4 ms·

> Power hungry people are always going to seek power, and they're always going to be better at it than people who aren't likewise driven. From this Republicani

> Power hungry people are always going to seek power, and they're always going to be better at it than people who aren't likewise driven. From this Republicanism draws it's power. The powerful want to rule over other people, so devide the nation into many small states, give each a leader and let the people choose where they want to live. This forces leaders to compete with each other for head count. These socal climbers are naturally competitive with one another so they will go to great lengths to gain more population. You have the benefits of a large country for things like national defence and natural disasters, but without the strong federal government that ends up homogenizing the states. [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism

hn_go_brrrrr 5y ago
Intellectually, I enjoy the idea of the states competing as a free market, but the system has enough friction to prevent that being generally true in practice. For instance, it's very difficult to uproot your life and move to a different state. * Many people want to live near their family, and moving means either leaving them or convincing multiple other people to leave as well. * Most people won't be able to work remotely so they'll need a new job. * Moving means you won't see your friends in person so you need a new social circle. * Maybe you need to sell your house and buy a new one. The state has to to something pretty egregious to convince someone to move. It's not like switching brands of toothpaste.
- lupire 5y ago
  yeah it's not a free market, but it is an "(semi-)independent laboratory" system where one state can try an idea and others may copy it if it works well.
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  > Intellectually, I enjoy the idea of the states competing as a free market I believe one of the core value propositions of the state is addressing perverse incentives that emerge from competition. Untaxed externalities, for example. Due to race-to-the-bottom dynamics, "let's compete on the matter" is equivalent to "let's ignore the perverse incentives." Not great.
  - Dracophoenix 5y ago
    That's the point of immigration? "My life sucks here, but I can get what I want there." Treating economic freedom as an "untaxed externality" to be rectified will eventually create economic immobility and stagnation. That has perverse incentives of its own.
- rprospero 5y ago
  As someone who did all of those things (except I didn't have a house to sell), I feel you've left out one of the biggest barriers: Immigration laws. Imagine if, to switch from AT&T to Verizon, you had to shell out ten grand to Verizon and wait six years, with Verizon being able to add extra hoops and fees at any point in the process? If you fail at any point, Verizon will sign you back up for a contract under AT&T's worst terms. On top off all of this, you still have to pay Verizon's worst rates until the six year period is up. AT&T could probably send someone to your house every month to punch you in the face and you still wouldn't switch. After all, for the first six years after you switch, Verizon will do the same.
  - re6fae5Wied5tha 5y ago
  - liminvorous 5y ago
    We're talking about a theoretical federal republic where states aren't allowed to restrict immigration, but the federal government isn't strong enough to homogenise the laws here.
    - MagnumOpus 5y ago
      The EU is such an entity.
- gwright 5y ago
  > For instance, it's very difficult to uproot your life and move to a different state. Even harder to uproot your life and move away from a powerful national government.
rjbwork 5y ago
This likewise ignores the individual. "Oh you don't like the politics where you live? You want human rights? Leave your family and friends and everything you've ever known and move a thousand miles away."
- willcipriano 5y ago
  The alternative is: "Oh you don't like the politics where you live? You want human rights? 51% of your "peers" decided you don't get that. Here's my boot on your neck, stop resisting!"
  - lupire 5y ago
    I dunno, maybe there is another alternative?
    - willcipriano 5y ago
      I've read a lot of history and I haven't seen one. I can go as far back as Aristotle to see my same observation being made: "Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms." The founding fathers designed the US as a republic to avoid the issues we see today. > There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: "A republic, if you can keep it."[0] [0]https://constitutioncenter.org/learn/educational-resources/historical-documents/perspectives-on-the-constitution-a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it https://constitutioncenter.org/learn/educational-resources/h...
    - MarkPNeyer 5y ago
      Faster transportation technology can lower the cost of moving. If you can travel 600mph reliably and cheaply, you can move 200 miles from your job and still enjoy a 20 minute commute. Families could relocate to a shared community without people changing jobs.
      - 5y ago
jjoonathan 5y ago
Competition doesn't address the problem of "the people who are ultimately given power will be the ones who craved it and were willing to do anything to obtain it." It exacerbates the problem, if anything.
- gwright 5y ago
  I think the point is that the power is also decentralized making it harder (not impossible) for those type of people to gain control over others.
  - jjoonathan 5y ago
    Republicanism still selects for scoundrels. Yes, it pits them against each other and thereby reduces their power -- in theory -- but it still selects for them. It doesn't even claim to be good at keeping them away. It only claims to reduce their power. I don't think it's particularly good at reducing their power either, but these are two orthogonal issues.
TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago
<snip>
- ok_dad 5y ago
  The poster you replied to was not talking about Republicans, "the party", but of Republicanism, "the political structure". See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism
  - TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago
    Haha, shit. Thanks <face palm>.

hn_go_brrrrr 5y ago

Intellectually, I enjoy the idea of the states competing as a free market, but the system has enough friction to prevent that being generally true in practice. For instance, it's very difficult to uproot your life and move to a different state. * Many people want to live near their family, and moving means either leaving them or convincing multiple other people to leave as well. * Most people won't be able to work remotely so they'll need a new job. * Moving means you won't see your friends in person so you need a new social circle. * Maybe you need to sell your house and buy a new one. The state has to to something pretty egregious to convince someone to move. It's not like switching brands of toothpaste.

lupire 5y ago
yeah it's not a free market, but it is an "(semi-)independent laboratory" system where one state can try an idea and others may copy it if it works well.
jjoonathan 5y ago
> Intellectually, I enjoy the idea of the states competing as a free market I believe one of the core value propositions of the state is addressing perverse incentives that emerge from competition. Untaxed externalities, for example. Due to race-to-the-bottom dynamics, "let's compete on the matter" is equivalent to "let's ignore the perverse incentives." Not great.
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  That's the point of immigration? "My life sucks here, but I can get what I want there." Treating economic freedom as an "untaxed externality" to be rectified will eventually create economic immobility and stagnation. That has perverse incentives of its own.
rprospero 5y ago
As someone who did all of those things (except I didn't have a house to sell), I feel you've left out one of the biggest barriers: Immigration laws. Imagine if, to switch from AT&T to Verizon, you had to shell out ten grand to Verizon and wait six years, with Verizon being able to add extra hoops and fees at any point in the process? If you fail at any point, Verizon will sign you back up for a contract under AT&T's worst terms. On top off all of this, you still have to pay Verizon's worst rates until the six year period is up. AT&T could probably send someone to your house every month to punch you in the face and you still wouldn't switch. After all, for the first six years after you switch, Verizon will do the same.
- re6fae5Wied5tha 5y ago
- liminvorous 5y ago
  We're talking about a theoretical federal republic where states aren't allowed to restrict immigration, but the federal government isn't strong enough to homogenise the laws here.
  - MagnumOpus 5y ago
    The EU is such an entity.
gwright 5y ago
> For instance, it's very difficult to uproot your life and move to a different state. Even harder to uproot your life and move away from a powerful national government.

rjbwork 5y ago

This likewise ignores the individual. "Oh you don't like the politics where you live? You want human rights? Leave your family and friends and everything you've ever known and move a thousand miles away."

willcipriano 5y ago
The alternative is: "Oh you don't like the politics where you live? You want human rights? 51% of your "peers" decided you don't get that. Here's my boot on your neck, stop resisting!"
- lupire 5y ago
  I dunno, maybe there is another alternative?
  - willcipriano 5y ago
    I've read a lot of history and I haven't seen one. I can go as far back as Aristotle to see my same observation being made: "Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms." The founding fathers designed the US as a republic to avoid the issues we see today. > There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: "A republic, if you can keep it."[0] [0]https://constitutioncenter.org/learn/educational-resources/historical-documents/perspectives-on-the-constitution-a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it https://constitutioncenter.org/learn/educational-resources/h...
  - MarkPNeyer 5y ago
    Faster transportation technology can lower the cost of moving. If you can travel 600mph reliably and cheaply, you can move 200 miles from your job and still enjoy a 20 minute commute. Families could relocate to a shared community without people changing jobs.
    - 5y ago

jjoonathan 5y ago

Competition doesn't address the problem of "the people who are ultimately given power will be the ones who craved it and were willing to do anything to obtain it." It exacerbates the problem, if anything.

gwright 5y ago
I think the point is that the power is also decentralized making it harder (not impossible) for those type of people to gain control over others.
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  Republicanism still selects for scoundrels. Yes, it pits them against each other and thereby reduces their power -- in theory -- but it still selects for them. It doesn't even claim to be good at keeping them away. It only claims to reduce their power. I don't think it's particularly good at reducing their power either, but these are two orthogonal issues.

TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago

<snip>

ok_dad 5y ago
The poster you replied to was not talking about Republicans, "the party", but of Republicanism, "the political structure". See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism
- TheSpiceIsLife 5y ago
  Haha, shit. Thanks <face palm>.