Politics explored

Its important to understand the human condition, strike that, the human soul;- Before one can create any constitution for a state. One has to know what one should not trample upon. Politics should therefore be confined to mediating conflicting manifestations of what people hold freedom to be. This can only be done through appraisal and judgement, and this sadly must come from an instantiated source or it will not come at all. I submit here we should not be ruled by the mob, but by the prime philosophers (.elect)(the trick is how do we decide upon who that is). I believe the most pragmatic solution to this question is we should elect our judges for their perceived excellence in the field justice (which is the path to perfect freedom).

I think that is the correct form the state should take for the judiciary, the state of the other 2 branches is explored below.

Another aim of politics should be to ensure society has access to greater development and isn't being stunted by ugly forces that have no way of being combated and overcome by the private sector*, this can only be done after considering ones resources and how manage them intelligently (or most beautifully). We need people to to make these qualitative assessments on behalf of the group. One should not be obstructed in their perceived development by anything other than a more beautiful perceived development, one needs a special arbiter to assess these claims and tell us which concern should trump the other... as I said above, people who care to vote, should vote for the philosophers they believe have the brightest asthetical valuation (or to put it simply, who they have the most confidence in). I wish I could give more votes to those who have greater consciousness, and maybe there will be a beautiful way of discerning this (*but i fear that might lead to a hegemony, hegemony is the path to becoming constrained and the antithesis of freedom, therefore to avoid it entirely one will have to employ one person one vote as a bedrock)

We must be pragmatic, we do need some kind of process from which to elect our philosophers. Now the philosophers must rule the legislature, and will do so as long as they can maintain the confidence of the masses, but their ideas must not be confused with the state's operation (or the implementation of the ideas). They may choose to endorse those they think are most fit to implement their ideas, but they do so at risking the people's confidence in them, but they should be free to make these associations if they choose to... And so, the executive should be run by pragmatic experts, who should be allowed to complain to the people that they receive inconsistent rules from the philosophers to follow... Then the people will vote for better implementors, or they will vote for better philosophers, in any case, the people will be responsible for their governance which seeks to curb the ugly excesses the group may manifest. This is compatible with some conceptions of social democracy and communism.

In my set up it is plausible the judiciary and the legislature can be out of step with one another, if this happens, it is the media's job to explore and help the people assess and discern the choices offered by the apparent gap. In this way, the media is an important organ of the state, Journalism will probably be my next topic I will seek to address.

This is the most beautiful set up I can currently imagine for the state, do you have a better one? please share it.

My system looks very similar in some respects to the existing system, but I do believe once consciousness spreads, it will be easier to build consensus than one might currently imagine. And the things we will have real conflict over, wont generate violence and vulgar forms of conflict, but will be socially acceptable forms of disagreement which will be decided upon in a contest of ideas hosted by the generational tide that cleanses the shore (in my analogy, this is the species) of the remnants of the ugly and non-viable (it wasn't able to flourish and spread to many people).

There should be as many seats in the senate (which is just a legislative branch) as there are people that are voted for, but each seat should have as many votes as the number that voted for them, this weighting can be transfered from one senator to another, ie. I can lend my votes out (anyone who does this for other than asthetic reasons should be censured by the public, the media must ensure to inform of this, and senators should have completely open lives! (the price of public office)). If possible the senate should rule after consensus is reached, it should be a perceived political aspiration for the political body to be unified, because when consensus is sought, we can then be certain that all valid perspectives inform the action, which will make the political action more beautiful. A perspective should only be dismissed if it can be judged by those more learned as stunted and ugly misunderstanding, the point of politics is to qualify this assessment of what is ugly to the people, so that they grow in their understanding, in this way politics is an engine of development of consciousness- which can only be achieved as power is substantiated and understood.

When enough people achieve the right level of consciousness, there will be no need for a government, people will be able to communicate the truth without infringing each others freedom (this includes the freedom from fear and one day death!)