Governance as a Loss Function and Why We Need Communities

I’m pretty tired of policy makers talking about what’s good for “The United States” as if it has unilateral concerns.

1. Globalization exists

2. States. It’s in the name.

3. Diversity (all kinds)

4. The unlikelihood of governance voluntarily acting in contrast to its own interests in support of broader (or deeper) concerns

The US arguably has the least cohesive concerns of any country, which may be why it consolidates consistently around capitalism. Regardless of your feelings about it, capitalism is a poor loss function for concern.

If anything the more money and influence you have the more concerned you become.

I wouldn’t necessarily say that the inverse is true, however.

That’s basically the point of this post.

If concern goes up with money, and concern does not go down with less of it, then what are we even doing?

Ergo we should focus on supporting the growth of communities that organize around concerns.

I’m spitballing but I think that’s more or less what the constitution was supposed to be about. It’s a banlist. Rather than saying what communities should be subsidized, we should enumerate the sorts of communities that are not eligible. Stuff like for profit corporations or groups based on bigotry or violence. That sort of thing. Other than that it’s basically not that different than churches.

This gets complicated. Classic example: TERF in feminism. But if communities are sufficiently prolific, it should work out.

I actually don't believe ideologies can be bad per se. But, I’m rather extreme in that view. I think it's what they do that should constitute a conditional.

It’s basically “no one is illegal”.