Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be

[Pat]

I would argue that the Bosnians demonstrate precisely the problem of balkanization. Fed up with imposed authority from the Soviet central government, the Slovaks and Bosnians declared independence. But being free of the central Soviet government did not result in greater individual freedom. Instead, it lead to even greater tyranny of the local majorities. Tyranny and repression most certainly exist -- but having a smaller local government does not protect against this. The smaller local government is just as likely to be tyrannical and repressive of the individual citizens.

But there will always be minorities, regardless of how small you split up your democracies. Sure, under U.S. federal law, maybe a bunch of Alabamians feel like they don't have the control they want. If Alabama were free of the U.S. federal government -- sure, there would be a different set of people in control. But that wouldn't get rid of irreconcilable differences. There would instead be a new group of minority people within Alabama who have irreconcilable differences with the Alabama majority.

It wouldn't necessarily be like Bosnia and Slovenia, but I don't think it would result in less strife or differences.

Taking the issue of marijuana legalization -- I'd argue that letting each locality ban substances as they see fit leads to less freedom of personal choice. If Alabama can declare marijuana illegal, and Utah can declare alcohol illegal, and New York can declare trans-fats illegal, etc. -- then the result is less freedom for individuals to choose what they want. Having federal law and a strong Constitution means there is a higher bar for making given substances illegal.

Except the cost of the Soviet peace was living for more than 70 years under genocidal totalitarian control, and it didn't solve the problem anyway. It just sublimated it, so the ethnic strife burst out with a redoubled fury when the Union fell apart. It's not the size of the states that causes the problem, it's how they were carved up and how much power is vested in them. When you make composite states composed of highly divergent groups, as occurred throughout the last century in eastern Europe, and end up with a situation where an ethnic majority shares a state with an ethnic majority, it encourages demagogues with a desire for power to fan the flames of discontent, in order to use it as an excuse to centralize more and more power, under their control. That can happen even if the groups have lived together peacefully for decades or centuries; both the Holocaust and the earlier Armenian genocide followed that pattern. The check isn't size, it's borders and limited, decentralized government.

There's no evidence for it, but let's assume for a moment that your statement that that smaller governments are just as likely to be tyrannical as larger governments is true. Then let's compare a world with 100 nations, half of which are tyrannical, with a world in which there are 10 nations, half of which are also tyrannical. Which is better, for a random individual? Clearly, the former. Because if you do live in a tyrannical centi-state, then the border to the nearest free state is closer than if you lived in a tyrannical deci-state. Then imagine a world with 1 state. If it happens to be tyrannical, there's no escape. The only way you can rationalize supporting larger states is if you're sure they won't be tyrannical.

But this isn't about jkim's personal assessment of whether a state is tyrannical. It's about gun rights, and gay marriage, and social welfare programs, and central banks, and funding for the arts, and a zillion other things where people care passionately, but don't always agree. It's not a binary objective decision, it's about preferences and best matches. And the more states there are, the more options you have, thus the better your chances of finding a relatively optimal fit. And even if you don't want to move, the fewer top-down decisions and smaller units of governance make it easier to change things to your liking. Because in a large nation, it's extraordinarily unlikely an individual or a small group will have a real effect on political outcomes. But if it's local, you have a real chance to make a difference, if you try.

[Spinachcat]

If it hardens, secession wouldn't be a bad thing.

I doubt the US sees secession without violence, either by civil war or collapse of the central government.

The question about what happens with the Culture War depends much on what GenZ becomes. Currently, they range from age 8 to age 23 (median age of 15). We will see some of their political impact or leanings in 2020, but they will be the key youth demographic in 2024 and 2028. It should be clear by 2024 if Gen Z are just Millennials 2.0, or not.

If the mass of Gen Z are aligned with the Cultural Left / Cultural Marxists, then there won't be any secession as the only opposition to the Culture War will be too old to take any meaningful action.

But instead, there will definitely be a collapse coming!

[Pat]

I doubt the US sees secession without violence, either by civil war or collapse of the central government.

That was Lincoln's doing. Before his emphasis on the Union, most people in the US assumed it was a voluntary association, and the states could leave any time they felt like it. Since then, people just assume they can't leave. It's worth questioning that default, because states tend to be jealous of their territory only because those in power don't want to see their sway diminished. That's not a good reason.

And I suspect Gen Z's alignment will depend on the economy when they start working.

[jhkim]

Taking the issue of marijuana legalization -- I'd argue that letting each locality ban substances as they see fit leads to less freedom of personal choice. If Alabama can declare marijuana illegal, and Utah can declare alcohol illegal, and New York can declare trans-fats illegal, etc. -- then the result is less freedom for individuals to choose what they want. Having federal law and a strong Constitution means there is a higher bar for making given substances illegal.

But this isn't about jkim's personal assessment of whether a state is tyrannical. It's about gun rights, and gay marriage, and social welfare programs, and central banks, and funding for the arts, and a zillion other things where people care passionately, but don't always agree. It's not a binary objective decision, it's about preferences and best matches. And the more states there are, the more options you have, thus the better your chances of finding a relatively optimal fit. And even if you don't want to move, the fewer top-down decisions and smaller units of governance make it easier to change things to your liking. Because in a large nation, it's extraordinarily unlikely an individual or a small group will have a real effect on political outcomes. But if it's local, you have a real chance to make a difference, if you try.

My impression is that you're concerned about the tyranny of the majority -- and that you value a government that interferes less with the lives of the individual. So people can live their lives as they wish without the government sticking it's nose in. That's an important value of mine as well.

I agree that more local elections means that it's easier for a small group to have real influence and control. But that is a potential problem -- because the small group that takes control can impose more laws that interfere with the lives of others. If each of the U.S. states were to become sovereign nations, then I feel that most of them would impose more restrictive laws than they have currently. Alabama would impose their values more strictly, just as California would impose their values more strictly. And, of course, moving between sovereign nations would run into immigration restrictions, which reduces individual choice.

I'm a liberal living in a liberal California city -- but from going to my local city council meetings, I would be terrified if they were to have absolute control over all laws. While I would have more influence, others would equally have more influence.

From what I see of democracies, it does not appear to me that smaller countries generally have greater personal freedom -- nor greater personal satisfaction. I can't prove that absolutely, but I have at least given a bunch of real-world examples of smaller countries and secessions. I think the U.S. has done very well from it's federal system, and I would not look forward to breaking up the U.S. even if I could freely choose where to live.

[ThatChrisGuy]

I agree that more local elections means that it's easier for a small group to have real influence and control. But that is a potential problem -- because the small group that takes control can impose more laws that interfere with the lives of others. If each of the U.S. states were to become sovereign nations, then I feel that most of them would impose more restrictive laws than they have currently. Alabama would impose their values more strictly, just as California would impose their values more strictly. And, of course, moving between sovereign nations would run into immigration restrictions, which reduces individual choice.

I'm a liberal living in a liberal California city -- but from going to my local city council meetings, I would be terrified if they were to have absolute control over all laws. While I would have more influence, others would equally have more influence.

Never mind the fact municipal elections tend to have the worst showings as far as percentage of eligible voters goes.  Local governments tend to be the most corrupt because no one even pretends to give a fuck.

[Pat]

My impression is that you're concerned about the tyranny of the majority -- and that you value a government that interferes less with the lives of the individual. So people can live their lives as they wish without the government sticking it's nose in. That's an important value of mine as well.

I agree that more local elections means that it's easier for a small group to have real influence and control. But that is a potential problem -- because the small group that takes control can impose more laws that interfere with the lives of others. If each of the U.S. states were to become sovereign nations, then I feel that most of them would impose more restrictive laws than they have currently. Alabama would impose their values more strictly, just as California would impose their values more strictly. And, of course, moving between sovereign nations would run into immigration restrictions, which reduces individual choice.

I'm a liberal living in a liberal California city -- but from going to my local city council meetings, I would be terrified if they were to have absolute control over all laws. While I would have more influence, others would equally have more influence.

From what I see of democracies, it does not appear to me that smaller countries generally have greater personal freedom -- nor greater personal satisfaction. I can't prove that absolutely, but I have at least given a bunch of real-world examples of smaller countries and secessions. I think the U.S. has done very well from it's federal system, and I would not look forward to breaking up the U.S. even if I could freely choose where to live.

Your impression is wrong. And I'm guessing it's wrong because you seem to be arguing in favor of imposing your personal values on government, and made the assumption I've been doing the same. Which I most decidedly am not. While I do strongly value freedom for myself, part of that value is believing I don't have the right to force that set of beliefs on others. That's why I've been arguing in favor of arranging governments to optimize the fit between what each individual wants in a government, and their actual government. Even if I find many of the resultant governments distasteful.

That's why decentralization is important. That's why a diverse panoply of governments and levels of government is important. A strong regimented central government is about imposing your will on everyone else, which is a grand exercise in hubris, and profoundly immoral. Freedom does need to be baked into the various systems of government to some degree, but that's for practical reasons: We need to allow for value differences between individuals within a governmental unit, and that becomes more important as the group of people represented becomes less homogeneous, which in turn correlates with size. That's why I've been arguing that the federal government should only rule on matters where there is a broad and deep consensus, and secession may be necessary when the fault lines are irreconcilable.

And while nobody claimed that smaller countries have greater personal freedom, let's examine your converse claim, anyway. Your examples of unfree small countries were Eritrea and Syria, who have populations of roughly 6 and 17 million, respectively. Here's the world freedom index:
https://www.worldfreedomindex.com/

Just a glance at the top 10 should demolish your argument. We have go down to #7 to find the first country that's larger than Syria.

The reason I've been ignoring this particular strawman of yours is because I find your definition of small and large ludicrous. Even 5 million is an almost inconceivably huge number of people.

Never mind the fact municipal elections tend to have the worst showings as far as percentage of eligible voters goes.  Local governments tend to be the most corrupt because no one even pretends to give a fuck.

Because they have almost no power, so nobody cares.

Whereas the state and federal governments do have great power, but when you're one of a hundreds of thousand voting for a Rep, up to a couple tens of millions voting for a Senator, or one of a hundred million or more voting for the Prez, your vote is basically worthless. The chance your voice ends up mattering is comparable to winning the lottery. So voter turnout is dismal, even at the national level.

Do you know when voter turnout was high, sometimes reaching 90% of eligible voters? Back in the 18th century, when local municipalities had real power and voting actually mattered.

[Spinachcat]

A nation divided will not stand. We can pretend otherwise, but that's the future. Collapse and/or secession is America's fate unless one side of the Culture War ideology crushes the other and unifies the nation. As demographics are our destiny, I don't see the Right winning this war unless the mass of Gen Z demands a return to American values...and I don't see that happening.

[jhkim]

And while nobody claimed that smaller countries have greater personal freedom, let's examine your converse claim, anyway. Your examples of unfree small countries were Eritrea and Syria, who have populations of roughly 6 and 17 million, respectively. Here's the world freedom index:
https://www.worldfreedomindex.com/

Just a glance at the top 10 should demolish your argument. We have go down to #7 to find the first country that's larger than Syria.

My claim is that they are uncorrelated. As I said in post #1074, "The smaller local government is just as likely to be tyrannical and repressive of the individual citizens."
I appreciate the data - I think it helps clarify. Here is a scatter plot of the freedom index rank vs log of population from the World Freedom Index that you cited:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4201[/ATTACH]
Ref: https://www.meta-chart.com/share/freedom-index-vs-population
Sources: https://www.worldfreedomindex.com/ and https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/

The vertical is log population, while the horizontal is Freedom Index rank (from 1 to 169). The very wide variation overshadows any trend, which is pretty close to flat.

That's why a diverse panoply of governments and levels of government is important. A strong regimented central government is about imposing your will on everyone else, which is a grand exercise in hubris, and profoundly immoral. Freedom does need to be baked into the various systems of government to some degree, but that's for practical reasons: We need to allow for value differences between individuals within a governmental unit, and that becomes more important as the group of people represented becomes less homogeneous, which in turn correlates with size. That's why I've been arguing that the federal government should only rule on matters where there is a broad and deep consensus, and secession may be necessary when the fault lines are irreconcilable.

It's not clear to me how much we're disagreeing here. I would agree that government should only rule on matters where there is a broad and deep consensus. But I would say that inherently, any government is about imposing your will on everyone else. The government of a small-territory democracy like Cyprus is no more or less inherently moral than a large-territory democracy like the United States.

To my mind, the choice between small-territory and large-territory is a practical one -- which can deliver better on making people free and satisfied. I'm not opposed to small-territory countries like Cyprus or Lithuania, but it seems to me that most people are not clamoring to be in such countries.

[Pat]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4201[/ATTACH]
Ref: https://www.meta-chart.com/share/freedom-index-vs-population
Sources: https://www.worldfreedomindex.com/ and https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/

The vertical is log population, while the horizontal is Freedom Index rank (from 1 to 169). The very wide variation overshadows any trend, which is pretty close to flat.

Good find, or did you create it? I agree there doesn't seem to be any real correlation between size and freedom, but weren't you arguing that Balkanization is bad for liberty? The data suggests that size doesn't matter, when it comes to freedom.

It's not clear to me how much we're disagreeing here. I would agree that government should only rule on matters where there is a broad and deep consensus. But I would say that inherently, any government is about imposing your will on everyone else. The government of a small-territory democracy like Cyprus is no more or less inherently moral than a large-territory democracy like the United States.

To my mind, the choice between small-territory and large-territory is a practical one -- which can deliver better on making people free and satisfied. I'm not opposed to small-territory countries like Cyprus or Lithuania, but it seems to me that most people are not clamoring to be in such countries.

I think you're stuck on the idea of nations, and defining 1.2 million people as "small". I'm talking about different levels of governance, from personal choice, to familiies, neighborhoods, local or municipal governments, county governments, states (in the US sense), nation-states, region superstates, all the way up to international standards/treaties. The point I'm making is government works best when there is a high degree of consensus on its rulings, and it's harder to get consensus about many things at the highest levels. That's why international laws tend to be focused on things like mutually acceptable trade standards, or ways to define territories or broker disputes, because it's going to be impossible to get a consensus on something like libel. And while a nation should have a shared dream or mythology that provides some basic ideals and standards, any except the most homogeneous still need room for variations in the population, for instance religious differences. It's when there are real differences and no real consensus is possible (abortion being the classic US example), that the decisions should be pushed down to lower levels of government. And the more variation we have at the more local levels, the more likely it is people will be able to find a place they find acceptable.

[Lynn]

Taking the issue of marijuana legalization -- I'd argue that letting each locality ban substances as they see fit leads to less freedom of personal choice. If Alabama can declare marijuana illegal, and Utah can declare alcohol illegal, and New York can declare trans-fats illegal, etc. -- then the result is less freedom for individuals to choose what they want. Having federal law and a strong Constitution means there is a higher bar for making given substances illegal.

Structurally though there is a limit to how small the locality can be, given state power. States certainly can preempt cities and counties from enacting laws that are contrary to state law (or they can structure themselves as they can).

Federal law can certainly set bars, but there isn't much difference between deciding if something is legal or illegal. It allows states to have distinctively different laws and cultures. Uniformity of law isn't always going to be seen as 'freedom.'

I guess though with the weight of population, that also doesn't stop those fleeing one state to overcome the desires of the preexisting population. Some of us up north are starting to look like very poor reflections of California.

[jhkim]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4201[/ATTACH]
Ref: https://www.meta-chart.com/share/freedom-index-vs-population
Sources: https://www.worldfreedomindex.com/ and https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/

The vertical is log population, while the horizontal is Freedom Index rank (from 1 to 169). The very wide variation overshadows any trend, which is pretty close to flat.

Good find, or did you create it? I agree there doesn't seem to be any real correlation between size and freedom, but weren't you arguing that Balkanization is bad for liberty? The data suggests that size doesn't matter, when it comes to freedom.

I created it from the source tables using a quick Perl script. I argued that balkanization *could be* bad for liberty. Many times secession is justified by the argument that seceding will make the people of the region more free, by removing the impositions of the central government. But I'm arguing that on average, it does not increase freedom. How we got started on this was your comment in Post #1070,

If it hardens, secession wouldn't be a bad thing. That's the problem with a central government that imposes lots rules on everyone. Inevitably, more and more of the rules will become intolerable, and the only option is to fight to get your preferences imposed on everyone else instead. And the more everyone separates into different tribes, the more it accelerates. Devolving those rules to the regional, state, county, or municipal level allows local preferences to be respected, and reduces the stress on the system. And the ultimate version of that is breaking up, say allowing California and Texas to become separate nation-states.

It seems to me that you were implying that secession would be positive, because it would get rid of the central government imposing rules on everyone. However, I was countering that secession is at best a crap-shoot of whether you will get less imposing rules.

I think you're stuck on the idea of nations, and defining 1.2 million people as "small". I'm talking about different levels of governance, from personal choice, to familiies, neighborhoods, local or municipal governments, county governments, states (in the US sense), nation-states, region superstates, all the way up to international standards/treaties. The point I'm making is government works best when there is a high degree of consensus on its rulings, and it's harder to get consensus about many things at the highest levels. That's why international laws tend to be focused on things like mutually acceptable trade standards, or ways to define territories or broker disputes, because it's going to be impossible to get a consensus on something like libel. And while a nation should have a shared dream or mythology that provides some basic ideals and standards, any except the most homogeneous still need room for variations in the population, for instance religious differences. It's when there are real differences and no real consensus is possible (abortion being the classic US example), that the decisions should be pushed down to lower levels of government. And the more variation we have at the more local levels, the more likely it is people will be able to find a place they find acceptable.

I think this is talking past each other. I was talking in the context of secession earlier. If we're just talking about whether state and local government should exist -- I agree that there is a place for state and local government.

As for abortion, I don't think there's any clear solution. For one, I don't think there is any consensus even locally. Opinions vary from 75-25 to 25-75 from state to state, but I would say 25% is still significant dissent, not consensus. Further, for those who are morally opposed to abortion, it's not like they are fine with millions of abortions happening as long as it isn't in their town. They want an end to the practice of abortion in general. Likewise, for those who see it as women's rights over their own bodies, they will not be satisfied with having women in some areas unable to have those rights.

[Pat]

Feels like you're ignoring what I've said.

I created it from the source tables using a quick Perl script. I argued that balkanization *could be* bad for liberty. Many times secession is justified by the argument that seceding will make the people of the region more free, by removing the impositions of the central government. But I'm arguing that on average, it does not increase freedom.

I certainly never argued that it increased freedom, which I've pointed out in every post.

It seems to me that you were implying that secession would be positive, because it would get rid of the central government imposing rules on everyone. However, I was countering that secession is at best a crap-shoot of whether you will get less imposing rules.

Again, never made that argument. I haven't argued even once that breaking up states would lead to less rules overall.

I think this is talking past each other. I was talking in the context of secession earlier. If we're just talking about whether state and local government should exist -- I agree that there is a place for state and local government.

I brought up succession as a possible solution to hypothetical extreme, and pointed out that in the US it's typically considered inconceivable, when there's no rational reason for that to be the case. Your response seems to have nothing to do with that.

As for abortion, I don't think there's any clear solution. For one, I don't think there is any consensus even locally. Opinions vary from 75-25 to 25-75 from state to state, but I would say 25% is still significant dissent, not consensus. Further, for those who are morally opposed to abortion, it's not like they are fine with millions of abortions happening as long as it isn't in their town. They want an end to the practice of abortion in general. Likewise, for those who see it as women's rights over their own bodies, they will not be satisfied with having women in some areas unable to have those rights.

I already covered that, don't really feel like repeating myself.

[jhkim]

Feels like you're ignoring what I've said.

Sorry about that - it's not intended. I'll take some time and reread your posts, and try again later.

[Pat]

Sorry about that - it's not intended. I'll take some time and reread your posts, and try again later.

Thanks. What I'm arguing is for decentralization. States require a degree of unanimity, or they start to tear themselves apart, which is a natural limit on the types of laws a particular level of government should try to institute. These fracture points are best resolved by pushing them down the political ladder, which provides more options to people who are willing to move, and makes it more likely they'll be able to influence the political process and thus create a result they consider more favorable. This provides insulation for social conflicts, because even if you don't agree with a law, and want it imposed on everyone (like most people involved in the abortion debate), being able to remove yourself from its aegis makes it less pressing. We're more concerned about ourselves, our family, and our neighbors than people in a different town, state, or country, after all. This is in stark contrast to freedom as you're using it, which seems to involve imposing your views on everyone else, instead of allowing people to seek out or demand the government they desire, whether or not you think it's "free". The succession comment was an attempt to put what's effectively a taboo topic back on the table. It's not some grand claim, and I didn't argue for any specific cases, I just said this is an option we should think about and not reflexively reject. Because that's exactly how it's been treated in public discourse, since the Civil War. Note small to me means individuals, families, neighborhoods, and (maybe) local governments. Most people would agree that even House districts are far too big for effective representation, and states are behemoths.

[oggsmash]

A nation divided will not stand. We can pretend otherwise, but that's the future. Collapse and/or secession is America's fate unless one side of the Culture War ideology crushes the other and unifies the nation. As demographics are our destiny, I don't see the Right winning this war unless the mass of Gen Z demands a return to American values...and I don't see that happening.

  If by war you mean who outvotes who, no the right can not win.   However...a disenfranchised right that decides to use more forceful means.....then I think its an asskicking and a capitulation to separation.  Especially once the right starts to see how immigration and refugee resettlement and welfare distribution has been weaponized against them.  At some point there will be a demand for reciprocity and a return on investment.   At that point some sort of charismatic hard line type comes along.....and we get blood and fire.  I hope cooler heads,  see that and plan accordingly.  The big issue I have, is leftists already see that is where its headed.  The gun debate from their perspective has cranked up a good bit, because they know, you need a TRUE monopoly on force to carry out a totalitarian government.