You might have noticed that I’ve started layering on to my newsletter, which has historically been 2-3 essays a week, but which now includes quarterly literary salon discussions, and semi-annual workshops to foster a collective of writers and thinkers.
Another thing I’ve been craving: collaborative worldbuilding. I want to encourage all of us to come up with ideas for a better future, and that starts by layering in writing prompts and discussion threads that encourage us to think. And to think up ideas!
We’re starting with this one: Come up with an alternative to democracy.
You can write an essay or you can write a piece of fiction, but the idea is to brainstorm new forms of government that might be interesting to explore. Think of it as collaborative worldbuilding where none of the ideas are off the table!
Publish your post sometime before April 5th and include a link to it in the comments here. I’m excited to participate in this one myself!
Three models I propose below for people who want more or less technocratic governance
1) Break all the big countries into independent city states with a NATO like mutual self defence clause and relative freedom of movement between city states. If all else fails in the very least you can vote with your feet. The city states can be theocracies, Republics or even secular dictatorships for maths nerds. More like ASEAN and less like the EU.
2) Make political manifestoes into enforceable contracts. Before every election every party has to propose a contract for 5-10 years of governance with as much or as little detail as they want. Voters can do a class action lawsuit if they elected members don't govern according to the manifesto. If the government wants to renegotiate the contract for whatever reason they would have to call a snap election to vote on a new manifesto or party. This will prevent governments from making promises that can't keep. It might also stop voters from picking people who are likeable instead of intelligent because my theory is that voters need to pick people based on general "trustworthiness" instead of competence since there is no contract enforcement mechanism.
3) Liquid democracy. Elected representatives vote on most things but voters can override the decision of their representatives whenever they feel like it. This will prevent unpopular or interest group oriented policies from passing in parliament. There is other stuff about liquid democracy but they aren't useful imo.
Interesting thought experiment and I’m gonna think more about it, but I’m tapping this out so I don’t lose it… better public than in my notes 😀
A “democracy” but instead of the majority/minority, we adopt the needs of the edge cases for everyone as the base standard. Something our treasurer said at a school board meeting recently that is haunting me, based on my HR career that came to maturity just as the ADA was passed in America so I’ve had to implement a lot of accessibility policy, accommodation and train managers how to think about employees and applicants with disability. Lots of headwind then; still lots, sadly.
Make the employee/student with the disability the baseline. Make their accommodation the baseline for everyone. Don’t look at them as costing you money but the base cost of a student, of an employee is the student/employee with an accommodation, special need (GOD I HATE THAT TERMINOLOGY!) For example, if you are putting Braille characters on all your signage — including name plates, badges — it’s not as added expense but rather just what signage cost. Anything could be cheaper. You could make really cheap signs with copy paper and a sharpie, so why is signage without braille an acceptable lower cost? It never should be… that sort of thing. The cost to educate a student with special needs should be the baseline cost of educating a student, not the premium cost.
In my State, in the American Congress, there seems to be an attitude that laws that don’t protect or include a small percentage of people is ok. It’s is NOT OK! It is the job of every lawmaker to find a way to include EVERYONE, not say 1-2% of people don’t have the right to life or expression or redress. If even ONE person is not protected by a law, nobody is. Anyway, incomplete and chopping thoughts right now, and maybe something will come together by the deadline or not… but … just so I don’t lose this.
In this model, decision-making is based on achieving consensus among citizens through ongoing dialogue and deliberation, rather than through traditional voting mechanisms. Here's how it could work:
Continuous Deliberation: Instead of periodic elections, citizens engage in continuous deliberative processes facilitated by technology. They discuss and debate issues in online forums, town hall meetings, and other platforms, guided by principles of reason, empathy, and mutual respect.
Issue-Based Decision Making: Rather than electing representatives to make decisions on their behalf, citizens directly participate in decision-making on specific issues. Proposals are developed collaboratively, and consensus is reached through iterative discussion and refinement.
Fluid Participation: Citizens have the flexibility to engage with the decision-making process according to their interests and expertise. They can contribute ideas, arguments, and feedback on issues that matter to them, without being constrained by rigid electoral cycles.
Expert Input: While all citizens have the opportunity to participate, input from experts and stakeholders is also valued and incorporated into the decision-making process. This ensures that decisions are informed by diverse perspectives and knowledge.
Adaptive Governance: The system is designed to adapt and evolve over time in response to changing circumstances and new information. Feedback loops allow for continuous improvement, and decisions can be revisited and revised as needed.
Dynamic Consensus combines elements of direct democracy, deliberative democracy, and collaborative governance to create a more inclusive and responsive system of governance. By prioritizing dialogue, cooperation, and consensus-building, it seeks to empower citizens to actively participate in shaping their collective future.
Plato thought of it as direct rule by the people. Moderns think of it as the people voting for representatives who rule. Aristotle -- interestingly -- defined democracy as either of those systems *but only if the masses are out for their own personal gain*. (If the masses rule but aim for the common good, it's a "constitutional polity," not a democracy.)
I just want to be sure I have the parameters right! Thanks!
The current theory is that in early civilizations priests would choose the best warrior to lead people through a war. This was the beginning of monarchy. I propose we do something similar but this time we choose the leader who is the most humanely helpful, not the person who is the best at violence. We need to pick the person who has saved the most lives, or fed the most people, or planted the most trees and make that person our leader.
I really liked this prompt, for me the answer is always AI!
Here's a short post on how AI could allow us to move past representative democracy and actually execute on the will of the people:
https://nowandten.substack.com/p/evolving-governance-from-representative
A little something to add to the mix
https://skepticfail.substack.com/p/family-rules
Here is my post about how I started out trying to answer the question and ended up wandering into (hopefully interesting) weeds: https://earnestnessisunderrated.substack.com/p/essential-functions-of-government
Just posted my take on this prompt today: https://danbarber.substack.com/p/reverse-democracy
It's a little silly, but I'm hoping it's still an entertaining read :)
Thanks again for the prompt!!
This idea has been hiding in the back of an old notebook for a while. Thanks for inspiring me to share it! https://addamledamyen.substack.com/p/a-system-of-government-based-on-platos?sd=pf
Three models I propose below for people who want more or less technocratic governance
1) Break all the big countries into independent city states with a NATO like mutual self defence clause and relative freedom of movement between city states. If all else fails in the very least you can vote with your feet. The city states can be theocracies, Republics or even secular dictatorships for maths nerds. More like ASEAN and less like the EU.
2) Make political manifestoes into enforceable contracts. Before every election every party has to propose a contract for 5-10 years of governance with as much or as little detail as they want. Voters can do a class action lawsuit if they elected members don't govern according to the manifesto. If the government wants to renegotiate the contract for whatever reason they would have to call a snap election to vote on a new manifesto or party. This will prevent governments from making promises that can't keep. It might also stop voters from picking people who are likeable instead of intelligent because my theory is that voters need to pick people based on general "trustworthiness" instead of competence since there is no contract enforcement mechanism.
3) Liquid democracy. Elected representatives vote on most things but voters can override the decision of their representatives whenever they feel like it. This will prevent unpopular or interest group oriented policies from passing in parliament. There is other stuff about liquid democracy but they aren't useful imo.
I’m a democracy academic, but I’ve thought of an interesting idea in relation to approach democracy. https://thebreakoutroom.substack.com/p/political-astrology-in-the-age-of
Interesting thought experiment and I’m gonna think more about it, but I’m tapping this out so I don’t lose it… better public than in my notes 😀
A “democracy” but instead of the majority/minority, we adopt the needs of the edge cases for everyone as the base standard. Something our treasurer said at a school board meeting recently that is haunting me, based on my HR career that came to maturity just as the ADA was passed in America so I’ve had to implement a lot of accessibility policy, accommodation and train managers how to think about employees and applicants with disability. Lots of headwind then; still lots, sadly.
Make the employee/student with the disability the baseline. Make their accommodation the baseline for everyone. Don’t look at them as costing you money but the base cost of a student, of an employee is the student/employee with an accommodation, special need (GOD I HATE THAT TERMINOLOGY!) For example, if you are putting Braille characters on all your signage — including name plates, badges — it’s not as added expense but rather just what signage cost. Anything could be cheaper. You could make really cheap signs with copy paper and a sharpie, so why is signage without braille an acceptable lower cost? It never should be… that sort of thing. The cost to educate a student with special needs should be the baseline cost of educating a student, not the premium cost.
In my State, in the American Congress, there seems to be an attitude that laws that don’t protect or include a small percentage of people is ok. It’s is NOT OK! It is the job of every lawmaker to find a way to include EVERYONE, not say 1-2% of people don’t have the right to life or expression or redress. If even ONE person is not protected by a law, nobody is. Anyway, incomplete and chopping thoughts right now, and maybe something will come together by the deadline or not… but … just so I don’t lose this.
OK here's mine. Full experiment mode, just for fun. I put the voting deadline three weeks out so I'll get the results published within the timeframe of the prompt too: https://shonistar.substack.com/p/proposed-law-on-artificial-intelligence
Please share so I can get significantly meaningful results!
https://open.substack.com/pub/hardcurrency/p/democracy?r=1f57bz&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
I have forwarded your prompt to ChatGTP 3.5:
(1) "Dynamic Consensus"
In this model, decision-making is based on achieving consensus among citizens through ongoing dialogue and deliberation, rather than through traditional voting mechanisms. Here's how it could work:
Continuous Deliberation: Instead of periodic elections, citizens engage in continuous deliberative processes facilitated by technology. They discuss and debate issues in online forums, town hall meetings, and other platforms, guided by principles of reason, empathy, and mutual respect.
Issue-Based Decision Making: Rather than electing representatives to make decisions on their behalf, citizens directly participate in decision-making on specific issues. Proposals are developed collaboratively, and consensus is reached through iterative discussion and refinement.
Fluid Participation: Citizens have the flexibility to engage with the decision-making process according to their interests and expertise. They can contribute ideas, arguments, and feedback on issues that matter to them, without being constrained by rigid electoral cycles.
Expert Input: While all citizens have the opportunity to participate, input from experts and stakeholders is also valued and incorporated into the decision-making process. This ensures that decisions are informed by diverse perspectives and knowledge.
Adaptive Governance: The system is designed to adapt and evolve over time in response to changing circumstances and new information. Feedback loops allow for continuous improvement, and decisions can be revisited and revised as needed.
Dynamic Consensus combines elements of direct democracy, deliberative democracy, and collaborative governance to create a more inclusive and responsive system of governance. By prioritizing dialogue, cooperation, and consensus-building, it seeks to empower citizens to actively participate in shaping their collective future.
How is "democracy" defined for this challenge?
Plato thought of it as direct rule by the people. Moderns think of it as the people voting for representatives who rule. Aristotle -- interestingly -- defined democracy as either of those systems *but only if the masses are out for their own personal gain*. (If the masses rule but aim for the common good, it's a "constitutional polity," not a democracy.)
I just want to be sure I have the parameters right! Thanks!
This is such an awesome idea... my mind is already coming up with a million different things. Might have to give this a go before April 5th
The current theory is that in early civilizations priests would choose the best warrior to lead people through a war. This was the beginning of monarchy. I propose we do something similar but this time we choose the leader who is the most humanely helpful, not the person who is the best at violence. We need to pick the person who has saved the most lives, or fed the most people, or planted the most trees and make that person our leader.
Fun thought experiment! Given this challenge, I elected to publish my essay on this top early: Imagining our Martian Government https://www.lianeon.org/p/imagining-our-martian-government
Here, I imagine how we might design the government of our future Martian colony based upon lessons learned from successes and failures here on Earth.
Technonationalism — blockchain nations based on common beliefs instead of geographical borders.
A totalitarian state where mirrors are outlawed for minors (one of the first posts I wrote here on substack)
https://www.mostlymyth.com/p/no-country-for-young-women
Anarchy - Literal meaning is " is a form of society without rulers. "