socialized risk


With that said, there *was* the thing where Harry suggested they put protective casings on the time-turners and nobody had thought of this.

the funny thing about this is that we are surrounded by dangerous things that could be made significantly safer, but there are costs to being too far ahead of the curve on such issues.

it’s easy to think of a dozen things engaged in by earlier generations that would be considered ridiculously dangerous today, and not because they didn’t know it was dangerous then, but they just had different weightings and social consensus for acceptable risks.

finding a dramatically different culture has different risk preferences to your own is probably one of the less unrealistic parts of HPMOR, really.

Trump’s Cruel and Deviant Budget

For years, conservatives warned that liberals were “defining deviancy downward.” They said that by tolerating bad social behavior, liberals in effect lowered what was deemed acceptable behavior overall – allowing social norms to decline.

There was never a lot of evidence for that view, but there’s little question that Donald Trump is actively defining deviancy downward for the nation as a whole – whether it’s by lying, denigrating basic democratic values, celebrating tyrants around the world, using his office to build his family wealth, or stopping at nothing to win the presidency.

Now comes his budget. Budgets are overall expressions of values and priorities. Trump’s budget is cruel and deviant. He proposes to cut federal spending by more than $3.6 trillion over the next decade, much of it for programs that help the poor (Medicaid, food stamps, Social Security disability, and health insurance for poor children) – in order to finance a huge military buildup and tax cuts for corporations and the rich.

Trump’s budget won’t get through Congress, but it defines deviancy downward in 3 respects:

1. It imposes huge burdens on people who already are hurting. Not just the very poor, but also the working class. In fact, among the biggest losers would be people who voted for Trump – whites in rural and poor areas of the country who depend on Medicaid, food stamps, and Social Security disability.

Yet will they know that Trump is willing to sell them out to the rich and corporate interests, or will they fall for the right-wing Republican propaganda (amplified by Fox News and yell radio) that the budget is designed to help people take more responsibility for themselves?

2. It sets a new low bar for congressional and public debate over social insurance in America, and of government’s role – far lower than anything proposed by Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush. It pushes the idea that each of us is and should be on our own, rather than that we are part of a society that benefits from social insurance – spreading the risks and costs of adversity that could hit any one of us.

As White House OMB director Mick Mulvaney absurdly put it, the government should show “compassion” for low-income Americans but it should “also…have compassion for folks who are paying [for] it.” That illogic eliminates the justification for social insurance altogether.

The budget thereby frames the debate over Trumpcare, for example, as “why should I pay for her pre-existing health problem if I’m healthy?”

3. Finally, the budget eviscerates the notion that an important aspect of patriotism involves sacrificing for the common good – paying for public services you won’t use but will be used by others and will thereby help the nation as a whole, such as schools, roads, clean air, and health care.

Trump’s budget celebrates a cruel and virulent form of individualism – much like Trump himself. Until Trump, this view of America was considered deviant. But Trump is defining deviancy downward.

We are a better nation than this.

I am perturbed. Equifax data breach means 143 million people could spend $10 each freezing their credit reports at each CR agency. That means, the 3 agencies could pick up 4.3 billion dollars in fees because of this. Does that sound reasonable (or moral)???

Reasonable? Moral? Fuck no. You shouldn’t be “perturbed.” You and everyone else should be holding pitchforks and flaming torches outside the Equifax offices, just like you should have after the bank collapse in 2008.

And all because Equifax (and the other credit agencies) collected private information you never requested they collect, and then stored it like a drunk stores his wallet: in a convenient, but dangerous, place. (Turns out Equifax had a patch for their data storage vulnerability in MARCH but didn’t bother to install it before the data breach, which was in MAY.) And, of course, they didn’t tell us until a week ago. In SEPTEMBER.

Ah, modern capitalism: the socialization of risk and the privatization of benefit. When things go well, I get all the money because I’m a maker and a genius and a job creator. When things go bad, I’m too big to fail, and have to be bailed out or protected from liability.

It’s quite a gig if you can get it.

Keep it Secret

“mommy?” The two year old spoke as he run to you, with the biggest smile on his face.

“Yes Johnny?”

“Mommy.” He called again once he came in your embrace. You took your kid in your arms amd kissed it’s forehead before setting your purse down on the kitchen table. “I missed you” John spoke in your ear, mumbling some other words you couldn’t make out in addition.

“I missed you too Johny” you said and kissed his cheek again. Your sister must have been sleeping for him to be running around in your small apartment like this. Of course you couldn’t blame her. She has been helping so much ever since John was born, since you practically all alone with a child at the age of 21. She hadn’t whined at all, and had let you mourn for Dick’s death as much as you wanted. She was furious though when she found out he was back, a year later, and even more furious that he didn’t reach out to you to even tell you he had faked his own death.

And now, it was only her you and your son. who Dick didn’t even know about. Although you didn’t worry about that. He wouldn’t want anything to do with you and him anyway. You might have been in love with Dick, but deep down you knew he wasn’t feeling the same. Maybe it was because he was too absorbed with his ex, or whatever she was to him, or because he was married to his night time activities.


You’d never post pictures of John on social media. You couldn’t risk any of Dick’s family members knowing about your son. You even avoided being at the same neighborhoods they would go, so they wouldn’t know about your son. You didn’t want them to take him away from you. And so you couldn’t understand why Jason Todd was knocking at your door, bursting in the room as you opened.

“We need to talk.” He said, and you noticed John shake at the tone if his voice. They little boy clenched his tiny distance on your clothes and buried his head in the crook of your neck.

“Is he Dick’s?” He spoke harshly. With your nodding, he let out a sight, to let go if all the tightness in his chest.

“How do you know about him?” Your voice came out as a whisper towards Jason.

“I saw you the other day on the street. Why would a two year old call you mommy if he wasn’t yours. And the last man you’d been with was Dick so..”

“Johny, please go wake auntie and ask her to play with you, baby.” You managed to say while Jason spoke to you and the little kid nodded in response as you set him down on the floor.

“Keep going Jason..”

Your heart was beating so fast at the thought of your secret being known to one of the only people who you didn’t want to know. Jason assured you he just wanted to know how the kid was, and that he would support you as much as you needed to, if you wanted him of course.

“However if you still love Dick, I’m in the uncomfortable place to tell you that he’s in Bludhaven, madly in love with his new girlfriend.”

Jason wasn’t surprised that you sighed with pain.

“I don’t want then to take my son away from me Jason.” A tear run down your face as you spoke. The thought of your life without your little son was unbearable despite being so hard sometimes. “I’d rather you didn’t tell Dick.

“I promise you I won’t.”


So, should this be our new series? Are you keen on the idea? Please let me know

How the different traits are expressed in each house

A Gryffindor is brave when they are unafraid to do the right thing, no matter the damages done to them. A Hufflepuff is brave when they extend kindness to everyone; even if it puts their own social standing at risk; even if the person they are reaching out to may not be ready for their love. A Slytherin is brave in their absolution to succeed in any of their pursuits; they will not back down, and this takes admirable strength. A Ravenclaw is brave when the question the conventional, and challenge all that has been previously regarded as the irrefutable truth. Nothing will stop them from pushing the boundaries of all that is known. 

A Gryffindor is kind when they are the voice for the voiceless; when they will throw all their dazzling ferocity into ensuring that those on the bottom are not trampled on. A Hufflepuff is kind when they put others needs before their own; they do not feel right if someone is suffering while they are perfectly fine. Your wounds will become their own as they stand by your side and help you heal. A Slytherin is kind when they continually have your back; they will let no damage be done to you. They will find a way to help you succeed without getting hurt. A Ravenclaw is kind when they accept even the most outcast, and never make you feel as if you are not enough. You will always be enough to them. 

A Gryffindor is cunning in their ability to find a way to get justice; they will go under the table if they are able to recognize that brute force will not get them any closer to what is right. A Hufflepuff is cunning when the find a way to make their work easier; they will not manipulate, but may find themselves being very persuasive in order to recruit help. A Slytherin is cunning in that they know what to say or do to get what they need. Whether or not they do this by decieving or simply trading favors, a Slytherin always seems to be aware of what needs to be done. A Ravenclaw is cunning in that they always see the greater picture; they can see how everything connects, and can see how to manipulate these conjoined dots to achieve their ingenuity. 

A Gryffindor is intelligent in their unique way of absorbing new information if it pertains to their cause. Like Hermione learning to make the Polyjuice potion, Gryffindors will quickly learn a new skill if they need to, and find themselves enjoying it in the process. A Hufflepuff is intelligent in their ability to read people; they understand relationships and emotions and how intricate the workings of the human soul can be. They will seem to see right through you, and they can. Slytherins are intelligent in that they can learn all the facts and fast, and find a way to use these facts to achieve their ends. They store away information until they need it later, and it can be quite astonishing how much they really know. A Ravenclaw is intelligent in their love for learning; they want to understand and comprehend everything there is to know. With knowledge comes clarity, and their minds are desperate for it. 

Don’t just sit around waiting for the life you want, fill the days you have. Try new things. Take new risks. Remain social. Get out of the house. Keep your life fun and interesting.
—  When God Says “Wait”
Civilization is in a race between education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as far and wide as our circumstances allow.
—  Writer H.G. Wells (1866 –1946)

nileiris  asked:

I read through your demystifying PTSD and I have a character in the making that most likely got PTSD in his early adult years (it would be strange if he didn't), how would that have developed by the time he got into his 60's? The people closest to him have all been supportive, would that possibly make any difference?

There’s a post here about experiencing long-term PTSD here.  I hope that helps!

And social support is an incredibly important protective factor - it can help the character have less severe symptoms, or even not develop PTSD in the first place. However, it’s never 100% certain how much influence it has - that’s up to you as the writer to decide.

Disclaimer // Support Scriptshrink on patreon!

anonymous asked:

You are so cool man. Okay, I just got into investing as in I opened an account with bank of america merrill edge for retirement but haven't done anything else. I know I should like buy safe stocks and stuff, but I am so wary of researching this. like i just don't trust sources that i google or magazines (my dad was interested in stocks and lost a lot of money so I just can't trust him or those magazines). I see that you have set up different markets (target retirement, inflation protected), (1/2

(2/2) and other funds. How did you get started? Where did you research? Like books or things. Thank you for your time!

Aw, thank you Anon! So, this is a little bit of a narrative, buckle up. (There is a readmore below! Read more!) 

Keep reading


This blog will be inactive Friday September 1 as part of the boycott to protest Tumblr’s refusal to ban neo-nazis and other hate communities who violate Tumblr’s Terms of Service by encouraging violence and hatred, making violent threats and statements that incite violence, including threatening and promoting terrorism on the basis of ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, gender identity, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation

Tumblr claims its policy is to:  

“…draw lines around a few narrowly defined but deeply important categories of content and behavior that jeopardize our users, threaten our infrastructure, and damage our community.” (ToS)

but continues to respond to complaints about malicious speech by advising complainants to simply block offensive blogs.  

Tumblr is lagging behind other social media sites, and risks losing users - and advertiser revenue - by not enforcing its ToS.

anonymous asked:

You should try to be a little less political and outgoing with your opinions on your social media, you risk alienating your audience who do not share your beliefs.

No thank you.

Being aromantic and asexual and having poor mental health is a frightening combination for me, because I know for a fact that I have trouble functioning on my own and I know my identity complicates that. 

I know that my identity contributes to my isolation, or rather the obstacles I encounter as an aromantic and asexual person navigating a world that does not value my asexuality or aromanticism contributes to my isolation.

Yes, I’m well aware that you can be aromantic and asexual and still engage in “happy and healthy” relationships. However, people tend to overestimate the ease in which aromantic and asexual people can form “normal” relationships. 

I think that the aromantic and asexual communities need to be more considerate of those of us who are not successful at forming relationships and who have very real and valid fears about the future due to compounding issues. 

I realize that many people have anxiety over finding “the one” and/or fear loneliness, and that this is an experience common across orientations. This isn’t the fear that I’m trying to express here as an aromantic and asexual person. 

I’m talking about the fears I have as an individual unable to make the connections valued in this society due to my orientation, knowing that some day I will most likely be alone and unable to take care of myself. 

Society is not well structured to handle single people with minimal to no support system through partners or family, and this especially impacts aromantic asexual people facing mental illness, disability/chronic illness, and/or surviving trauma. 

Not to be a pessimist, but the fairy tale picture they paint for people dealing with any of these challenges usually involves a life saving relationship that isn’t easily accessible to aromantic asexual people.

Still, it’s an appealing image. I may not be able to emotionally connect on a sexual or romantic level with another human being. That doesn’t mean that relationships in general don’t have their own value.  

We need to talk about the fact that aromantic asexual people might enter relationships because we might need them to survive, despite how foreign or exhausting or confusing they are to us. 

We need to talk about the fact that aromantic asexual people don’t always have the tools to navigate a relationship, and that we need better accessibility to resources to help with our circumstances should we be solitary.   

We need to talk about the fact that society is unkind to single people struggling to survive independently or without relationships, including unwell aromantic asexual people who may be more at risk for social isolation.

Amatonormativity and ableism are intersecting issues, but this is too often ignored in favor of “there are many different kinds of love” positivity. I understand it’s purpose, but it’s not always realistic or helpful to aromantic asexual people. 

I need my community to talk more about accommodating aromantic asexual people who are struggling with living independently and forming relationships of any kind, as well as I need us to focus on how to support us. 

I need people outside of my community to stop silencing aromantic asexual people when we talk about issues that impact us, because quite honestly this issue alone could end up lowering my quality of life significantly. 

Friend of a Fiend?

Brian from softball sends you a friend request. He’s an all around good guy—punctual, complimentary, clean, the works! Go ahead and accept him. WAIT. Don’t do it. That is, don’t do it unless he’s been put to the test. IBM Patent No. 8,706,648 goes beyond Brian to calculate the digital or social media risk his friends pose to your personal Internet security. Just like in real life, some of your friends run with a bad crowd. Thankfully, In the cyber world, now something can protect you from such hijinks. (But if his friends start a big ruckus in the stands, you’re still on your own.) Discover more innovations from 22 record years →

I am queer. I am an inclusionist.

In light of recent toxic discourse surrounding Thomas Sander’s post in support of asexual and aromantic people, I just want to make this clear. I am an inclusionist. This means that I don’t draw prescriptive boundaries around identity labels. Language is a growing, changing thing. If we had followed the rules as they were prescribed by the available language, then the whole of queer culture could not have existed.

Literally everyone benefits from inclusion, too. People who don’t fit into the array of identities that have already been forged can pave their own way to self-discovery, while part of a community that supports them on their journey. And the system supports individuality far better than its exclusionist counterpart. I honestly didn’t believe that was such a remarkable thing to say, but I guess that was naive of me.

It’s amazing how quickly allosexual queer people - people who have fought their way out of the same exact kind of narrow heteronormative box - leap at the opportunity to prescribe the ways they deem acceptable to be queer. Being an LGBTQIA+ person is not the same thing as joining a super special club of oppression. It’s not a game and no one gets to be the host who throws people off of the island. The ideas so often pushed around within LGBTQIA+ spaces are toxic and unproductive. There is no such thing as “queer enough”, “gay enough”, “trans enough”, “ace enough”, or “straight enough”. There is no one way to have any of these experiences or identities. So, let’s just let everyone be themselves and support them while they try to learn about themselves and fit in somewhere in the world. Remember that words have consequences: there are young queer people who are highly at risk of harming themselves or attempting suicide. It is hard enough to exist as a queer person within a largely straight-cis-white-male-dominated world. Why must LGBTQIA+ spaces be a second battle ground for validity? The costs are too high. There are actual human lives at stake. Surely that matters more than any one exclusionist’s narrow ideas about queerness??

Being queer is not enough to shed the whole of heteronormativity. You aren’t immune by default. I encourage everyone to pause for a moment and consider these two things:

What do you stand to gain by insisting that asexual people aren’t real, oppressed, oppressed enough, or at risk of social or physical violence?

What do people on the asexual and aromantic spectrums stand to lose by the proliferation of ideas that exclude them from the very spaces, communities, and celebrations where they belong?

Thomas Sanders is the ace-aro ally of the century. To anyone who is currently screaming at him about how asexual and aromantic people are not oppressed, I think you should take a step back and listen to yourselves. Maybe then you’ll understand the sort of hatred and disgraceful conduct that ace and aro people usually have to bear by themselves.

Sidhe (II)

Author: kpopfanfictrash

Pairing: You / Jimin / Namjoon

Rating: PG-13

Genre: Fantasy, Fey!AU / Royalty!AU

Word Count: 5,432

Description: In the land of Humankind and the Otherworld, the Fey and Humans live side by side. Cursed are the Fey though, unable to use their own magic without a human wishing it so. You were born and raised to end this curse, to take down the system - so what happens when the Human you’re bound to, ends up becoming so much more?

Originally posted by kpopkpoop

Keep reading

Hear Me Out...

Victuuri Kingsman AU!


  • Viktor as a Russian Kingsman agent wearing handsome af suits literally all the time (except for when he’s wearing robes)
  • Yuuri with his heart of gold who was appointed by Viktor doubting his own abilities yet wanting to make Viktor proud at all costs
  • The skaters as recruits, their coaches as agents who appointed them
  • Yurio almost screwing up stealth missions because of his impulsiveness
  • Viktor, seeing so much potential in the young man, personally fetching Yuuri from his home to come train with him in a fancy Kingsman estate somewhere near St. Petersburg
  • Makkachin getting spoiled by Viktor 24/7
  • honey pot missions in which the candidates have to show their TRUE EROS to win over the target and Viktor getting jealous at everyone who attempts to flirt with Yuuri at the club
  • Viktor constantly invading Yuuri’s personal space, teasing him with innuendos like “popping one’s cherry“ and making sure Yuuri gets a bespoke suit with no less than excellent fit tailored for him
  • Phichit nearly blowing their cover because he simply cannot refrain from posting compromising pictures of everyone on social media and therefore risking his phone to be forcibly confiscated
  • The recruits have to choose a puppy and, of course, Yuuri picks the poodle because it looks just like Viktor’s dog (he secretly names him Vicchan…)
  • Viktor letting his guard down and bringing Yuuri to his home during the 24h time-off, teaching him how to become a true gentleman and also about the benefits of luxurious af chapstick™ among other things
  • after getting hurt badly at a mission, Viktor needs to recover in the medical wing where an anxious Yuuri comes to visit him everyday to check up on him
  • Subtle gadgets, bespoke suits and witty, eloquent, handsome men in said suits
  • also general BADASSery 
  • PUPPiEs

anonymous asked:

Ok, broad question, feel free to answer with a couple links rather than an effortpost but... why are nations a desirable end state? They seem like a piece of legacy infrastructure, a chesterton's fence not to be too quickly destroyed, but hardly good in and of themselves. I feel far less fraternal affection with most co-nationalists than I do with say argumate, even though he's behind a different border.

I’ve been planning a longer post on this that I just haven’t gotten around to.

Meandering rant/textwall incoming.  TL;DR readers: just skim the bolds.

1. The thing to understand is that ingroup/outgroup is actually to do with incentives and information cost.  It’s a successful heuristic, rather than some huge irrational distortion that needs to be answered with “why can’t we just all get along?”

- When an outsider comes to our community, we lack information about them.  Obtaining this information has a cost, whether we or others bear it.  Part of that is time - getting to know others requires effort and time, and as mortals, we could easily spend those scarce resources on something else.  As that information is obtained, the outsider can become more of an insider.

- Bad people do actually exist, whether created by conditions or born predisposed that way.  (And sometimes, we are the bad people.)  The benefit of a new community member is good, but the cost of letting in a bad apple is much more extreme.  It could be discord which breaks the community apart.  It could be theft.  It could be murder.  Each of these erodes trust significantly in addition to being harmful, and trust, when not abused, is extremely resource-efficient, so this is even more costly than it first appears.

Losing $5 in cookies to theft doesn’t seem like much, but it will cost a lot more than $5 in the end. 

(Resident adjacent guru Slartibart would probably link you to that video showing that all the tail risks we accumulate over a lifetime add up to a much bigger risk than they are individually, so minimizing them is rational.)

- There is significantly less leverage over outsiders, since a considerable portion of our soft leverage is in the form of social sanction.  This must be spend wisely, for it can be squandered.  So if there is a bad apple within our community, this may be more manageable.

- Ultimately, for any of this to work, there must be either punishment or exclusion.  We must be able to either punish the thieves or keep them out of the community.  If we can do neither, the community will gradually disintegrate in cohesiveness as trust evaporates.

2. But even that assumes roughly similar preferences that could all be met by one community.

Let us suppose there are the Billys and the Sarahs, who are fans of the obscure Australian faux-anime Emoji no Shoujo Unicode-San (or “Emoji Girl Unicode-san” for our American viewers).

(This example may seem a bit contrived, but I’m avoiding picking a real ethnicity here.)

Billys and Sarahs are rather dorky people with a low average level of social skills.  Some have higher social abilities, but the median level for the community sets the expectations, and these expectations are comfortable for the Billys and Sarahs, who do not find them emotionally taxing.

At this point, wearing an Emoji Girl t-shirt isn’t just a sign of having watched the show.  It’s also a proxy for being a Billy or Sarah.  A cultural signifier that, out in the wild, lets them know they’ve found someone they could connect with.  That’s actually a really big benefit!  It reduces the social risk of approaching someone to create a connection significantly!

One day, internet celebrity, ironylord, and athlete Bruno Pauerlifter features Emoji Girl on his podcast, and many Chads and Staceys begin to pour into the community.

The Chads and Staceys like to enjoy Emoji Girl on multiple levels of irony, and are suave socially adepts.

Soon they outnumber the “natives.”  The median social skill goes up, and with it, the expectations.  The level of irony goes up as well.

The Billys and Sarahs do not enjoy the new level of social expectations, and like to enjoy Emoji Girl unironically.

The Chads and Staceys haven’t done anything wrong, per se.  They’re not actively trying to exclude others with their irony.  They just really like irony, and the others, well, don’t.

The usefulness of Emoji Girl t-shirts as identifiers for Billys and Sarahs is obliterated without anyone even trying to obliterate it.

And that’s how you get gatekeeping behavior on things as “trivial” as video games, anime, and so on.

Now imagine a preference clash over something that actually matters.

3. People will thus ingroup/outgroup automatically.  Putting everyone into one big ingroup is not actually possible.

And because it isn’t possible, trying is only going to fail while creating side effects.

4. The idea of multiple overlapping governments in the same area administering different laws to different individuals is a fantasy, because not only will they disagree on externalities, but some externalities are social.

Take polygamy.

Polygamy, as practiced, has lots of bad correlations.

Is it absolutely proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that polygamy must result in worse mental health outcomes for women and children, fewer rights for women, more social control of women, and expelling lower-status men?


But considering that many of these are still issues with polygamist communities in developed countries, it’s likely it does, and it makes sense given the incentives of polygamy.  This includes things like child marriages.

Now, suppose a culture decides to have polygamy in the same geographic area as me, backed by their particular overlapping government.

Could their pool of undereducated, unattached, desperate “surplus” young men become my problem?  Very much yes.

And this isn’t anywhere near the only social issue with externalities.

5. Satisfying preferences has economies of scale.

The easiest way satisfy the people who want to live among Parisian architecture, and not some mish-mash of ugly whatever in the name of freedom, is to have a city or city district where all other building styles are prohibited.

(The above isn’t secretly about race.  I literally mean architecture.)

This applies to many, possibly most, preferences.

6. People will therefore act to rule over others and enforce their preferences wherever they must live with the consequences.

They may not even do this legally.

7. The natural boundary in the absence of nations is around religion, ethnicity, race, class, or clan, not “human.”

Religion is a natural boundary for reasons that should be obvious.  Also, many adherents ACTUALLY BELIEVE religion and are NOT SECRETLY JUST LIBERALS FAKING IT UNDERNEATH.

Race forms a natural boundary because it’s a team you can’t quit and you’re stuck with the actions of others in the same race whether you agree with them or not.

Ethnicity is a bit of a mashup between the two, but a bit less strong.

Clan, of course, genetic relations, etc.

All of these subgroups are going to be more likely to back you up in a conflict than the unified “Earth ingroup”, and organizing around them presents negotiating advantages.

Removing the nation will not remove armed conflict.  It merely moves it inwards one step.

Like, say, a white man ramming unarmed Muslims exiting a mosque with a van as an ethnic revenge killing in retaliation for van attacks by other Muslims.

8. The nation is an engineered pseudo-ethnicity.

This is GOOD, because we can use it to create a bigger ingroup (as it still has exclusion, punishment, and shared traits for cohesion) and overpower lesser subdivisions that might normally cause issues.

Additionally, because people are more likely to help the ingroup than the outgroup, by putting them in a cross-class ingroup like this we might be able to actually fund welfare programs.

It’s also necessary to defend territory, and by God can nations defend territory.  (And no, you’re not going to be able to just stop defending territory.)  People feel like they own the nation.  That matters.  A lot.

Each nation can then be specialized, with different rules to fit different preferences, and limited cross-border migration which does not exceed assimilation levels.

9. Open Borders has bad incentives.

- Extract the maximum value from your area of residence, then leave before the bad side effects catch up with you, moving out to an area that excludes by pricing the poor out of the market.

- Don’t bother helping the poor outside your immediate group, since you have no connection to them and can replace them with new immigrants at a moment’s notice.

- Prohibited from excluding trouble-makers by any other means, pricing is again used to keep out both the regular poor and the criminal poor.  (Any sufficiently large area exclusionary private-buyout counts as “creating borders/nations again” and will be legally destroyed for ideological reasons.)

- The way to deal with poverty in foreign territories is for those areas to PRODUCE MORE.  You can help them produce more, but only what is produced can be consumed.  Everyone talented who can leave escaping will not accomplish this.

And so on.

But it gets a lot worse.

10. Open Borders means World Government.

Someone has to track criminals across the opened borders.

And people aren’t going to sign up to fight and die for territories they don’t really own - and if they can be swamped with migrants that can vote at any moment, they don’t really own the territory.

This means the creation of a world police.

The creation of a world police requires the creation of a world law.

Power flows upwards and centralizes.  As the national governments degrade under open immigration, power will shift upwards towards what little world government there is, which will gradually expand.

US Federal power expanded.  EU power expanded.  This is the natural course of things.

11. World Government is very, very bad.

11.A. The larger the pot, the bigger the spoils.

This means that every political and ethnic faction has near-maximum incentive to subvert control of the world government because it controls all of humanity and the entire economic output of Earth.

Almost any price is worth paying to a political faction to take over Earth and permanently enshrine their ideology or religion as a global dictatorship.  

Likewise, the government won’t allow any breakaways, since that would cause a chain reaction that would destroy it.  This includes space colonies and any infrastructure on the Moon.

So if you make an Earth Sphere Federation, don’t be surprised when you get Gundam-tier interstellar colony-drop war bullshit.  Just, you know, with power armor, because mobile suits are too large to be practical.

11.B. The larger the pot, the less your chip matters.

Meanwhile, individual voters have little incentive to pay close attention, because their vote is marginally worthless.

This means the quality of the world government will be terrible.  In fact, the median government on Earth is probably much closer in quality to Brazil than it is to the United States of America.

And it plays into 11.A above, since that makes more extreme actions more cost-effective versus worthless voting.

11.C. There is nowhere to flee to if it fucks up.


Plus a whole bunch of other stuff, like weaving an environment that people can put themselves in and have some semblance of identity, forms a perimeter for arguing against bad social effects in general, and so on and so forth.

But I should probably be more surprised no one is noticing that eliminating nations is the clearest pathway to a world dictatorship.

I'm thinking about writing a fanfiction but not sure whether the idea is good enough. Can anyone give me feed back on the summary? 😬😁

Yoon Bum had been working as a prostitute for 3 years, going from sleazy hotels to dicey bars, keeping his head down, trying to pay off an impossible debt. Until he met his new client: Oh Sangwoo, the CEO of an influential and powerful company passed down from generation to generation looking for a certain release. When the two are drawn together into a messy and dysfunctional relationship, their jobs and social lives are at risk as they get more tangled up with one another.