When intransigent minorities control the majority

[Brad Sherard]

https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15

 

Found this paragraph to be particularly interesting:

 

Quote

Another attribute of decentralization, and one that the “intellectuals” opposing an exit of Britain from the European Union (Brexit ) don’t get. If one needs, say a three pct. threshold in a political unit for the minority rule to take its effect, and on average the stubborn minority represents three pct. of the population, with variations around the average, then some states will be subject to the rule, but not others. If on the other hand we merged all states in one, then the minority rule will prevail all across. This is the reason the U.S.A. works so well as, I have been repeating to everyone who listens, we are a federation, not a republic. To use the language of Antifragile, decentralization is convex to variations.

 

[M.2]

Centralisation and concentration of power is something we all detest here, but there is a strong case to be made for it. Most of the time in history, collectivism squashed individualism.

I often listen to EU politicians, and they keep using phrases such as "wir müssen, we have to, il faut", and the sly subterranian dictatorial air about that expression says a lot. But often times I wonder if they are actually right - maybe Europe must be chained together by any force necessary and any lives necessary. After all, it works for Russia, works for China, works for uncle sam... Let's not kid ourselves; states are not allowed to leave the federation, and the US government permits freedom only until they declare marshall law. But then again, the USA can take the rest of the world for breakfast and have room for Mars. Just following the evidence...

[RichardY]

One thing having "Holy Lemonade" another thing having seperate sharia courts and massive concentration of political power in a few people.

In the EU, USA, China, & Russia. Doesn't the "President"(to preside) influence affairs more than any elected politician? As opposed to being actually being a president more like Medium term dictators (Executive powers). Perhaps for a while things run "OK" (forgetting large corporate interests, covering their own arse, at the expense of competition and the detoriation of society), but eventually one "mistake" leading to all out War WW1 style. e.g big Absolutist Monarchies figthing it out. 

If Primeminister, premiers are only in office for short time frames, how can they actually do anything potentially beneficial, more the mechanism to claim a democracy while transfering away more wealth to special interest groups. "Intransigent minorites". 

At least with a Republic participants are staking their own wealth aquired or entrusted, with the motivation to try and preserve it "A negative incentive" (read a few first pages of "The Republic") What benefit does a Federation serve, than to conquer and then turn in on itself, as people loot what they can.

At any rate where is the Intransigent Anarcho-Capitalist minority that is going to spread all over the world and take over with bitcoin. (Everywhere ) With any minority I would have thought they would need to have some proximity, and is an Ideology(?) classifiable as a minority? 

Maybe perhaps, rationality is distinct from intelligence. "Penguins of mass destruction will takeover the World!!!"

 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

"A land long united, will inevitably be divided; a land long divided, will inevitably be united" -Intellectually lazy but telling saying about Chinese history by some guy and most famously used to characterize the Three Kingdoms period (184A.D. -290A.D. -ish), the bloodiest period in all history till WWII and the most romanticized part of Chinese history at large.

While cool-sounding deterministic sayings are by no means arguments, they definitely reflect the mindset of the people writing from and/or of the time. In this period China was divided into a hundred pieces and then by 220 China was forged into three kingdoms: Wei in the North (the biggest by both land and population, 5 million people), Wu in the southeast (second biggest,2.5. million people, strongest maritime power with hegemony over the east coast as well as rich trade routes), and Shu in the southwest ( a mountainous region populated by only 1 million people by the high point of it, which was relative to a pre-184 Chinese population of 50 million).

By 263 Shu was bled to death, it's male population almost entirely crushed by the Wei Empire and the Wei Empire collapsed from dynasty weakness (i.e. the ruling family had become both incompetent and had no "moral authority" unlike an established European or Japanese ruler therefore the Sima family rather easily usurped the Wei in forming Jin) and lastly the Wu (which had become the counterbalance to Jin's unification of China) were the last to submit by 280 when their ruling family and endless corrupt government fell upon its own sword and failed to put up a siginifcant resistance to the Jin's invasion.

By 290 China was forcibly united by the Jin Emperor Sima Yan, however only a hundred years later the Jin Dynasty would be utterly crippled by barbarian invasions and internal disunity, losing the northern half of China for many centuries till the Jin Dynasty's fall and the rise of the Great Tang in the 10th century.

Before the bloodiest civil war in history (in which famine and war-related diasters were the main culprit) Han China had a population of 50 million. After forcible reunification by the Jin China had merely 13 million people and the birth rate during this time was what kept the warlords armies full in spite of the huge loss of life. 

China today struggles to maintain hold over its ethnic minorities and spends more than it's own war budget simply to "keep them in line".  

I bring up the point of China as the weakness of a centralized and collectivist authority; they get too big, too expensive, too inefficient, and eventually fall on their own weight. At the same time the Roman Empire was experiencing similar difficulties.

I do agree and notice centralized forces tend to be superior to decentralized forces. However small, centralized forces tend to be superior to big, centralized forces. 

An easy example is the rising Prussian Kingdom versus *insert any other neighboring country here*. Under Fridericus Rex the Prussian Kingdom expanded greatly, defeating far larger and more ancient foes and becoming an empire in all but name, eventually forging the German Empire by blood and iron. This empire, brought about through force and guile, collapsed not even 50 years later during WWI and shrank further in WWII.

In contrast there is the Russian Empire which was forged slowly over time through the assimilation of city-states (both forcibly and not) and it lasted from the 1710's to 1918-ish (when the October Revolution destroyed it). Also, the latter Chinese Empires which adopted the "Han System" of soft power to influence the world around them, which kept them powerful without having to move large armies across thousands of miles, however by the time White folks came knocking it wasn't big and busy China that answered the door but rather small Japan minding its own business. It wasn't the big and busy collectivist empire but the nation-state that chose to close itself off from the world. 

Japan became a great power while China became a divided cake to be eaten, until WWII when Japan was humbled and China was again forcibly united by radicals. 

The purpose of all I've said above is this: big countries with multiple ethnic/cultural/linguistic groups and busybody antics tend to evaporate rather than thrive while small countries (or big ones with one sparse but well-connected similar ethnic groups) that mind their own business tend to beat the crap out of big countries. 

Therefore the trend for who is most powerful is definitely on the side of nation-states, not empires. Britain will, if she minds herself, surpass the whole of Europe in fighting power, longevity, and survivability in due time. Meanwhile the EU states will fragment and eat each other alive. Britain might fall into the hubris trap of getting involved, and so might Russia. However I think there are clear benefits to being small and compact rather than big and lanky. 

America is lucky because America is unrivaled; Canada's a big pu__y, Mexico's a sh__hole, and South America in general is backwards and populated by self-cannibalizing cuck-publics. America can do whatever America wants because, like the Roman Empire, he's basically "the only man in a town of women". 

Unlike Britain or Russia or Japan, who have to compete and resist the temptation of imperialism. They may become the stronger for it, who can say for sure. I can say however that historical trends are seldom broken without exceptional circumstances. 

Though I am not sure what the OP means by "intransigent minorities", it is always a minority that rules and in general the smaller and better vetted the better society will be for it. Hence why I'm an AnCap; ultimately the best and brightest rule when there are no rulers. 

Edited January 16, 2018 by Siegfried von Walheim