Cabinet of Curious Contrarians – 17th October 2026
Where political convictions are questioned, ideologies interrogated, and certainty is treated with considerable suspicion.
An intentionally small weekly gathering of political philosophers, ideological misfits, constitutional sceptics and amateur architects of utopia.
The idea of the event is to examine 1–3 questions exploring politics, power and the peculiar ways humans attempt to govern themselves;
From liberalism, conservatism, socialism and fascism to democracy, authoritarianism, statecraft, constitutional constraints and the occasional legislative absurdity, few political ideas are beyond scrutiny.
With a bit of luck, the agenda will appear on the event page towards the end of the preceding week. Consider the questions beforehand if you wish, or arrive armed with nothing but curiosity and a vague suspicion that something is fundamentally wrong with civilisation. Both are perfectly acceptable.
The number of open places will be capped (potentially due to lack of interest) to keep our little cabinet small enough for everyone to contribute, challenge, reconsider and occasionally contemplate overthrowing the entire philosophical framework of the discussion.
No expertise, party allegiance or fully formed political manifesto required. Half-baked theories, inconvenient questions, ideological contradictions and “I’m not sure, but…” are all welcome. Revolutionary fervour is optional; intellectual humility is encouraged.
This isn’t a lecture, a parliamentary shouting match or an opportunity to demonstrate how many political philosophers you can quote before somebody changes the subject. The hope is to explore competing perspectives, question our assumptions and consider whether even our most cherished political convictions might benefit from a little constitutional restraint.
We won’t be campaigning for particular parties or ideologies, nor attempting to settle centuries of political disagreement over an afternoon. The objective is to understand ideas rather than simply defend them, and to disagree without declaring intellectual civil war.
Sometimes we might discover the foundations of a just society. Other weeks we’ll conclude that Plato’s philosopher-kings would have struggled to get planning permission.
Either way, we’ll probably leave with more questions than answers, a few bruised certainties and a renewed appreciation of why governing people is such a spectacularly difficult business.
The goal is a good conversation, not a consensus.
And, mercifully, coalition formation is entirely voluntary, although defections are encouraged.
What if the majority never spoke?
Scenario
In the democratic nation of Veridonia, a peculiar custom has developed over generations. Though elections are held every five years, only a small fraction of the population actually votes. The rest, known as the ‘Silent Majority,’ abstain from participating, choosing instead to live with whatever decisions are made on their behalf.
The government, elected by this minority, claims legitimacy and the right to make binding decisions for all. A controversial law is introduced, favouring those who participate in the electoral process. The Silent Majority remains passive, yet the implications of their silence grow increasingly tangible.
Discussion Questions
- Is it just for a government to prioritise the voices of the active minority?
- What responsibilities do citizens have if they choose not to participate in democratic processes?
- Can a silent majority still hold power in a democracy?
Provocation
“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” – Winston Churchill
What do we owe to those yet unborn?
Scenario
In the nation of Futurama, a binding contract exists between the current generation and those yet to come. This Intergenerational Contract stipulates strict resource conservation and sustainability measures, ensuring future generations inherit a world as rich as the present.
While many support the idea, tensions arise as current citizens feel their freedoms and economic opportunities are being unfairly restricted in the name of a future they will never see.
Discussion Questions
- How can we balance current needs with obligations to future generations?
- What rights do future generations have over present resources?
- Is it ethical to limit present freedoms for future sustainability?
Provocation
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.” – Native American Proverb
Should algorithms dictate our lives?
Scenario
In the tech-savvy nation of Algoria, governance is managed through a sophisticated system of algorithms. These algorithms, designed to optimise social welfare, control everything from traffic flow to judicial outcomes, claiming to be more efficient and unbiased than human administrators.
As citizens grow accustomed to algorithmic governance, questions arise about the loss of human agency and the ethical implications of surrendering authority to machines.
Discussion Questions
- What are the risks of entrusting governance to technology?
- How can we ensure accountability in algorithmic decision-making?
- Can machines truly understand and cater to human needs?
Provocation
“Technology is a useful servant but a dangerous master.” – Christian Lous Lange