My experience has definitely taught me that non-rational (if not necessarily irrational) influences, e.g. beliefs, predominate in virtually all people. I honestly don’t think that ambiguity would be a problem for my paradigm (either a person would be proposing a specific choice or not, arguing for or against a proposed choice or not), but enforcement surely would be. Even so, having that as an explicit ethos for political speech would be a good thing.

It would help if the ethic of justice (‘mutual respect in effecting choices’) from which I developed that model for a political process were to be explicitly recognized as the ethic of justice for the society. Then the rules for political speech could perhaps become mores (anthropologically speaking) as opposed to being a matter of law.

To your point about smaller communities, I have observed that social media have a similar effect on society: the less anonymity, the more people must be careful in their conduct. The desire for smaller communities, whether geographical or not, does seem to be the way ‘the people’ are trending, but people in power are doing all they can to preserve the nation-state model. They would rather have power over more than fewer.

It so happens that I have developed a monetary model (also based on the aforementioned ethic of justice) that would be centralized yet allow the nation-state to “wither away.” It does not require the demise of the nation-state, but with this model we would no longer need the nation-state for economic purposes. (I do have an M.A. in economics; my Thesis involved distributive justice.)

I understand that people have an instinctive reflex to shy away from new ideas. I am the same way. I am going ask you to please forebear speculating on that economic model. I can bear people choosing to ignore it, but I can’t take any more of people judging it, even tentatively, it without having studied it.