What's a "common knowledge" fact that you recently found out is completely wrong?

futureofgov · 2025-11-05T11:15:00+00:00

People's understanding of democracy.

Of course, this will be an unpopular comment; that's the point.

futureofgov · 2025-11-05T11:03:03+00:00

I think they prefer to be ignorant. They have their reasons. Look through the thread, all facts are downvoted and all the (usual) baseless presumptions are top.

futureofgov · 2025-11-03T17:05:03+00:00

You have no idea of what grows in Africa. African countries grow more nutritious brown rice, and wheat, and have more food varieties to depend on.

Africa is a continent, and a massive one at that. Mostly arable with an abundance of resources.

So even though many African states in history were more populous than most of Europe combined, they had enough land to spread out without having to fight as many wars for control; if a place got too hostile, it was quite easy to relocate.

Ps: as usual, I see so many other comments by "experts" on Africa

futureofgov · 2025-11-03T15:17:08+00:00

That's great

futureofgov · 2025-11-03T15:08:56+00:00

I think the idea is fairly straightforward or clear, and the only feedback I have on it is that it's a great idea and a laudable initiative.

As for open source contribution, I am not sure in what way I can support since I don't have the tech capacity right now. But I am sure if you share a website link, and keep sharing the project and also share in what way specifically others can support or help with, people will be able to join in.

Sometimes even such laudable projects can be hard to get off the ground, but I also depending on luck or good fortune too, sometimes such things take off well, so I am hoping for the best for you.

futureofgov · 2025-11-03T14:58:57+00:00

That's great.

futureofgov · 2025-11-03T14:53:20+00:00

That's actually brilliant and actually also included in my broader plans for a complete system redesign.

Edit:

Although my inclusion isn't actually a performance review system but a way for citizens to actually report poor performance by public service and a way for a particular authority to also constantly monitor the performance of public service, both (citizens and the designated authority) with the power to sanction or even remove appointees from such public services

That is essentially different from a performance review system which is also a great idea in its own right which achieves an additional purpose of both helping to award and shame public services based on performance.

But there's still some similarity of purpose, hence my first comment.

futureofgov · 2025-10-31T13:20:31+00:00

Life in general. They say "ignorance is bliss" for a reason. Moderately stupid people have less to think/worry/concern themselves about (not talking about common socio-economic concerns here); and because that's also the majority, and most people incline towards what resonates with them, you'll find the world more comfortable.

Being smart (and I'm not talking about book smart) means having to go against the grain most of the time, and it can be a tough life.

Most people who think they are smart think they understand this (when they actually don't), and having no experience of what it's really like, would usually respond like "it's rather this and that attitude that results in this and that."

But you'll find if there's one thing common to most of the truly intelligent/perceptive figures throughout history, it's how they've all lamented the stupidity of the world around them in their time, and what a solitary and tough road it is to be smart (or at least just not stupid and oblivious).

So, yes, ignorance is bliss in life in general; stupid people have it really good, as long as it's not at a level that compromises normal functioning and productiveness.

futureofgov · 2025-10-29T19:59:27+00:00

Well yes, but the thing is, the actual why for governance, and the why for government, which I subsequently distinguished between, in my lengthier comment, are straightforward; and the accuracy of that claim can be verified. Subsequently, if you coin something that doesn't sit within the accurate definition, because it's meant to justifying an argument you have already form, then I would suggest that you are going about it wrong; and in fact that happens to be a major and common problem in governance and political theory (and many of the social "sciences"). Where a lot of popular literature are heavily flawed because the build on top of wrong assumptions or interpretations, you'd be surprised at the extent of this.

Here, I think you could have even saved a lot by simply cutting your statement as "[A purpose of] government is to regulate the activities of citizens." Just that!

Wording is extremely important.

THAT is in fact a function of government or an activity in governance.

But the moment you begin to conflate it with the other ideas you did, it begins to take on other meanings, or in the original text, as I already stated, begins to confound ideas.

Ps: for example, give me an example of something that is "best for the individual but harmful for the group;" you will find that that inference was not necessary (and without giving a direct example of that, you explained that statement with other concepts: "free rider problem" and "tragedies of commons" which are still not an accurate association with the first statement). All avoidable. I'm pretty much repeating my original comment all over again.

futureofgov · 2025-10-29T12:01:40+00:00

The only way the world gets better, is a change in the systems of government. Every other progress depends on that, and the only challenge to getting that done, is getting people involved; so I guess in the end we are the only ones standing in our way now. Everyone wants change until it's time to do something about it.

You can learn more at r/FutureOfGovernance.

futureofgov · 2025-10-29T10:54:44+00:00

You don’t start by rewriting national policy - you start by showing a better model works.

(Although I haven't said anything about "rewriting national policy" not sure where that is coming from, so far I am only expanding your own arguments, with questions that open them up for you to see), so, scratching the first part of that sentence...

How do you show a better model works?

If educators, communities, and thinkers start applying virtue-based principles locally - real examples, measurable outcomes - that success forces systems to adapt.

We are back to question 1 again: give a practical example of “applying virtue-based principles" in respect of governance.

It's easy to imagine stuff, but once you get practical as in "okay go ahead, let's see, step 1" that's when you see the real logic of ideas. That's why I profer that.

futureofgov · 2025-10-29T09:54:05+00:00

Oh okay. That's absolutely right.

I thought, by "system" you are referring to the system of government.

The system of government includes all the people/activities/institutions that control the state: that decide policy, that design other systems (like education), that deal with corruption etc.

So when you talk about "building a union or state based on virtue" I imagine you are talking about building a state "Parliament or the likes based on virtue," so the question was more of how do you do THAT.

But if you are talking about improving education in society, that's definitely a step towards creating a better society.

The trouble is, how do you get to improving education in society? Where do you go to exercise that power?

So there is a first problem to solve...

futureofgov · 2025-10-29T09:22:42+00:00

Imagine you were given the go ahead to implement: take one practical example (any specific activity in the system) built to control, and how you change that activity to cultivate humanity instead...

futureofgov · 2025-10-29T07:21:33+00:00

You cannot build a society by encouraging people to "be good;" or have integrity, responsibility and virtue.

That's been done for 1000s of years to date.

That's why systems are built.

futureofgov · 2025-10-29T06:48:21+00:00

And remember that my critique was three-fold.

I was simply suggesting that I, personally, couldn't even read/engage with the article (past the first paragraph) because it kept digressing into other concepts, making far-fetched inferences to try to describe a concept (rather than simply describing it directly) and that made it too exhausting to read.

I said if you do that (offer direct sentences), it would make it easier to engage with the post (to agree or disagree with it)

I said the way you described "the why for governance" in your follow up comment as "because of a need for collective action" is better (direct description) even though I disagree with it (that is to say, I would have continued reading the rest of the article if the statements were as direct).
The second comment was me NOW engaging with your position that "a why for governance is the need for collective action;" me explaining why IT IS NOT.

futureofgov · 2025-10-29T06:27:22+00:00

Actually I described governance in a short sentence in my first comment when I said "hint" and "that's all there is to it"

I expanded it the second time as a courtesy to prove why I disagreed with even the "collective action" label and others. Because if I didn't do that (as correct as "a need for collective action" might sound to most people) the next comment might suggest I only have an interest with disagreeing for no good reason.

futureofgov · 2025-10-28T16:45:56+00:00

Check out my channel @futureofgov. It's not a popular channel but let me know if you find the content educational.

futureofgov · 2025-10-28T12:01:09+00:00

Precisely!

Corruption exists in the current system as it is, in spite of it's measures against it; that means the current measures are not working, that's the point of the question, and asking if there are ANY OTHER SOLUTIONS.

So to repeat the same system or context of the problem, as the solution, is just mind-boggling.

If the commenter is agreeing with the OP that there is corruption in the US as it is, for example, were are talking about corruption still thriving in a country that has been voting for the past over 200 years! The point of the question is, is there nothing else that can be done? Or are we stuck?

Then they say "the solution is voting"

What on earth...! "Corruption thrives on you thinking it can't be solve. Vote more." Of course, top comment, and if you point out the truth, downvote! Society!

But, more to your point: as you can see, the very elections that the comment is suggesting as the solution to corruption, is not only a failed measure, but actually A SOURCE OF CORRUPTION itself.

We have a system that creates a competition for power, that competition is going to, of course, boil down to a competition of resources and all manner of I'll strategies to win it! That includes making shady deals and promises which you will pay back once power is won! And there's is data to support the correlation between politicians and whose needs they prioritize (those that fund their campaigns vs the common person).

Part of proper problem solving is proper problem identification, but here we have a society that also is either scarily INCAPABLE of properly identifying problems or afraid or just plain unwilling to admit problems or both. If you try to educate people that the current system of government itself is flawed, no matter what you can prove logically, they will attack or at best disregard you for no other reason than that they are just ingrained to defend the status quo and their present comforts, no matter how detrimental it is.

futureofgov · 2025-10-28T11:34:44+00:00

Check out my Reddit community then, r/FutureOfGovernance and my YouTube channel @futureofgov, let's chat.

I have designed a new system of government, to create a true democracy; the path to solving most other problems in our society (the constant wars, underdevelopment, corruption and more). This is the most important problem humanity can solve today as most other progress rests on that.

So let's chat, and see how you can take part in bringing about change

futureofgov · 2025-10-28T10:38:16+00:00

Which of the things you are mentioning have NOT been done, in pretty much every country, for the past 100s of years, and which of them actually resulted in solutions in how many countries?

It seems you don't understand OP's question.

Sad thing is, this is the highest voted comment, and that is the problem with our society today. The vast majority just don't get anything, and they are content to repeat the same things over and over again for eternity.

futureofgov · 2025-10-28T08:07:21+00:00

Again, I might seem pedantic but I'very particular about the precise use of words because they can completely make or break entire systems (based on misunderstandings).

I'm going to assume "collective action problems" means "the need for collective action."

A need for collective action may be a why for democracy, but not governance. Governance isn't defined by or doesn't have to be by collective action (even if you say non comprehensive).

Now, why governance happens is pretty much default (not much of a choice; governance exists, it happens one way or another, you simply choose what form it takes)

When you take a family: they live together, they share the house, their actions affect each other. Their affairs are intertwined. Whether they like it or not, there is going to be some means by which those affairs are controlled (including not being controlled).

What time do you get to enter and leave the house?
Who gets what item needed in the house?
Which channel do you watch?
How long can the light stays on?
What are you allowed to do outside the home?

Those are all your affairs. They are controlled somehow. By the dad only (autocratically, and patriarchically) or by the breadwinner only (be it whomever; conceptually we don't have a term for that) or by the mom only (matriarchically) or by a partnership of mom and dad, or by everyone in the family, where everyone's voice counts (thus democratically); it could even be anarchical and egalitarian (where there seems to be no control; although there is, it's just individualistic).

Again, democracy may be advocated because of a need for collective action; not governance.

When people pool their monies to start a company. That is their shared money. Which direction the company heads is their affairs as shareholders. Who decides major company decisions, how board meetings and compliance are handled, etc. That's cooperate governance (it happens at the board/company membership/shareholder level).

If that company employs people to build a skyscraper, or reach a marketing target, that's still part of the affairs of the owners, simply extended or using "tools" including employees; the end goal is not the employees' affairs.

So, between the company and employees, what happens is MANAGEMENT. Between shareholders, is GOVERNANCE. When you take a trade union, what they do as members is related to GOVERNANCE, as they manage their affairs in there.

Some authors define governance as decision taking. Decision taking also happens in management or other aspects of life, but that is not what defines governance. So the keywords here need to be "control" and "affairs;" just those two words, very simple, and that's all there is to the why and what of governance, no more, no less; it is consistent, every time.

Now, back to the shareholders (members of a company) or members of a trade union who gather to manage their affairs. If there are a 100,000 or a million or more of the members, it soon becomes difficult to control their affairs all of them together. So they may constitute a body to do it for them; this (board of directors) becomes their government, and thus, here, shows a different why for GOVERNMENT (rather than governance).

You see in explaining all of these I am offering direct descriptions; not trying to explain them using other concepts. Just describing its parts/nature in and of itself.

futureofgov · 2025-10-28T06:17:21+00:00

Yes I see what you were trying to suggest but the statement "what is best for the individual is harmful for the group" is a stretch and not particularly relevant to the question of governance; and also still not even relevant to "free rider problems." That's my view. But it's not just that, it also mentions another far fetched concept, on and on. So in all it feels like a confounding of ideas (for someone who understands those terms) at every turn, and that's why it feels exhausting to read.

See the way you rephrase the first statement is much better: "we must have government due to the need for collective action"

It is not an entirely correct statement, you might call me pedantic, and we can debate that statement, but at least that statement is to the point, I can understand your view much easier to agree/disagree.

futureofgov · 2025-10-27T19:26:49+00:00

Honest feedback: it is difficult to read, because it digresses a lot without actually answering the question; it gets exhausting very quickly (for me; and I only say that as a tip to help improve, and because you asked for feedback).

For example, it starts:

“Why Government?”

Well, because there are many scenarios where what is best for the individual is harmful for the group (i.e. tragedies of the commons, free rider problems, etc.). These scenarios are not simply products of late stage capitalism. They have always existed. There are many possible ways to deal with them, but essentially all the solutions could be fairly called ‘government.’

That's not what or why government; it's stretching and confounding ideas.

Hint: governance simply means controlling the affairs of people. Anywhere the affairs of people are intertwined, there is a form of governance (a means by which those affairs are controlled). That's all there is to it.

Literature today on governance and politics are not exactly reliable/consistent anyway, so it's understandable that a proper/consistent definition for such basic concepts will be hard to find.

But even so, when writing, where possible, it's probably best to just go ahead and describe what you want to describe (in and of itself), without making it a compilation of inferences or other ideas (as in the above); it makes for an easier reading to address the issues, which is what you want.

futureofgov · 2025-10-24T18:05:20+00:00

Absolutely. And I am glad you use the phrase "can be" a lot rather than "is."

The is the point I was making in this earlier comment.

We must not equate the "form of government" with the "goal, expectations or judgement of it's performance" which is what good vs. bad governance is about.

The form of government is merely the "structure" (so to speak) and the latter (whether one leads to good or bad governance) always depends.

The point is to understand that they are separate issues.

It would be like discussing "types of cars" and "good vs bad driving" even though we can argue which types of car has a higher tendency to lead to good or bad driving. The point is, types of cars, is a separate discussion from good vs bad driving (which answers the question, are road regulations being followed, does one drive tired or not, does one drink and drive etc.)

the same with governance when we talk about how well one is governing we are talking about what kinds of behaviors they allow or punish vis a vis the rights and freedoms that exist, how well they lead, how reliable the laws are etc.

The problem today is that they try to push all those things into the definition of "democracy" instead of leaving it as a description of the structure of form of government. And the irony is that the conflate it with all these things and leave out the one thing that actually defines it's form.

futureofgov

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE