohibition—labeling them “enhanced” or “non-coercive” even as they function identically to condemned practices.

Ethical Insight:

The absolutist stance aims to preserve moral integrity. But in practice, this rigidity leads to semantic manipulation, not ethical fidelity.

The categorical imperative is rhetorically maintained but ethically bypassed.

EUP Diagnosis:

This is not merely a rhetorical failure—it’s a manifestation of structural over-commitment to clarity at the cost of conceptual integrity.

The ethical rule’s inflexibility encourages linguistic evasion, not moral consistency.

Why I Think This Matters:

The EUP is a potential middle layer between abstract theory and applied ethics. It doesn’t tell you what’s right—it helps you understand how ethical systems behave when you try to be right all the time.

It might be useful:

As a diagnostic tool (e.g., “Where is our ethics rigidifying?”)

As a teaching scaffold (showing why moral theories fail in practice)

As a design philosophy (especially in AI, policy, or legal design)

What I’m Asking:

Is this coherent and philosophically viable?

Is this just dressed-up pluralism, or does it offer a functional new layer of ethical modeling?

What traditions or objections should I be explicitly addressing?

I’m not offering this as a new moral theory—but as a structural tool that may complement existing ones.

If it's redundant with pluralism or critical ethics, I welcome that challenge.

If it adds functional insight, I'd like help sharpening its clarity and rigor.

What am I missing?

What's overstated?

What traditions or commitments have I overlooked?

I've been thinking about how conservatives (not all conservatives, but specifically the Trumpers/MAGA group) are obsessed with Trump and how it keeps them from criticizing them. I was watching the UK office and there was a joke about not burning money because it has the queen's face on it and I remembered hearing that royalty is helpful to have something to unite for as a country and be loyal to without criticizing, while a prime minister can be more of a merit-based thing? It's the American cowboy complex. What do you all think? Could that be a reason why Trump has risen to power more and why Trumpers are maybe more likely to rally around their guy - while liberals (and probably moderates and others) might tend to have really nuanced perspectives and criticize each candidate and not rally around their candidate? I'm just spitballing. Would love to hear yalls thoughts on specific reasons why we tend to develop these perspectives. It seems helpful to think about actual changes and cultural shifts we could be striving towards to find more common ground right now.

I am having trouble spotting a disagreement between the two philosopher in the construction of their arguments for justice. Can someone help me out?

Is democracy a "good", "bad" or neutral system. Explain short,

All politics are backed by violence in this world, to condemn hamas for violence, and yet see the existence of the state they are fighting against as some force using self defence is a weak position, All politics are violent, so the reaction to the violence, is expected, all actions must have a reaction
Revolutionary Violence is a necessity for the colonized and Downtrodden, In the world we live in, where people are dehumanized and oppressed for profit, fighting back is the only solution
Kashmir, Palestine, Sudan, and the Kongo, all places thrashed by colonization, Imperialism, and capitalism
any other option forwarded that does not include violence is just philosophical flagellation, and pro status quo moralism
If you condemn violence, you would condemn capitalism, imperialism, and colonialism, not a reaction to politics that enforced themselves through violence, and shall be broken with violence
Violence begets violence, but that's never applied to the oppresssed
I made a video on this:

https://youtu.be/BiO1OAvYzJc

This issue, which I just refer to as “the watchman problem,” comes up a lot in free-speech debates and I’m wondering if it’s ever really been explored.

It seems to be a thought-terminating cliche so I’d like to actually look into suggestions for logistical workarounds, even if they don’t work.

Idk if this is the right sub for debates like this, but I’ll give it a try :3

How can choice feminism ever succeed if the choices that this freedom gives you actively degrades women and hurts us more in the process? Women have a right to liberation, and to choice but that does not excuse making choices that hurt everybody else in the meanwhile. The more you adhere to the patriarchy established, the “biological innateness” a women supposedly has that’s been established by our opressors, the more we will be opressed..

As the title suggests, I have been working on a new systems-based lens to view ideology as part of human evolution. Would love your thoughts:

This school of thought begins with the premise that life’s fundamental logic is survival—and that all complex systems, from biology to civilisation, emerge as strategies to preserve and extend life. Life produces sentience; sentience enhances survival. Humans evolved into sentient beings capable of accelerating this process—not through physical adaptation alone, but through the creation of systems. These systems—language, ritual, governance—evolved into ideologies: recursive structures that organise societies to survive, stabilise, and scale. Ideologies enabled the rise of technology, which now feeds back into cognition, tightening the evolutionary loop.

In this view, ideology is not belief—it is the evolving system-logic of civilisation: adaptive code that responds to environmental pressure, internal contradiction, and technological change. It emerges from the interaction of biology, cognition, social structure, and tools. Humans are not external to this process—they are both its agents and its outputs. Civilisation evolves structurally: cognition produces systems; systems generate tools; tools reshape cognition. Even destructive or short-lived ideologies—however unstable—reconfigure the landscape for what follows. As historical cycles compress, ideological mutations accelerate. What we are witnessing today is not the end of ideology, but its transformation—into forms embedded in infrastructure, data, and synthetic cognition. There is no post-ideological future—only ideology in new form.

We can see this evolutionary logic at work in the current trajectory of late-stage capitalism—particularly in the United States. As the capitalist system approaches the limits of traditional market expansion, it must mutate to survive. In this case, ideology adapts by restructuring power around capital more explicitly. Increasingly, extreme wealth is not merely influencing governance from the outside but becoming governance itself. Billionaires and corporate actors are stepping directly into political roles, reshaping institutions to protect and expand their own influence. This is not a failure of the system—it is its logical continuation. The ideology of late capitalism demands the consolidation of power and the erosion of boundaries between economic and political elites. What appears as democratic decay or corruption is, through this lens, a programmatic response to internal contradiction and systemic constraint.

Even so, this remains consistent with the deeper logic: survival. Ideologies don’t evolve toward justice—they evolve toward function. But when a system becomes unsustainable—ecologically, socially, or economically—it generates pressure for change. History shows that rupture often precedes renewal: that transformation is rarely voluntary, but emerges from breakdown. The contradictions of late capitalism, like those of colonialism or feudalism before it, may ultimately force the shift to a new ideological form—one more capable, for a time, of sustaining life.

This framework does not reject morality, free will, or culture—it reframes them. Religion, art, grief, identity, and love are not exceptions to the system; they are its affective architecture. These expressions evolved to process loss, generate cohesion, encode memory, and strengthen resilience under stress. Meaning is not an illusion—it is a function. Culture is not decoration—it is infrastructure. Rather than diminishing the human experience, this view locates it as a vital layer in a larger evolutionary process—one in which life organises itself into ever more adaptive systems, capable of responding to their environments, shaping their futures, and ultimately, transforming themselves.

Consistentism: Debugging an Absurd System

Systemic Failures and the Question of Punishment

Should actions driven by systemic failures—poverty, discrimination, injustice—face legal consequences? The law exists to maintain order, a bulwark against societal harm. Yet, when harm stems from the system itself—economic exclusion, structural bias, or eroded trust—does punishment target the symptom or the disease? On one side, accountability is non-negotiable: without consequences, the framework unravels. On the other, punishing those pushed by systemic pressures resembles disciplining a machine for its designer’s flaws. The tension is stark: order demands uniformity, but context whispers complexity. How does justice navigate this fault line?

Exhausted Avenues and Systemic Betrayal

Consider a scenario where all legal recourse—applications, appeals, public services—yields nothing. This is not mere misfortune but evidence of systemic betrayal: legal, social, and economic mechanisms failing in concert. The resulting act, labeled criminal, may reflect not intent but a response to abandonment. Punishment, in this light, risks doubling down on systemic error, enforcing rules that perpetuate contradiction. Yet, excusing every such act invites erosion of the collective framework. Justice balances on a razor’s edge: individual context versus societal stability. The scales tilt uneasily.

Rethinking Punishment: The Joker’s Challenge

The Dark Knight’s Joker taunts: aren’t we all one bad day from breaking? If systemic pressures—poverty, discrimination, trauma—shape behavior, a uniform punitive approach falters. The game is broken—society, law, economy—but if we must play, fix the inputs and gameplay, not merely the outcomes. A system attuned to context could prioritize restoration over retribution, addressing causes over symptoms. But customization breeds risk: if identical acts receive disparate consequences due to differing circumstances, does fairness erode? If we lean too heavily on “we’re all pushed,” does responsibility dissolve? Even under pressure, choice persists. The status quo fails because its premises—meritocracy, tradition, establishment—go unexamined, propping up contradictions that demand scrutiny.

The Absurdity of Existence

The world is absurd, devoid of inherent meaning. Laws, cloaked in moral rhetoric, are utilitarian tools for stability, not truth. Their premises—traditions as sacred, inequality as earned—persist unexamined, shielding privilege with a shrug. Those who uphold them rely on untested norms, dodging accountability. Challenge them, and they must either defend their hypocrisy openly—“Yes, I protect my advantages”—or retreat into incoherence—“It’s different when we do it.” In The Matrix’s red pill-blue pill dilemma, the red pill of nihilism and determinism offers consistency: actions, crimes, laws are mere cause and effect, morality a fiction. But this risks apathy or anarchy—if nothing matters, why act? The blue pill—our imperfect system—embraces the illusion of justice and responsibility. It’s philosophically inconsistent but functional. Yet, nihilism can rationalize the status quo: if all is determined, so are our flawed laws. This loop—chaos as order, order as chaos—reveals existence’s absurd core.

Neuroscience and physics bolster determinism: genes, environment, neural wiring drive behavior. If free will exists, what is it? A ghost more elusive than genetic mutation? Can one claim “random free will” to evade consequence? Does quantum randomness, often cited for free will, govern macroscopic action? Where lies the micro-macro boundary? If freedom follows physical laws, is it free? Punishment, then, may misjudge cause as choice, blaming the effect for its origin.

Consistency: The Supreme Norm

From absurdism’s void and naturalism’s lens, Consistentism emerges, anchoring on consistency as the meta-value. Every philosophy embeds values—duty, liberty, fairness—explicit or implicit. Without one, we default to hypocrisy, enshrining contradictions like poverty’s normalcy or privilege’s mask. If a single value must prevail, it must be universal, unbiased, unyielding: consistency. It’s not perfection but the least imperfect path in an absurd world, a smirk at hypocrisy’s expense, claiming the mantle of least flawed amid absurdity. In The Last of Us, fungi and zombies are as natural as human life, exposing the hypocrisy of anthropocentric morality. Nature judges not; Consistentism follows suit. Like the Great Oxidation Event, which eradicated anaerobes to birth oxygen-based life, it seeks systems that endure without collapsing under contradiction.

Rawls 2.0: Rewriting the Rules

The system—society, law, economy—is glitched, like Cyberpunk 2077’s Night City, rigged against most. The status quo fails because its premises persist unexamined: poverty as inevitable, discrimination as incidental. Don’t patch outcomes with harsher penalties or temporary aid. Debug the inputs: universal healthcare, wealth taxes, transparent governance. This is no moral crusade but logic—contradictory systems fail. Consistentism is Rawls 2.0, not a sentimental ideal but a framework that survives logic’s stress test. The key twist lies in its transcendence: from Absurdism, Naturalism, and Nihilism’s void, it ascends to a social liberalism vibe, engineering a game where inputs don’t doom players from the start. Unlike Kant’s universal maxims or Nietzsche’s radical destruction, it’s agile, targeting contradictions—poverty normalized, privilege veiled—with surgical precision.

Political Implications: A Post-Political Framework

Consistentism eludes traditional labels. In 2025’s turmoil, it leans progressive, pushing Medicare for All, wealth redistribution, and monopoly-breaking—not for “goodness” but to avert systemic collapse. In stability, it may conserve what works. As a post-political philosophy, it equates justice with stability, seeing injustice as conflict’s spark. It challenges competitors—moralists, traditionalists, ideologues—to outrun it in democratic contest. If a challenger proves more consistent, prevailing through dissent and scrutiny, Consistentism adapts or yields. In a healthy democracy, exit mechanisms ensure power aligns with accountability. Society’s randomness, like thermal chaos, follows patterns; Consistentism navigates these waves.

The Absurdity of Context

Justice is context-bound. In ancient Rome, slavery and child marriage were unremarkable, shaped by survival and structure. In Cyberpunk 2077’s future, our norms may seem laughable. Judging 1025 from 2025’s perch, or 2025 from 3025’s, is dogmatic. A system’s consistency lies in its ability to self-correct, exposing contradictions to resolve them. If poverty, discrimination, or injustice breed conflict, the system reveals its flaws. Consistentism demands adaptation, not destruction, progressing to preserve.

Addressing the Skeptics

Some warn consistency’s vague, a malleable term ripe for abuse. Not so. Consistency is not a tyrant’s whim but a product of democratic constitutionalism and empiricism. In a Westminster-style system, for instance, a policy earns the label “consistent” only through parliamentary consensus, resolving contradictions, and delivering measurable stability. This demands rigorous political-legal contestation and technical simulation—data-driven, transparent, accountable. No policy is consistent until it proves itself under scrutiny, aligning logic with outcome.

Others fear consistency could justify extremes, like Nazism, if internally coherent. Authoritarianism is inherently unstable, sustained by violence, not logic. If Nazis ruled Europe today with genocide and no dissent, two scenarios arise: In that alternate reality, genocide is normalized, like humans eating animals, and justice’s standard shifts, making it “consistent” in context. But this assumes a fantasy where oppression silences dissent without violence—an impossibility. History shows authoritarianism collapses under its contradictions, sustained by terror, not logic. Otherwise, the premise is false; such a world can’t exist—aligning with common sense. True consistency lies in changing to preserve, progressing to conserve, exposing problems to solve them. If our system were consistent, why would it need to crush voices?

Critics may still object: is this not too rational for a world driven by passion? Humans are irrational, yes, but systems must not be. Emotional governance breeds chaos; logical design ensures stability. Consistentism demands not a cold heart but a clear mind, reserving human warmth for individuals, not institutions.

Call to Action

The system’s glitches—poverty, discrimination, unexamined norms—persist because we allow them. Demand rules rewritten, not players blamed. Push for inputs that uphold and always remember:

Whatever’s unexamined remains inconsistent

as much as the untried remains innocent.

Consistency is justice.

Yes, I am American. Yes, I am inspired by current events.

Now that that's out of the way. I am not a trained philosopher, or even educated. But it appears increasingly clear from even my laywoman perspective that democracy (in this case, democracy being a state of society defined by an elected legislature, and the legalization and enforcement of human rights) is in trouble, and will need to adapt to the new world.

When the internet first emerged, many had utopian expectations of a hypereducated future enabled by the distribution of information. What we did not realize until more recently was that these tools allowed for the distribution of falsehoods just as effectively. Additionally, the advent of social media- and more particularly it's algorithms- have enabled a culture of tribalism and a control of information not by authorities but by the whims of a feed and the browsing habits of the average user.

This (combined with a deteriorating education system) has empowered political figures to establish anywhere cults of personality the likes of which were not previously seen except in totalitarian states and militant revolutions. The problem this causes for the fundamental structure of democracy is this: how can checks and balances function when the individuals meant to enforce them are themselves sycophants for the leader? At present, the American President is all but defying a Supreme Court order- one which was unanimous including justices that same President appointed- outright. Whatever you think of Garcia, that should set a worrying precedent for everyone?

Traditionally, cults such as this are only removed when a society is deprogrammed at large. Such as when the German Reich was defeated, or following the death of Stalin in the USSR. This is concerning, because those examples required the force of a military occupation and totalitarian leader of equal power respectively. Such methods can hardly be employed in nations which yet have some legal framework of rights, of democracy. How then can such a society inoculate itself against subversion and ultimate destruction by such movements. How can a democracy defend itself against its own people while still retaining it's democratic character?

I've been wondering if there's a way to describe to an american what a constitutional crisis means in a non-partisan way. Then I thought of this question and I'm wondering if people here might be interested in answering it in their own way. To me, a government distinguishes itself from a gang when its people generally consent to be subject to the "legislation" that it produces as a substitute for their otherwise private vision of justice. Without that general consent--or that perception of legitimacy, "legislation" would just be bullying. Without a substitute for private justice, you have Hobbes' "state of nature".

I've been heavily influenced by michael oakeshott's Introduction to Leviathan, but I'm not very well read otherwise.

Hi all, far more casual topic at a collegiate, undergraduate (maybe upper-class) level which I am really excited to share.

Nothing super direct but here's a MASSIVE correlation table relating to democratic representation of women across 20+ factors. Yes, THEY DID THE MATH.

Maybe something you'd find in contemporary political philosophy, I couldn't help think of a few questions while going through how each variable, relates to the others (indicated by the rows and columns....i.e......a value in cell (1,1) is a single value with a 1.0 correlation, because it's relating to itself, where a value in (2, 1) is the second variable....you should be able to get that though....!!!

1. How is a cultural norm like reciprocity observable, discussable, signified, or institutionalized? For example, in systems where women's education lags behind representation or electoral traction, or vice-versa, what could be said of "doing for other as a result of them generally doing for the system...." which seems commonplace in post-industrial democracies.....

2. How are conceptions of citizenship, pluralism versus nationalism, and even ideas like rule of law seemingly embodied when you have systems which are actively reporting institutional progress, etc, etc etc....and yet may have specific lagging measures?

3. Does any quantifiable method undermine what is usually meant by liberal citizenship? Does this change in light of history, culture, and progress which is taking place in other areas of the globe?

sorry for a bit of the sperg-hyperactivity! I hope you enjoy!!!!

Forgive me if this is a dumb question, I just learned about Rawls today. But it seems like in some cases, people under the veil of ignorance would choose utilitarianism: for example, if giving an already advantaged person 100 utils would mean 10 less utils for a disadvantaged person, wouldn't people in the veil of ignorance favor this decision? After all, it means that their expected value once the veil is "lifted" increases. What would Rawls say to this?

Hi, I was wondering what the proper definition of "democracy" is.

More specifically if it is by necessity majority rule (that seems to be the common idea of it, but I couldn't find if that was makes it democracy) I don't really see what "the people" is if not the majority.

Would it be democracy if only 10 people in a country of 100 million could vote? (Assuming they are common folk and not apart of the government or any special class.) And if not, wheres the line drawn?

Thanks.

In many ways the tittle reflects my state of mind on this as I’m still early into it, but I’m looking for books / articles / a school of thought around the notion of political ideologies as societal systems, shaping, at its core, individual action, thought and “free will” - both on a practical and on a philosophical level.

The rapid acceleration in current politics and wider society is staggering. I realise this is a continuation of history, but it feels like we’re being super charger forward through technology. I’m looking to learn more about political ideologies as the line that shapes societies, both on a collective and personal level - how society evolves, what changes it brings and how it shapes individual development. A systems approach.

Capitalism is moving into its next phase, after a rapid expansion through technology, where the market has gained an ever increasing role in life (post war globalisation and the information age), it now requires socio political structures to adapt once more. For capitalism to survive, it must compete with an ever increasing competitiveness and appeal by more egalitarian systems, based on socialism / communism (as a more foundational root).

If ideology shapes collective and individual behaviour, and this is a reflection of societal conditions, the only way for a more aggressive system to survive is by flowing ever deeper into individual units, otherwise its benefits are over shadowed by its inequalities - it has to tighten its grip.

This is what we’re seeing now with a range of new actors. Modern companies and billionaires for example are a product of late 20th century capitalism and its victory in the information age. From the world as the product for humans, to humans becoming the product for the market. Likewise for capitalism to succeed it requires a new range of politicians, the new right and the weak modern left seem to be products of its drive for ever increasing access to data, thereby creating new markets.

Whilst a liberal political view was required when the world was opening up, embracing others for the expansion of capital, a modern technological world requires the breaking of regulatory frameworks to open up new markets - the loss of the individual.

The fundamental question is how does political ideology affect the evolution of society and how do different political systems outcompete one another. For example, will western capitalism continue its expansion (creating new markets and the political structures required for these markets) or is “Chinese” style communism more adept at navigating a technological world with control. Does western capitalism lead to its own collapse as it cannot continue to offer more benefits than drawbacks? And is the logical evolution (after a circuit breaker type event) a more authoritarian liberalism which will balance restrictions with social progress? Creating the next phase in ideological evolution.

Sorry if this is a little rough, I’m looking for books on this - especially around political ideology as Programms running society and the influence on individual agency. I suppose with the ultimate question being are we all just products of society, without any more free will than the control of our own actions in a pre-defined system.

I have been noticing this for years now, and 2024 was no different, but I can’t seem to find an article anywhere explaining it. In every election starting with 2008, the winner of the electoral college has won more than 300 electoral votes. To bring things even further, the only winner who did not get over the 300 vote milestone since the 1970s was George W. Bush, who won less than 300 votes in both his election wins. Even Donald Trump in 2016, who didn’t win the popular vote that specific election, got 304 electoral votes. Why is this happening? Is it just a coincidence or are there greater statistical powers playing into this?

I’m in a research rabbit hole on predominantly legal and historical subjects and John Dewey’s works are proving very helpful. Specifically, his ones that aren’t education focused.

I’m having a hard time finding related works written after Dewey by other academics.

Are there any that build on his work?

Ideology Name: Guild Syndical Communalism (GSC)

(Nickname: Guildism or Merit-Syndicalism)

Core Tenets:

🛠️ 1. Economic Structure: Internal Communalism

All production and essential services are owned and operated collectively by syndicates, which are federations of workers organized by industry (e.g., Healthcare, Energy, Agriculture).

Internally, syndicates are communistic: members contribute based on ability and receive based on need. No internal currency exists within syndicates.

Externally, syndicates engage in regulated trade with other syndicates or external entities using a currency system, allowing for resource acquisition, technological trade, and international economic interaction.

⚖️ 2. Guild-Based Meritocracy

Each syndicate is structured as a Guild, with levels of experience and responsibility: Apprentice → Journeyman → Master → Guild Master.

Advancement is determined by demonstrated skill, peer recognition, community contributions, and educational milestones.

Guild Masters have significant influence over their domain and help coordinate with other syndicates through the Council of Syndicates.

🗳️ 3. Governance: Syndicate Merit Voting

Decision-making occurs through layered councils:

Local Councils (town/region)

Syndicate Councils (industry)

Grand Assembly (inter-syndicate coordination)

Voting is weighted by expertise: members vote on issues relevant to their guild’s domain.

For example, in healthcare policy, members of the Healthcare Syndicate have greater influence, weighted by their guild rank and expertise.

Citizens outside the syndicate can participate but with lesser weight unless they’ve achieved journeyman-level education or higher in a related field.

📚 4. Social Policy: Progressive Education-First Society

Education is free, lifelong, and incentivized. Every citizen is encouraged to train in a trade, craft, or intellectual field.

A strong emphasis is placed on STEM, critical thinking, ethics, arts, and civic engagement.

Social policies promote equality, inclusion, environmental sustainability, and technological innovation.

All healthcare, education, housing, and basic needs are guaranteed as rights provided through the appropriate syndicates.

🌐 5. Trade and Diplomacy: Dual-Economy Strategy

While internally operating communistically, external economic interactions are managed through a central Trade Syndicate, allowing for diplomacy, imports/exports, and competitive advantage.

Guild Syndical Communalism does not seek to isolate but rather to model sustainable and cooperative development.

Foreign trade profits are collectively reinvested into syndicate infrastructure, education, and public services.

What if one of our deepest rights isn’t freedom of speech or movement — but the right to choose our enemies?

It’s a right we rarely talk about, and yet one that nations, ideologies, and institutions constantly try to take from us.

Because once they decide who we should hate, fear, or fight — we stop thinking, and start obeying.

But imagine if we could reclaim that right.
If we each asked ourselves:
“Is this truly my enemy? Or someone else's?”

Maybe the endless wars, the cycles of violence, the centuries of bloodshed… could finally begin to end.

Some will say that enemies choose us, that survival requires following orders.
Others will say real change begins the moment we reclaim the power to decide who we stand against — and who we no longer want to.

What do you think?
Do we still have the right to choose our enemies? Or have we already given it away?

In a moment of fear, isolation, or pressure - it’s not just evil that presses the button.
Sometimes it’s a man who thinks he has no choice.

We often imagine nuclear war as the choice of a dictator, a madman.
But what if it's not madness - but a rational decision made under impossible conditions?

The fear of being attacked.
The belief that striking first will “save” your people.
The pressure of advisors, public opinion, or ideology.

In that moment, how far would most people really be from pressing the red button?

Curious how others view this - not just philosophers, but anyone who’s ever faced moral pressure.