Lets be the new framers: Ideas about governance, civilization and a new world order

The current system of governance, whether domestically (regardless of where you are living) or internationally, is broken. The system that evolved from the ashes of WWII and then Cold War rivalry between the US and the Soviet Union, and the competition between "liberal democracy" and "communism", is no longer relevant. The end of those fissures was not, as suggested by the title of Francis Fukuyama's book, in the ideological sense the "End of History". Nor is the "Last Man" to emerge from that dynamic something to confuse with "Overman". History moves on with new challenges calling for new paradigms.

The paradigm I like to suggest is one I will try to sketch-out in this thread. That paradigm draws heavily from western civilization history, philosophy, political and economic thought but also is inspired by ideas and experiences elsewhere. In a sense, to give a clue of these varied set of influences, I can title my thoughts as: Thus is How Zarathustra Really Spoke (to amend the title to Nietzsche's book, Thus Spoke Zarathustra), drawing my lessons from the ancient Iranian prophet Zoroaster as well as the ancient Greek philosopher Plato (author of the Republic); from the ideas of medieval Iranian thinkers such as Rumi and Tusi as well as those from Nietzsche and Darwin; as much but more from the writings of from Descartes and Hume than from their medieval Iranian predecessors Ghazali or Omar Khayyam. As much from Rawls as from Saadi. As much also from Karl Marx as from Adam Smith; much more from the Federalist Papers and the writing of Hamilton, Jefferson and Adams as from Ayatollah Khomeini. As much more from the Constitution of the United States as the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Much much more by Roy Mottahedeh (author of the highly acclaimed masterpiece, Mantle of the Prophet: Religion and Politics in Iran) than by Bernard Lewis or Samuel Huntington.

Still, the justification and explanation for any new paradigm is itself a lengthy process. It can't be done in one sweep. But the paradigm I refer to would prioritize meritocracy over privilege, the quest for truth over the dynamics that favor falsehood, evolution and competition over stagnation and monopoly, and would seek to reinvigorate a commitment to a higher good (that isn't based on fables) over debasing the human spirit to be all about chasing selfish material goods.

Even a domesticated dog well trained to obey his master and seemingly well taken care of is still the master's slave. Genuine liberty arises neither from capitalist greed nor Marxian materialism. Democracy is a lie but genuinely representative institutions are a must for any system with proper checks and balances to ensure against abuse and to foster competition. Yet, even the most representative institutions (never mind those under the thumb of special interests) can ever represent more than the ethos of the Last Man as opposed to seeking to pave the way for the Overman. Platonic Guardians, chosen not based on any "noble lie", but through a system designed with proper checks and balances to give us liberty as well as proper guidance, in a meritocracy designed to encourage prosperity and progress as well as justice, is all possible if we submit to the quest for truth taking precedence over any expedient or corrupt lie.

 

@Iranian Monitor

searching for "truth" in a world of alternative facts may be a daunting task. the "overman," from what i have seen, is ubermensh - a taxi driver enslaved by a telephone app.

 

America's adversarial legal system has spurred a political culture that similarly imagines that the "truth" emerges from two-sides throwing mud at one another. The legal system at least has a judge to rule on the admissibility of evidence and its foundation. The political system and discourse within it doesn't. And there is nothing about the so-called "market place of ideas" that really makes the more truthful version prevail.

The system I will try to sketch here in due course will take an absolutist approach in protecting academic freedom for competition of ideas and facts for scholars in their discipline of study but will have much stricter guidelines for the media. But I have to sketch the system as a whole to show how the checks and balances to prevent abuse will work.

 

good catch that the "two party system" echos the adversarial legal system. that escapes many.

obviously 2 parties are either too many or not nearly enough. the founders had nothing good to say about parties (as they immediately fell into one or the other.)

in the pre civil rights "solid south" there was only one party, but the democrats had enough factions as to simulate a multiparty system. we now have 2 parties, but the much more homogenous republicans dominate, leaving very little actual choice.

 

If there were to be a new world order, Iran and how they govern would be the last place I would look for examples as to what works.

 

1- How Iran is governed isn't the place I'm suggesting you take your cues; (but I like to better expose you to some things from Iran, repackaged and fixed, that would help the proper model of governance nonetheless)
2- Sometimes you learn as much from what doesn't work as what does, as long as you don't let propaganda distort your understanding of the two; (how Iran is governed isn't exactly as you imagine, but I don't want to get too much into that here).

 

Judging by the ample number of video and testimony as well as historic and admitted doctrine from it's leaders...ya. It's exactly as much of a **** hole as one imagines.

Great example as to how an oppressive religious belief can stunt a nation's development growth and progress when compared to everywhere else.

But I guess Iran is getting good at making weapons of war so, there's that.

 

1- Iran is not what you imagine (the most common refrain from testimonials of westerners of all stripes who had actually visited the country), but it isn't managed or run either in principle, in theory, or certainly in practice, as I would want it to be run. So that is neither here or there.
2- Despite many warts, Iran's actual development and growth in almost all areas (save its fair share of what it could earn from the global Ponzi scheme economy but for the many sanctions and restrictions against it) has been remarkable.

 

All people want their world to be a good place for them to live, but many of those people don't feel the same about your world. Perfect for one is invariably deeply flawed for others.
NO system can be perfect. The fundamentals of America's concept are the best the world has ever seen. Today, many faults are showing and many problems resulting from them.
This is not necessarily an indication of the system failing- but a failing of the people using it to uphold the principles that make it work.

You don't fix that by throwing out the system and replacing it with something contrived by the same people who corrupted the working one.
That is, unless your real objective is total corruption and yourself in charge of it.

America's primary purpose and form were laid down clearly and have become legendary for their insight and vision, as the Prime Directive of the nation. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution define the objectives of America- and lay out the paths we must follow to achieve them.

This IS our system- and IF we follow it, uphold it, honor it- None can do better.

IF we DO NOT follow it and uphold it, the fault lies totally within us, and no matter what "system" we might chose- that fault within us will be the controlling factor in success.

When people will not uphold the rules of honor and civility- It is the people, not the rules, that are at fault. You have a people problem, not a system problem.

Cultures and fundamental values shift over time, and succeeding generations begin to think of freedom and prosperity as natural entitlements rather than privilege earned, and values to protect. This only happens when we fail to teach and train these generations to appreciate and care for the system, so they may continue to thrive. They become so used to the benefits of the system they don't realize that these things are fragile, they only exist because the system has made it possible, and the people who came before them thrived and progressed because of that possibility.
If the system is not supported- they will inevitably lose those things.

The core system of America is not broken. The problem is in the disrespect of it's values and our failure to stand up for them. That problem starts with leadership.

It's not WHO is in office, it's their dedication to the fundamental values, their willingness to uphold the standards of our system. It's still the best form of government in the world. IF we honor it.

 

No need for new framing. They got it right in 1796. We just need to read the words of the constitution, accept them and cut federal government to an appropriate size. Politics has destroyed the government. Support a single term limit for every elected office.

 

Very erudite but I need to point out that meritocracy is privilege.

 

IF we actually ran our government in accordance with the constitution and the objectives of the Declaration of Independence, we would be thriving.
Imagine what would happen if we just decided to enforce the rules!

 

We are thriving, we're just spoiled brats.

 

Well- no, we aren't thriving. We're living high, spending money we don't have, disregarding the principles of life and finance that allow us to insure and improve the future- and that is constructing your own downfall.

Spoiled brats is not a comment with out justification, but remember they are living off others and totally selfish.... Not independently thriving, more like parasitic conditions. Trouble there is that we are both the parasites and the host, and that won't endure. We've got to do better. We can, if we chose to.

 

We have always had an adversarial legal system from our history with the UK. Our political party system is taken from the two-party system of the UK, the Tories, and the Whigs, which became the Labour party later.

the adversarial system, if you want to call it that, is that both sides are vigorous in their position where a jury or judge will determine based on facts and evidence. But we don't have that now. The reason, the political system is no longer adversarial, it is a winner take all approach.

 

Then tell that to the americvan households and that they will no longer have credit cards, lines of credit, or loans. And let's see how that will work out.

 

That's a good point. We all like to think a meritocratic system is superior to previous systems, such as monarchies and the litany of nobility who inherited their place, rather than earned it on it's own, and I would agree in large measure it is better. However meritocracies do seem to turn into privileged systems of their own, which work to limit access to their level once they achieve it. Damnit there was a book about this but I can't recall the name...

 

I never said any such thing. There's nothing wrong with using credit- unless you do it stupidly. If you use credit cards correctly, the are a great convenience. I use them everyday- and I haven't paid a dime in interest is 20 years. But, I live within my means. IF you are wise enough to manage your finances, rich or poor- credit is a good thing. If you will not manage your finances, it's quicksand. That is the determined by the people themselves, not the system.

 

As usual, you missed the point. The government uses credit the same way American households do. If you want the government to be less on using credit, then you must convince households to do the same thing, especially unsecured credit.

but then again, remember what Larry Kudlow said that deficits don't matter, do they?

 

Using credit wrong is bad for either one- but much of the governments addiction to spending is the public's demand for more free services and benefits, which gives the government a chance to buy votes and own people. So who is first on the blame list? Us for asking, or them for taking advantage of it? Or - Both?



I'm for no-deficit budgets, you live within your means. I'm also for stable taxation, like flat-rate. Conservatives and republicans are not the same thing

 

Why is that??

 

And many households do that according to the FED with low savings rate, higher unsecured credit, and even higher secured credit that goes beyond their means, hence my point, AGAIN. So, if you want the government to use credit wisely, however that is defined, then you must first convince households to use credit wisely before you can expect the government to do the same.

 

The government has a duty to everybody- to manage prudently, Their failure to do so harms every citizen.

A citizen- harms himself and his family.

Which of these has the predominant obligation to you?

Leaders are supposed to se the examples for followers; guide the way. Not the other way around- and if leaders refuse to lead, they should not be in office. it's what they job is about.

No question that people will ask for benefits for themselves without considering how the programs affect the nation- but again, that wider duty applies to leaders.