Utilitarianism

Humanism

Stoicism

Mobility

Mobility is prettymuch the main factor in corruption.

Systems that are 'protected' from unwanted behavior decrease mobility in general.

So...

The difference of human nature is the determination of the safeties in place against corruption - prettymuch the only way is cultural identity and unified goals. Culture can only be 'fine-tuned' if there is a definite generality of human nature.

Same as unified goals - which may be even more difficult as the population in question increases - the uniformity of goals shatters or becomes so generalized it loses resemblance to its original meaning.

Examining the claims - we can reason that population of significant size having disparate goals - then would have different decision making for the different factors affecting them. Which - roundabout - is prettymuch the city v the country that we see in general.

Examining once more - aristocratic systems have historically made differences of governance over 'country' and 'city'. In mobility and 'say'. Staying within station etc.

Anyhow

Just saying.

Also, it would be cool if that system could somehow be created - but I really doubt it could given parameters.

The number one problem with the us system is its ease of influence due to cultural proliferation and ideation - schism seems a national pastime - currently leading to a somewhat unprecedented surge of political violence / domestic terrorism drawing overwhelming pushback in governmental interference via legislation in an attempt to mandate culture. Uh... point being, thinking of systems, solving these couple us problems would be fantastic and probably set the way for better systems - like philosopher king societies.

Making something simple

Can be difficult or effortless

E = mc^2 a simple equation - but understanding is difficult especially creating the degree of understanding required to use it to its limits to more greatly understand the universe.

As it took great effort on Einstein's part to condense proofs and experiments to the formation of the equation - it will take similar effort to understand it from its simplicity to gain the understanding necessary to interact with it in a meaningful way.

Often I see a cycle in text communication where making communication simple leads to misunderstanding - requiring more complex explanation than would have been put forth without simplification at the onset.

This isn't always the case.

Communication takes effort - manipulation of speech personally seems disingenuine - not saying what you really think etc.

I've got more but I'm asleep.

Eh

Seems like a skill issue

I mean

How hard is it to communicate? Semantics barrier? More like effort barrier.

Amateur philosopher

Arguing with a pal

But we got bogged down with semantics and prosody of prior tangential arguments.

Roughly.

My general stance.

Facts logical reasonings etc are just for increasing confidence in beliefs

Beliefs aren't necessitated by facts

Their stance

The universe and all of reality operates on a logical system even if all the logic isn't known yet - thus beliefs are contingent on facts of reality and are determined by reality

They describe belief as a kind of hyper fact - created information but factual only that it is - and not itself knowledge or understanding.

I only had one counter before we got tangential

That having facts doesn't determine goals - information simply is without a goal aim etc it's up to the individual to believe a goal and then gather information towards it

I can add the tangents if people think it would help.

Of my head

Social contract and private property

There are already situations where you forfeit or place your life in jeopardy.

Interestingly adding politics into it brings alot of other stuff with it.

Abortion - right to life.

Imprisonment - white torture - social isolation torture.

Historical property rights - the ten feet of history.

Etc

Still it roughly revolves around whether your body and mind are ironclad your private property.

Social contract would seem to indicate that there are situations where your ironclad private property is traded or borrowed against with other property.

Limiting this trade and possible forfeiture entails other limits - already suicide has gone through a cycle of illegal to legal - so the prime importance on human life seems to be fluid.

What I'm getting at is

Because we can vote it in - the only thing that is necessary is that we also have the ability to vote it out - as rights etc seem to change like the wind.

That is - we give the state power - but they should only ever be borrowers - not owners.

https://www.nationalpeanutboard.org/wellness/the-peanut-allergy-panacea-is-hypoallergenic-peanut-possible.htm

Alot of times people would rather destroy inconvenient things

Instead of improve them to a state of convenience.

Dramaturgy