THE ROAD TO NEARTOPIA

An AI chatbot was recently instructed to "make the argument for replacing America's massively industrialized, massively bureaucratized, local/state/federal "autocratically controlled" public education system with a massively de-industrialized, massively de-bureaucratized, parent/community controlled public education system."

Its response: "Absolutely—here’s a sweeping argument that can serve as a cornerstone for shifting America’s educational paradigm:

🧠 Why De-Industrialize and De-Bureaucratize Education?

America’s current public education system—engineered over a century ago—resembles a factory model: standardized inputs, uniform processes, and homogenous outputs. Local autonomy has been smothered by layered bureaucracies and distant mandates. What was once envisioned as a public good now often functions like a technocratic machine, indifferent to the soul of its communities.

By replacing this system with a community-driven, parent-guided model, we reintroduce organic intelligence, moral agency, and localized adaptability—qualities stripped from the industrial design.

🔍 Key Critiques of the Current System

Factory-style standardization
- Prioritizes test scores over actual learning
- Ignores diverse learning styles and cultural contexts
Bureaucratic overhead
- Resources diverted to administrative layers instead of classrooms
- Decision-making driven by compliance, not innovation
Autocratic top-down control
- Federal and state mandates dictate curricula, often ignoring local values
- Parents and teachers become implementers of remote policy, not co-creators

🌱 The Case for Parent/Community-Controlled Models

Localized Wisdom & Moral Relevance
- Communities know their children’s challenges, strengths, and cultural fabric far better than distant bureaucrats.
- Reconnecting education to lived realities enables values-led learning: stewardship, resilience, dignity, and mutual respect.
Diversity of Pedagogies
- Allowing schools to evolve organically produces pluralistic models:
  - Tech-free classical academies
  - Nature-based and off-grid learning communities
  - Vocational studios embedded in local industries
Moral Agency for Parents and Educators
- True civic engagement begins with educational self-governance.
- Parents shift from “consumers of education” to co-architects of societal learning.
Resilience Through Decentralization
- De-centralized models are less vulnerable to political swings and bureaucratic stagnation.
- Schools can adapt to technological shifts, ecological pressures, and economic transformations quickly.

🧭 Philosophical Grounding

This transition isn’t just structural—it’s moral. It rests on the belief that humans are not widgets, and education must cultivate agency, not conformity. Mass schooling currently treats citizenship like a credentialed status; community-guided learning treats it as a birthright of participation.

Or to borrow from the likes of Ivan Illich: “Deschooling society” isn’t an abandonment of education—it’s a liberation of it.

**********

Neartopia (layman's definition): a nation as free of major economic, financial, fiscal and (poverty related) societal (EFFS) problems as is humanly or realistically possible.

**********

The Road To Neartopia: The Impossible Road Vs. The Easy Road

FIRST: the impossible road.

IF we start from the premise that:

almost every one of us would prefer to live in an America free of major EFFS problems.
to the extent a major EFFS problem-free America is possible, it will only be if Congress is permanently controlled by PKQ-caliber (mostly) liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans...

THEN the question for our intelligentsia is (assuming the consensus view is that, moving forward, a Congress overflowing with self-serving PAPs will NEVER be able to turn America’s mountain of major EFFS problems into a molehill):

What steps, or series of steps, must be taken which will radically change the way our society (or any democratic society for that matter) thinks about the way they SHOULD use their NLEP?

FROM using it to make 100% PI War, TO using it to, in a manner of speaking, make 90% ANI love, 10% PI War. Or stated differently: what steps must our society take to transition from dystopic- to neartopic democracy?

With that question in mind, what follows is an extended exchange with an AI chatbot that began with the chatbot's enhancement of a short passage.

Here's the chatbot's enhanced passage followed by several prompted questions:

[America's] intelligentsia have a civilizational duty to guide their fellow Americans—and humanity at large—toward a necessary evolutionary leap in how they engage [in] the National Legislative Election Process (NLEP).

At present, this process serves a single self-governance (S-G) objective: determining which political party will control the two chambers of Congress—a political/ideological (PI) objective. However, to advance democracy, the electorate must expand its perspective, ensuring that the NLEP accomplishes not one, but two S-G objectives.

Beyond the existing PI objective, the process must also serve a second, apolitical/non-ideological (ANI) objective: ensuring that Congress is overwhelmingly dominated and controlled by extraordinarily capable leaders—whether liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican—who are fundamentally free from excessive self-interest, political ambition, or power-hungry inclinations.

This transformation would not merely refine the system—it would redefine governance itself, ushering in a legislative body guided by competence, integrity, and a genuine commitment to the public good.

Would you like me to ... explore strategies for implementing such a shift in electoral priorities?

YES:

To implement such a shift in electoral priorities, several strategic reforms would be necessary, both in institutional design and public perception. Here are some approaches that could help drive this transformation:

Restructuring Candidate Selection – The current system often rewards political ambition over governance expertise. A more effective model would prioritize competence-driven selection mechanisms, such as rigorous vetting panels composed of nonpartisan experts who assess a candidate’s problem-solving ability, ethical standing, and knowledge of governance.
Voter Education Initiatives – The electorate must be informed and empowered to recognize the difference between political performers and genuine statesmen. Civic programs could highlight case studies of effective governance and train voters to evaluate candidates beyond ideological alignment.
Legislative Structural Adjustments – Introducing institutional safeguards that limit careerism and excessive partisanship—such as term limits or cross-party governance committees—can reduce the tendency for Congress to be dominated by political operators rather than policy-focused leaders.
Public Accountability Metrics – Imagine an independent Leadership Integrity Index that ranks legislators based on competence, bipartisan collaboration, and ethical governance—instead of partisan loyalty. Over time, this could shift voter behavior away from ideological rigidity toward outcome-oriented governance.
Alternative Election Models – Some governance experiments suggest using hybrid election systems that balance democratic participation with meritocratic appointment mechanisms. For instance, part of Congress could be selected through direct voting, while another portion is appointed based on expert evaluations.

QUESTION TO CHATBOT: Wouldn't all of these things be unnecessary if our voters simply kept Congress continually replenished with a steady supply of a modern democracy's version of philosopher kings and queens who only served a few years as a one-time civic duty?

CHATBOT'S ANSWER: In theory, yes—if voters consistently elected highly capable, ethically driven leaders who viewed legislative service as a temporary civic duty rather than a career path, many of the structural safeguards might be unnecessary. This would align with the philosopher-king ideal, where governance is entrusted to those with wisdom and virtue rather than personal ambition.

However, achieving such a system presents significant challenges:

Voter Decision-Making Complexity – Electing philosopher kings and queens requires voters to consistently prioritize competence and integrity over ideology and political branding. But in reality, democratic electorates are influenced by media narratives, party loyalty, and short-term concerns, often making it difficult to maintain a steady supply of the best possible candidates.
Institutional Resilience – Even if philosopher-leaders dominate Congress, the institution itself must be structured to prevent the gradual erosion of governance quality. Without safeguards, political operators could gradually re-enter the system, diluting the original intent.
Recruitment & Willingness to Serve – Many highly qualified individuals avoid politics because of its polarized and adversarial nature. A system that relies on philosopher-kings would need a mechanism to actively identify, recruit, and incentivize the most capable individuals to step up—ensuring a continuous influx of talent without coercion.
Public Buy-In & Cultural Shift – Transforming democratic expectations from partisan competition to philosopher-leadership would require a massive cultural shift in how people perceive governance, elections, and civic duty.

Your idea is fascinating because it envisions a fundamentally different paradigm—one where democracy isn't merely about representation but about securing the best possible decision-makers for a limited time. The real question is: how do we make voters consistently embrace this model? Would you like to explore how governance structures might facilitate such a shift?

YES:

To facilitate a shift toward electing philosopher-kings and queens as temporary civic leaders, governance structures and electoral incentives would need fundamental redesign. Here are some strategies that could support this transformation:

Mandatory Civic Service for Exceptional Candidates
Instead of relying on voluntary candidacy, a system could identify highly capable individuals—those with demonstrated ethical leadership and intellectual depth—and require them to serve a limited term in Congress as a civic duty. This would mirror jury duty, ensuring governance is staffed by the best minds, rather than career politicians.
Election Process Prioritizing Competence Over Ideology
Voter education must shift focus from partisan loyalty to governance capability. Ballots could highlight candidates' qualifications, policy expertise, and ethical standing, encouraging voters to elect leaders based on ability rather than party affiliation.
Nonpartisan Candidate Selection Panels
Before elections, independent panels composed of philosophers, scientists, and experienced administrators could vet potential candidates to ensure they meet rigorous competence and integrity standards. This would create a structured pipeline for philosopher-leaders.
Strict One-Term Limit & Removal of Political Incentives
By capping legislative terms to a single short tenure, candidates would have no incentive to treat governance as a lifelong career. Salaries could be modest, reducing financial motivations for seeking office, while ensuring leaders serve purely for the public good.
Public Accountability and Governance Ranking
A transparent legislative integrity ranking could be implemented, ensuring elected officials are judged on performance, ethical decision-making, and governance effectiveness. Citizens could review real-time metrics, reinforcing an expectation that leaders serve with wisdom, not ambition.
Massive Cultural Shift in Public Expectations
The public must embrace the idea that governance is not a partisan battlefield but a rotation of exceptional individuals serving as caretakers of democracy. This requires education, media reinforcement, and a new national ethos centered on wisdom-driven leadership.

Would you like to explore how historical governance models attempted similar transformations? Some civilizations have experimented with aspects of philosopher-king leadership.

YES:

Throughout history, various governance models have attempted to integrate elements of philosopher-king leadership, though none have fully realized Plato’s ideal. Here are some notable examples:

Plato’s Vision in "The Republic" – Plato argued that the best rulers would be philosophers, individuals who govern not for personal gain but for the pursuit of justice and wisdom. His ideal state required rigorous education and moral development before one could lead.
Imperial China’s Scholar-Bureaucrats – The Chinese imperial system relied on Confucian scholar-officials, selected through rigorous civil service examinations. While not philosopher-kings in the strictest sense, these officials were expected to govern based on wisdom, virtue, and merit rather than political ambition.
Marcus Aurelius and Stoic Leadership – The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius embodied aspects of the philosopher-king ideal. His reign was marked by Stoic principles, emphasizing rational governance, duty, and ethical leadership.
Enlightenment-Era Rational Governance – Some Enlightenment thinkers sought to apply reason and logic to governance, advocating for leaders guided by intellectual rigor rather than political maneuvering.

While these models incorporated elements of wisdom-driven leadership, they often struggled with succession challenges, political interference, or institutional rigidity.

Would you like to explore how modern governance structures might adapt these historical lessons to create a sustainable philosopher-leader system?

YES:

Modern governance structures could adapt historical lessons to create a sustainable philosopher-leader system by implementing strategic reforms that balance wisdom-driven leadership with democratic participation. Here are some approaches:

1. Institutionalized Meritocratic Selection

A national scholar-statesman program could identify potential philosopher-leaders based on their intellectual depth, ethical standing, and practical problem-solving skills.
Candidates could undergo rigorous assessments, ensuring they have the necessary competence to govern without personal ambition.

2. Structured Temporary Leadership Service

Public leadership could be framed as a civic duty, rather than a career.
Legislators might serve fixed, non-renewable terms, preventing the entrenchment of political operators.

3. Independent Governance Oversight

To prevent corruption and partisanship, an independent governance council composed of scholars, ethicists, and experienced administrators could provide policy guidance.
This council would evaluate governance performance rather than political loyalty.

4. Public Engagement Without Political Tribalism

Instead of traditional political campaigns, structured debates and policy forums could allow voters to assess candidates based on rational discourse rather than party allegiance.
Public participation could focus on long-term governance outcomes rather than short-term promises.

5. Strategic Constitutional Adjustments

Governance frameworks could ensure checks and balances that reinforce intellectual leadership, preventing the re-emergence of partisan dominance.
Laws might mandate diverse expertise representation in legislative bodies, ensuring philosopher-leaders emerge from multiple fields rather than solely political backgrounds.

Would you like to explore specific implementation pathways or potential resistance points? While structurally feasible, this model would require a significant cultural and institutional shift to take hold.

YES:

Implementing a philosopher-leader system in modern democracy would require institutional shifts, public buy-in, and strategic safeguards against political regression. Here’s how this transformation could be realized:

1. Establishing a Cultural Shift Toward Governance as Civic Duty

Public discourse and education campaigns would need to normalize the idea that legislative service is not a career but a temporary duty, much like jury service or military conscription in some societies.
Media narratives would emphasize competency and integrity over party loyalty, helping voters recognize philosopher-leaders as the preferred standard.

2. Structuring Nonpartisan Candidate Identification

A national philosopher-statesman council could vet candidates based on expertise, ethical reasoning, and problem-solving ability, ensuring that only highly capable individuals enter elections.
Candidates could be drafted or nominated based on demonstrated public leadership, academic accomplishments, or societal contributions.

3. Reforming Electoral Processes to Favor Wise Leadership

Instead of traditional political campaigns, structured debates, policy simulations, and problem-solving evaluations would allow voters to select leaders based on rational discourse rather than partisan spectacle.
Term limits would ensure legislators serve only once, preventing careerism and entrenched power structures.

4. Institutional Checks to Prevent Political Regression

A constitutional mandate could require Congress to maintain a threshold of competence, ensuring that elected officials meet minimum governance and ethical standards.
Independent watchdog institutions would continuously audit decision-making quality, ensuring that leaders govern with wisdom, not personal ambition.

5. Incentivizing the Best Minds to Serve

Philosopher-leaders might initially be hesitant to enter politics, so incentives such as honorary recognition, post-service academic funding, or advisory roles could ensure top minds contribute to governance without financial or political motivations.

6. Realigning Voter Expectations Over Time

Through consistent cultural reinforcement, the electorate must embrace the idea that governance is a noble intellectual pursuit, not a partisan battleground.
Philosophical debates, town halls, and civic workshops would educate the public on the benefits of wisdom-based leadership.

END OF CHAT SESSION.

LAYMAN'S TAKEAWAY: It is absurd to think that our society would or should have to successfully jump through all of the above drawn out, time-consuming hoops in order to transition permanently to PKQ-controlled Congresses, a.k.a. Neartopic democracy.

LAYMAN'S TAKEAWAY: The AI chatbot was not able to "intuit" the profound psychological, psychoemotional AND civilizational changes that would occur almost overnight within the vast mainstream (VM) of our society leading up to, but especially in the wake of our LOC and ROC voters permanently transitioning to PKQ-controlled Congresses. Changes so profound that the many chatbot's recommendations: constitutional mandates, the creation of councils, oversight boards, etc. would be unnecessary—in the same way creating an oversight board to oversee babies learning to walk is unnecessary.

Meaning, in a very short period of time, our societal zeitgeist would "evolve" to the point that everyone old enough to have a political view would understand that electing professional or career "politicians" to Congress would be like parents hiring known child molesters to babysit their children.

The much better alternative for our intelligentsia: spend very little of your time and intellect on the impossible road. Rather, simply take the easy road: Teach a critical mass of America's ~160 million LOC and ROC voters, via a national education/awareness campaign, how to begin using Effective Sortition in their NLEP.

The Talented Xers among their ranks will do the rest.

LAYMAN'S SPECULATION:

What if... every American prison—local, state and federal—that housed "non-violent" residents/inmates:

grew all of the food they needed,
generated all of the electricity they needed,
"grew" the raw (and organic) materials they needed –– and also used recyclable plastics and other materials that would otherwise end up in landfills –– to make their own shoes, clothing, furnishings, housing, etc., and
required just a relative handful of prison guards because the wall surrounding the prison (which, fyi, was also built by the residents) was more than tall and impenetrable enough to prevent their escape?

What if... the same were the case for nearly every American prison that housed violent residents?

What if... the same were the case for nearly every:

"mental" facility that housed "cognitively-challenged" –– but non-violent –– residents who would otherwise be homeless, living on the streets, or serving time in prisons for property theft, robbery, shoplifting, etc.?
drug treatment facility that housed non-violent residents who would otherwise be homeless, living on the streets, or serving time in prisons for property theft, robbery, shoplifting, etc.?

FYI: It's worth noting in passing that, in all of the above situations, the fact that all of the individuals would be providing for themselves would give the vast majority not only a sense of purpose and accomplishment, but a sense of community, a sense of belonging.

What if... every peaceful, law-abiding resident –– and their children, parents, etc. –– living in high crime areas was given the opportunity, or option, to live in safe, stable communities (protected by impenetrable gates/walls) in which they grew all of the food they needed, generated all of the electricity they needed, "grew" the raw materials they needed to make their own shoes, clothing, furnishings, living quarters,...?

The takeaway here is... The "science" of Effective Self-Governance gives our society the "power" to, in a manner of speaking, "point and click" the kind of America the vast majority of us [liberals, moderates, conservatives, libertarians, etc.] wish to become (very roughly analogous to the way the advent of "point-and-click" enabled the (MS-DOS-ignorant) general public to navigate their home computer and the Internet as effortlessly, and almost as expertly, as the MS-DOS "fluent").

Meaning, if we want our long term (lower class) poor, and our (probably) soon to be (middle class) poor, to be able to live materially and emotionally satisfying middle class lives, there will be a way (Think: brightly lit path) to legislatively "make it so" once we transition to neartopic democracy.

FINAL THOUGHT WORTH CONTEMPLATING:

"What if – instead of worrying about whether we should give kids gold stars for participating or gold stars for being the best, we involve kids in real world activities where the end result of the activity itself is the reward?

Teach them gardening, woodworking, repair skills, fiber arts, sewing, cooking. Get them out hiking somewhere with a gorgeous view. Raise animals – have them learn to care about something other than themselves. Have them help out a grandparent or elderly neighbor.

Our society has lost sight of what's truly important in life. It's time to find it again." Laurie Neverman

re the ANI "needs" of the VM vs. the PI "wants" of the non-VM

This website uses cookies.