It's a fun game to play, and there is certainly some validity to some of the arrangements. But there are mistakes to make too. — BC

This book is available on Archive.org if anyone is looking.
https://archive.org/search?query=The+nine+nations
I think you have to have an account and login to read for free. Started getting into it this morning and you're right, it's pretty good so far. Thanks again!

BC, first, thank you for the reading recommendation. I am a bookworm and always looking for more. Please understand, this discussion must continue. It is about creativity, not appeal to authority. You have clearly voiced your concerns. Please, try to have fun (if, at least, just in this discussion).

Actually, the US has far too many states. Put them together. — ssu

Instant fail! Just kidding, I'm listening . . .

First of all, fuck Washington DC. That the Capitol is so "important" is pure bullshit. Add it to Maryland, actually make Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey one state for starters. — ssu

The objective could be to have just 20 states that are somewhat equally distributed in population.

- Decrease the number of Federal executive departments and give the control 100% to the states. You need only State, Defense, Interior and Justice departments. Nothing else. So off with the executive departments of Labor, Education, Commerce, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Energy, Transportation, Housing and Urban development, Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security. — ssu

It's good we're thinking more broadly and with more creativity here. Keep "exploring the space."

And if even the States start to whine about their excessive new work and demand federal level coordination, then simply put them into the department of Interior. — ssu

Careful: The object of the game is to minimize the government AND create a new system that is preferable. The sins of the transition will not be lost on the people, and their happiness and approval is necessary for your system to be proven the better.

Emphasize and empower the county/municipial level. — ssu

Let's definitely analyze your approach to this process. What's your strategy on this so far?

reduce the police state. — ssu

Do you have crossover standards (that each new state would have to adhere to) for what this would entail? Who polices this?

I'm giving you points for moxie so far, but remember what it means to "win" this thought experiment.

Bonus question: Who decides on the state lines/territory divisions?

Hi Nos4A2

The power of government is illegitimate to begin with. It functions on monopoly and plunder. Taking power in such an institution requires one to wield illegitimate power against his fellows, something my own conscience could not bear. — NOS4A2

Fair enough, so let’s start chipping away

A rapid abolition of any kind would be cruel to the unweaned, those who view the government as the solution to all their problems and rely on it to subsidize their lives. Generations of people who were raised under the auspices of that promise could be met with troubles I would wish on no one, like poverty, once they found themselves responsible for their own lives and communities. They would view you as if you killed their god and resentment would grow. — NOS4A2

Is this broken citizen a permanent fixture doomed to failure and the production of multiple future failures? Does potential exist within them, and can it be ignited? Keep in mind, this thought experiment affords you a wide variety of methods to reshape the game board, even if such methods seem wildly unrealistic in the current system. Are you sure you don’t want to take a swing? I would like to see a system that doesn’t function on monopoly and plunder as well, so paint it for me!

The power and reach of the church, for instance, declined only as people stopped attending, participating, and believing in its authority. — NOS4A2

As an aside, what would be the best system for strengthening religious vibrancy given the powers allowed in this discussion? Is such a thing desirable in your mini-state?

It would be constituted locally, for the needs of the local population, without all the heavy armaments, license to search, seize and destroy. Powers limited to keeping the peace and enforcing the law: to serve and protect, not dedicated to vested interests. — Vera Mont

Thank you for clarifying! When considering the formation of separate mini-states (or regional groups), how independent should they be in terms of varying methods concerning police tactics, justice system reform, free speech policy, and so on? Would there have to be an enforced uniform standard before you agree to separation? Who would this regulator be? If it is the US Gov, then we haven’t we expanded the state to move your rules across state lines (and failed the project)? Would you accept other states (local governments) running their governments differently given that your government outlaws or corrects the issues you’ve mentioned?

the citizens will no longer accept any kind change that comes from the current leadership. — Tzeentch

But what about a new leadership, say one that was locally harvested and directly connected to the wellbeing of their citizens/ruling territory? Such a scenario is possible in this thought experiment.

Maybe there are situations I am not considering. — Tzeentch

In this scenario, you have the ability to alter economics, war/defense, government, and (even if just by extension) society/culture. Even if your propositions are unlikely, if it is technically possible (given the totality of human potential and existing infrastructure) you can be as creative as you want so long as the end result is preferable to the current/future state.

Wisdom is rare after all, and among the ruling elite exceptionally so it seems. — Tzeentch

No arguments from me on this.

Ironically, the chance of fundamental reforms may be higher under despotism than it is under democracy. Needless to say it's not a great alternative. — Tzeentch

Let's try to avoid that then.

So individual states can, and do, pursue independent policies in areas which do not infringe on the prerogatives of the Federal Government. Plenty of contention around the intention, of course. — BC

Here’s another area we’re going to be forced to examine: What if it is necessary to go around (dissolve, restrict, reinvent) the Federal Gov? If you can only prevent disaster, civil war, and/or global catastrophe by doing so does it not become the most logical/ethical pathway?

At any rate, there is a way open for state governments to accomplish some levels of decentralization -- way short of succession. Maine and Nebraska can pursue an all-renewable energy policy. They can establish health-care-for-all for their residents. They can decide to teach German in their schools from kindergarten through college. They can tax and spend to their heart's content, and they can run miserly budgets and starve the public sector. They can do various things -- but they can't do foreign policy, interfere with interstate trade, and so on. — BC

This is certainly true, though we’re tied together through government taxation, elections, and international behavior. For example, the immigration policy of blue states (and their political leadership) drastically impacts red states as well (some could argue, in the case of Texas, far more). The majority of Illinois or Indiana may be against backing Israel or Ukraine or Taiwan in this or that conflict, but it is America that ultimately goes in and they’ll be dragged along with it. All this is to say that we do have license to experiment, but to a very limited degree considering national constraints and the bleed over from one local culture to the other of differing methods. If these constraints are good, if the experimentation is working, then the end result of restricted plurality seems to be an increasingly volatile “unified” state.

a) homeless encampments are not a good thing for the homeless.
b) homelessness is not a lifestyle. It's a disaster.
c) many of the homeless are there because of significant problems -- drug addiction, alcoholism, mental illness--maybe all three. They need residential treatment and housing,
d) homeless encampments become public health problems -- not by their mere existence, but because of public urination, dedication, drug use, drug dealing, prostitution, et al.
e. It isn't that nobody can figure out what to do about the homeless. What is missing is the will to do it -- yes, to shove it down the throats of various neighborhoods that don't want multiunit housing of any kind, especially not THOSE PEOPLE — BC

Hear Hear!

Hi Tzeentch!

Decentralization requires the powerful to part with their power, which is something that virtually never happens whether one lives in a democracy or a dictatorial regime. That simply is the nature of man, power and power structures. — Tzeentch

You’ve nailed a central issue were going to have to deal with, thank you for bringing it up. Part of what we’re talking about is a kind of power that is hard to find anywhere else in history, and both sides believe the other will use it for “evil”, so no one wants to put their gun down first (which is reasonable considering the reality of the situation at hand).

The first question is, how does one get the powerful to part with their power? Either they have some form of moral epiphany which propels them to do it voluntarily* or through violent revolution. — Tzeentch

Good place to start. I know revolution seems most likely (historical precedent would back that horse), but can we throw out the moral epiphany (not just in the ruler(s), but in those ruled)? Could we soften “moral epiphany” to a kind of rock bottom “moment of clarity” or is the addiction going to take us all the way down?

I'm an old man, but I fear that young people's futures will be dominated by ongoing catastrophic climate heating. Worse, the chance to avoid this is slipping away. — BC

I can certainly understand and sympathize with this. I wouldn’t trust anyone who held little or no genuine concern for future generations. The situation is certainly heating up (no pun intended . . . well, some pun intended).

The standard of living could be well above the minimal survival level, say that of about 1890. People won't like it at first, but at the time, people were happy with it. A well-maintained outhouse just isn't that bad. If it's not well maintained, it's just a shit hole. — BC

I know this is weird . . . but I would love this. I feel like a cranky coot, but coming back to the internet after a long absence has been eye-opening. I think I’m now pretty much an aspiring luddite!

That means people will have to operate within much smaller networks of trade groups, like: The West Coast trade group; the Upper Midwest Trade Area; the New England-Mid Atlantic trading block, and so on. — BC

This is something many (if not most) would wholly reject. Goodbye modern convenience/luxury! I would like to see a renewed focus on domestic production of basic goods though. Feels unsettling to be so dependent on “others” for life’s basics.

A big question is whether the people within a given state will be able to get along with each other under difficult circumstances-- — BC

You’re right, that’s a major problem. Scarcity will drive many to lawlessness (regardless of the particular local law).

I can imagine 8 or so separate regional 'nations' working in some kind of uneasy trade and diplomatic relationship - so long as the populations are allowed free movement, so that people can find where they belong. — Vera Mont

I think this would be key. When I mentioned experimentation before, I was thinking along these lines. Differing individual strategies (state level or otherwise) that can still organize into local trade/commerce partnerships while maintaining cultural independence. The citizens of Maine focused on Maine instead of Nebraska, keeping an eye on basic economic needs and allowing for citizens to feel like they actually have a say in their government/future (as opposed to the apathy and hopelessness many seem to feel about our current political setup). Different political ideologies could be put to the test, and we could let the results speak for themselves . . . but that requires the ability for people to take their hands off of the wheel for other states/regional “nations” – and overlook many standards/ethics they may detest while still maintaining some peaceful cohesion. Tricky business!

if it were possible first to demilitarize police forces and neutralize the most toxic political elements. I can't see a way to that. — Vera Mont

What would a “demilitarized” police force look like compared to now? These toxic political elements, can you describe what you are referring to so I have a better picture?

Excellently written. I really enjoyed that. No success on the devolution though, so you fail! You can take that as a point of pride.
I particularly enjoyed your focus on the environmental factors. It never feels like we put enough focus on them (the substantial realities in planning).

I don't see it as an American problem: the whole world is mad with closing panic. — Vera Mont

Heavy, but very well written! I too have serious misgivings about the future. I think, in part, that's why this topic interests me. I look around and see a lot of potential and a lot to work with. You mentioned the Civil War a few times, and the division in modern America. Do you think there's any way states would (or could) become self-governing and communally prosperous? Given a shift in attention from the national to the local, would that change the math at all for you?

That's a problem for me, since a) I don't believe the States are united anymore, or should be; I don't see any way to reverse the process at this stage of dissolution. Maybe there has been no way back since Lincoln's decision to go to war... or even earlier, from the framing of the constitution and b) I can only envisage a workable solution on the global scale. (and c) I doubt any solutions is possible in the current climate) — Vera Mont

I understand, and that's a lot of good stuff to think about. Do you mind if I ask you what you think is likely to happen next given our actual situation as you see it?

This is too big for me to even attempt. — mentos987

Fair enough, happy to hear your thoughts if you change your mind.

The problem I see with that is how differently states have been doing so in various government responsibilities. Some have been less democratic and less concerned with citizen's rights than others. Should they really have more power? How do you organize revenue collection and the funding of services? How do you finance the many, many wars? Can you even keep the union going? (States rights have nearly wrecked it once, and there is a very strong movement to change the constitution.... and of course T***p wants to tear it up and declare himself Chancellor or something.) — Vera Mont

I think you could easily expand on any of the issues you raise here, and even go much further! Concerning the idea that different states do things differently, I think that’s part of the draw. Experimentation rather than over-arching uniformity. This, of course, opens the pandora’s box as to different ideas about what “citizen’s rights” means, since your take (or a “New York” take) may very well be different than mine (or a “Idaho” or "Arkansas" take).

Should we be allowed to explore these differences, or is it winner takes all on concepts like justice, freedom, etc. brought down from on high? The old top-down or bottom-up approach. Trade, war, culture, government administration . . . these would all have to be dramatically re-worked or wholly revised. The potential (and even probable) problems of such an undertaking are clear . . . but whether or not it COULD be done is less clear to me. As for the “should it be done”, well, I think that warrants an investigation into the possible advantages of a successful transition towards such a localized power/authority system of administration.


It seems this may be a bigger topic than we can get to here, so I’m planning on starting a new discussion narrowing things down a bit. We could debate whether the nation as is still works, or if it should be a federation at all, but I think my proposed thought experiment would have to neglect these questions to maintain focus. If the experiment is seen through though, in theory, we’ll arrive at a much better starting position for those questions (having established alternative options and their potential viability).


Thanks for the ideas!

So far, nobody wanted to make government smaller - at least in the US — Vera Mont

Hello Vera, I'd like to take you up on that. It seems to me that we're asked to choose between an increasingly globalized state/authority or self-imposed inadequacy in government services; bigger or smaller. Easy arguments could be made for either, if from nothing else than the often irritating decorum and zeal of each end's proponents.

I would like to explore a different path, focusing on a hypothetical decentralizing of the federal government. This would be one in which the US Fed, and the power that it has been amassing since the nation's conception, would be be returned to the states, resulting (sooner or later) in a more localized government system.

There are lots of arguments for increasing federal to global authority structures, and they often strike me a boring and unresponsive (The nation plows through 34 Trillion of debt and it's still not big enough). It is as if all debate on state-to-individual relations is settled and the rest in follow through and the pesky details of managing the great congealing. On the other end, I don't know that minimalists realize how dependent many are on the current (and soon-to-be) expanding state, and often seem to dramatically underestimate the hazards of a downsizing.

At any rate, if you want to get into a thinking exercise about going smaller with government I am happy to oblige.

We live in a world where we are taught to suppress all thoughts that are not politically correct. — Eros1982

It's a real problem. I don't know how many times I've watched a movie that's on all the top critics' lists, or hear the indie-darling record, and think to myself "who the hell actually enjoys this?" Often, it seems like it's a political pill wrapped in the trappings of whatever consumable art/movie/music/etc., and any pure experience is made unsettling and unfulfilling. Art becomes a tool to clobber people into submission, and the definition of "good" or "beautiful" is re-branded as whatever our leading centers of empowered insecurity can produce.

I like that quote very much! Wilde has a lot of good ones. It reminds me of a comedy podcast I heard a few years ago where old writers are brought up as a panel, and comedians play them up to absurdity. They had Oscar Wilde on and he spent the entire time quoting himself.

Thanks for the tips!

It seems so to me as well. It can be tricky, but it seems like certain ways of thinking (or being) might lean on certain character traits or at least "mood habits" which correlate with facial muscle movements and whatnot. I can't help but note certain physical traits that distinguish individuals, and often it seems to correctly point to correlating qualities of character.

Again, trying to rely on that could easily lead you to misinterpreting some people who are very much different on the inside than their appearance would suggest. The idea that our inner world has no outward expression seems unlike my personal experience though.

I see that now, got it. :up: I'm very unobservant and practically an internet cave man. Many thanks!

One of the enjoyable aspects of natural and real life is the challenges and adversity it can sometimes present and our ability to deal with such adversity which would help an individual build character and resilience. For me then the simulation would be a cop out. — kindred

I like this, and I think I agree. There are many things I wanted to be when I was younger that I cringe at now. My "perfect" world then would betray the world I want now. Also, I think older me deserves what it will have brought about. Negative experiences shaped my life and character in tremendous and painful ways, but I wouldn't have what I do otherwise. Should the magic genie offer to take bad times away, I would risk "now" and the happiness I've earned through imperfect conditions.

I could see how many would take the "dopamine drip" though.

Ah, I see. I'm new to the way this forum works (first day). Did you have any thoughts on lookism or the idea that internal character shows itself on the outside?

Schopenhauer on the other hand....... ( he didn't hate women for no reason ) — Wittgenstein

Can you please elaborate on this? I'm interested to see what your take is on how he arrived at his views on women.

Also, continuing on with Schopenhauer, he wrote a bit on his views concerning physiognomy. Does the inner life/soul/etc. of a person write itself on the outer appearance?

This has been a very enjoyable discussion to read and think about. I often think about the importance of comedy when considering the most difficult or "serious" matters, and a large part of what I read from many of the most esteemed philosophers seems disappointingly (and irritatingly) dry. Humorless to the point where I question if such an intelligent person has made contact with the human experience at all. Then again, I'm often accused of being inappropriate with comedic takes at serious times.

Still, laughter has a way of helping complex or rough ideas go down smoother.