The way it reads, the consequences of failure are so high that we're going to make it a pressure-cooker kind of situation which will inevitably cause the very o

The way it reads, the consequences of failure are so high that we're going to make it a pressure-cooker kind of situation which will inevitably cause the very outcomes that their whole governance model is based on avoiding. The baseline will likely be "everything is great, be happy!" and expressing dissatisfaction will be deviation from baseline. Deviation from baseline can't be tolerated because Bad Things Can Happen (tm) so a few people who express dissatisfaction outwardly will be locked up, shipped home, etc. People will quickly learn to shut it if they don't like their situation and viola we've got a resentment escalating apparatus assembled. What happens next? Eventually someone can't stand it anymore and goes fully off the reservation with dire consequences. Pretending that you can effectively manage your way out of the unpredictable nature of human beings when they don't have any outlet is tremendously naive or arrogant, or perhaps both. The idea that we can just design something that'll last for more than ~50 years without falling apart spectacularly only works on Earth where the people who really are sick of $X have the choice to opt out by moving jurisdictions. Seasteading -- as crazy libertarian as it is -- is probably the only thing that provides hope of finding a truly stable governance mechanism. It's like those crazy libertarians say, we need tons and tons of tries to get governance right without needing a revolution every time we make a mistake.