Who will build the roads?

Politics from First-Principles

There are many Big Ideas that define the way societies have been structured across the generations. Each Big Idea comes with its own benefits and drawbacks. To properly evaluate the value of each system, we need to 1) compare it to other systems and 2) measure the trade-offs.

quadrantChart
    x-axis "← Free Markets . . . Central Planning →"
    y-axis "← Individual Freedom . . . State Control →"
    Fascism: [0.7, 0.98]
    Communism: [0.9, 0.95]
    Globalism: [0.55, 0.92]
    Theocracy: [0.7, 0.9]
    Feudalism: [0.6, 0.85]
    Oligarchy: [0.5, 0.8]
    Technocracy: [0.6, 0.75]
    Nationalism: [0.55, 0.7]
    Populism: [0.5, 0.6]
    Socialism: [0.65, 0.45]
    Democracy: [0.4, 0.4]
    Republic: [0.35, 0.35]
    Capitalism: [0.2, 0.3]
    Anarchism: [0.1, 0.05]
    %% svg: true

Let’s have a first-principles look at the different systems of governance and how they solve practical problems. We’ll go through a collection of scenarios and thought experiments to get a grasp on the merits of each.

We’ll ask:

What’s the Big Idea?
How are societal decisions made?
Who will build the roads?
Who will educate the children?
Who will take care of grandma?
What will I do day-to-day in this system?
How are unwanted actions discouraged?
How has this system functioned in history?
Does this principle work at the personal level?

Fascism: Total Unity

What’s the Big Idea?

The nation’s strength and glory transcend individual rights.

This emerges from the belief that liberal democracy and individualism make societies weak, divided, and decadent. A strong nation requires total unity under a powerful leader who embodies the national will. The state must control all aspects of life to mobilize the nation toward greatness, rejecting both the chaos of freedom and the weakness of equality. Only through disciplined hierarchy, militant nationalism, and the suppression of internal enemies can a people achieve their destiny.

flowchart LR

%% Principle
Start["<b>The nation's strength and glory transcend individual rights</b>"]

%% Assumptions (ordered by importance)
A["Assumption: National unity requires a single strong leader"]
B["Assumption: Individual rights weaken the collective"]
C["Assumption: Life is eternal struggle between nations and races"]
E["Assumption: Democracy and debate lead to weakness and decay"]

%% Links from principle to assumptions
Start --> A
Start --> B
Start --> C
Start --> E

%% Actions
F1["Action: Centralize all power in the leader and party"]
F2["Action: Suppress opposition and dissent completely"]
F3["Action: Merge state and corporate interests"]
F4["Action: Promote militarism and territorial expansion"]

%% Links from assumptions to actions
A --> F1
B --> F2
C --> F4
E --> F3

%% Trade-offs
T1["Trade-off: Complete loss of individual freedom"]
T2["Trade-off: No checks on leader's power or mistakes"]
T3["Trade-off: Innovation stifled by conformity demands"]
T4["Trade-off: Constant need for external or internal enemies"]
T5["Trade-off: Inevitable conflict and war"]
T6["Trade-off: Mass atrocities against scapegoated groups"]
T7["Trade-off: Economic inefficiency from political control"]

%% Benefits
B1["Benefit: Rapid, decisive action without debate"]
B2["Benefit: Strong national identity and purpose"]
B3["Benefit: Social order through strict hierarchy"]
B4["Benefit: Economic mobilization for national goals"]

%% Links from actions to outcomes (benefits listed before trade-offs)
F1 --> B1
F1 --> T1
F1 --> T2

F2 --> B2
F2 --> T3
F2 --> T6

F3 --> B4
F3 --> T7

F4 --> B3
F4 --> T4
F4 --> T5

%% Define classes
classDef worldview fill:#e6d5f5,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px,color:#000
classDef assumption fill:#fbc,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px,color:#000
classDef action fill:#cdf,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px,color:#000
classDef tradeoff fill:#fdb,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px,color:#000
classDef benefit fill:#cfc,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px,color:#000

%% Assign classes
class Start worldview
class A,B,C,E assumption
class F1,F2,F3,F4 action
class T1,T2,T3,T4,T5,T6,T7 tradeoff
class B1,B2,B3,B4 benefit

How are societal decisions made?

Supreme leader makes all important decisions
Based on intuition, will, and ideology rather than debate or evidence
Like sports team where coach has absolute authority - but for your entire life
Leader doesn’t need to explain decisions or justify them to anyone
His word is law
Below the leader, loyal party enforces decisions through strict hierarchy
No voting, no dissent, no alternative viewpoints allowed
Leader decides nation needs to build weapons instead of hospitals? That’s what happens
Leader decides certain group of people are enemies? They become targets overnight
System values action and decisiveness over careful thought or protecting individual rights

State directs private companies to build roads according to national priorities
Usually favoring military needs, propaganda purposes, or projects that glorify the regime
Unlike pure socialism where state owns everything, fascism lets businesses exist
But only if they serve the nation’s goals as defined by the leader
Germany’s autobahn under Hitler built partly for military mobilization, partly as symbol of national achievement
Companies got contracts but had to follow exact specifications and timelines set by state
Own a construction company? You’d build what and where government told you, at the price they offered
Refuse? Might lose your business or worse
Roads that serve national glory get built quickly
Roads that just help ordinary people might be ignored

Who will educate the children?

State controls all education to indoctrinate children into national ideology
Create loyal citizens who will sacrifice for the nation
Schools teach math and reading, but also why their nation is superior, why leader is great, why certain groups are enemies
Like if your school’s main purpose wasn’t to educate you, but to make you devoted nationalist willing to fight and die for your country
Teachers must be party members or approved loyalists
Textbooks present history through lens of national greatness and grievance
Physical education emphasizes military preparation
Students learn to value obedience, hierarchy, and strength over critical thinking or individual expression
Parents have no choice - all children must attend these schools
Homeschooling or alternative education is forbidden
Goal is to create a generation that doesn’t question the system because they’ve never known anything else

Who will take care of grandma?

State provides care for elderly, but only for those considered valuable to the nation
Grandma from “right” ethnic group, loyal to regime, raised children who served state? She’ll receive pensions and care
System treats elderly care as reward for serving the nation, not as universal right
Grandma belongs to targeted minority group? Has family members who opposed regime? Deemed burden on nation’s resources?
Might receive nothing or even be actively eliminated
Fascist systems have historically murdered disabled and elderly people deemed “useless eaters”
Grandma’s care depends entirely on whether state considers her worthy, not on her humanity or needs
Creates society where elderly people live in fear of losing favor with the regime

What will I do day-to-day in this system?

Work at job that serves national priorities
Live where the state needs you
Spend free time participating in mandatory party activities, rallies, and military-style organizations
Job, neighborhood, hobbies, and friendships all chosen to serve country’s goals rather than your own preferences
Might work in factory making weapons
Attend weekly political meetings where everyone must show enthusiasm for the leader
Spend weekends in youth organizations practicing drills and singing nationalist songs
Have to be careful about what you say, who you associate with, and even what you think - informants everywhere
No opting out, no privacy, no personal life separate from national life
Even family relationships viewed through lens of whether they serve the nation
Expected to report your own family members if they show disloyalty

How are unwanted actions discouraged?

Secret police, public violence, and terror keep people in line
Criticize the government? You disappear in the night
Belong to a group labeled as enemies? Face persecution or death
System doesn’t just punish crimes - punishes thoughts, associations, and identities
Fascist regimes use spectacular public violence to terrify people into compliance
Public executions, concentration camps, and brutal crackdowns on protests send message: obey or suffer
Neighbors inform on neighbors
Children report parents
Everyone lives in fear
Effectively eliminates organized opposition
But creates society built on terror where no one can trust anyone
Unwanted actions discouraged extremely effectively - but at cost of basic human decency and ability to live without fear

How has this system functioned in history?

Fascist systems in Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, Franco’s Spain, and Imperial Japan showed consistent patterns
Initially created economic recovery, national pride, and social order after periods of chaos
People who belonged to favored groups often felt system worked well - had jobs, purpose, and national pride
But these regimes invariably led to catastrophic outcomes
Nazi Germany murdered 6 million Jews plus millions of others
Then launched war that killed over 60 million people total
Mussolini’s Italy collapsed in military defeat
Franco’s Spain stagnated economically while executing thousands of political opponents
Imperial Japan committed widespread atrocities across Asia before its devastating defeat
Every fascist regime has either collapsed in war, evolved into different system, or maintained power only through sustained brutality
None has created lasting prosperity or stability
Short-term order always gives way to long-term disaster

Does this principle work at the personal level?

At personal level, prioritizing group over individual works in certain limited contexts
On sports team, might sacrifice personal glory for team’s success
In family emergency, might put own needs aside to help
During crisis, having one person make quick decisions without endless debate can save lives
But living entire life this way means you never get to be yourself
Imagine if your family had leader who made every decision - what you wear, who you date, what career you pursue, what you’re allowed to think
And you could never question them
Disagreed or didn’t fit the mold? You’d be punished or expelled
Exhausting and dehumanizing
Most people need some space to be individuals, to make their own choices, to disagree sometimes
Principle works for short-term emergencies or specific group activities
But as complete way of life, it crushes the human spirit
History shows people living under fascist systems either become hollow, obedient shells or resist at great personal risk
Neither is a good way to live

Communism: A Controlled World

What’s the Big Idea?

Human suffering and inequality are products of systems, not nature.

This emerges from observing that private property allows owners to exploit workers by profiting from their labor. Collective ownership eliminates this exploitation by removing the ability to accumulate capital at others’ expense.

flowchart LR

%% Principle
Start["<b>Human suffering and inequality are products of systems, not nature</b>"]

%% Assumptions (ordered by importance)
A["Assumption: The value of something is based on the labour used to create it"]
B["Assumption: Scarcity is a myth"]
C["Assumption: People will work for collective benefit without material incentives"]
E["Assumption: Everyone should not be treated equally, but with respect to where they are"]

%% Links from principle to assumptions
Start --> A
Start --> B
Start --> C
Start --> E

%% Actions
F1["Action: Abolish private property"]
F2["Action: Establish central planning"]
F3["Action: Collective ownership of means of production"]
F4["Action: Enforce equal distribution according to needs"]

%% Trade-offs (one per action)
T1["Trade-off: State power expands to enforce compliance"]
T2["Trade-off: No price signals to guide efficiency"]
T3["Trade-off: Individual incentives diminish"]
T4["Trade-off: Innovation stifled by bureaucracy"]
T5["Trade-off: Economic calculation problem - can't know what to produce"]
T6["Trade-off: Loss of personal freedom and autonomy"]
T7["Trade-off: Creates new ruling class (party elites)"]

%% Benefits (one per action)
B1["Benefit: Workers cannot be exploited for profit"]
B2["Benefit: Rational allocation based on need"]
B3["Benefit: Democratic control of production"]
B4["Benefit: Everyone guaranteed basic necessities"]

%% Links from assumptions to actions
A --> F2
B --> F4
C --> F1
E --> F3

%% Links from actions to outcomes (benefits listed before trade-offs)
F1 --> B1
F1 --> T1
F1 --> T6

F2 --> B2
F2 --> T2
F2 --> T5

F3 --> B3
F3 --> T3

F4 --> B4
F4 --> T4
F4 --> T7

%% Define classes
classDef worldview fill:#e6d5f5,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px,color:#000
classDef assumption fill:#fbc,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px,color:#000
classDef action fill:#cdf,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px,color:#000
classDef tradeoff fill:#fdb,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px,color:#000
classDef benefit fill:#cfc,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px,color:#000

%% Assign classes
class Start worldview
class A,B,C,E assumption
class F1,F2,F3,F4 action
class T1,T2,T3,T4,T5,T6,T7 tradeoff
class B1,B2,B3,B4 benefit

How are societal decisions made?

Central planning committee makes all major decisions about what gets produced, how much, and who receives it
Like giant school administration deciding everything for thousands of students
What classes exist, what time lunch happens, who sits where, what’s on the menu
Committee studies reports about what society needs
Creates detailed plans that factories and farms must follow
Unlike voting in democracy or prices in market, relies on experts and party leaders to figure out what everyone needs
Committee decides country needs 10 million pairs of shoes this year
Assigns different factories to make them
Want something not in the plan? Out of luck until next planning cycle

Who will build the roads?

State builds roads through government agencies and assigned workers
Instead of companies competing for contracts, central plan determines which roads get built, when, and by whom
Construction workers receive same wages whether they finish quickly or slowly
No profit motive or competition
Roads go where planners think they’re most needed, not where people would pay most
Remote village might get new road because committee decides it’s fair
Even if hardly anyone uses it
If planners make mistakes or ignore certain areas, those communities wait years for basic infrastructure
Resources go elsewhere

Who will educate the children?

State runs all schools and decides what every child learns
Math to history to values
Teachers are government employees who follow standardized curriculum
Designed to create loyal citizens who understand communist principles
Like entire country had just one school district with same textbooks, same lessons, same rules everywhere
Ensures every child gets education regardless of parents’ wealth - good for equality
But government controls what ideas children are exposed to
Ruling party wants to teach their system is perfect and others are terrible? No alternative school for different perspectives
Parents can’t choose private schools or homeschool because those don’t exist

Who will take care of grandma?

State provides care for elderly through government-run programs, nursing homes, and guaranteed pensions
Everyone contributes to society throughout their working life
System promises to support them when they’re old
Like mandatory family arrangement where everyone chips in
Government acts as coordinator making sure elderly have housing, food, and medical care
Grandma doesn’t depend on her children’s wealth or savings - state handles it
Quality of care depends on how well government manages resources
System runs short on doctors, medicine, or nursing home space? Elderly might receive poor care
No private alternative
Grandma gets what the state can provide, nothing more or less

What will I do day-to-day in this system?

Work at a job assigned to you based on society’s needs and your abilities
Not necessarily what you want to do
Instead of choosing your own career, guidance counselor tells you “we need more factory workers, so that’s your job”
You couldn’t say no
Go to work, do assigned tasks
Receive wages similar to everyone else’s, regardless of how hard you work or how good you are
After work: access to free or cheap housing, healthcare, and education
But limited choices in what you can buy
Stores only carry what central planners decided to produce
Want specific brand of cereal or particular style of clothing? Tough luck if not in production plan
Free time is your own, but with fewer consumer goods and entertainment options

How are unwanted actions discouraged?

State uses strong punishments, social pressure, and surveillance
Discourages people from acting selfishly or undermining the system
Try to start private business, hoard goods, or criticize government? Face losing your job to imprisonment
Like strict school where breaking rules doesn’t just get you detention - could get you expelled or worse
Private property is abolished
Trading goods for profit or trying to get ahead individually seen as crimes against the collective
Government might encourage neighbors to report each other
Creates atmosphere where people are afraid to step out of line
Effectively stops crime and dissent
But people live in fear and can’t pursue their own goals if they conflict with state’s vision

How has this system functioned in history?

Communist systems in Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and other countries shown both achievements and severe problems
Rapidly industrialized poor countries
Provided universal healthcare and education
Eliminated extreme wealth gaps
Soviet Union went from farming society to space-exploring superpower in just a few decades
But also produced famines that killed millions
Crushed political freedom
Created inefficient economies with constant shortages
Established brutal dictatorships
Soviet Union: people waited in long lines for basic goods like bread and toilet paper
Berlin Wall wasn’t built to keep enemies out - built to keep citizens from escaping to non-communist countries
Most communist countries either collapsed or adopted market reforms
Economic problems became unsustainable

Does this principle work at the personal level?

At personal level, sharing everything equally can work in small groups like families or close friends
Share food with siblings or help friend move without expecting payment
Practicing “from each according to ability, to each according to need”
Parents don’t charge kids rent or make them pay for dinner - just provide what’s needed
But breaks down when you apply it to strangers or large groups
Wouldn’t share your phone or computer equally with everyone in your school
Letting anyone use it whenever they want
You’d worry about it getting broken or lost
You’d lose incentive to take care of it since it’s not really “yours”
When people can’t own things or benefit from their own hard work, they often stop trying as hard
Why communist economies struggle with motivation and innovation
Principle works for families because of love and trust
But those feelings don’t scale up to millions of people

Democracy: Rule by the People

What’s the Big Idea?

Every citizen has an equal say in how society is governed.

This emerges from the observation that governments gain legitimacy only from the consent of the governed. If people must live under laws, they should have an equal voice in making those laws. Democracy rejects the idea that some people are naturally fit to rule over others - instead, it trusts that ordinary citizens, collectively, can make good decisions about their own lives. The majority’s will becomes law, and leaders serve at the pleasure of the people who can vote them out if they fail.

flowchart LR

%% Principle
Start["<b>Every citizen has an equal say in how society is governed</b>"]

%% Assumptions (ordered by importance)
A["Assumption: The majority is more likely to be right than any individual"]
B["Assumption: People are capable of self-governance"]
C["Assumption: Equal political rights lead to just outcomes"]
E["Assumption: Leaders will respect the people's will"]

%% Links from principle to assumptions
Start --> A
Start --> B
Start --> C
Start --> E

%% Actions
F1["Action: Universal suffrage - one person, one vote"]
F2["Action: Majority rule decides all questions"]
F3["Action: Direct voting on laws and policies"]
F4["Action: Leaders elected by popular vote"]

%% Links from assumptions to actions
A --> F2
B --> F3
C --> F1
E --> F4

%% Trade-offs
T1["Trade-off: Tyranny of the majority over minorities"]
T2["Trade-off: Decisions driven by emotion rather than reason"]
T3["Trade-off: Slow decision-making requiring broad consensus"]
T4["Trade-off: Uninformed voters making complex decisions"]
T5["Trade-off: Demagogues can manipulate public opinion"]
T6["Trade-off: Short-term thinking to win next election"]
T7["Trade-off: Individual rights vulnerable to majority whims"]

%% Benefits
B1["Benefit: Government reflects the people's will"]
B2["Benefit: Peaceful transfer of power through elections"]
B3["Benefit: Equal political voice for all citizens"]
B4["Benefit: Leaders accountable to the people"]

%% Links from actions to outcomes (benefits listed before trade-offs)
F1 --> B3
F1 --> T7

F2 --> B1
F2 --> T1
F2 --> T2

F3 --> B4
F3 --> T3
F3 --> T4

F4 --> B2
F4 --> T5
F4 --> T6

%% Define classes
classDef worldview fill:#e6d5f5,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px,color:#000
classDef assumption fill:#fbc,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px,color:#000
classDef action fill:#cdf,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px,color:#000
classDef tradeoff fill:#fdb,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px,color:#000
classDef benefit fill:#cfc,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px,color:#000

%% Assign classes
class Start worldview
class A,B,C,E assumption
class F1,F2,F3,F4 action
class T1,T2,T3,T4,T5,T6,T7 tradeoff
class B1,B2,B3,B4 benefit

How are societal decisions made?

Citizens vote directly on major decisions
Or vote frequently on representatives who decide on their behalf
Every student gets one ballot on every major school choice
The option with most votes wins
Everyone must follow the result regardless of individual agreement
Constant voting: highways, taxes, war - all decided by majority
No constitutional limits constraining what can be voted on
The people’s will at any moment determines policy
Even if that will changes dramatically year to year

Who will build the roads?

Government builds roads using tax money
Which roads get built depends on majority vote
Highway to suburbs gets funded if most voters want it
Bridge in low-population area gets neglected despite desperate need
Politicians promise roads to areas with most voters to win elections
Popular projects get priority over unpopular but necessary infrastructure
Fancy visible downtown renovation beats boring underground sewer repairs
Roads become political tools for winning swing districts
Spending driven by political calculations rather than actual need

Who will educate the children?

Public schools run by government
Curriculum decided by popular vote or elected school boards
Majority decides what gets taught, spending levels, values promoted
Prayer in schools if most voters want it
Evolution taught if majority supports it
Educational content subject to political winds
Textbooks and teaching methods change dramatically with each election
Traditional education one year, progressive methods the next
Constant upheaval for teachers and students as policies shift
Minority viewpoints squeezed out without majority support
Unconventional educational approaches eliminated by popular vote

Who will take care of grandma?

Government provides elderly care through programs voted on by majority
Generous pensions and healthcare if most voters want them
Benefits cut if voters prefer spending money elsewhere
Elderly vote in large numbers, so systems typically provide decent care
Politicians know seniors will punish them at ballot box
Creates potential conflict between generations
Elderly voting bloc votes for benefits younger workers must fund
Even if unsustainable long-term
Working-age majority might vote to reduce grandma’s benefits to lower taxes
Quality of care depends on political power, not inherent rights or family responsibility

What will I do day-to-day in this system?

Daily life looks fairly normal: work, shop, spend time with family and friends
Key difference: expected to participate actively in politics
Vote frequently on everything from local initiatives to national leaders
Attend town hall meetings, sign petitions, join protests to influence policy
Democracy requires engaged citizens, not passive subjects
Constant churn of policy changes as new majorities emerge
Regulations affecting your business shift with political winds
Taxes you pay change when majorities change
Services available fluctuate with elections
Must stay informed about countless complex issues because you’re voting on them
Empowering because you have a voice
Exhausting because voice comes with responsibility to understand issues affecting millions

How are unwanted actions discouraged?

Laws passed by majority vote
Enforced by police and courts accountable to elected officials
Drugs, gambling, certain speech become illegal if most people want it
Laws change when public opinion shifts
System responsive to what majority considers unwanted at any moment
Justice based on popular sentiment, not consistent principles
Angry majority votes for harsh punishments
Sympathetic majority reduces punishments
Minorities criminalized for behavior majority disapproves of
Not because they harmed anyone, but because they’re outvoted
Majority votes to restrict freedoms of groups they don’t like
Legal discrimination as long as it’s popular

How has this system functioned in history?

Ancient Athens: male citizens voted directly on laws and policies
Produced remarkable culture and philosophy
Also voted to execute Socrates
Made catastrophic military decisions driven by popular emotion rather than strategy
Modern examples of pure democracy are rare
Most countries found it impractical and dangerous
Switzerland comes closest with frequent referendums
Works well in their small, educated, relatively homogeneous population
Larger, more diverse nations attempting pure democracy typically led to instability
France’s revolutionary democracy descended into mob rule and terror
Many young democracies without constitutional limits voted away their own freedoms
Democratically elected strongmen who then eliminated democracy
Historical pattern: pure democracy works in small, stable societies
Becomes chaotic or tyrannical at larger scales

Does this principle work at the personal level?

Small groups: democratic decision-making works great
Friends vote on which movie to watch or where to eat
Everyone gets a say, majority decides
Nobody forced to participate
Stakes low enough that losers aren’t seriously harmed
School clubs, small organizations, friend groups use democratic voting successfully
But imagine family as pure democracy
Siblings outvote parents on bedtime, diet, school attendance
Three kids vs two parents means kids win every decision
Friend group votes on whether you can date someone they don’t like
Suddenly majority controls your personal choices
Principle works when decisions affect everyone equally
And when no one’s fundamental rights are at stake
When majority can vote to control minorities or individuals, becomes oppressive
Most families aren’t democracies
Most friend groups don’t vote on deeply personal choices
Some things shouldn’t be subject to majority rule

Anarchism: A Free World

What’s the Big Idea?

Political authority is immoral.

This principle starts from the observation that governments, by definition, use force – they can tax you, imprison you, or even kill you if you disobey. Anarchists ask: what gives anyone that right? No legitimate authority exists to rule over others. People are naturally capable of cooperating through voluntary agreements, mutual aid, and community organization. Hierarchy creates the problems we think we need government to solve. Remove the state entirely, and people will organize themselves peacefully without anyone having power over anyone else.

flowchart LR

%% Principle
Start["<b>Political authority is immoral</b>"]

%% Assumptions (ordered by importance)
A["Assumption: People own themselves and their property"]
B["Assumption: Using force against peaceful people is always wrong"]
C["Assumption: Hierarchy creates corruption"]
E["Assumption: Voluntary cooperation without authority is sustainable"]

%% Links from principle to assumptions
Start --> A
Start --> B
Start --> C
Start --> E

%% Actions
F1["Action: Abolish the state"]
F2["Action: Replace laws with voluntary agreements"]
F3["Action: Private property rights enforced by individuals"]
F4["Action: Free markets coordinate resources"]

%% Links from assumptions to actions
A --> F2
B --> F1
C --> F3
E --> F4

%% Trade-offs
T1["Trade-off: No mechanism to resolve disputes beyond individual action"]
T2["Trade-off: Collective problems may go unsolved"]
T3["Trade-off: Protection services become commodities"]
T4["Trade-off: No safety net for those who cannot compete"]
T5["Trade-off: Vulnerable to external threats without organized defense"]
T6["Trade-off: Difficult to enforce contracts or property rights consistently"]
T7["Trade-off: Potential for private tyranny by powerful individuals"]

%% Benefits
B1["Benefit: No one can legally aggress against you"]
B2["Benefit: All relationships are consensual"]
B3["Benefit: You keep what you earn"]
B4["Benefit: Maximum individual freedom and autonomy"]
B5["Benefit: No taxation or forced redistribution"]
B6["Benefit: Elimination of regulatory barriers to innovation"]

%% Links from actions to outcomes (benefits listed before trade-offs)
F1 --> B1
F1 --> T1
F1 --> T5

F2 --> B2
F2 --> T2
F2 --> T6

F3 --> B3
F3 --> T3
F3 --> T7

F4 --> B4
F4 --> B5
F4 --> B6
F4 --> T4

%% Define classes
classDef worldview fill:#e6d5f5,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px,color:#000
classDef assumption fill:#fbc,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px,color:#000
classDef action fill:#cdf,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px,color:#000
classDef tradeoff fill:#fdb,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px,color:#000
classDef benefit fill:#cfc,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px,color:#000

%% Assign classes
class Start worldview
class A,B,C,E assumption
class F1,F2,F3,F4 action
class T1,T2,T3,T4,T5,T6,T7 tradeoff
class B1,B2,B3,B4,B5,B6 benefit

How are societal decisions made?

Nobody makes decisions for “society” because there is no central authority
People make decisions for themselves
Want to organize a neighborhood watch? Neighbors voluntarily agree
Need garbage collection? Local residents hire a service or do it themselves
Every decision through voluntary cooperation between individuals
Never forced to go along with something you disagree with
Simply opt out and find others who share your values
Five people pool money for community garden
If you don’t want to participate, you keep your money
No voting where 51% force the other 49% to comply
All negotiation and agreement
Like deciding with friends where to eat dinner, scaled up to everything in life

Who will build the roads?

Private companies, communities, or individuals build roads when people need them and are willing to pay
Roads work like Netflix or Spotify
Company builds a highway, charges tolls to drivers who use it
Per trip or monthly subscription
Charge too much or maintain poorly? Competitors build better roads nearby and people switch
Neighborhoods pool money to pave their own streets
Like homeowner associations maintaining common areas today
Popular routes get built because companies see profit opportunities
Remote areas with few travelers might not get roads
Nobody can make money building them
Anarchists argue: if people really need a road, they’ll build it themselves or pay someone

Who will educate the children?

Parents choose how to educate their kids
Pay for private schools, tutors, or teach them at home
Education becomes a service like any other
Schools compete to attract students
Offer quality teaching, innovative methods, specialized programs
Bad schools go out of business
Good schools thrive
Family picks what works best for situation and budget
Downside: poor families might struggle to afford quality education
Anarchists respond: without taxation, families have way more money to spend on what matters
Communities and charities would step in to help kids whose parents can’t pay
Critics worry this leaves too many children behind
Education is a service you buy, not a right guaranteed by government

Who will take care of grandma?

Family takes care of grandma
Or she takes care of herself with savings accumulated during working years
Many buy insurance or join mutual aid societies
Members pay dues throughout their lives, then receive care when old or sick
Like insurance companies or credit unions, but run by communities instead of state
Without government pensions or social security, responsibility falls entirely on individuals and voluntary networks
Encourages people to save, maintain family bonds, plan for the future
If grandma outlives her savings and has no family willing to help, she depends on charity
Anarchists trust communities would voluntarily support elderly through churches, charitable organizations, friendly societies
As they did before government welfare existed
Critics argue this is a dangerous gamble with vulnerable people’s lives

What will I do day-to-day in this system?

You’ll do whatever you want
No government telling you what job to have, where to live, or how to spend your time
Want to start a business? Go ahead
Want to work for someone else? Find an employer and negotiate your wage
Want to live in the woods and grow your own food? Nobody stops you
Make contracts with people when it benefits both of you
Avoid people you don’t want to deal with
Day might look pretty normal: working, shopping, hanging out with friends
Difference is everything happens through voluntary agreement instead of laws
Want protection? Hire a security company
Want to resolve a dispute? Agree with the other person on an arbitrator
No one forces you to pay for services you don’t want
But nobody guarantees you’ll have what you need
Completely free and completely responsible for yourself

How are unwanted actions discouraged?

Private security companies, armed individuals, social pressure, and reputation systems replace police and courts
Someone steals from you? Defend yourself, hire a protection agency, or organize with neighbors to catch the thief
Companies maintain databases of people who break contracts or commit crimes
Others can avoid doing business with them
Bad reputation makes it nearly impossible to function in society
Serious crimes like murder handled by competing arbitration agencies and private courts
Based on whatever legal system communities voluntarily adopt
Problem: what if you’re rich enough to hire better security than your victims?
What if two people disagree on which arbitration agency to use?
Anarchists believe market forces and social pressure would prevent abuse
Critics worry justice depends on your bank account and physical power rather than fairness

How has this system functioned in history?

No large-scale, long-term anarchist society has existed in modern history
Mostly have theories and small experiments
Medieval Iceland operated without formal government for about 300 years
Used private enforcement of laws and competing courts
During Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), parts of Spain organized anarchist communes
Workers controlled factories and farms
Until they were crushed by fascist forces
Some intentional communities today practice anarchist principles, but usually on small scale
Lack of historical examples is telling
Either anarchism hasn’t been tried properly, or there are reasons it doesn’t scale up to modern nations
Skeptics: every stateless society eventually either develops government or gets conquered by neighbors with organized states
Anarchists argue: technology, especially internet and cryptocurrencies, now makes voluntary coordination possible at scales never before achievable
We don’t know if it could work for millions of people because it hasn’t been tested that way

Does this principle work at the personal level?

Among friends and family, anarchist principles work beautifully
You don’t force your friends to hang out with you
You don’t tax your roommates to pay for groceries they didn’t want
You negotiate, compromise, and voluntarily cooperate
Someone consistently steals or lies? You stop associating with them
Nobody needs to enforce rules - social consequences handle it naturally
But imagine entire relationship with strangers worked this way too
No stop signs forcing you to stop, just your judgment about whether it’s safe
No FDA approving medicine, just companies’ reputations
No courts you can appeal to when someone breaks a contract, just whatever arbitrator you both agree on
Some people find this freedom exhilarating - finally treated as responsible adult who can run your own life
Others find it terrifying, especially for vulnerable people who can’t defend themselves or negotiate from a position of strength
Principle feels right in close relationships
Becomes complicated and potentially dangerous when scaled to a society of millions of strangers

What’s the Big Idea?

Every citizen has an equal say in how society is governed.

flowchart LR

%% Principle
Start["<b>Every citizen has an equal say in how society is governed</b>"]

%% Assumptions (ordered by importance)
A["Assumption: The majority is more likely to be right than any individual"]
B["Assumption: People are capable of self-governance"]
C["Assumption: Equal political rights lead to just outcomes"]
E["Assumption: Leaders will respect the people's will"]

%% Links from principle to assumptions
Start --> A
Start --> B
Start --> C
Start --> E

%% Actions
F1["Action: Universal suffrage - one person, one vote"]
F2["Action: Majority rule decides all questions"]
F3["Action: Direct voting on laws and policies"]
F4["Action: Leaders elected by popular vote"]

%% Links from assumptions to actions
A --> F2
B --> F3
C --> F1
E --> F4

%% Trade-offs
T1["Trade-off: Tyranny of the majority over minorities"]
T2["Trade-off: Decisions driven by emotion rather than reason"]
T3["Trade-off: Slow decision-making requiring broad consensus"]
T4["Trade-off: Uninformed voters making complex decisions"]
T5["Trade-off: Demagogues can manipulate public opinion"]
T6["Trade-off: Short-term thinking to win next election"]
T7["Trade-off: Individual rights vulnerable to majority whims"]

%% Benefits
B1["Benefit: Government reflects the people's will"]
B2["Benefit: Peaceful transfer of power through elections"]
B3["Benefit: Equal political voice for all citizens"]
B4["Benefit: Leaders accountable to the people"]

%% Links from actions to outcomes (benefits listed before trade-offs)
F1 --> B3
F1 --> T7

F2 --> B1
F2 --> T1
F2 --> T2

F3 --> B4
F3 --> T3
F3 --> T4

F4 --> B2
F4 --> T5
F4 --> T6

%% Define classes
classDef worldview fill:#e6d5f5,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px,color:#000
classDef assumption fill:#fbc,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px,color:#000
classDef action fill:#cdf,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px,color:#000
classDef tradeoff fill:#fdb,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px,color:#000
classDef benefit fill:#cfc,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px,color:#000

%% Assign classes
class Start worldview
class A,B,C,E assumption
class F1,F2,F3,F4 action
class T1,T2,T3,T4,T5,T6,T7 tradeoff
class B1,B2,B3,B4 benefit

How are societal decisions made?

Citizens vote directly on major decisions
Or vote frequently on representatives who decide on their behalf
Every student gets one ballot on every major school choice
The option with most votes wins
Everyone must follow the result regardless of individual agreement
Constant voting: highways, taxes, war - all decided by majority
No constitutional limits constraining what can be voted on
The people’s will at any moment determines policy
Even if that will changes dramatically year to year

Who will build the roads?

Government builds roads using tax money
Which roads get built depends on majority vote
Highway to suburbs gets funded if most voters want it
Bridge in low-population area gets neglected despite desperate need
Politicians promise roads to areas with most voters to win elections
Popular projects get priority over unpopular but necessary infrastructure
Fancy visible downtown renovation beats boring underground sewer repairs
Roads become political tools for winning swing districts
Spending driven by political calculations rather than actual need

Who will educate the children?

Public schools run by government
Curriculum decided by popular vote or elected school boards
Majority decides what gets taught, spending levels, values promoted
Prayer in schools if most voters want it
Evolution taught if majority supports it
Educational content subject to political winds
Textbooks and teaching methods change dramatically with each election
Traditional education one year, progressive methods the next
Constant upheaval for teachers and students as policies shift
Minority viewpoints squeezed out without majority support
Unconventional educational approaches eliminated by popular vote

Who will take care of grandma?

Government provides elderly care through programs voted on by majority
Generous pensions and healthcare if most voters want them
Benefits cut if voters prefer spending money elsewhere
Elderly vote in large numbers, so systems typically provide decent care
Politicians know seniors will punish them at ballot box
Creates potential conflict between generations
Elderly voting bloc votes for benefits younger workers must fund
Even if unsustainable long-term
Working-age majority might vote to reduce grandma’s benefits to lower taxes
Quality of care depends on political power, not inherent rights or family responsibility

What will I do day-to-day in this system?

Daily life looks fairly normal: work, shop, spend time with family and friends
Key difference: expected to participate actively in politics
Vote frequently on everything from local initiatives to national leaders
Attend town hall meetings, sign petitions, join protests to influence policy
Democracy requires engaged citizens, not passive subjects
Constant churn of policy changes as new majorities emerge
Regulations affecting your business shift with political winds
Taxes you pay change when majorities change
Services available fluctuate with elections
Must stay informed about countless complex issues because you’re voting on them
Empowering because you have a voice
Exhausting because voice comes with responsibility to understand issues affecting millions

How are unwanted actions discouraged?

Laws passed by majority vote
Enforced by police and courts accountable to elected officials
Drugs, gambling, certain speech become illegal if most people want it
Laws change when public opinion shifts
System responsive to what majority considers unwanted at any moment
Justice based on popular sentiment, not consistent principles
Angry majority votes for harsh punishments
Sympathetic majority reduces punishments
Minorities criminalized for behavior majority disapproves of
Not because they harmed anyone, but because they’re outvoted
Majority votes to restrict freedoms of groups they don’t like
Legal discrimination as long as it’s popular

How has this system functioned in history?

Ancient Athens: male citizens voted directly on laws and policies
Produced remarkable culture and philosophy
Also voted to execute Socrates
Made catastrophic military decisions driven by popular emotion rather than strategy
Modern examples of pure democracy are rare
Most countries found it impractical and dangerous
Switzerland comes closest with frequent referendums
Works well in their small, educated, relatively homogeneous population
Larger, more diverse nations attempting pure democracy typically led to instability
France’s revolutionary democracy descended into mob rule and terror
Many young democracies without constitutional limits voted away their own freedoms
Democratically elected strongmen who then eliminated democracy
Historical pattern: pure democracy works in small, stable societies
Becomes chaotic or tyrannical at larger scales

Does this principle work at the personal level?

Small groups: democratic decision-making works great
Friends vote on which movie to watch or where to eat
Everyone gets a say, majority decides
Nobody forced to participate
Stakes low enough that losers aren’t seriously harmed
School clubs, small organizations, friend groups use democratic voting successfully
But imagine family as pure democracy
Siblings outvote parents on bedtime, diet, school attendance
Three kids vs two parents means kids win every decision
Friend group votes on whether you can date someone they don’t like
Suddenly majority controls your personal choices
Principle works when decisions affect everyone equally
And when no one’s fundamental rights are at stake
When majority can vote to control minorities or individuals, becomes oppressive
Most families aren’t democracies
Most friend groups don’t vote on deeply personal choices
Some things shouldn’t be subject to majority rule