David Goldman on China; Jacob Siegel on Curtis Yarvin; Curtis Yarvin on deep politics; Faridaily on Ukraine; Scott Sumner on the Gold Standard; Infovores on The Batman
Yarvin, Burnham, Weinstein, Mosca, and Edelman highlight elite capture of democracy. They are half right. The other half of the story would highlight grassroots pressures on democracy; for example, the median voter, populism, status anxiety, safety anxiety, and preferences for 3rd-party payment, redistribution, and kicking the can down the road.
Because of the failure of constitutional constraints on democracy, there are two main forces competing for the power of coercion: elitists cabals which rely on their ability to buy the services of professional politicians, and populist cabals which rely on their ability to mobilize enough ordinary people. The U.S. senile President was elected by a coalition of a few elitist and populist cabals --the former have been in power for a long time but were threatened by Trump, and the latter have been waiting for a share of that power for a long time but now feel close to grab power by themselves. In Chile, the new President (assumed on 3/11/22) was elected by a coalition of some populist cabals that at the last minute accommodated some old professional politicians from the Socialist Party (broadly defined).
The relevant issue is why the constitutional constraints failed to contain the formation and expansion of hegemonic cabals (they come in two types: elitists and populists).
What's scary about WWII is that Hitler was disappointed by Munich. How dare they deny me my war! My gut (which could be wrong) says Putin would have been satisfied by Munich, that is why I hold out some hope for Ukraine resolving.
With Taiwan the issue is Chinese pride. Can Chinese pride be satisfied by a Munich. If so, maybe we can avoid WWIII. If not then China will seek a war. I'm of the opinion that the satisfaction of Chinese pride is contingent rather then determined. I hope that is not a misread.
Switzerland is an interesting example of successful checks against central power. But Switzerland has about the same population as a modest state in the U.S., so it is not clear that the Swiss model could scale to fit the U.S. In general, the bigger the country, the less likely it is to be governed in a way that respects individual rights. In fact, of countries with 100 million people or more, the U.S. is probably the best!
I think that the U.S. is too big and diverse for Singapore to be a model. It is too far gone in terms of centralized authority for Switzerland to be a model. I wish we could move in both directions, though. More decentralization, as in Switzerland. And a more competent central government.
Yarvin, Burnham, Weinstein, Mosca, and Edelman highlight elite capture of democracy. They are half right. The other half of the story would highlight grassroots pressures on democracy; for example, the median voter, populism, status anxiety, safety anxiety, and preferences for 3rd-party payment, redistribution, and kicking the can down the road.
Because of the failure of constitutional constraints on democracy, there are two main forces competing for the power of coercion: elitists cabals which rely on their ability to buy the services of professional politicians, and populist cabals which rely on their ability to mobilize enough ordinary people. The U.S. senile President was elected by a coalition of a few elitist and populist cabals --the former have been in power for a long time but were threatened by Trump, and the latter have been waiting for a share of that power for a long time but now feel close to grab power by themselves. In Chile, the new President (assumed on 3/11/22) was elected by a coalition of some populist cabals that at the last minute accommodated some old professional politicians from the Socialist Party (broadly defined).
The relevant issue is why the constitutional constraints failed to contain the formation and expansion of hegemonic cabals (they come in two types: elitists and populists).
If China isn't a real county, no country is!
What's scary about WWII is that Hitler was disappointed by Munich. How dare they deny me my war! My gut (which could be wrong) says Putin would have been satisfied by Munich, that is why I hold out some hope for Ukraine resolving.
With Taiwan the issue is Chinese pride. Can Chinese pride be satisfied by a Munich. If so, maybe we can avoid WWIII. If not then China will seek a war. I'm of the opinion that the satisfaction of Chinese pride is contingent rather then determined. I hope that is not a misread.
Switzerland is an interesting example of successful checks against central power. But Switzerland has about the same population as a modest state in the U.S., so it is not clear that the Swiss model could scale to fit the U.S. In general, the bigger the country, the less likely it is to be governed in a way that respects individual rights. In fact, of countries with 100 million people or more, the U.S. is probably the best!
I think that the U.S. is too big and diverse for Singapore to be a model. It is too far gone in terms of centralized authority for Switzerland to be a model. I wish we could move in both directions, though. More decentralization, as in Switzerland. And a more competent central government.