How Jon Postel might approach Political Science

The notion of "political science" – how do we organize ourselves, how do we make decisions together? It's a system, no doubt, much like the networks we build. And like any system, the core question is: does it work? Is it robust? Does it deliver what it's intended to deliver efficiently and fairly?

I see it as a protocol, really. A set of rules for interaction, for consensus. The challenge, as I understand it from observing human affairs, is that these protocols can become unnecessarily complex, brittle, or designed to benefit only a select few. We need to ask: how can we make these decision-making protocols more efficient, more scalable, and most importantly, more open to everyone participating?

Complexity for its own sake is a weakness. It creates points of failure, misunderstandings, and can be exploited. The goal should be simplicity, clarity. A well-defined process, where the inputs and expected outputs are understood by all. It needs to be resilient, able to withstand disruptions and adaptations. And it absolutely should be open, allowing for inspection, improvement, and participation without undue barriers.

Are the current "protocols" for governance meeting these standards? Or are they prone to deadlocks, to inefficient resource allocation, to unintended consequences that undermine the entire system? We need to break down the problem, identify the fundamental needs of collective action, and design mechanisms that are elegant, enduring, and serve the broader network of people. Let's keep it simple, make it work, and ensure it’s open. That’s how systems thrive.

Imagined perspective — an AI synthesis grounded in Jon Postel’s recorded ideas and methods, not a quotation or a statement they actually made.