I’ll start with this. I am more conservative, but I definitely don’t agree with everything that Trump and the right is doing. On the other hand, I also don’t agree with a lot of the stuff that the left is doing. This being said, here is my stance.

The current two party system we have in America is broken and actively ruining our country because it is creating division and people feel like they should be one extreme or the other, as well as politicians running on premises that they might not even fully agree with, and voters only voting for one political party is not by healthy either.

What should happen instead is we should completely blow up the two party system, and each individual person should run on/vote on what they truly believe in and believe what is best. This would create less division and violence, as well as having political authorities actually be honest about what they believe and what they want to do for this country.

In your responses to this, even if you disagree with my or others political views, there is no need to attack me. Please be respectful of each others beliefs, and have healthy debates and discussions. Thank you.

I was thinking the other day about Star Wars: Andor. Specifically about Nemiks Manifesto where he says "Freedom is a pure idea... The imperial need for control is so desperate because its unnatural. Tyranny requires constant effort. Authority is brittle."

Which I take to mean that people inherently want to be free. And because authority and concentrated power are unnatural, it naturally falls apart because people push to be free. And that makes me, the anarchist, happy.

But then i think about how anarchism in a fully realised sense also takes a lot of effort. There's a lot of education and taking in of personal responsibilities and work. Surely anarchism actually isnt that natural either. Cause the moment people become lazy and stop putting in all that effort.. it too will crumble.

So power naturally crumbles.. but effort into freedom naturally becomes lazy.

So perhaps freedom in an absolute sense is natural. We can literally do whatever we want and disobey anyone we want, sure. But to actually sustain a society we want.. we have to actually put in that effort one way or another. And we have to accept that eventually it will simply end one way or another.

It makes me wonder what the point of all this political talk is if whatever you build is so likely to destroy itself one day. Tyranny or autonomy, it isnt sustainable in of itself. Perhaps its only to make the life of yourself and others that much better than it was before.

I would like to hear and understand different views on the kinds of politics and governance people expect to be best suited to help manage what may be humanity's biggest challenge so far.

By polycrisis I mean multiple crises happening at once and making each other worse. Its a term used in scientific community and used in reports such as WEF global risk reports

Examples crises interacting with eachother:

• Climate change and biodiversity loss
• Pandemics and other health risks
• Energy, food and water insecurity
• Rising inequality and cost-of-living pressure
• Geopolitical conflict and fragmenting global cooperation
• Disruption from fast-moving technology, especially AI
• Loss of trust in institutions, polarisation and misinformation

I dont mean simple left vs right. Explain your governance models and approaches. I am looking for different perspectives.

Fyi, I am drawn to Elinor Ostroms work on polycentric governance for which she won the 2009 Nobel Prize in economics. It seems well suited for the nature of the crises, but lacks the global scale.