1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
di--es---can-ic-ul-ar--es
gogomrbrown

*Capitalism could never

fake

BRUH ARE U KIDDING ME THE HIGHWAY I LIVE NEAR HAS BEEN UNDER CONSTRUCTION FOR LIKE 4 DAMN YEARS AND IT TAKES THEM 6 MONTHS JUST TO FIX A DAMN POT HOLE

whaleologist

The hell do you mean “capitalism could never”??????? Last I checked, the UK is still a capitalist nation. The US could never because the US doesn’t invest in public works to the same level as other comparably large economies because we spend all our money on the military.

trelesire

Whaleologist is right but….fuckin what? You can seriously do that shit in 15 hours. I honestly am amazed. That’s how you know I’m a fucking American, like, my goddamned mind is blown.

thecuckoohaslanded

This isn’t an issue of capitalism or even public works investment.

This is an issue of how American budgets work, because America is the most idiotically designed country you could ever imagine.

American budgets are not organized by need, they’re effectively PRESCRIBED.  There’s no pool of government funding that is assigned according to where money needs to go at any given time.  We assign budgets in advance and they’re extremely difficult to change.  Guaranteed if you ask any American politician about this, they’ll tell you it’s to “reduce government waste” by making people use their resources carefully instead of taking on unnecessary projects.

This is not what actually happens.

Because if you DON’T USE 100% of your budget every year, you will be assigned a lower budget for the next year, “to prevent government waste.”  So they prescribe you a budget in advance and then you HAVE to use all of it, or else it’s a NIGHTMARE to do anything new in the future – you have to go through a billion hoops to get funding for a new infrastructure project that is a one-time expense.  It’s not cheap to build a new thing, but because it’s a public good that will last a long time, you don’t need to budget for it every year – but the one year you do need to budget for it, it’s an enormous pain in the ass because everyone responsible is desperate to “cut government waste.”

So with American construction projects, especially on roadways, you basically have a system where people are FORCED to take longer than necessary just to use up their budgets.  It is literally a regular occurrence in America for a road to be torn up for no reason, just so they can spend money filling it back in for the next four months.

And that’s why the crumbling, outdated, and underfunded infrastructure in America is an embarrassment to western civilization.

And the fact that this fucks up transportation, stresses people out, makes us all sicker and more miserable, and forces us to sit in traffic wasting gas that we have to spend a bunch of money on because one of the things we never invest in is mass public transit (because of heavy lobbying by the automotive and oil industries) – all of that should probably not be considered a coincidence.

In the name of “efficiency” and “cutting government waste,” we’ve invented the most fucked up, purposefully wasteful mandatory maximum budgeted spending that has totally eliminated our ability to respond to short term budgetary needs.  Potholes take years to fix, construction goes on for years even as nothing actually gets done, etc.  All because the budgets HAVE to be wasted in order for anyone to keep their funding – and notice how much of American budgets go toward things like “administrative costs”.  

Our entire country is a money laundering conspiracy.

American capitalism is the most wasteful garbage budgeting system on earth.

It is fundamentally designed to be inefficient and stupid, because doing it this way allows us to keep government spending (on public goods) as close to the absolute minimum as humanly possible in order to preserve the lowest possible tax rates on the people who ‘matter’ to the people who are making the decisions – which of course means the wealthy donor class created by the dramatic shift in economic policy under Ronald Reagan.

Because every single goddamn problem in America is Ronald Reagan’s fault.

mitigatedchaos

Thus why the system of infrastructure should be shifted over to grants out of a pool.

Which requires a better overall design of governments.  Most governments are still running on organizational technology a century old.

di--es---can-ic-ul-ar--es

great thread. Was thinkin about comin at that “grants from a pool” comment cuz I see a lot of how we already have that in education bureaucracies and other things, and it’s a great example of “college-educated people don’t care how absurd they need to get to justify the value of college-educated people” but i’m definitely tryin to fall asleep and don’t feel like writingthe comment out properly

mitigatedchaos

Actually, I’d ideally have it as part of a broader system under a new ideology of National Technocracy, where the conventional legislature would be replaced with one composed of voter-delegate think-tanks that bet on the outcomes of their legislation (across baskets of metrics, not just individual ones).

Such an arrangement could make it far more feasible to break all these construction projects down into grant-based chunks and metaphorically sort them by (voter preference) x (return on investment).

I just suggested grants because it’s easier.

Source: gogomrbrown politics national technocracy
ranma-official

hot take

ranma-official

the general right-wing sentiment that children aren’t being abused at optimal rates and the cure for being transgender is as much abuse as possible is pretty much reified in Kenneth Zucker’s trans youth conversion therapy program

mitigatedchaos

Now see, someone assumed I identified as right-wing, but if I identified as right-wing, people would either expect me to defend Libertarianism or “youth conversion therapy” and I’m not interested in defending either.

politics
mutant-aesthetic

Anonymous asked:

by restricting immigration to the 1st world trump is doing more to slow down global warming than any of his fart-sniffing g20 colleagues

mutant-aesthetic answered:

I wonder if global warming rhetoric will deescalate once everyone realizes that it would require keeping down the third world

mitigatedchaos

No, because the third world is at greater risk of damage due to higher birthrates and lower per-capita GDP.  Instead, the rhetoric will shift even more towards mass immigration.

politics
the-grey-tribe
wirehead-wannabe

Also, while we’re on the topic of annoying conservative rhetoric, let’s talk about Rotherham. I agree that it happened, and that it was bad, and that people covered it up for ideological reasons. The unspoken assumption that I don’t agree with and that people seem to keep trying to sneak in here is that it happened because Muslims are inherently more evil than the rest of us. Like, this fits the narrative of “social progressives sometimes behave like ideologues-in-the-pejorative-sense and cover up scandals to avoid making their side look bad just like other ideologues do” but not “social progressives are automatically wrong because of this.”

the-grey-tribe

Rotherham bubbled up periodically and was ignored again. People have not shut up about Rotherham because it’s not over! People were still tried convicted in 2017! And some people are still trying to look away!

But the ideology and the cover-up betray something deeper: The progressives *knew* that the facts of these cases went contrary to their narrative. CPS and police *expected* these cases to be viewed as evidence against a happy multicultural narrative. That’s why they covered them up! These people were not high on their own ideology, they acted either under pressure from above, or out of self-interest, but they made the correct inferences from the situation!

mitigatedchaos

Meanwhile, the Right are turning all the Progressive Left platitudes about Multiculturalism into a dark joke.

“Culturally Enriched” - Harmed or even killed.

“Diverse” - Non-white.  (And this almost never comes up with some ethnicities, while it comes up a lot more with others.)

“Religion of Peace” - Religion of violence.

“Truck of Peace” - Ramming attack against unarmed civilians.  It was even used to describe the ethnic revenge killing by a white man against Muslims.

The actual Progressive Left response we’re going to get is to clamp down on these uses, denounce those using them, and create a new set of platitudes or euphemisms.  

Apparently in a video of a religious van and knife attack, some people could be heard saying that they thought the government had got a handle on this whole terrorism thing.  And there are a pair of tweets going around of someone who had previously attended a “refugees welcome” event, after the Ariana Grande concert, saying they were scared and wanted to leave the country.  (But I can’t confirm it because the account has since been suspended.)

It is important to realize that these practices of suppressing the news of the problem in the name of upholding multiculturalism actually undermine the multicultural project.  One can potentially do this multiculturalism thing, but one can’t be an idiot about it and just hope for the best, and one can’t be cultureblind, just like we were told colorblindness isn’t good enough anymore.  

Source: wirehead-wannabe politics
squareallworthy

Anonymous asked:

You've made repeated reference to the effects of cousin marriage wrt Muslim immigrants. Could you elaborate on that?

mitigatedchaos answered:

There are a few things to understand, here.

Islam does not require cousin marriage, but it doesn’t prohibit it, either, and as far as I’m aware, the practice predates the religion.

Thresholds matter for social behavior.  Something that is okay in small amounts may not be okay in larger amounts.

image

Here is a map of 2nd-degree-or-closer cousin marriages from Wikipedia.

Notice what a deep blue Pakistan is.  Also notice that in most Western countries, the level is fairly low.  

Now let’s hop over to the Biological Aspects section of the Wikipedia page.

In April 2002, the Journal of Genetic Counseling released a report which estimated the average risk of birth defects in a child born of first cousins at 1.1–2.0 percentage points over an average base risk for non-cousin couples of 3%, or about the same as that of any woman over age 40.

Well now, that doesn’t sound so dangerous - wait, what’s this following paragraph?

Repeated consanguineous marriages within a group are more problematic. After repeated generations of cousin marriage the actual genetic relationship between two people is closer than the most immediate relationship would suggest. In Pakistan, where there has been cousin marriage for generations and the current rate may exceed 50%, one study estimated infant mortality at 12.7 percent for married double first cousins, 7.9 percent for first cousins, 9.2 percent for first cousins once removed/double second cousins, 6.9 percent for second cousins, and 5.1 percent among nonconsanguineous progeny. Among double first cousin progeny, 41.2 percent of prereproductive deaths were associated with the expression of detrimental recessive genes, with equivalent values of 26.0, 14.9, and 8.1 percent for first cousins, first cousins once removed/double second cousins, and second cousins respectively.

Oh dear.

A BBC report discussed Pakistanis in Britain, 55% of whom marry a first cousin.

Oh no.  No no no.

Given the high rate of such marriages, many children come from repeat generations of first-cousin marriages. The report states that these children are 13 times more likely than the general population to produce children with genetic disorders, and one in ten children of first-cousin marriages in Birmingham either dies in infancy or develops a serious disability. The BBC also states that Pakistani-Britons, who account for some 3% of all births in the UK, produce “just under a third” of all British children with genetic illnesses. Published studies show that mean perinatal mortality in the Pakistani community of 15.7 per thousand significantly exceeds that in the indigenous population and all other ethnic groups in Britain. Congenital anomalies account for 41 percent of all British Pakistani infant deaths.

Well, fuck.  This isn’t good.

The increased mortality and birth defects observed among British Pakistanis may, however, have another source besides current consanguinity.

Oh, you mean it might be some kind of outside oppression?  I bet Whi-

Population subdivision results from decreased gene flow among different groups in a population. Because members of Pakistani biradari have married only inside these groups for generations, offspring have higher average homozygosity even for couples with no known genetic relationship.

Oh.  Nope, having kids with people who are too genetically similar to each other.

Now remember, we’re talking about information from Wikipedia and the BBC, not Evil Hatefacts from an Evil Hatesite.


So that’s the genetic aspect.  So why do they do it?  

To keep wealth within the family and stick close to the father’s genetic line.

It isn’t some huge, secret magical diverse cultural benefit that the Middle East has and we don’t.  It’s just clannishness.  (In fact, I suspect the clannishness is even responsible for some of the issues in their armies.)


Now, the Alt Right seems to think that as a result of this and other issues, all Muslim immigrants must be kicked out of the UK.  

That is not necessary.  Also it would probably get a lot of people hurt or killed, which is bad.  So let’s not do that.


For the Liberals, we should keep in mind that cousin marriage likely promotes clannishness and amoral familism (”my family, right or wrong”), due to increased genetic similarity and insulation from the outer world.  In fact, that’s pretty much the purpose of the practice.

Remember that social atomization that was supposed to melt away the religions and make everyone into happy Liberals?  That isn’t going to happen if they all marry their cousins, which enables and incentivizes close, repressive, tight control of women, and insular culture.

If we want Islam to chill out and liberalize and soften, like Christianity, and we want the Muslim immigrants to become happy Liberals, then we must ban cousin marriage.

No excuses because “it’s their culture,” or “you’re just a repressive [ethnic majority].”  That isn’t helping them.  

That’s enabling them.  Cousin marriage is bad.  It’s self-destructive behavior.  It’s other-destructive behavior for the kids, too.

Human beings are resilient.  It won’t take that long to start removing the most negative effects, if we start now.

squareallworthy

You went straight from “this is a problem” to “we must make this illegal” without any consideration of non-violent solutions.

mitigatedchaos

Considering the current level of ongoing cousin marriage, the current “compromise” clearly is not enough.  It is better to have a new “compromise” which is substantially more opposed to cousin marriage than the current one.

So tell me, how do you stop the Progressive Left from decrying the new Reproductive Genetic Risk Assessment Tax as Evil Racism?  And how do you prevent it from expanding to other categories?

“Don’t marry your cousin, the government will no longer issue any new marriage licenses for it after [DATE]” is a pretty clear line that draws on the pre-existing taboo in the West against incest and is therefore unlikely to dramatically expand, or cost much to administer.

Source: mitigatedchaos politics maybe a bit uncharitable

@wirehead-wannabe

There this rightist thing that keeps fucking infuriating me more and more, where they won’t state outright whether their bundle of policy and norm and social technology proposals is supposed to help everyone or whether it’s supposed to help the ingroup. Like, is this whole localism-ingroupism thing supposed to be pursuing the utilitarian optimum, or is it supposed to be pursuing ingroup benefit at the expense of everyone else, or is it supposed to be giving up on the rest of the world and saving yourselves or or or or or or I’ve never found any socially conservative rhetoric that didn’t leave me ruminating for hours on end trying to extract something coherent and driving myself insane trying to articulate what specifically it even is that’s nothing me.

How much freedom should others have?

It isn’t a trick question.

The reason it doesn’t seem like localism-ingroupism is either trying to completely solve for global utility optimum or global freedom or fuck-everyone-else-ism is because it’s trying to find a balance between competing concerns.

If I am responsible for the well-being of everyone, then I become obligated to destroy their cultures and replace them with something more effective/efficient, because I am not interested in paying for the side effects of their dumb cultural policies.  

If there is total freedom, then like Hell am I paying for everyone else’s dumb decisions, because there will be no end, ever, to the subsidy.  And if it ever seems like my shining army of economic robots has finally defeated the scarcity and delivered the desired level of wealth at the same time as full freedom?  They’ll just have more kids and push the per-capita wealth right back down again.

This localism-ingroupism places non-absolute limits on freedom and non-absolute limits on obligation, making it feasible to transfer wealth to the worse off by limiting the effects of cultural policies that would destroy or overwhelm the ability to create that wealth in the first place.

And, it says “well if you want to do something that stupid, then go do it over there and don’t make me pay for it”, so there is still even more freedom, but it’s decoupled from obligation.

And, if every country works for its own benefit but without randomly trainwrecking other countries in the manner of the Bush Administration, then the effect is somewhat akin to the invisible hand - different climates, economies, and populations have different needs, so it makes sense for those close to these needs who are acquainted with them to make the law.

(Thus I oppose a number of measures which various right-wing or more dominance-focused nationalists would support.  Seeing as I’m trying to summon a new ideology from beyond the veil, I’m not necessarily a representative sample.)

politics alison dont read nationalism
diarrheaworldstarhiphop

Anonymous asked:

When will they realize the Russians don't want a puppet trump they are just chaos magicians

diarrheaworldstarhiphop answered:

yeaahh… after my effort post, ive been dwelling on the situation all day

for a moment it crossed my mind today, that Trump Jr. posting the email was reminiscent of some insane Vladislav Surkov style non-linear warfare power move, whether or not the collusion allegations are real. The effect of posting it being unsurprisingly stunning and confusing to the effect of disorienting everyone and uh.. and it got me thinking

My thoughts are now, as Russia has always been involved, Russia wouldn’t actually be colluding but potentially sowing hints of it (if at all) particularly to produce chaos and turmoil the way Putin’s government has done on the regular in Russia to suppress opposition. Hell. Similarly to how Russia actively supports california’s leftist separatists as well as America’s far right, why not play America’s media and mainstream factions against eachother?

Because there is nothing. No collusion. There is a tremendous amount of smoke, but no fire… but what if Russia helped produced or fans the smoke particularly to send the Americans into an endless search for fire? All there really needs to be is someone with a russian name and a basic affiliation to Russian “officials” to step in and say “Здравствуйте” and the americans will do the rest of the work.

Russia doesn’t need to actively collude or “hack” an election, but be present enough to keep Americans paranoid and confused, especially in light of wars in the ukraine and Syria that Russia doesnt want the west focused on.

It’s the psychological equivalent of how the USA conducts war in the middle east. Because that the goal is not to beat, but destabilize your opponent with minimal involvement… The difference between ground invasion in Iraq and the no fly zone in Libya to accomplish a similar regime change… Because the American military has evolved, pushing America’s enemies to seek other means to mitigate american strength, tactics… and the USA’s political system is the country’s glaring weakness in light of this.

image
mitigatedchaos

America’s political system is, indeed, the country’s most glaring international weakness.

There are other vulnerabilities - like cyberwarfare attack surface exposure, or insufficiently-defended infrastructure - but those require more direct attacks.

politics

Anonymous asked:

Ok, broad question, feel free to answer with a couple links rather than an effortpost but... why are nations a desirable end state? They seem like a piece of legacy infrastructure, a chesterton's fence not to be too quickly destroyed, but hardly good in and of themselves. I feel far less fraternal affection with most co-nationalists than I do with say argumate, even though he's behind a different border.

I’ve been planning a longer post on this that I just haven’t gotten around to.

Meandering rant/textwall incoming.  TL;DR readers: just skim the bolds.

1. The thing to understand is that ingroup/outgroup is actually to do with incentives and information cost.  It’s a successful heuristic, rather than some huge irrational distortion that needs to be answered with “why can’t we just all get along?”

- When an outsider comes to our community, we lack information about them.  Obtaining this information has a cost, whether we or others bear it.  Part of that is time - getting to know others requires effort and time, and as mortals, we could easily spend those scarce resources on something else.  As that information is obtained, the outsider can become more of an insider.

- Bad people do actually exist, whether created by conditions or born predisposed that way.  (And sometimes, we are the bad people.)  The benefit of a new community member is good, but the cost of letting in a bad apple is much more extreme.  It could be discord which breaks the community apart.  It could be theft.  It could be murder.  Each of these erodes trust significantly in addition to being harmful, and trust, when not abused, is extremely resource-efficient, so this is even more costly than it first appears.

Losing $5 in cookies to theft doesn’t seem like much, but it will cost a lot more than $5 in the end. 

(Resident adjacent guru Slartibart would probably link you to that video showing that all the tail risks we accumulate over a lifetime add up to a much bigger risk than they are individually, so minimizing them is rational.)

- There is significantly less leverage over outsiders, since a considerable portion of our soft leverage is in the form of social sanction.  This must be spend wisely, for it can be squandered.  So if there is a bad apple within our community, this may be more manageable.

- Ultimately, for any of this to work, there must be either punishment or exclusion.  We must be able to either punish the thieves or keep them out of the community.  If we can do neither, the community will gradually disintegrate in cohesiveness as trust evaporates.

2. But even that assumes roughly similar preferences that could all be met by one community.

Let us suppose there are the Billys and the Sarahs, who are fans of the obscure Australian faux-anime Emoji no Shoujo Unicode-San (or “Emoji Girl Unicode-san” for our American viewers).

(This example may seem a bit contrived, but I’m avoiding picking a real ethnicity here.)

Billys and Sarahs are rather dorky people with a low average level of social skills.  Some have higher social abilities, but the median level for the community sets the expectations, and these expectations are comfortable for the Billys and Sarahs, who do not find them emotionally taxing.

At this point, wearing an Emoji Girl t-shirt isn’t just a sign of having watched the show.  It’s also a proxy for being a Billy or Sarah.  A cultural signifier that, out in the wild, lets them know they’ve found someone they could connect with.  That’s actually a really big benefit!  It reduces the social risk of approaching someone to create a connection significantly!

One day, internet celebrity, ironylord, and athlete Bruno Pauerlifter features Emoji Girl on his podcast, and many Chads and Staceys begin to pour into the community.

The Chads and Staceys like to enjoy Emoji Girl on multiple levels of irony, and are suave socially adepts.

Soon they outnumber the “natives.”  The median social skill goes up, and with it, the expectations.  The level of irony goes up as well.

The Billys and Sarahs do not enjoy the new level of social expectations, and like to enjoy Emoji Girl unironically.

The Chads and Staceys haven’t done anything wrong, per se.  They’re not actively trying to exclude others with their irony.  They just really like irony, and the others, well, don’t.

The usefulness of Emoji Girl t-shirts as identifiers for Billys and Sarahs is obliterated without anyone even trying to obliterate it.

And that’s how you get gatekeeping behavior on things as “trivial” as video games, anime, and so on.

Now imagine a preference clash over something that actually matters.

3. People will thus ingroup/outgroup automatically.  Putting everyone into one big ingroup is not actually possible.

And because it isn’t possible, trying is only going to fail while creating side effects.

4. The idea of multiple overlapping governments in the same area administering different laws to different individuals is a fantasy, because not only will they disagree on externalities, but some externalities are social.

Take polygamy.

Polygamy, as practiced, has lots of bad correlations.

Is it absolutely proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that polygamy must result in worse mental health outcomes for women and children, fewer rights for women, more social control of women, and expelling lower-status men?

No.

But considering that many of these are still issues with polygamist communities in developed countries, it’s likely it does, and it makes sense given the incentives of polygamy.  This includes things like child marriages.

Now, suppose a culture decides to have polygamy in the same geographic area as me, backed by their particular overlapping government.

Could their pool of undereducated, unattached, desperate “surplus” young men become my problem?  Very much yes.

And this isn’t anywhere near the only social issue with externalities.

5. Satisfying preferences has economies of scale.

The easiest way satisfy the people who want to live among Parisian architecture, and not some mish-mash of ugly whatever in the name of freedom, is to have a city or city district where all other building styles are prohibited.

(The above isn’t secretly about race.  I literally mean architecture.)

This applies to many, possibly most, preferences.

6. People will therefore act to rule over others and enforce their preferences wherever they must live with the consequences.

They may not even do this legally.

7. The natural boundary in the absence of nations is around religion, ethnicity, race, class, or clan, not “human.”

Religion is a natural boundary for reasons that should be obvious.  Also, many adherents ACTUALLY BELIEVE religion and are NOT SECRETLY JUST LIBERALS FAKING IT UNDERNEATH.

Race forms a natural boundary because it’s a team you can’t quit and you’re stuck with the actions of others in the same race whether you agree with them or not.

Ethnicity is a bit of a mashup between the two, but a bit less strong.

Clan, of course, genetic relations, etc.

All of these subgroups are going to be more likely to back you up in a conflict than the unified “Earth ingroup”, and organizing around them presents negotiating advantages.

Removing the nation will not remove armed conflict.  It merely moves it inwards one step.

Like, say, a white man ramming unarmed Muslims exiting a mosque with a van as an ethnic revenge killing in retaliation for van attacks by other Muslims.

8. The nation is an engineered pseudo-ethnicity.

This is GOOD, because we can use it to create a bigger ingroup (as it still has exclusion, punishment, and shared traits for cohesion) and overpower lesser subdivisions that might normally cause issues.

Additionally, because people are more likely to help the ingroup than the outgroup, by putting them in a cross-class ingroup like this we might be able to actually fund welfare programs.

It’s also necessary to defend territory, and by God can nations defend territory.  (And no, you’re not going to be able to just stop defending territory.)  People feel like they own the nation.  That matters.  A lot.

Each nation can then be specialized, with different rules to fit different preferences, and limited cross-border migration which does not exceed assimilation levels.

9. Open Borders has bad incentives.

- Extract the maximum value from your area of residence, then leave before the bad side effects catch up with you, moving out to an area that excludes by pricing the poor out of the market.

- Don’t bother helping the poor outside your immediate group, since you have no connection to them and can replace them with new immigrants at a moment’s notice.

- Prohibited from excluding trouble-makers by any other means, pricing is again used to keep out both the regular poor and the criminal poor.  (Any sufficiently large area exclusionary private-buyout counts as “creating borders/nations again” and will be legally destroyed for ideological reasons.)

- The way to deal with poverty in foreign territories is for those areas to PRODUCE MORE.  You can help them produce more, but only what is produced can be consumed.  Everyone talented who can leave escaping will not accomplish this.

And so on.

But it gets a lot worse.

10. Open Borders means World Government.

Someone has to track criminals across the opened borders.

And people aren’t going to sign up to fight and die for territories they don’t really own - and if they can be swamped with migrants that can vote at any moment, they don’t really own the territory.

This means the creation of a world police.

The creation of a world police requires the creation of a world law.

Power flows upwards and centralizes.  As the national governments degrade under open immigration, power will shift upwards towards what little world government there is, which will gradually expand.

US Federal power expanded.  EU power expanded.  This is the natural course of things.

11. World Government is very, very bad.

11.A. The larger the pot, the bigger the spoils.

This means that every political and ethnic faction has near-maximum incentive to subvert control of the world government because it controls all of humanity and the entire economic output of Earth.

Almost any price is worth paying to a political faction to take over Earth and permanently enshrine their ideology or religion as a global dictatorship.  

Likewise, the government won’t allow any breakaways, since that would cause a chain reaction that would destroy it.  This includes space colonies and any infrastructure on the Moon.

So if you make an Earth Sphere Federation, don’t be surprised when you get Gundam-tier interstellar colony-drop war bullshit.  Just, you know, with power armor, because mobile suits are too large to be practical.

11.B. The larger the pot, the less your chip matters.

Meanwhile, individual voters have little incentive to pay close attention, because their vote is marginally worthless.

This means the quality of the world government will be terrible.  In fact, the median government on Earth is probably much closer in quality to Brazil than it is to the United States of America.

And it plays into 11.A above, since that makes more extreme actions more cost-effective versus worthless voting.

11.C. There is nowhere to flee to if it fucks up.

Seriously.


Plus a whole bunch of other stuff, like weaving an environment that people can put themselves in and have some semblance of identity, forms a perimeter for arguing against bad social effects in general, and so on and so forth.

But I should probably be more surprised no one is noticing that eliminating nations is the clearest pathway to a world dictatorship.

politics nationalism longpost