Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

Yes Evan.

Excellent piece. Right frame. Good neutral position. Compassion for all parties. Well stated and produced. Best and most thorough, most empirical and least ideological I’ve seen or read.

I make the same argument. And the constitutional and legal and policy (and scientific) reforms I’ve put forward make this possible and preferable.

So agreed. Will share and promote. Added to Institute playlist.

(Researching you a bit)

Q: Any chance we could convince you to give a talk on this subject at a conference?

Cheers

SOME NOTES WHILE LISTENING
The solution historically in the Holy Roman Empire was ‘free cities’ which maintains limited federal control while allowing free cities (City States) to maintain their preferences given they tend to have non-local interests.

As stated conflict will continue between ‘Red’ areas in which people bear high responsibility, cost of commons, norms and high opportunity costs of cooperation, and ‘blue’ areas in which people CAN’T bear those responsiblities but benefit from low opportunity costs of cooperation. (“Diffusion of Responsibility”)

In urban density, without demand for coherence (integration), it’s in the individual’s interest to double down on traditional existing cultural differences – simply because the risk, negotiation, opportunity, cooperation, and transation costs are lowest with ingroup members. (It’s hard to trust people who are very different from you because they signal differently.)

However, once this high responsibility territorial vs low responsibility urban difference in legal and passport change, produces the deterministic outputs, there will be the equivalent of white-flight from the urban areas, continuing urban decline, and creating favelas. (“Feeding irresponsiblity”)

(RE: “Moral Codes”) The absence of a universal system of behavioral measurement creates demand for authority. (“Intervention”). Creating lower trust polities. Why? Because it imposes risk, opportunity, and transaction costs. So ‘tolerance’ becomes a virtue rather than the crime of free riding on the high trust of the polity by irresponsibilty for preserving the high trust manners, ethics, morals and norms.

There is no evidience that in the presence of present communication and transport that cities will remain the residencde of preference – or at least the cities we currently have. Look at office occupancy rates.

All benefits of density are consumed by increases in mortgage and rents. This is only possible if companies that produce disproportionate returns (usually international or financial).

This political competition should cause a change in behavior to these city states if they are not trapped demographically (most are).

Our form of government is predicated on the principle of ‘concurrency’ creating a market for cooperation between the classes and regions. So we would have to change the senate requiring concurrency between the two systems, just as we need separate the house very likely by class if not also by sex – which if you undestand the data is the source of the problem. More so the single childless women the source of the skew in voting.

The belief that you could pursue this universal-whatever policies is simply irrelevant because they have the voting power to do so already, but the economics do not support the ideology.

(BTW: good work).

PS: appears that sound on the video is mono and only on left stereo channel. Might do to re-process.

Reply addressees: @EvanMantri