Realising that the current state of society is an improvisation hastily put together because the initial idea for the system was not perfect

Seeing how all current ideologies falsely assume that the system will be coherent

Assuming the logical solution then to be a system which incorporates the struggle between other systems

Concluding that the best system to do so is one with freedom, and with minimal control

——————————

Capitalism assumes there to be no unions, as well as no abusive employers. This way it would work flawlessly.

Democracy assumes all citizens to take interest in politics and actively take part of the decision-making. If people did this, democracy would work better.

Communism, or rather, Planned Economy, assumes nobody opposes and everybody plays along. That way it would work, if the planning was successful and nobody tried to challenge the system.

Anarchism assumes everybody to be willing to cooperate and that each individual is interested in forming the system, as well as respecting everybody else. This would work if people weren’t used to the current way of thinking, about competing as in concurrence, as well as being used to having a state which governs.

——————————

Technically, it is up to the citizen themselves what system they want to follow, be it capitalism, socialism or anything else. Should people choose to live in equality they should be able to do so, as much as they should be able to choose to live in a corporatist system.
The only way for any system to reach its full potential is by letting all systems coexist without disturbing each other.

We do not need to be afraid of whether a system works or not, for if it does not work, nobody would choose to live under it.

For this system as a whole to work, though, we would have to give up all control, or, we could alternatively have a multiple-option control.
Take, for instance, the currency system. This is heavily regulated and a monopoly. Should an ideology strive to use an alternative economy, they might not conform to the standards of the regular economy or its monetarism.

The only law should be about freedom; I should have the freedom to live my life as I see fit, and I should have the right not to have this freedom infringed. It is by my own choice I could opt to have my freedom infringed, if I would for instance choose to follow such a system.

The weak point I find is that organising such a system would require some sort of police force or similar to ensure nobody is infringing on each others freedom. Another weak point is that if one system gains a considerable amount of the population, it could cross the laws and wipe out the other systems, depending on system creating either what we have got now, or some obviously aggressive government.

Perhaps not such a good idea after all, but it was a fun thought to toy with.