@Ughubughughughughughghlug do you have any other hot takes that we might find
hilarious informative? What do you think about ethnostates?
I think they’re a great idea but impractical to make. I think the idea of an ethnostate is sound, in that heterogeneous communities are more subject to social stresses. The reason (which there’s evidence for in game theory, among other fields) is that “tribes” will generally trend towards ethnocentric politics and the resulting conflict of ethnic interests impoverishes the society.
I do not believe that ethnostates are desirable because of the inferiority of any one ethnic group. I think it’s entirely possible that there are mental, genetic attributes that correlate with ethnicity, but I think that the historical record suggests that the impact of those are small enough to not be worth basing policy around.
The issue is also complicated by the tendency of groups to either combine in the face of new outsiders or divide in the absence of them. However, I think it’s almost axiomatic that groups which are more similar will get along better and with less conflict than groups which are less similar.
You can also attempt to create unity through non-ethnic means. Culture is much more important than ethnicity, but ethnicity is still relevant. Religion and ideology are strong tools, but religion is weak in the modern West and ideology can change easily. I don’t see proposition nations as being inherently bad, but they’re easier to fall apart than ethnostates are.
There’s also the perspective of Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore, that heterogeneity is bad in a democracy but irrelevant in an autocracy, which I’m inclined to agree with. Ethnic strife doesn’t really matter if the executive has the power.
The biggest problem with ethnostates is the human toll it takes to make one in heterogeneous societies. There is no way to move masses of people entirely voluntarily. At best you remove people from their homes, many of whom have been there for centuries. At worst, you have genocide.
it is better to avoid the situation by not allowing heterogeneity in the first place, to separate the regions before they mix too much or to not allow immigration on any more than a token scale. That’s only really practical for a small handful of countries, like Japan and South Korea.
I think what’s more reasonable is Balkanization into ethno/nation-states which are designed to provide homelands for each group in those lands where it is a majority or is predominant, but not to displace or curtail the rights of minorities living there. That’s not very different from the old 1800s, early 1900s approach of liberal nationalism.
@Ughubughughughughughghlug Thoughts on the death penalty?
I firmly support it, but I think it should be restricted to cases where you know without a doubt they did it, like when there were multiple disinterested witnesses. It should be done by hanging (as is traditional in America) as part of a voluntary public ritual.
I don’t view crime and punishment as REALLY being about punishment or rehabilitation, but rather about damage mitigation. When we jail people, it is neither about punishment nor rehabilitation, but a form of quarantine that keeps them away from us to minimize their harm. Execution is the ultimate form of quarantine since it permanently eliminates the source of harm. Public Hanging is a form of death which demonstrates the authority of the State while respecting the executed criminal and binding the community together in an act of lawful violence.
Execution would be the standard response to murders (but not a necessary crime), career criminals, treason, and the violently insane.
