Q & A

Q: Can you name a country without any laws in few lines

A:

There is no recognized country in the world that operates completely without any laws. Every sovereign state has some form of legal framework to maintain order.

However, some places are often described as having areas with a near-total absence of state-enforced law. The closest historical example is:

Somalia during its civil war (c. 1991-2012), when the central government collapsed, leaving a stateless and lawless condition for years. Even then, local clan-based customary law often filled the void.

Another unique answer is:

Antarctica, which is not a country but a continent governed by an international treaty. While it has no native government or laws of its own, all activities are regulated by the national laws of the signatory countries and the Antarctic Treaty System.

Q: Can you name countries where citizens have absolute freedom of choice to acknowledge the ruler & rules ?

A:

This is a fascinating question that touches on the very nature of government and political freedom.

In short, there is no country where citizens have absolute freedom of choice to acknowledge the ruler and the rules. The concept of a state inherently requires a system of rules (laws) and a governing authority (a ruler or government) that holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within its territory.

However, we can look at countries where citizens have a very high degree of freedom in this regard, and contrast them with countries where they have almost none.

Countries with High Degrees of Political Freedom

In liberal democracies, citizens have a powerful, institutionalized voice in choosing and challenging their rulers and rules:

• Through Voting: Citizens elect their representatives and, in some cases, directly vote on laws through referendums (e.g., Switzerland, where direct democracy is extensively practiced).
• Through Free Speech and Assembly: Citizens are free to criticize the government, protest laws they disagree with, and advocate for change without fear of persecution. This is a cornerstone of countries like Canada, Germany, New Zealand, and Norway.
• Through the Rule of Law: The government itself is subject to the law, and an independent judiciary can strike down rules that violate a constitutional bill of rights.

Even here, this freedom is not “absolute.” Once a law is legally passed, citizens must generally obey it or face legal consequences, even if they disagree. A citizen cannot “choose” to ignore tax laws or traffic rules.

Countries with Very Little Freedom of Choice

In contrast, absolute monarchies and authoritarian states offer citizens little to no choice:

• Absolute Monarchies: In nations like Saudi Arabia and Oman, the ruler inherits the position for life. There are no national elections for the head of state, and the monarch has ultimate authority over the rules.
• Single-Party States: In countries like China (under the Communist Party) and North Korea (under the Kim dynasty), only one party is permitted to hold power. Citizens have no meaningful mechanism to reject the ruling party or its leadership.

The Philosophical Extreme: Anarchy

The only scenario where one could have the “absolute freedom” you describe is in a state of anarchy—the absence of any government or ruler. However, this is not a recognized country but a theoretical concept. In practice, such a condition leads to a power vacuum often filled by warlords, gangs, or chaos, ultimately resulting in a loss of security and freedom for most people.

In conclusion: While the degree of choice varies immensely across the globe, from robust democracies to rigid autocracies, the “absolute freedom” to pick and choose which ruler and rules to acknowledge is incompatible with the existence of any functioning state.

Q: what kind of citizens hate laws and are they in majority? does it cause chaos?

A:

This is a profound question that gets to the heart of why societies function. Let’s break it down.

What Kind of Citizens Hate Laws?

People who dislike or resent laws are not a single group but rather several distinct types, each with different motivations:

1. The Anarchist or Libertarian Ideologue: These individuals oppose laws on principle. They believe that laws and the state are an illegitimate use of force against individual liberty. Anarchists may envision a society based on voluntary cooperation, while libertarians typically argue for a “night-watchman” state with minimal laws (only to protect against force and fraud).
2. The Rebel or Non-Conformist: This is often a younger person or someone who defines themselves by rejecting authority. For them, laws represent the oppressive “system” or “establishment” that stifles personal expression and freedom.
3. The Disenfranchised and Marginalized: These citizens often live in communities that have been historically harmed or neglected by the law (e.g., systemic racism, economic injustice). They don’t necessarily hate the concept of law and order, but they see the current system as corrupt, biased, and designed to work against them. Their resentment is born of experience.
4. The Opportunist or Criminal: This person hates laws that get in the way of their personal profit or desires. They are not against law in general—they might want strong laws to protect the property they steal—but they resent any rule that restricts their own actions.
5. The Frustrated Citizen: This is perhaps the most common type. They don’t “hate laws” in general, but they deeply resent specific laws they perceive as stupid, unfair, or unnecessarily intrusive. Examples could include complicated tax codes, strict zoning laws, or regulations they feel infringe on personal choices (e.g., seatbelt laws, COVID-19 lockdowns).

Are They in the Majority?

Almost certainly not.

The vast majority of people are what political philosophers call “preferrers of order.” They accept the necessity of laws because they understand the alternative is far worse. Most people:

• Want to be safe from violence and theft.
• Want to know that contracts will be honored.
• Want to drive on roads where everyone follows the same rules of the road.

This acceptance is often tacit and unspoken. We don’t wake up every day grateful for traffic laws, but we would be terrified to drive without them. The majority may grumble about specific laws, taxes, or politicians, but they fundamentally support the framework of a governed society.

• The Enlightenment & Revolutions: After a long hiatus during the Roman Empire and Middle Ages, democratic ideas were revived and transformed during the Enlightenment (Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu) and the American (1776) and French (1789) Revolutions.
• Key Evolution: This gave birth to the representative democracy or republic. The utopian values were codified into documents like the U.S. Bill of Rights and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, emphasizing:
  • Popular Sovereignty: The government’s power comes from the consent of the governed.
  • Individual Rights: Inalienable rights like liberty, property, and free speech.
  • Rule of Law: No one is above the law.
  • Separation of Powers: Checks and balances to prevent tyranny.

Does It Cause Chaos?

• Erosion from Within: In established democracies, populist leaders often attack democratic norms, the independent judiciary, and the free press. They may use democratic processes to gain power and then weaken them (e.g., Hungary, Poland, and concerns in other nations).
• Rise of Authoritarian Giants: Powers like China and Russia actively promote an alternative, authoritarian model of governance, arguing it’s more efficient for stability and economic growth. They use disinformation and economic coercion to undermine democratic alliances.
• The “Hybrid Regime” Trap: Many countries are stuck in a gray zone—they hold elections but are not truly democratic due to corruption, weak institutions, and suppression of opposition.
• Threats from Technology: Social media has been weaponized for mass disinformation, foreign interference in elections, and eroding public trust in shared facts—the bedrock of democratic debate.

This is the critical part. Widespread hatred of laws absolutely can cause chaos, but it depends on the scale and intensity of the rejection.

This is the core of the modern debate. The evidence points to a concerning global decline, though the story is complex.

• At a Low Level: A small number of people hating laws does not cause chaos. Societies have police, courts, and social pressures to manage this. This is normal and is why we have a criminal justice system.
• At a Systemic Level: If the feeling becomes widespread, it leads to a Crisis of Legitimacy. This is when a significant portion of the population no longer believes the government or its laws have the right to rule. This can happen due to:
  • Perceived Injustice: Widespread corruption or a legal system that is seen as deeply biased.
  • Tyranny: Laws that are overwhelmingly oppressive.
  • State Collapse: The government loses its ability to enforce laws, as seen in failed states.

When a crisis of legitimacy occurs, you get:

1. Mass Civil Disobedience: People openly and collectively break the law.
2. Social Unrest: Protests, riots, and violence.
3. A Breakdown of Order: The social contract breaks down, leading to the very chaos that laws are designed to prevent.

In summary: While a small number of people may ideologically hate all laws, the majority of citizens accept them as a necessary price for safety and order. Widespread chaos does not erupt from a few dissenters, but from a systemic collapse in the population’s belief that the laws and rulers are legitimate and just.

Q: Do you know a king / owner of a country responsible for all the needs of its citizens and gave freedom of choice to acknowledge ruler and rules. Does the king have rights to make rules for proper functioning and safety of its citizens ?

A:

This is a fantastic question that delves into the very essence of political philosophy and the “social contract.” The scenario you describe is an idealized form of governance, often imagined but rarely, if ever, perfectly realized in history.

Let’s break down the two parts of your question.

Part 1: The King as Provider and Grantor of Freedom

The concept of a ruler who is personally responsible for all the needs of the citizens is reminiscent of two ideas:

1. The Paternalistic Monarch: In this model, the king is like a “father” to the nation. He provides for his “children” (the citizens) and, in return, expects their loyalty and obedience. The freedom to acknowledge him is not a political right, but a natural consequence of his benevolent care.
2. The Modern Welfare State: This is a more recent democratic concept where the state (not a personal king) is responsible for providing a social safety net (e.g., healthcare, education, unemployment benefits). This is funded by citizens through taxes and is managed by a government, not a single individual.

The second part of your description—a ruler who gives freedom of choice to acknowledge the ruler and rules—is the crucial and paradoxical element. In a traditional monarchy, the right to rule (sovereignty) is not subject to the people’s choice. It is usually inherited or taken by force.

Does such a king exist?
There is no historical or modern example of an absolute monarch who simultaneously provides all needs and allows citizens the freedom to reject him. These two concepts are in fundamental tension:

• If citizens can freely choose not to acknowledge the king, his authority is no longer absolute.
• If the king is truly responsible for all needs, this requires immense resources and control over the economy and society, which is incompatible with the individual freedom to opt out of his rules.

The closest modern analogues are constitutional monarchies (like the UK, Canada, Japan, or Norway), where:

• The monarch is a symbolic head of state with little to no political power.
• The government (elected by the people) is responsible for citizen welfare.
• Citizens have the freedom to vote and thus “acknowledge” or reject their government and its rules through elections.

Part 2: The King’s Right to Make Rules for Safety and Functioning

Yes, absolutely.

This is the foundational principle of any government, whether it’s a monarchy, democracy, or dictatorship. The authority to create and enforce rules is what defines a state. This is known as sovereignty.

From a philosophical standpoint, this right is justified by the Social Contract (as theorized by thinkers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau).

• Hobbes’ Argument: He famously said that without a powerful sovereign (a “Leviathan”) to make and enforce rules, human life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” People, in his view, willingly give up some freedoms to this ruler in exchange for safety, security, and the functioning of society.
• The General Principle: Citizens implicitly agree to be governed by rules in exchange for the benefits of living in an orderly society: safety, property rights, dispute resolution, and public goods.

So, in your scenario:

• The king not only has the right but also the fundamental responsibility to make rules for the proper functioning and safety of the realm.
• This is the quid pro quo (something for something) for providing for the citizens’ needs.

The Critical Limitation: The big question throughout history has been: What limits this right? In a democracy, the people’s will and a constitution limit it. In an absolute monarchy, the only limit is the king’s own judgment, which can lead to tyranny if he is not wise and benevolent.

In conclusion:

Your question describes a benevolent, all-providing absolute monarch who rules by consent rather than force. This is a philosophical ideal. In reality, the concentration of power needed to provide “all needs” almost always comes at the cost of the “freedom to acknowledge,” and the right to make rules is the essential function that enables any state, including this idealized one, to exist.

Q: What is an ideal hierarchy in a country in matters of making rules, conveying to citizens and implementing which can make all happy?

A:

This is the central question of political philosophy—the search for a “perfect” system that balances order, justice, and happiness. While no system can make every single person happy all the time, an ideal hierarchy is one that maximizes legitimacy, trust, and well-being for the greatest number of people.

Such a system isn’t a fixed blueprint, but a set of principles and processes. We can think of it as having three integrated pillars: Making Rules, Conveying Rules, and Implementing Rules.

Here is a model of an ideal hierarchy and process flow:

The Three Pillars of an Ideal Governance Hierarchy

1. Making Rules (The Legislative Pillar)

This is the foundation. Rules must be seen as legitimate and fair.

• The People (The Sovereign Foundation): In an ideal system, all legitimate authority flows from the consent of the governed. This is the bedrock.
• Participatory & Deliberative Bodies:
  • Citizens’ Assemblies: Randomly selected groups of citizens (like a jury) who study complex issues, hear from experts, and make recommendations. This counters the influence of powerful lobbyists and short-term political cycles.
  • Elected Representative Legislature: A parliament or congress elected by the people to debate, refine, and pass laws. Its purpose is to represent diverse interests and create coherent legislation.
  • Expert Advisory Panels: Non-partisan bodies of scientists, economists, public health officials, etc., who provide evidence-based input. Rule-making is informed by data, not just ideology.
• A Supreme Constitution: A foundational legal document that enshrines fundamental rights (free speech, equality, privacy) and principles. All ordinary laws must comply with this higher law, protecting minorities from the “tyranny of the majority.”

The Goal of this Pillar: To ensure rules are Just, Informed, and Representative.

2. Conveying Rules (The Communication Pillar)

Transparency is key. People cannot follow rules they don’t know or understand.

• A Free and Independent Press: Acts as a “Fourth Estate” or watchdog, investigating and reporting on government actions without fear or favor.
• Government Transparency Portals: All laws, regulations, government spending, and legislative debates should be easily accessible online in plain language.
• Civic Education: A robust education system that teaches citizens not just their rights, but their responsibilities and how the government works. An informed citizenry is essential.
• Public Consultation & Feedback Loops: Before major rules are finalized, there are open periods for public comment. After implementation, there are easy channels (ombudsman, digital platforms) for citizens to report problems or suggest improvements.

The Goal of this Pillar: To ensure rules are Transparent, Understood, and Accessible.

3. Implementing Rules (The Executive & Judicial Pillars)

This is where rules meet reality. Implementation must be fair and consistent.

• An Impartial & Professional Civil Service: The government’s administrative staff should be hired on merit, not political connections. They implement laws based on procedure, not on who is being served.
• An Independent Judiciary: Courts must be free from political pressure. Their role is to interpret laws, resolve disputes, and ensure that the executive branch’s actions are legal. This is the ultimate check on power.
• Community-Linked Law Enforcement: Police and local administrators should see themselves as part of the community, building trust and enforcing rules with proportionality and respect for human rights.

The Goal of this Pillar: To ensure rules are Implemented Fairly, Consistently, and with Accountability.

Visualizing the Flow of an Ideal System:

flowchart TD A[The People<br> Sovereign Foundation] --> B[Making Rules<br>Participatory & Representative] B --> C{Constitution<br>Guardian of Fundamental Rights} C -- All laws must comply --> B B -- Creates --> D[Laws & Rules] D --> E[Conveying Rules<br>Transparent Communication] E --> F[Citizens & Institutions] F --> G[Implementing Rules<br>Fair & Consistent] G --> H{Independent Judiciary<br>Checks & interprets} H -->|Ensures fairness| G H -->|Strikes down| B G -- Feedback --> E E -- Feedback --> B

Why This Model Can Lead to Widespread Happiness:

1. Legitimacy: Because people have a voice (through votes, assemblies, or consultation), they are more likely to accept rules they disagree with.
2. Trust: Transparency and impartial implementation build trust in institutions.
3. Justice: The constitutional and judicial checks protect individual rights and prevent abuse of power.
4. Adaptability: Feedback loops allow the system to learn, correct mistakes, and evolve with society’s needs.
5. Stability: By balancing popular will (democracy) with reasoned deliberation and fundamental rights (republicanism), it avoids the chaos of pure mob rule and the oppression of a dictatorship.

The Final, Crucial Point: An “ideal hierarchy” is not a machine that once built runs perfectly. It is a living, dynamic process that depends on an active, informed, and responsible citizenry. The system’s ultimate goal is not to make happiness mandatory, but to create the conditions—safety, justice, freedom, and opportunity—under which citizens can pursue their own happiness.

Q: in general, majority of citizens are educated enough, have foresight to make laws to protect interest of all? Or there is need of burocrates / knowledgeable pple with foresight ?

A:

This is one of the oldest and most fundamental debates in political science, stretching back to ancient Greece. There is no simple “yes” or “no” answer, as it involves a tension between two core principles: Democratic Will and Expertise.

Let’s break down the arguments for both sides.

The Case for Citizen Majority (The Democratic Ideal)

The argument that the majority of citizens are ultimately capable rests on several key ideas:

1. Collective Wisdom (“The Wisdom of the Crowds”): While one individual may be poorly informed, a large and diverse group of people, when their knowledge is aggregated, can often arrive at surprisingly wise and accurate decisions. They collectively understand their own needs, values, and lived experiences better than any distant elite.
2. Legitimacy and Ownership: Laws are far more legitimate and likely to be obeyed if the people living under them have a direct hand in creating them. This fosters a sense of civic responsibility and ownership.
3. Protection from Elite Capture: Relying solely on bureaucrats and experts creates a risk of “technocracy,” where a class of unelected officials makes decisions that serve their own interests or those of powerful lobbies, rather than the common good. The popular will acts as a crucial check on this.
4. Focus on Values, Not Just Details: Citizens are excellent at deciding on the ends—what kind of society do we want? (e.g., a healthy, fair, and prosperous one). They can set the broad direction and values. The experts can then help figure out the means—the most effective technical ways to achieve those goals.

The Case for Bureaucrats & Experts (The Realist/Technocratic View)

The argument for needing knowledgeable specialists is based on the complexities of modern governance:

1. The Complexity of Modern Issues: Many critical areas of law—climate science, digital privacy, international trade, macroeconomic policy, public health epidemiology—are incredibly complex. They require years of specialized study to understand fully. A layperson, no matter how intelligent, may lack the foresight to see the second and third-order consequences of a policy.
2. The Problem of Popular Passion: Public opinion can be volatile, short-sighted, and driven by emotion or misinformation. This can lead to demands for popular but deeply harmful policies (e.g., protectionist trade wars that cause global recessions, or punitive “tough-on-crime” laws that are ineffective and expensive).
3. The Tyranny of the Majority: A pure majority rule can easily overlook or actively harm the rights and interests of minority groups. Independent institutions staffed by experts (like a supreme court or a central bank) are often designed as buffers against this.
4. Long-Term Foresight vs. Short-Term Incentives: Politicians elected by the majority often focus on short-term electoral cycles (2-6 years). Experts in bureaucratic roles can provide the long-term planning and consistency needed for issues like infrastructure, environmental protection, and scientific research, which have timelines of 30-50 years.

The Ideal Synthesis: A Collaborative, Not Competitive, Model

The most successful modern societies do not choose one over the other. They create a system where both the popular will and expert knowledge play their respective roles, checking and balancing each other.

Here’s what that looks like in practice:The Citizen’s Role (The “What” and “Why”)The Expert/Bureaucrat’s Role (The “How”)Sets Values & Goals: Through elections and public debate, citizens decide the broad direction. “We want cleaner air!” “We need better healthcare!” Designs Solutions: Experts (engineers, doctors, economists) devise specific, evidence-based plans to achieve these goals. e.g., “Here is the most efficient technology for reducing emissions.” Provides Legitimacy: Citizens, through their representatives, have the final vote to pass laws and fund programs. Provides Implementation: A professional civil service implements the laws fairly, consistently, and without political bias. Acts as a Watchdog: A free press and an engaged citizenry hold both politicians and bureaucrats accountable for results and corruption. Provides Foresight & Analysis: Experts run models, conduct cost-benefit analyses, and warn of long-term risks, providing crucial data for decision-making.

Conclusion:

To answer your question directly: The majority of citizens are perfectly capable of defining the ends—the overarching goals and values that laws should protect. Their collective wisdom and lived experience are indispensable for this.

However, for the means—the intricate, technical, and long-term task of drafting, implementing, and administering effective laws—the specialized knowledge, foresight, and stability provided by a professional bureaucracy and independent experts are absolutely essential.

An ideal system is a partnership, not a dictatorship of either the majority or the experts. It’s a constant dialogue where the people set the destination, and the experts help navigate the complex journey to get there.

Q: How old is the democracy and its utopian values and is it trending up or down?

A:

This is a vital question about the state of one of humanity’s most enduring political ideas. The story of democracy is not a simple, upward trajectory but a long and turbulent one, and its current direction is a subject of intense global debate.

Here’s a breakdown of its age, its utopian values, and its current trend.

Part 1: How Old is Democracy and its Utopian Values?

The answer has two layers: the ancient origin and the modern form.

1. Ancient Origin (c. 5th Century BCE – Approx 2,500 years old)

• Birth in Athens: The concept of dēmokratia (rule by the people) was born in ancient Athens around 508 BCE. However, this was a direct democracy where a small fraction of the population (adult, male, non-slave citizens) could vote directly on laws.
• Utopian Values: Even then, the ideals were powerful: isonomia (equality before the law), isegoria (equal right to speak in the assembly), and the radical idea that power should come from the many, not a single monarch.

2. Modern Form (c. 17th-18th Century – Approx 250-350 years old)

So, while the idea of democracy is about 2,500 years old, its modern, representative form with universal suffrage (including women and non-property owners) is largely a 20th-century phenomenon, making it just over 100 years old in its most inclusive form.

---

Part 2: Is it Trending Up or Down?

The Case for a DOWNWARD TREND (The “Democratic Recession”)

Since the early 2000s, major research institutes like Freedom House and the VARIETIES OF DEMOCRACY (V-Dem) Institute have reported a consistent decline in global democratic freedom.

The Case for a RESILIENT or EVOLVING Trend

Despite the decline, it’s not all bleak. Democracy is proving resilient and adaptive.

• Global Aspiration: In most global surveys, democracy remains the overwhelmingly preferred form of government. People from Iran to Hong Kong to Belarus continue to risk their lives protesting for democratic rights.
• Innovation and Renewal: There is a surge in democratic innovation to combat the crisis:
  • Citizen Assemblies: Randomly selected citizens are brought together to deliberate on complex issues (like climate change in France and Ireland), bypassing partisan gridlock.
  • Digital Tools for Transparency: Platforms for tracking government spending and lobbying are increasing accountability.
• Cyclical History: Democracy has faced existential threats before (the rise of fascism in the 1930s, the Cold War). It has historically gone through periods of recession and renewal.

Conclusion: A Precarious Moment

The current trend is best described as a “Democratic Recession.” The period of rapid democratic expansion after the Cold War has ended, and we are now in a phase of contestation and backsliding.

The utopian values of democracy are ancient and enduring, but the institutional practice of it is under significant strain. The future trajectory is not predetermined. It depends on whether citizens, civil society, and democratic leaders can successfully combat disinformation, reduce polarization, reform institutions, and prove that democracy can effectively deliver on its promises of freedom, dignity, and shared prosperity.

In essence, the data says the trend is down, but the struggle to reverse it is very much alive.