This subject had obviously been fostered in the light of the Trump administration’s desire to reduce what was seen as federal waste and inefficiency. Musk’s task, as chief axe-wielder of Doge, was to save $1 trillion of taxpayers’ money by slashing thousands of federal jobs. Similarly, Javier Milei has taken a metaphorical chainsaw to the Argentinian government’s heavy regulation, to mixed reviews.

However, rather than wading through these minimalist agendas, the group approached the subject from a different angle. We took, as our starting point, an imaginary small community which had been devastated by ‘an incident’, rendering it devoid of all society structures. We examined how this surviving group might begin to rebuild a community, starting from scratch. Assumptions and leaps of logic were challenged, former experience, knowledge and understanding were accepted if relevant and justifiable.

The intention was to find the points in the community’s development when regulation become necessary. When did ‘for the good of the community’ usurp individual freedom of action and choice? How were these ‘rules’ to be implemented and monitored? How were ‘leaders’ or facilitators chosen or did people with natural qualities of articulation and communication, who could garner respect and authority, emerge?
Although this discussion was quite lighthearted and not in the least existential, we felt that the question of creating, developing and maintaining a balanced governance was elusive. We concluded that the problem of constructing a government that was strong enough to govern but not so strong as to become tyrannical was fraught with contentious difficulties.

Great participation led to lively ideas. Dissenters were not silenced, creative ideas were not destined for the straitjacket, everyone was offered refreshments.