“The ultimate, hidden truth of the world is that it is something that we make, and could just as easily make differently.” — David Graeber
“Part of the potency of common sense is to rule out our thinking any differently about the world. That is, to subjugate our own mental capacity to imagine the world otherwise.” — Noam Chomsky
It seems there are three closely related questions that get raised when one wants to imagine an ideal world.
The first is pretty easy to answer. The second is also relatively easy to answer. The third is much more difficult, but we should not shy away from attempts to address it.
Is the current world ideal, given the capacities of humanity?
If an alien came to earth, what would they think, would they come to believe that the current system is fair and just? I doubt it. I think they would observe many power structures bearing down on the population, and I dont think they would be convinced of those structures self-justifications.
Many such justifications exist for these power structures at the present moment, to name a few: might, divinity, charisma, tradition, law, utility, merit, morality, consent. I believe most can be dismissed, except consent.
The first four can be dimissed together. Each is grounded not in reason or justice, but in contingent accidents of strength, belief, personality, or history. None offer a stable or justifiable standard by which the governed can evaluate or contest authority.
The last five; law, utility, merit, morality and consent require more careful consideration. They can have justification if backed by carefully consent, but only if so. Law and morality without consent is arbitrary, utility without consent is untethered. Merit can be dismissed as a basis of power because it disguises privilege as desert, rewarding the winners of an unfair game while blaming the losers for losing.
This brings us to the only basis of power I believe in; consent. But its also not without caveats. It must be democratic, without deficit, and immediately revocable.
The alien would also observe unrestricted inequality where various social power laws are allowed to exist. Even as the total wealth is growing, it is being distributed highly unequally. Inequality is unjust because it concentrates unconsented power. It does this through hierarchical structures justified by myths, it perpetuates itself via systemic feedback loops, and it violates the ethical demand that all power must continually justify itself—or be dismantled.
Why is this inequality bad? it Violates the principle that all are equal. It hoards resources for the few. It limits access to opportunities for the many. It gives people less control over their own destiny.
Many people believe that inequality can be justified. Lets tackle this. I think inequality is unearned, unconsented to, and indefensible. When inequality is unjust is should be repaired and egalitarianism implemented, which is always except for a few justified situations.
In what broad direction should we move?
Given we've whether the current system is reasonable, lets think of directions we should move in.
Starting with the principle of consent, it would lead us to tear down power structures and heirarchies which violate this principle.
Where specifically do we want to end up?
Anarchism.