The core of your argument seems to revolve around the ‘amount of stuff’ that people have. Whilst it is true that Westerners have been conditioned into living materialistic lifestyles — valuing and hoarding ‘stuff’ — materialism has been proven time and time again not to be a source of genuine happiness. So “demonstrably better” is only true if you cherry-pick your metric.
People from poorer nations are often happier than people from richer ones. Happiness is mainly a function of inequality — the less unequal a culture is, the happier its members tend to be. The research supporting that view is overwhelming.
I believe that happiness is a far better metric for defining success (and failure) of an ideology than wealth is (or could ever be).
So rather than be bound by decades/centuries of biased and simplistic black/white ideology, I think it’s time people started unlearning what they think they know about ‘successful societies’ and start, instead, making changes and testing theories.
Nation states are an archaic construct. I think we can do better. If the species wants any hope of long-term survival, I think we need to do better.
To be clear: I do not see a culture programmed and controlled by Google/Facebook as being likely to be any more (or less) successful that the current one. Studies already show that heavy social media users are amongst the unhappiest members of society. It is not, however, the technology itself that is the problem — it is the obscene amount of influence that wielding that technology grants to select individuals that I think is the problem. If corporations were not allowed to become as large as Google/Facebook, then their CEOs wouldn’t have the influence they do, and I doubt we would be having this conversation.
Small government == ‘good’. Small corporations == ‘better’?