One objection that I have with your feasibility section is that you seem to lump in “the powers that be” as a single group.
This would be the thing everyone in power is trying to dismantle
The world is more multipolar than this, and so are the US legal and political systems. Trump and the silicon valley accelerationist crowd do hold a lot of power, but just a few years ago they were persona non-grata in many circles.
Even now when they want to pass bills or change laws, they need to lobby for support from disparate groups both within and without their party. With a sufficiently multipolar world where even just a few different groups have powerful models assisting in their efforts, there will be some who want to change laws and rules in one way, others who want to change it in a different way, and others who don’t want to change it at all. There will be some who are ambivalent.
I’m not saying the end result isn’t corruption, I think that parasitic middlemanning any redistribution is a basin of attraction for any political spending and/or power. But there will be many different parties competing to corrupt it, or shore it up, according to their own beliefs and interests.
I think the argument that making the world more multipolar where a more diverse array of parties have models, may in fact lead to greater stability and less corruption (or at least more diverse coalitions when coalition building occurs).
One objection that I have with your feasibility section is that you seem to lump in “the powers that be” as a single group.
The world is more multipolar than this, and so are the US legal and political systems. Trump and the silicon valley accelerationist crowd do hold a lot of power, but just a few years ago they were persona non-grata in many circles.
Even now when they want to pass bills or change laws, they need to lobby for support from disparate groups both within and without their party. With a sufficiently multipolar world where even just a few different groups have powerful models assisting in their efforts, there will be some who want to change laws and rules in one way, others who want to change it in a different way, and others who don’t want to change it at all. There will be some who are ambivalent.
I’m not saying the end result isn’t corruption, I think that parasitic middlemanning any redistribution is a basin of attraction for any political spending and/or power. But there will be many different parties competing to corrupt it, or shore it up, according to their own beliefs and interests.
I think the argument that making the world more multipolar where a more diverse array of parties have models, may in fact lead to greater stability and less corruption (or at least more diverse coalitions when coalition building occurs).