May have said this several times before, but chewing on it again.. Effects of accepting democracy as sole method of resolving political disagreement:

• Accept nonadoption of idea as a personal failing - not of the thing one proposes necessarily, but rather of not pushing it hard enough in public discourse
• Effort-ocracy - whomever puts the most effort into promoting their ideas in that discourse will see them adopted in society through the mechanism of the state
• Trust that some combination of the inertia built into the system and the judgement/apathy of the populace will keep ideas one dislikes from being enshrined in law

Still chewing on two models of governance:

1. Socratic model - those who would take high office take oath of poverty and transparency for life - no privacy, no personal property, goal to prevent corruption by removing individual stake in society and making statesmen wards of the state. A step partway to Rawls' Original Position?
2. Hyperfluid model - All leadership is highly transient, following the ideas I had earlier about Three_Rules_of_Communism. Issue: Must happen after some commitment to communism is widespread for political stability, also assumes high levels of education and willingness for universal involvement in/responsibility for these decisions. Consider scaling it down to a coffeeshop - collectives are great, but does everyone want to be involved in running it?

Odd thing about letting my laptop suspend - after wakeup, the keyboard is never the same - sometimes events are dropped and I get repeated keys. This is very frustrating.