yeah im just saying one show does not mean anything.

Nor have I said so. I was giving an example of how the boomers have valued cops, and how they view them.

heck andy griffith was more a small town show than a cop show

Sure, but the underlying effect and message of the show was “hey cops are the good guys, they’ll look out for your family”

I would say cop vs general emergency responder vs hospital/doctor show ratios are not that different today than back when boomers were the main television audience

That’s far better argument. Though I’d say it still misses the mark because even modern cop shows are still meant for an older group. Gen Z isn’t watching those shows. The closest is Brooklyn 99, which is closer to pornography than reality, or an attempt at reality. There’s also true crime, but often the value there is morbid curiosity, not “cops are good”.

Sorry i misread the description of emergency. Let me start over.

Emergency showing how boomers value other emergency services doesn’t negate the point that they value the police, whereas newer generations tend to reject the police.

That’s a nearly 50 year old show. Not exactly the best choice.

If folks got promoted by working hard then folks would value it now but it does not happen

Hence why they loathe it.

Honestly I don’t think the police were valued over firemen or emts.

Things like The Andy Griffith Show seems to suggest otherwise.

How do you ensure people give up their turn?

How do you handle the complexity of providing for millions?

Again I agree. This has been a long time coming, and the two party system isn’t the only cause.

But by and large, the failures of checks in balances within the U.S. has been a result of the failure of implementation, not the core idea.

That’s where they fucked up the implementation. It’s being ignored because 1 party controls all 3 branches of the federal government.

They implemented a voting system that naturally devolves into a two parry system. Checks and balances don’t work when you are the one checking yourself.

Agreed

Culture itself is a system maintained by force, in its particular case it’s social force, peer pressure, pressure from family, etc.

It breeds opposition within itself, which is why it constantly changes.

And I think you’re wrong in that cultural longer. A good example of this is the values of the boomers. They valued the nuclear family, working hard to get promoted, the police, the american dream, etc. It’s now the complete opposite, the nuclear family is regarded as a joke, people loathe the idea of staying at a job longer than a few years let alone the decades the boomers would do. The police are hated, and the american dream is dead.

Only by ensuring that there are numerous power bases with the ability to effectively restrain one-another, and relatively free entry/advancement in each, can a free equilibrium be maintained in a society.

Agreed. Any system is going to require a strong system of checks and balances. That’s one of the few good ideas the founding fathers had. They gloriously fucked up the implementation obviously. But the core concept is critical.

Of course, we have quite a few regulations and regulatory bodies nowadays, so the only real question is in the details of it, rather than the general concept. The concept is obviously workable.

For now we do.

Culture isn’t static. It drifts over time and newer generations of people will cease to value what their parents did. Any system maintained by culture will die rather quickly.

Then i think we’re largely in agreement. People should always be free to form small groups to follow their passion.

Though there is another concern. Co-ops that get larger than (guessing here) around 100 or so employees will start to act in the selfish greedy ways of current corporations. Even an employee owned co-op will eventually try to do everything in their power to make a buck. They’re directly incentivized to do so.

So aside from the outright regulation from the social democracy, I’ve been toying with the idea of a requirement for a publicly appointed employee(s) that have power over major decisions. They’d probably need to be appointed via sortion, recallable by the public, and their wages independent of wellbeing of the co-op.

Another concern is the prioritization of common goods, and the actual mechanisms for welfare and social safeguards. Some number of co-ops would need to exist as contractors of the state, providing critical needs paid for by the state.

How do you equitably manage and distribute the cost of critical systems like water sanitation for hundreds of millions of people without a hierarchy?

I’d hope that size is like 10 max.

If your state concept is broad enough to entail any organization of a certain size, be my gast in a council republic

It’s somewhere along the lines of “any organization that handles the administrative work and protection for a given territory”.

And I don’t think that’s all that broad of a definition, and it includes your world wide net of councils as a state.

Importantly, you didn’t answer the second question:

What would prevent centralization of power?

That’s state welfare/insurance, not socialism.

Shit that’s all you had to say

Unfortunately I quite prefer my mind being the only one I can hear.

How is that different from a state, aside from the decentralization of power?

What would prevent centralization of power?

Yeah kinda hard to do so when a world power decides to end your country.