> The assumption seems to be that "scale" must be vertical. The various idle rich humming John Lennon's tune are completely oblivious to its message. We know th

> The assumption seems to be that "scale" must be vertical. The various idle rich humming John Lennon's tune are completely oblivious to its message. We know that human brains are evolved to deal with "small" groups of people (think families or housing blocks) and that this breaks down once you get into the dozens let alone hundreds. This is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number > Humans are really good at scaling horizontally. We even invented diplomacy and currency to settle disputes with groups outside our web of trust For some values of "settle". > Remember: our evolutionary advantage isn't our individual intellect, it's other people. Sure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labour The real point I'm after here is Dunbar's Number. The scope of concern tapers radically outside of that clan unit. We attempt to have representative systems and public institutions to factor out the individual quirks (and mortality) and provide continuity. But Dunbar's Number works negatively within these public institutions to breed corruption. This is why, if I were to wax prescriptive, the least-worst approach is to Term Limit All The Things. Capitol Hill, like any compost heap, merits frequent turning. Keep the systems simple, and turn politics into shift work, say I. We have copious population to draw from; don't tell me only this selected crop of nitwits can do the job.