Any European country in 1900, especially the Austro-Hungarian Empire or the British Empire. A reasonably secure job in London or Vienna, and having survived childhood diseases so I am immune to most things, and literate, the amount of freedom, especially in the British Empire, would be unimaginable compared to now.
Ideal polity is probably mid-republican Rome. High levels of devolved local power with an authoritarian senate responsible for the truly important questions. Needs correcting with new knowledge of political developments, but the key structure is probablty ideal and formed a long-lasting stable polity.
For a more modern example, the French bureaucratic authoritarianism shorn of its liberal aspect is probably ideal. The act of legislating should be left to elected officials, but the act of governing should be left to an unelected bureaucracy. The history of the past century shows that short-term elected politicians are generally incapable of making the long-term policy decisions needed for a country to function.
Hate to admit this as it's a period I lived through and didn't take proper advantage of, but in retrospect being American in say 1993-2000 was pretty utopian. Falling crime, massive money-making opportunities, rest of the world basically an open field for American quasi-colonization of various sorts, could get in on the ground floor of a technological revolution, speech and attitudes were very free etc.
It's stunning for me to come here and see people refer to past polities as their ideals. Where are their imaginations?! The difference between liberal and reactionary mindset or disposition? Or something else? In any case, I'd like to see a society where everyone has lifelong material sufficiency and the freedom to go from there. Maybe it would turn out to be a lot like the one in your picture?
My ideal community is a republic. A republic accepts that public consent is complicated enough at a tribal level, that it does not scale up that well, that in larger societies there will always be a need for an elite, and that the elite needs to be forced to pay attention to public duties in some reasonably forceful manner. But it is not an easy thing and is not always possible.
The problem is less the inability to specify the details of the form of government--there are doubtless different ways of structuring the republican form-- and more the absence of the cultural values that permit the balance of forces to be struck effectively.
Libertarian utopias may be worth thinking about as a kind of mental exercise but it is fruitless to try to put one into place. The reason is that the conditions needed for a libertarian utopia are simply not present in sufficient supply in the current version of human nature on offer. Attempting to do the impossible is a surefire method for generating unwelcome unanticipated consequences.
But republics have a read advantage over unrealistic utopias in that they are at least possible, at some times and under some conditions. They are not unequivocally opposed to the realities of human nature. But they do call for the elements of human nature conducive to the form of government to be sufficiently present, and to be arranged in the right ways. Absent the proper values and a sound way of organizing them republics are just as unrealistic as the most utopian of utopias, and are just as likely to backfire.
So in saying I favor the republican form of government I am saying at the same time that I favor the cultural value set, sentiments and behaviors that favor the success of the inherently risky enterprise. If at a given moment my assessment is that Nation X lacks the right toolkit I withdraw my nomination of the republic as the ideal form. I would in that instance favor whatever form of government might make the conditions for an optimal republic more likely.
There's a lot of talk goin' round about the benefits of various forms of reactionary thought. To those thoughts I would respond as Erdogan did when asked about democracy. He said it was a good idea but that it was like a train, and you got off when you arrived at the non-democratic station to which you wished to travel. Just so, but the other way around: can this or that arrangement not particularly to my liking get me to Republic Station?
Pan-East/Central European federation with shared goals of self-defense, recognition of borders and ethnic self-determination, explicitly anti-imperialist (go away Austria-Hungary dude above, you want that? well rest assured, the peoples like mine would kill your dumb empire again).
Reactionary against Western liberalism and cuckservatism. Reactionary against monarchy or other elite ideological crap. You'll fit in or get exiled.
Economically redistributist, anti-capitalist. There are no good millionaires, no socially conservative ones. All are libertarian. Their money needs to go to the people.
Diplomatic, economic relations with nearby nations, not isolationism.
This isn’t utopian but in terms of what I think is realistic and achievable over the next 50 years or so for both a modern European state and modern European people is something along the lines of a 21st century Gaullist-style government that puts the health and sovereignty of the nation (including the ethnic state forming people as Russia recently adopted in its constitution for example) as its foremost concern. I’ve come to the conclusion that the nation-state (properly understood) is the still most appropriate form of government for Europeans for the 21st century (where achievable).
I like to think about BAP's (and T777's) theory on what America be like if it was founded by the Prussians instead of the Anglo-Dutch. I also like to think of the usual alternate history scenario where the central powers won WW1.
But these are alternate history stuff. When it comes to hypothetical utopias, that really varies on mood. Sometimes I wish I lived in a Patagonian cowboy state, sometimes I wish I lived in a futurist city-state like Singapore, or a modern-day Venetian Republic.
Maybe an empire which has both, a magnificent capital and wild far-away provinces?
A man certainly needs both, I think. The taste of adventure, freedom, solitude and the quiet of nature, but also the hype and excitement of technology, art, and scientific discovery.
By the way, I’d be interest to see you write about your views of the EU and your vision for it (if you have one) and how smaller states such as Croatia, Hungary, Greece, Slovenia, etc. should fit into it. How do you see it changing over the next 30 years or so, how should it protect the distinctiveness of its nations, etc.
This weekend's Saturday column will be on time, but the week after that will be early by a day or two.
Any European country in 1900, especially the Austro-Hungarian Empire or the British Empire. A reasonably secure job in London or Vienna, and having survived childhood diseases so I am immune to most things, and literate, the amount of freedom, especially in the British Empire, would be unimaginable compared to now.
Going to have to think about this…
I don't know if the system matters much, but few if any means of solicitation for entry or influence from outside monied interests would be great.
Ideal polity is probably mid-republican Rome. High levels of devolved local power with an authoritarian senate responsible for the truly important questions. Needs correcting with new knowledge of political developments, but the key structure is probablty ideal and formed a long-lasting stable polity.
For a more modern example, the French bureaucratic authoritarianism shorn of its liberal aspect is probably ideal. The act of legislating should be left to elected officials, but the act of governing should be left to an unelected bureaucracy. The history of the past century shows that short-term elected politicians are generally incapable of making the long-term policy decisions needed for a country to function.
Hate to admit this as it's a period I lived through and didn't take proper advantage of, but in retrospect being American in say 1993-2000 was pretty utopian. Falling crime, massive money-making opportunities, rest of the world basically an open field for American quasi-colonization of various sorts, could get in on the ground floor of a technological revolution, speech and attitudes were very free etc.
Humans having tails sounds pretty good to me.
The USA between 1890 to 1920
The aftermath of the ending of *The Invisibles*, that is, what happens after everyone experiences enlightenment or something like it, en masse.
It's stunning for me to come here and see people refer to past polities as their ideals. Where are their imaginations?! The difference between liberal and reactionary mindset or disposition? Or something else? In any case, I'd like to see a society where everyone has lifelong material sufficiency and the freedom to go from there. Maybe it would turn out to be a lot like the one in your picture?
My ideal community is a republic. A republic accepts that public consent is complicated enough at a tribal level, that it does not scale up that well, that in larger societies there will always be a need for an elite, and that the elite needs to be forced to pay attention to public duties in some reasonably forceful manner. But it is not an easy thing and is not always possible.
The problem is less the inability to specify the details of the form of government--there are doubtless different ways of structuring the republican form-- and more the absence of the cultural values that permit the balance of forces to be struck effectively.
Libertarian utopias may be worth thinking about as a kind of mental exercise but it is fruitless to try to put one into place. The reason is that the conditions needed for a libertarian utopia are simply not present in sufficient supply in the current version of human nature on offer. Attempting to do the impossible is a surefire method for generating unwelcome unanticipated consequences.
But republics have a read advantage over unrealistic utopias in that they are at least possible, at some times and under some conditions. They are not unequivocally opposed to the realities of human nature. But they do call for the elements of human nature conducive to the form of government to be sufficiently present, and to be arranged in the right ways. Absent the proper values and a sound way of organizing them republics are just as unrealistic as the most utopian of utopias, and are just as likely to backfire.
So in saying I favor the republican form of government I am saying at the same time that I favor the cultural value set, sentiments and behaviors that favor the success of the inherently risky enterprise. If at a given moment my assessment is that Nation X lacks the right toolkit I withdraw my nomination of the republic as the ideal form. I would in that instance favor whatever form of government might make the conditions for an optimal republic more likely.
There's a lot of talk goin' round about the benefits of various forms of reactionary thought. To those thoughts I would respond as Erdogan did when asked about democracy. He said it was a good idea but that it was like a train, and you got off when you arrived at the non-democratic station to which you wished to travel. Just so, but the other way around: can this or that arrangement not particularly to my liking get me to Republic Station?
Pan-East/Central European federation with shared goals of self-defense, recognition of borders and ethnic self-determination, explicitly anti-imperialist (go away Austria-Hungary dude above, you want that? well rest assured, the peoples like mine would kill your dumb empire again).
Reactionary against Western liberalism and cuckservatism. Reactionary against monarchy or other elite ideological crap. You'll fit in or get exiled.
Economically redistributist, anti-capitalist. There are no good millionaires, no socially conservative ones. All are libertarian. Their money needs to go to the people.
Diplomatic, economic relations with nearby nations, not isolationism.
This isn’t utopian but in terms of what I think is realistic and achievable over the next 50 years or so for both a modern European state and modern European people is something along the lines of a 21st century Gaullist-style government that puts the health and sovereignty of the nation (including the ethnic state forming people as Russia recently adopted in its constitution for example) as its foremost concern. I’ve come to the conclusion that the nation-state (properly understood) is the still most appropriate form of government for Europeans for the 21st century (where achievable).
You mentioned a while back (I believe on Caribbean Rhythms) that you were in the process of writing a book about the USA. Is that still in the works?
I like to think about BAP's (and T777's) theory on what America be like if it was founded by the Prussians instead of the Anglo-Dutch. I also like to think of the usual alternate history scenario where the central powers won WW1.
But these are alternate history stuff. When it comes to hypothetical utopias, that really varies on mood. Sometimes I wish I lived in a Patagonian cowboy state, sometimes I wish I lived in a futurist city-state like Singapore, or a modern-day Venetian Republic.
Maybe an empire which has both, a magnificent capital and wild far-away provinces?
A man certainly needs both, I think. The taste of adventure, freedom, solitude and the quiet of nature, but also the hype and excitement of technology, art, and scientific discovery.
By the way, I’d be interest to see you write about your views of the EU and your vision for it (if you have one) and how smaller states such as Croatia, Hungary, Greece, Slovenia, etc. should fit into it. How do you see it changing over the next 30 years or so, how should it protect the distinctiveness of its nations, etc.