I like the idea of using ICs to change the game.

Though I worry many large states are as sick as the federal government (unlike Texas, the SFO-ites in California are happy to have the Central Valley starve, and they have the votes to make it so). I’d prefer to re-divide into “founders’-sized jurisdictions” of 300,000 souls or so, and have them compete for the citizen and their enterprise. Some may be very successful and show Stalin how it should have been done, w/ others able to observe the good and bad effects, but not be forced to mimic.

There’s also been a seismic shift in what’s possible if governance uses the automation and networks that created the boom of the 90s (equivalent to the growth that happened when most of the nation’s homes were wired for electricity). There’s no efficiency to be seen in sheer size when it comes to domestic matters, rather what we get is vulnerability. And not just vulnerability to natural disasters and potential for military decapitation but it’s just too tempting a target for special interests of all kinds, good and bad. If they had to negotiate with 1000 municipalities and succeeded, by definition it wouldn’t be a special interest.

What’s most important is that in a time of scarcity that if a political decision is / has to be made about allocating resources, that it be made locally, by our neighbors and friends, not a distant entity that can mask the consequences of a decision.

It also grieves me when someone calls our current thumb-on-the-scales (unequally and capriciously) a capitalistic system (esp. in a day where actual capital is less and less important than intellect free to invent and apply). I’d argue we need to apply competition to governance, not the other-way ’round.

We need to give freedom a chance. And when we have to trust, let us trust our neighbors rather than some remote monstrosity.