As kids, we’re told only people who go to college/university for politics/economics/law are qualifiable to make/run a country. As adults, we see no nation these “qualified” adults form actually work as a nation, with all manifesto-driven governments failing. Which to me validates the ambitions of all political theorist amateurs, especially as there are higher hopes now that anything an amateur might throw at the wall can stick. Here’s my favorite from a friend.

  • tetris11@lemmy.ml
    3·
    3 months ago

    A 3 tiered system: person → community → supercommunity

    • Small Towns: communities no larger than 5000 people, every local vote matters
    • Democratic: communities can embody any belief, and all members are free to leave
    • Representative: an overarching supercommunity of rotating representatives of all communities governs the country/world in a flat hierarchy, influenced by votes from each person.
    • Socialized Resources / Federated Usage: the supercommunity exes out total resources based on community sizes, the local communities can use their share however they want
    • aviation_hydrated@infosec.pubEnglish
      2·
      3 months ago

      This sounds cool. Why not make it 150 people per group max, since we can only have roughly 150 good human connections at any given time

      • tetris11@lemmy.ml
        1·
        3 months ago

        I originally did, but on further reading I found that dunbar’s number isn’t strictly proven, though it does feel about right.

        Also, you would get super tiny towns and the community wouldn’t be diverse enough to support multiple interest groups. For example, assuming a small niche knitting community in a village of 150 would have maybe 3 members who would already know everything about each other, whereas in a town of 5000, there’d be a higher chance of getting at least a mixed bag of people who only know each other through the knitting group.