Hacker News Reader

Comment by willcipriano | Hacker News Reader

> Power hungry people are always going to seek power, and they're always going to be better at it than people who aren't likewise driven.

From this Republicanism draws it's power. The powerful want to rule over other people, so devide the nation into many small states, give each a leader and let the people choose where they want to live. This forces leaders to compete with each other for head count. These socal climbers are naturally competitive with one another so they will go to great lengths to gain more population.

You have the benefits of a large country for things like national defence and natural disasters, but without the strong federal government that ends up homogenizing the states.

[0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism

View on HN

Intellectually, I enjoy the idea of the states competing as a free market, but the system has enough friction to prevent that being generally true in practice. For instance, it's very difficult to uproot your life and move to a different state.

* Many people want to live near their family, and moving means either leaving them or convincing multiple other people to leave as well.

* Most people won't be able to work remotely so they'll need a new job.

* Moving means you won't see your friends in person so you need a new social circle.

* Maybe you need to sell your house and buy a new one.

The state has to to something pretty egregious to convince someone to move. It's not like switching brands of toothpaste.

> Intellectually, I enjoy the idea of the states competing as a free market

I believe one of the core value propositions of the state is addressing perverse incentives that emerge from competition. Untaxed externalities, for example. Due to race-to-the-bottom dynamics, "let's compete on the matter" is equivalent to "let's ignore the perverse incentives." Not great.

That's the point of immigration? "My life sucks here, but I can get what I want there." Treating economic freedom as an "untaxed externality" to be rectified will eventually create economic immobility and stagnation. That has perverse incentives of its own.

As someone who did all of those things (except I didn't have a house to sell), I feel you've left out one of the biggest barriers: Immigration laws.

Imagine if, to switch from AT&T to Verizon, you had to shell out ten grand to Verizon and wait six years, with Verizon being able to add extra hoops and fees at any point in the process? If you fail at any point, Verizon will sign you back up for a contract under AT&T's worst terms. On top off all of this, you still have to pay Verizon's worst rates until the six year period is up.

AT&T could probably send someone to your house every month to punch you in the face and you still wouldn't switch. After all, for the first six years after you switch, Verizon will do the same.

We're talking about a theoretical federal republic where states aren't allowed to restrict immigration, but the federal government isn't strong enough to homogenise the laws here.

The EU is such an entity.

> For instance, it's very difficult to uproot your life and move to a different state.

Even harder to uproot your life and move away from a powerful national government.

yeah it's not a free market, but it is an "(semi-)independent laboratory" system where one state can try an idea and others may copy it if it works well.

This likewise ignores the individual. "Oh you don't like the politics where you live? You want human rights? Leave your family and friends and everything you've ever known and move a thousand miles away."

The alternative is: "Oh you don't like the politics where you live? You want human rights? 51% of your "peers" decided you don't get that. Here's my boot on your neck, stop resisting!"

I dunno, maybe there is another alternative?

I've read a lot of history and I haven't seen one. I can go as far back as Aristotle to see my same observation being made: "Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms."

The founding fathers designed the US as a republic to avoid the issues we see today.

> There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: "A republic, if you can keep it."[0]

[0]https://constitutioncenter.org/learn/educational-resources/h...

Faster transportation technology can lower the cost of moving. If you can travel 600mph reliably and cheaply, you can move 200 miles from your job and still enjoy a 20 minute commute. Families could relocate to a shared community without people changing jobs.

I suspect you might be aware of this, but Ada Palmer's Terra Ignota serries takes this idea as a very significant part of its world building, and I highly recommend it if you're willing to sit though 4 doorstops of books for things to pay off. Reading just the first book for the worldbuilding is probably worthwhile on its own even if you're not going to commit to the serries.

Yep ... especially fast, cheap public transport ... I had the "pleasure" to commute about 86 km for five years. In Germany that took me about 1,5 hours with most of the way a regional train that took about 40 minutes between two cities.

I would not do that again, but it was feasible.

Competition doesn't address the problem of "the people who are ultimately given power will be the ones who craved it and were willing to do anything to obtain it." It exacerbates the problem, if anything.

I think the point is that the power is also decentralized making it harder (not impossible) for those type of people to gain control over others.

Republicanism still selects for scoundrels.

Yes, it pits them against each other and thereby reduces their power -- in theory -- but it still selects for them. It doesn't even claim to be good at keeping them away. It only claims to reduce their power.

I don't think it's particularly good at reducing their power either, but these are two orthogonal issues.

<snip>

The poster you replied to was not talking about Republicans, "the party", but of Republicanism, "the political structure". See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism

Haha, shit. Thanks <face palm>.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com