5 ms·

Is deliberately facilitating demographic change for political purposes an ethical use of technology? I imagine there would be some moral outrage if the people

Is deliberately facilitating demographic change for political purposes an ethical use of technology? I imagine there would be some moral outrage if the people of the pivot districts learned that SV types (who may well not even live in Texas) were collaborating to enact political change by targeted migration. Is this not basically political colonization?

krapp 5y ago
Political districts in the US are already designed to favor specific parties and incumbents, the playing field is already not neutral. This seems like little more than playing by the established rules of the game, which favors targeted demographics and swing districts over the broad populace.
- Telemakhos 5y ago
  The question is not whether the playing field is neutral or not through the actions of others, but whether "we" (tech) should undertake to change that playing field further. What right do "we" have to interfere in other peoples' lives from afar?
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    Wouldn't giving the majority its fair share of political voice, in a democratic republic, be a net positive?
    - erik_seaberg 5y ago
      The point of a federal system is to let a minority form the majority in a particular place and live under policies they want. Why should they accept the outcome of democracy and open borders if we chase them around the map and prevent that everywhere? I am not saying I want to live under this absurd law, but I suppose people do and they are not going to just disappear.
      - krapp 5y ago
        >Why should they accept the outcome of democracy and open borders if we chase them around the map and prevent that everywhere? Because that's how the democracy works, and if they accept it when it works in their favor (as it's designed to,) they can accept when it doesn't. It isn't illegal to be a liberal and live in Texas and vote, as much as other Texans might wish it were.
  - rbanffy 5y ago
    Since the president is not elected by direct vote, the decisions in some states carry much greater impact and influence than others. A tool like this would help make the result more reflective of the desired outcomes for the larger population. And you are not interfering from afar - people need to move in order to vote. We can only guide these people, however, and help them find the places they can make the difference they want to make.
  - krapp 5y ago
    We have the same rights as anyone in a civil society to try to effect political change in our favor, within the bounds of the law. All that's being suggested here is that if people move from SV, or wherever, to Texas that they vote their conscience, and where they could reside so that vote could be the most effective. It isn't interference, it's participation.
    - rbanffy 5y ago
      Since I’m neither a US resident nor a citizen, I already did my part with the foreign interference in elections by lifting the idea. It’s up to my American friends to run with it. If you do, keep me posted. ;-)
nonameiguess 5y ago
The Free State Project did this to the town of Grafton, New Hampshire, invading to turn it into the country's first libertarian majority city so they could take over the government. And yeah, the locals were not too happy about it. One of the reasons they chose Grafton is there were no zoning laws, so they could move in quickly without having to build housing, which meant many of them were living in the woods, and since they had no experience doing that and kept leaving food out, the town became overrun with bears.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Exercising their right to bear arms, and legs, and bodies, and torsos .... https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-...
- rbanffy 5y ago
  I would never expect bears to be the last line of defence for democracy, but here we are…

krapp 5y ago

Political districts in the US are already designed to favor specific parties and incumbents, the playing field is already not neutral. This seems like little more than playing by the established rules of the game, which favors targeted demographics and swing districts over the broad populace.

Telemakhos 5y ago
The question is not whether the playing field is neutral or not through the actions of others, but whether "we" (tech) should undertake to change that playing field further. What right do "we" have to interfere in other peoples' lives from afar?
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Wouldn't giving the majority its fair share of political voice, in a democratic republic, be a net positive?
  - erik_seaberg 5y ago
    The point of a federal system is to let a minority form the majority in a particular place and live under policies they want. Why should they accept the outcome of democracy and open borders if we chase them around the map and prevent that everywhere? I am not saying I want to live under this absurd law, but I suppose people do and they are not going to just disappear.
    - krapp 5y ago
      >Why should they accept the outcome of democracy and open borders if we chase them around the map and prevent that everywhere? Because that's how the democracy works, and if they accept it when it works in their favor (as it's designed to,) they can accept when it doesn't. It isn't illegal to be a liberal and live in Texas and vote, as much as other Texans might wish it were.
- rbanffy 5y ago
  Since the president is not elected by direct vote, the decisions in some states carry much greater impact and influence than others. A tool like this would help make the result more reflective of the desired outcomes for the larger population. And you are not interfering from afar - people need to move in order to vote. We can only guide these people, however, and help them find the places they can make the difference they want to make.
- krapp 5y ago
  We have the same rights as anyone in a civil society to try to effect political change in our favor, within the bounds of the law. All that's being suggested here is that if people move from SV, or wherever, to Texas that they vote their conscience, and where they could reside so that vote could be the most effective. It isn't interference, it's participation.
  - rbanffy 5y ago
    Since I’m neither a US resident nor a citizen, I already did my part with the foreign interference in elections by lifting the idea. It’s up to my American friends to run with it. If you do, keep me posted. ;-)

nonameiguess 5y ago

The Free State Project did this to the town of Grafton, New Hampshire, invading to turn it into the country's first libertarian majority city so they could take over the government. And yeah, the locals were not too happy about it. One of the reasons they chose Grafton is there were no zoning laws, so they could move in quickly without having to build housing, which meant many of them were living in the woods, and since they had no experience doing that and kept leaving food out, the town became overrun with bears.

dredmorbius 5y ago
Exercising their right to bear arms, and legs, and bodies, and torsos .... https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-...
rbanffy 5y ago
I would never expect bears to be the last line of defence for democracy, but here we are…