The distinction between coordination failure and domination need is razor sharp. I've been in conversations where Yarvin fans treat broken institutional machinery as proof that pluralism itself is the problem, when really its just that we never rebuilt the information architecture after 2008. The whole "hard party" pitch reminds me of startups that think scaling issues can be solved by giving the CEO more authority, when actualy the problem is usually missing feedback loops or bad incentive structures. One thing that stuck with me is the point about transistion stability, its not just whether a system holds together in calm times, but whether it can change direction without exploding.
the USA in fact once had "[institutions] that generated trust, information flow, [and] adaptive capacity... [and were] designed to survive disagreement, error, and change"
The United States once had genuinely democratic governance structures, however imperfect and limited, fundamentally based around decentralized and publicly accessible mass-member parties. The Democratic Party, as a small "d" democratic institution, and the Republican Party, as a small "r" republican institution, were honest in their naming and functioned within a politically, economically, governmentally, financially, and scientifically decentralized and pluralized system that had legal/regulatory variability, policy variability, and local fiscal dominance. These parties, while far from flawless, allowed for real representation, genuinely participatory governance structures even for very serious policy matters with real participation, and a level of public accountability in political, economic, governmental, financial, and scientific decision making.
However, after WW2 a long multi decadal transformation began due to the dirty deeds of a convergence of several interests and an assortment of powerful special interest groups, and then our parties were transformed into centralized, exclusionary membership organizations. The so called Democratic Party has become a technocracy party, and the so called Republican Party became a conservative party. Neither really represents their original principles of democracy or republicanism, and they dont offer meaningful access or representation to the public. This transformation of the parties has been accompanied by a broader centralization of political, economic, and scientific decision making, which has caused the effective loss of most democratic governance structures.
Networked governance would be transformative. It is the secret sauce underpinning western military doctrine. Even the Catholic Church is beavering away at a new organizational model within a social-ecological context. Yet for mainstream governments there isn't a nicotine patch big enough to break their addiction to hierarchies.
The distinction between coordination failure and domination need is razor sharp. I've been in conversations where Yarvin fans treat broken institutional machinery as proof that pluralism itself is the problem, when really its just that we never rebuilt the information architecture after 2008. The whole "hard party" pitch reminds me of startups that think scaling issues can be solved by giving the CEO more authority, when actualy the problem is usually missing feedback loops or bad incentive structures. One thing that stuck with me is the point about transistion stability, its not just whether a system holds together in calm times, but whether it can change direction without exploding.
the USA in fact once had "[institutions] that generated trust, information flow, [and] adaptive capacity... [and were] designed to survive disagreement, error, and change"
The United States once had genuinely democratic governance structures, however imperfect and limited, fundamentally based around decentralized and publicly accessible mass-member parties. The Democratic Party, as a small "d" democratic institution, and the Republican Party, as a small "r" republican institution, were honest in their naming and functioned within a politically, economically, governmentally, financially, and scientifically decentralized and pluralized system that had legal/regulatory variability, policy variability, and local fiscal dominance. These parties, while far from flawless, allowed for real representation, genuinely participatory governance structures even for very serious policy matters with real participation, and a level of public accountability in political, economic, governmental, financial, and scientific decision making.
However, after WW2 a long multi decadal transformation began due to the dirty deeds of a convergence of several interests and an assortment of powerful special interest groups, and then our parties were transformed into centralized, exclusionary membership organizations. The so called Democratic Party has become a technocracy party, and the so called Republican Party became a conservative party. Neither really represents their original principles of democracy or republicanism, and they dont offer meaningful access or representation to the public. This transformation of the parties has been accompanied by a broader centralization of political, economic, and scientific decision making, which has caused the effective loss of most democratic governance structures.
Networked governance would be transformative. It is the secret sauce underpinning western military doctrine. Even the Catholic Church is beavering away at a new organizational model within a social-ecological context. Yet for mainstream governments there isn't a nicotine patch big enough to break their addiction to hierarchies.