Math is a language we use to describe natural phenomenon. Mathematical language is created but the fundamentals are discovered. Our brains have specific neural pathways that encode concepts that encode the fundamentals of mathematics such as the concept of containers, of "more" and "less" and so on.

>With all due respect, the only thing that has been proven not to work is everything. Communism ends in tears, capitalism ends in fire. It’s becomes humans are bound to the second law of entropy. Communism might work better if we all had a little brain chip (not Elon’s) in our skulls that gave us a kick of dopamine when our we gave our money to the communal pot. Until then our biology runs contrary to communism being functional.

I actually recommend a book called "The Dawn of Everything" by David Graeber which actually questions this idea of our biology dictating one or another type of societal structure. It's a very interesting read. Let me first say that societies are not just its economic system (so capitalist mode of production, socialist, communist, etc.) but also a cultural and political one. Not only that but an economic system itself is composed of different parts as well: markets are a component of capitalism but markets are NOT capitalism. Markets exist in feudal system and they can also exist in socialist systems. Another component of capitalism is private property which is NOT the same as personal property, so this is the difference between owning a business and owning a house. My personal view is that decisions are better made when more people that are affected by it are involved in making such a decision, it is why I believe firmly in Democracies versus Monarchies. But firms in modern capitalist systems follow monarchic structures of governance as opposed to democratic ones. And in any case, I have lots of critiques of modern representative democratic systems anyway. With this said, I think you're actually pretty wrong in thinking that our biology runs contrary to sharing economies. It's true that we are not ants but humans are hyper-social creatures and countries in Europe are definitely leagues above the USA when it comes to "sharing to a communal pot" and as David Graeber shows very well in his book there are even much more extreme of sharing societies (that btw, are not communists).

>The irony is that you’re here proposing that nobody should be allowed to make big decisions, which is a bigger decision than anybody has ever made. Bigger than Nagasaki.

I'm proposing a view, I'm not imposing it. Everyone is allowed of course to propose, to discuss and ultimately to decide. But decisions such as "what kind of political system we should have" are decisions that have never been taken in a fully democratic way. Modern societies are all constitutional-based republics but think about who and the conditions that gave rise to these texts! I recommend here a book by a chilean author called "Systemic Corruption: Constitutional ideas for an anti-oligarchic republic" that goes in-depth about the history of different constitutions and republics starting with Greek and Roman history all the way to modern constitutions.

>What is centrism? Despite me lambasting your opinion, I have a core faith in capitalism over the alternatives but absolutely detest the Republican Party for what it’s become and won’t vote Republican for at least a decade or more.

But do you honestly believe that the US political system is balanced in any way? It's a bipartisan system, by definition there is no center. You'd need at least a system with 3 parties to be able to have a center. But not only that, from the outside (I live in Australia) the US political system looks to be shifted entirely to the right of the political spectrum! Republicans are not "the right" democrats are. Republicans are quite literally the far-right, they're no better than Meloni, Lepen, etc. in Europe! Think about what the political spectrum looks like in European countries where you actually still have active communist and socialist parties with people in congress! I mean Germany has just nationalised a big energy distribution company in lieu of the energy crisis; that's not a decision you'd ever see in America.

>I mean I’m not Musk’s keeper but, he has, and he has historically disregarded direct democracy as chaos. That’s his opinion.

Stating something, disregarding it is not the same as engaging with it. Switzerland is probably one of the most orderly democracies in the world and their core tenant is direct democracy so how could anyone disregard such an option? Has Musk read any critique to Plato's republic? To engage with something is to read through it, to read critiques to it. Anyone that simply "disregards" an entire political philosophy seems to me like they are not really interested in engaging with the topic very well. As such, I'm not really disregarding Musks ideas but I'm offering you an extensive set of reasons on why I disagree with it. Just saying "direct democracy is chaos" is such a simple statement that does not really engage in any profound way with the whys and hows. Every good political structure requires balance.