Not sure if it’s because he’s a libertarian or if it’s because he’s Jewish (a bit of both, I presume), but the “just move to another patch” thing really strikes me as the weakest link in it all. I don’t like that this whole system is predicated on people moving to and fro wherever they like on a whim.
People should have a connection with their land, and they should live and die there, if they can. It’s one thing to settle an empty frontier for your home country, it’s another to move back and forth all throughout an existing country. My family has lived in my home state for as long as white people have been in this state, and it troubles me to see native Oklahomans displaced not only by foreign immigrants, but by rootless Texans and other people from all across the country who only came here for a job.
This patchwork thing is an interesting system, but it doesn’t seem very good at making a country. Between the trampling around the countryside and the generally over-optimistic assumptions about human nature, I don’t rate it very highly, even if Yarvin is a creative thinker. I think, for all the things he’s trying to do with his system, a plain monarchy would do most of them anyway and still be more well-rounded.
>What happens if one corporation just starts buying everyone else up? Yarvin provides a weak way around this, basically stipulating in the charter of a patch that it won’t engage in this behavior…
i imagine it could be like the medieval italian city states that were held in some sort of power balance until the french intervened
Originally I clitty leaked at this idea because I concluded that the patchwork CEOs probably wouldn't dress like kings, but there are some other problems I have like how the existence of mass surveillance and every vehicle being tracked would probably lead to a klaus schwab eat the bugs dystopia.
My idea for a neo-monarchist society isn't that far off, where dukes have most government services provided by churches, private military organizations, family-owned companies and autonomous cities with labor syndicates being used to prevent these institutions from abusing the people.
Not sure if it’s because he’s a libertarian or if it’s because he’s Jewish (a bit of both, I presume), but the “just move to another patch” thing really strikes me as the weakest link in it all. I don’t like that this whole system is predicated on people moving to and fro wherever they like on a whim.
People should have a connection with their land, and they should live and die there, if they can. It’s one thing to settle an empty frontier for your home country, it’s another to move back and forth all throughout an existing country. My family has lived in my home state for as long as white people have been in this state, and it troubles me to see native Oklahomans displaced not only by foreign immigrants, but by rootless Texans and other people from all across the country who only came here for a job.
This patchwork thing is an interesting system, but it doesn’t seem very good at making a country. Between the trampling around the countryside and the generally over-optimistic assumptions about human nature, I don’t rate it very highly, even if Yarvin is a creative thinker. I think, for all the things he’s trying to do with his system, a plain monarchy would do most of them anyway and still be more well-rounded.
>What happens if one corporation just starts buying everyone else up? Yarvin provides a weak way around this, basically stipulating in the charter of a patch that it won’t engage in this behavior…
i imagine it could be like the medieval italian city states that were held in some sort of power balance until the french intervened
No more boob breaks??? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Originally I clitty leaked at this idea because I concluded that the patchwork CEOs probably wouldn't dress like kings, but there are some other problems I have like how the existence of mass surveillance and every vehicle being tracked would probably lead to a klaus schwab eat the bugs dystopia.
My idea for a neo-monarchist society isn't that far off, where dukes have most government services provided by churches, private military organizations, family-owned companies and autonomous cities with labor syndicates being used to prevent these institutions from abusing the people.
This is really quite stupid
My criticism or the book?