In this time and place, feudal regimes are not at all suitable. Indeed, the world became too complicated for such systems a long time ago. My "realistic regime" would be something like what countries have had for the last century, more or less: complex bureaucracies capable of responding to complex problems.

Of course, it matters what the animating spirit of the bureaucracy is. The Nazis had efficient bureaucracies, but their animating spirit was rather black. The US had a humanely spirited bureaucracy in the 1960s and 1970s, but under Reagan and Clinton the bureaucracy became less humane in some ways. It hasn't become more humane in the last 20 years (2000-2020).

Generally, conservative tending regimes tend to be less humane than liberal tending regimes.

There are fourteen rulers and they're all very empathetic. They're called the Empathetic Fourteen. Geographically, the state moves from near-pole to near-pole during the year, so it's always sunny, all the time. All the redboxes have a one dollar flat fee, and you can keep the movie or game for as long as you like. There are redboxes everywhere. The national anthem is the original 'big rock candy mountain' only no one understands it because there is no homelessness. The only taxes are mutual glances of recognition and respect. There's a state-sponsored youth group, and their only responsibilities are (1) to go on youtube and say 'i'm only 13 but I really like this song' & (2) write very good fan fiction. There are oracles, like at delphi, only all they ever oracle is the lyrics to cheeseburger in paradise. And priests who interpret the lyrics, and the interpretation is always 'nothing to say, they got it right the first time.' The national religion isn't great, but it's good enough, and good enough is great.

If that proves unworkable, then something like : a regime where it's three guys in a field. They're always saying things to each other like 'this is crazy'. (They're talking about just being three guys in a field)) They're always getting covered in mud, from the mud in the field. 'We're covered in mud, guys' they say to one another. Are there scarecrows? Yes, three of them. But that's in a different part of the field (the field is miles and miles long.) Sometimes, late at night, one guy says "what if there were more than three guys in a field?" but, though this thought is entertainable late at night, looking into the fire or at the stars, it always betrays its falseness in the cold light of dawn. If it wasn't meant to be that there were three guys in a field, then there wouldn't be three guys in a field. One time, a castle appeared at the far end of the field, but the closer the three guys got, the smaller the castle seemed. When they finally reached the castle, there was no castle.

Makes use of technology to rid the world of mind numbing jobs. We've found a healthy alternative to fossil fuels or any kind of fuel that disrupts the planet negatively. There is deep respect for the environment. Everyone has a Universal Basic Income. People do not tribalize around memes. People are not interested in superficial differences but enjoy differences of opinion. Education is relevant and exciting to people of all ages. People transcend merely instrumental thinking to concentrate on their growth needs, including how to maintain the conditions of doing so. There is an ongoing conversation about the best way of governing, given nothing can be actually ideal. Ethics and philosophy interest people. People keep abreast of scientific debates and find a meaningful worldview that aligns with the age of the planet and the evolution of humans and our ongoing interdependency of ourselves and nature. Public policy is evidence based with the aim of balancing human thriving with respect for the environment. War is a thing of the past. People are kind, decent, and able to use their skills in beautiful and useful ways. But for now, I'd say Scandi countries, based on the evidence.

Most decisions are made by committees selected from the adult population through sortion. These committees may utilise expert advice as appropriate. These sortition committees exist in all kinds of configurations. For example, very important decisions might be made by multiple groups of people, in case group-think arises in one particular group- there would be a vote within each group and then a vote of each group. The state owns all capital, but creates and directs firms to compete in order to gain the positive effects of a market.

Izat So
15
Makes use of technology to rid the world of mind numbing jobs. We've found a healthy alternative to fossil fuels or any kind of fuel that disrupts the planet negatively. There is deep respect for the environment. Everyone has a Universal Basic Income. People do not tribalize around memes. People are not interested in superficial differences but enjoy differences of opinion. Education is relevant and exciting to people of all ages. People transcend merely instrumental thinking to concentrate on their growth needs, including how to maintain the conditions of doing so. There is an ongoing conversation about the best way of governing, given nothing can be actually ideal. Ethics and philosophy interest people. People keep abreast of scientific debates and find a meaningful worldview that aligns with the age of the planet and the evolution of humans and our ongoing interdependency of ourselves and nature. Public policy is evidence based with the aim of balancing human thriving with respect for the environment. War is a thing of the past. People are kind, decent, and able to use their skills in beautiful and useful ways. But for now, I'd say Scandi countries, based on the evidence. — Izat So

No use trying to make this any better.

Sufficient for everyone; job for those who want them...enjoyable unemployment for those who do not;...education, enjoyment...and all the rest.

This is very agreeable to me, concurring with some of my own thought on this matter. You can't get much better than that. :D

If that proves unworkable, then something like : a regime where it's three guys in a field. They're always saying things to each other like 'this is crazy'. (They're talking about just being three guys in a field)) They're always getting covered in mud, from the mud in the field. 'We're covered in mud, guys' they say to one another. Are there scarecrows? Yes, three of them. But that's in a different part of the field (the field is miles and miles long.) Sometimes, late at night, one guy says "what if there were more than three guys in a field?" but, though this thought is entertainable late at night, looking into the fire or at the stars, it always betrays its falseness in the cold light of dawn. If it wasn't meant to be that there were three guys in a field, then there wouldn't be three guys in a field. One time, a castle appeared at the far end of the field, but the closer the three guys got, the smaller the castle seemed. When they finally reached the castle, there was no castle. — csalisbury

Am I missing some cultural understanding here? This doesn't seem like gibberish, but I can't make sense of it. Is this an allusion to something else? Am I just missing some metaphors?

Or is this like Mark Twain's Frog of Calaveras County story? What you wrote is exactly what you meant, it isn't saying much, and that is the joke? By the end, I was laughing for this reason, but then realized I was likely missing something?

Something like late Heian/early Kamakura Japan or pre-Christian Scandinavia: A petty and warlike nobility with a weak to non-existent state power. — yupamiralda

Would you be a serf, a knight/samurai, or part of the nobility?

Maybe a dumb question as you would be King/Emperor/Shogun?

Makes use of technology to rid the world of mind numbing jobs. We've found a healthy alternative to fossil fuels or any kind of fuel that disrupts the planet negatively. There is deep respect for the environment. Everyone has a Universal Basic Income. — Izat So

Sounds great. I wish we were working toward this already.

People do not tribalize around memes. People are not interested in superficial differences but enjoy differences of opinion. — Izat So

People transcend merely instrumental thinking to concentrate on their growth needs, including how to maintain the conditions of doing so. There is an ongoing conversation about the best way of governing, given nothing can be actually ideal. Ethics and philosophy interest people. People keep abreast of scientific debates and find a meaningful worldview that aligns with the age of the planet and the evolution of humans and our ongoing interdependency of ourselves and nature. — Izat So

People are kind, decent, and able to use their skills in beautiful and useful ways. — Izat So

This stuff sounds even better, but I question the feasibility (even UBI seems FAR more likely than the transformation of people). What percent of the current population of earth meets these standards? I would think like only 20% of people on a philosophy forum can actually live up to all of that (Liverpool is playing some incredible soccer this season, so I have likely modeled some negative behavior - ie "haha Man United sucks" - does sports count as a type of "tribalizing around memes"?). And the regular world will be far less likely to meet these standards.

But just like the Green New Deal, I appreciate the goal and the sentiment. So you have my vote.

Well, looking at things uncharacteristically optimistically, we know that cognition and culture coevolve, so if there's nothing to be gained from corrupt behaviour or power-seeking for power's sake, then the crappier aspects of human behaviour might just fritter out for the most part and come to be seen like human sacrifice or cannibalism (i.e., as psychopathic), which were more popular and acceptable - even supposed to be divinely sanctioned - in the past.

Well, looking at things uncharacteristically optimistically, we know that cognition and culture coevolve, so if there's nothing to be gained from corrupt behaviour or power-seeking for power's sake, then the crappier aspects of human behaviour might just fritter out for the most part and come to be seen like human sacrifice or cannibalism (i.e., as psychopathic), which were more popular and acceptable - even supposed to be divinely sanctioned - in the past. — Izat So

That does seem somewhat reasonable. I may still be a bit pessimistic, but I like the idea and am happy to try the experiment :smile:

You stole that from samuel beckett

Would you be a serf, a knight/samurai, or part of the nobility?

Maybe a dumb question as you would be King/Emperor/Shogun?

The point is that the shogun or high king has little authority over the nobility.

I think it's useless to say things like "you might have been born a slave" because if somebody described today as an ideal you could retort: "what if you weren't born in the US?" But I'd like to be either a part of the aristocracy or a freeman associated with a particular noble.

I believe in rule of men (or women), not rule of law.

My ideal regime? I'm king.

Speaking as a current prisoner of a bureaucracy, I hate them. I don't think the track record of the 60's and 70's bureaucracies are all that great (war on poverty?). They basically survive and grow by inertia.

I mentioned on a deleted post that I think the US is in terminal decline. My scenario for that basically involves bureaucracies being starved of resources and losing the ability to respond. In that scenario, you could have something like the regime I described arise and then evolve.

You stole that from samuel beckett — yupamiralda

Part of it

Though in general I dislike the idea, sometimes I do wish for an upvote button.