A Case for One Billion Americans

The notion of housing one billion citizens within the United States may sound far-fetched, but it's far from impractical. In fact, the room for such a population boom is very much within our reach.

The vast expanse of America is largely unoccupied, presenting an opportunity for substantial population growth. The lower 48 states, even with a three-fold increase in population, would still have a population density less than half of what Germany has today. And, let's not forget, Germany, with its lush forests and expansive farmland, offers an exceptional quality of life.

Consider this: if the continental United States had the same population density as the European Union (EU), it could comfortably accommodate nearly a billion people. Granted, the aridity of the Western US may limit the population density to some extent, but that's no deal-breaker.

Even if only the states east of the Mississippi adopted a European-style population density, while the other states retained their current population, the United States would still house over 400 million people.

Currently, the EU, with approximately 300 people per square mile, exports more food than it imports. This density is similar to the ninth-densest US state, akin to Pennsylvania or Florida. In comparison, the continental United States has an overall density of about 110 people per square mile (if we exclude Alaska as an outlier).

So, the potential for one billion Americans isn't a flight of fancy. It's a pragmatic proposal that warrants serious consideration. America has the capacity to grow, and with careful planning and sustainable practices, a population boom could well be on the horizon.

Envisioning the United States with a billion people might seem an audacious proposition, but let's take a look at the numbers. If our population were to grow by 5% each year, it would take approximately 23 years to reach a billion citizens.

Today, we are at 330 million people. With a 5% growth rate, the projected population would increase as follows: 347 million after 1 year, 364 million after 2 years, 382 million after 3 years, and so on. After 23 years, we would reach a total of approximately 1.01 billion people.

This growth is achievable if we implement pro-family culture and legislation, supporting Americans in having the number of children they desire. Alongside this, a more open approach to immigration and refugee settlement could contribute to the 5% annual increase.

Housing is a crucial component of this growth, and deregulation of the industry would play a vital role. Eliminating unnecessary restrictions and limitations would open up the market, providing the foundation for housing a billion citizens.

By doing away with restrictive height limits for condominiums and apartment buildings, we could accommodate more people without needing more land. This approach aligns with the principles of a free-market economy and individual freedom - city regulators cannot dictate market demand, and excessive government regulation infringes on our liberties.

Allowing for higher-density housing construction not only makes financial sense, by potentially lowering home costs, but it also benefits young families, reduces urban sprawl, and promotes efficient transportation. Living in a seven-story apartment building with an elevator isn't drastically different from living in a two-story apartment complex.

A higher population density doesn't necessarily mean a decrease in the quality of life. We can learn from countries like Germany, where a higher population density has not compromised the availability of forests, farmland, and other natural spaces.

As we contemplate the idea of accommodating a billion Americans, let's remember that this is not just a numbers game. It's about creating an environment where every citizen can thrive. It's about growth, but it's also about ensuring that growth is sustainable, inclusive, and beneficial to all.

Ultimately, the prospect of one billion Americans is not just feasible; it also presents a unique opportunity for economic growth, cultural diversity, and societal progress. The journey there requires thoughtful planning and decisive action, particularly around family policies, immigration, and housing. But with the right approach, we can turn this ambitious vision into a reality.

Supporting Housing Growth for a Stronger Nation

The idea of slowing down the price growth of homes by allowing more apartment buildings in popular, growing cities might seem counterintuitive to some. However, artificially stifling growth to inflate property values harms those trying to start a family, undermines the American dream, and takes a toll on the environment. Ultimately, it weakens us as a nation.

Indeed, seven-story apartments aren't everyone's ideal living situation. However, the benefits of such density—a shorter commute, proximity to amenities, and a vibrant community—are trade-offs that many are willing to make. While you might prefer more open spaces, let's ensure that those who value a denser, urban lifestyle have the freedom to make that choice.

Feeding a Larger Population

Looking at our agricultural capacity, there's no reason to believe the U.S. can't support a larger population. Currently, we export 25% of the food we produce, which could directly feed an additional 82 million Americans without any changes to our agricultural practices.

Moreover, this figure doesn't account for the potential improvements in technology that could boost our agricultural yield or changes in our dietary habits that could reduce environmental impact. If we consumed locally what we now export, we could sustain a total population of over 411 million.

We are far from exhausting our agricultural capacity. With innovations like vertical farming, hydroponics, genetics, and automation, we can increase our efficiency and feed more people using less land and water. Even if land becomes scarce, it would simply lead to higher meat prices and incentivize a less resource-intensive diet. But at present, that's not a pressing concern.

Adapting to a Changing World: America's Future Population Strategy

We need to recognize that the global agricultural landscape is evolving. Currently, the developing world's agricultural yields are significantly lower than those in the United States. However, with the adoption of technology, these yields are expected to increase, reducing the world's reliance on American food exports.

The Call to Act: America's position in the world is not guaranteed, and it's essential we take proactive steps to secure our future. As China's influence grows, it's better for us to integrate a larger population into our society now, while we still have a comparative advantage.

Waiting until China surpasses us in power and wealth could have unforeseen risks. At that point, we might not be the top choice for potential immigrants, with many preferring the growing opportunities in China and India.

Historically, new waves of immigrants have faced challenges integrating into American society, with groups like the Irish, Polish, and Italians experiencing high crime rates, dysfunction, and discrimination. It's more strategic to tackle these issues now, while we still have a comfortable lead over our global competitors.

A New American Purpose: Achieving and maintaining a larger population than China could instill a noble, shared sense of purpose among Americans. The growth of China and India threatens our position as a leading power, making this an imperative goal.

Unlike China and Russia, which often resort to brutalizing and dominating their citizens and threatening their neighbors' territorial borders, America can grow stronger by welcoming citizens who voluntarily seek our freedom and opportunities.

By opening our doors wider, we are not just increasing our population; we're reaffirming our commitment to the core American values of liberty and opportunity. This approach will allow us to remain a global leader while staying true to our ideals.

A Vision for an Empowered America: Necessity of a Billion Citizens

To maintain its position as a global superpower, America must seriously consider its population strategy. To continue to compete effectively with China, India, and Russia, we will need to significantly increase our population.

In the future, a country's global influence will align more closely with its population size. America must not resign itself to fading into the background as these larger countries rise. Merely being "better" or more efficient won't suffice. For instance, China's population is over three times that of the U.S. It is improbable to assume that we could maintain a lead by being three times more efficient.

It's worth noting that nations learn and adapt from one another, leading to a leveling of the playing field. The growth rate in wealthier nations hasn't kept pace with that in developing countries. Depending on a reversal of this trend would be unwise.

Admittedly, America doesn't always outpace other nations in terms of efficiency, and we have struggled with addressing some solvable problems. Despite this, our commitment to freedom keeps us an attractive place to live. Countries like China may seem to solve problems more efficiently or outperform us in standardized test scores, but the value we place on freedom gives us an advantage. To stay relevant, however, our population needs to match those of our biggest competitors.

Therefore, envision an America that's home to one billion citizens. We must categorically reject the path taken by countries like Russia, which invaded and tried to conquer Georgia and Ukraine, or China, which annexed Tibet and threatens Taiwan. These actions are not just morally reprehensible but also strategically flawed. A smarter way to increase a nation's power is by making it a desirable place to live, embracing diversity, and welcoming those who seek prosperity and freedom.

The Path to Power: Becoming a Haven for Freedom and Prosperity

Our best chance of outpacing China and India lies in maintaining America as a desirable destination for all seeking a better life. We must continue to be open to outsiders and offer a haven where people can move freely in pursuit of prosperity.

The path of violence, dominance, and control that some nations take is not sustainable. Enforcing power over unwilling nations only breeds hatred and creates volatile governments that are met with opposition.

China's annexation of Tibet, their failure to honor commitments to Hong Kong, and threats towards Taiwan, all point towards a troubling pattern of disrespect towards freedom. Similarly, Russia's invasion of Georgia and Ukraine mirror the same destructive path of totalitarian regimes like Hitler's Germany.

If we aspire for America to hold its own against these rising powers, increasing our population to one billion citizens is a viable strategy. As long as China and Russia continue to threaten their neighbors and suppress their own citizens, America will remain an attractive prospect for hard-working, freedom-loving immigrants.

We must beware the threat of a declining superpower becoming embittered and prone to manipulation. If China surpasses us in prosperity but we maintain our power through a larger population, we can sidestep the pitfalls of resentment and frustration.

While natural resources contribute to a country's wealth, they are not the only factor. The wealth of a nation lies in its people, their skills, and their industriousness. Thriving companies require people—innovators, entrepreneurs, and a robust workforce. Every working individual contributes to a nation's strength.

Embracing a future where our population amplifies our strength, America can continue to be a beacon of freedom and prosperity on the world stage.

Apple stands as the largest company globally, its wealth not stemming from selling American natural resources but from designing innovative products, utilizing resources worldwide. The wealth that Apple contributes to America is independent of the country's natural resources.

The fear surrounding increased immigration is often unfounded. Our competition with countries like China depends heavily on our ability to maintain the appeal of the United States as a desirable place to live, displaying openness towards outsiders, and welcoming individuals who wish to be part of our free and prosperous nation. To level the playing field, our population must be comparable to theirs. Otherwise, the contest won't be about different human rights approaches or economic philosophies. They may overshadow us simply due to their sheer size.

For more information and debates on this topic, check the following links:

https://sites.google.com/view/forward-party/platform/1-billion-americans
https://www.kialo.com/america-should-strive-to-have-one-billion-citizens-as-a-way-to-compete-with-china-and-india-57465
https://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/America_should_strive_to_have_one_billion_citizens_as_a_way_to_compete_with_China_and_Indi
http://myclob.pbworks.com/w/page/21958070/Immigration

a) Fundamental beliefs or principles one must reject to also reject this belief:

1. Belief in the strength of diversity and the enrichment it brings to society.
2. Belief that population growth directly contributes to economic and global power.
3. Acceptance of the idea of immigration as a critical factor in national growth and development.
4. Confidence in the capacity of the US to sustainably accommodate a significantly larger population.

b) Alternate expressions (e.g., metatags, mottos, hashtags):

1. #OneBillionAmericans
2. "Population Power"
3. "Growing Our Way to Global Relevance"
4. #EmbraceTheBillion

c) Objective criteria to measure the strength of this belief:

1. Public sentiment and opinion polls regarding population growth and immigration.
2. Legislative measures aimed at accommodating increased population or immigration.
3. Rates of population growth, both natural and via immigration.
4. Degree of societal and infrastructural readiness for significant population increase.

d) Shared interests between those who agree/disagree:

1. The desire for a prosperous, globally competitive nation.
2. The need for sustainable development and responsible use of resources.
3. Concern for the well-being and quality of life for American citizens.

e) Key opposing interests between those who agree/disagree (that must be addressed for mutual understanding):

1. Views on immigration - its impacts and value.
2. Varying concerns about environmental sustainability and resource utilization.
3. Divergent perspectives on cultural identity and social cohesion in an increasingly diverse society.

f) Solutions:

1. Comprehensive immigration reform to welcome more immigrants while ensuring proper systems for integration and support.
2. Proactive urban planning and infrastructure development to accommodate a larger population.
3. Policies encouraging higher birth rates, such as improved parental leave, affordable childcare, and financial incentives.
4. Investments in sustainable technologies to ensure resource efficiency and environmental sustainability.

g) Strategies for encouraging commitment to a resolution to evidence-based solutions:

1. Public education and awareness campaigns to highlight the potential benefits of a larger population.
2. Policies and laws grounded in comprehensive research and successful case studies.
3. Inclusive dialogues and debates to address concerns and bridge divides between opposing views.
4. Demonstrating successful models of higher-density living and thriving diverse communities.

1. Logical arguments:

• Population and Economic Growth: Larger populations often mean larger economies. More people equate to more consumers, workers, innovators, and entrepreneurs.
• Global Relevance: In the future, the world stage might be dominated by populous countries like India and China. Maintaining a comparable population might be key to retaining global influence.

2. Supporting evidence (data, studies):

• According to a United Nations report, countries with declining populations face economic stagnation and a shrinking workforce. Maintaining a steady or growing population could avoid such problems. (Source: "World Population Ageing 2019" by United Nations)

3. Supporting books:

• "One Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger" by Matthew Yglesias

4. Supporting videos (movies, YouTube, TikTok):

• TED Talk by Hans Rosling, "Global Population Growth, Box by Box."

5. Supporting organizations and their Websites:

• Pro-Immigration organizations like FWD.us (https://www.fwd.us) believe in the power of immigrants and immigration reform for economic and societal growth.
• Urban Land Institute (https://uli.org/) advocates for responsible land use and creating sustainable, thriving communities.

6. Supporting podcasts:

• The Weeds, particularly the episode "One Billion Americans?" where Matthew Yglesias explains his proposal.

7. Unbiased experts:

• Matthew Yglesias, author of "One Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger."
• Lyman Stone, a demographic researcher and an adjunct fellow at AEI.

8. Benefits of belief acceptance (ranked by Maslow categories):

• Physiological: An increased population could lead to more job opportunities, stimulating economic growth that can improve standards of living.
• Safety: A more populous nation could have a stronger international presence, improving national security.
• Belonging: Enhanced diversity could lead to a richer cultural tapestry and sense of global community.
• Esteem: A larger population could boost national prestige and maintain America's global status.
• Self-Actualization: A society that welcomes and integrates immigrants, and supports families to have the number of children they want, could be seen as more free, prosperous, and forward-thinking.

Partisan political parties are dumb

 

1. They promote their one-size-fits-all doctrine instead of weighing the costs and benefits for each issue separately.
2. They excuse the same behavior as the other party, but somehow it is evil when the other side does it.
3. They justify corruption to win philosophical battles that are often meaningless
1. We can point to successful and failing examples of big and small governments, and so the size of the government can't be the only question that matters.
2. Corruption matters
3. Freedom matter
4. Whoever is in charge must respect the dignity and freedom of those out of power
1. Having a loyal opposition that supports our country and doesn't want to burn the the whole thing down when they don't have as much power as they wish must matter.
5. We need to respect the the legitimacy of the other side when they win.
1. We can't try to burn the whole thing down when we lose.
6. We must avoid authoritarians on both extremes
7. We have to be able to find ways to do two things at once. 
8. We must be able to find ways to reward hard work and not reward those that are evil or lazy while also strengthening our safety net.
1. Insisting on only one is making us stupid because we both want the same thing, and we both need to do it efficiently without too many costs. 
4. Their partisan battles distract us from real problems and obvious solutions
1. We can't make wise decisions when one side doesn't acknowledge any costs of the policy, and the other side won't admit any benefits.
5. Our partisan battles are keeping us from being efficient and effective
1. Our partisan battles cause us to promote incompetent people on our side, that prove their loyalty to our dogma, but do not show any competence at getting things done.

Partisan political parties make us dumb

1. They make us unconsciously biased (confirmation bias).
2. Their one-sided advertising and propaganda causes us to
1. Use a team approach to problem-solving
2. emotionally cheer-lead for our team,
3. think anecdotally, and to
4. use reason to win for our side, not identify the best solution
5. kill the necessary devil's advocate
6. kill lady justice that is shown with a blindfold to remove bias, and a scale to weigh pros AND cons, and costs AND benefits 

 

They promote the spirit of revenge, division, and hero worship
They cause us to fight against those we disagree with, instead of trying to address their concerns.
They cause leaders to win by

1. Loudly defending partisan dogma, instead of quietly making any sense.
2. Being mean and attacking the other side, instead of being great and bringing us together.
3. Ignorantly pretending our solutions will go away if the partisan approach is applied, instead of wisely following data and evidence, and weighing costs and benefits.
4. Showing anger and hatred instead of decency and respect.

 

A political party using evidence-based policy forums could win against Republicans or Democrats

a) What unstated assumptions must one accept to agree with this belief?

1. People who learn about evidence-based policy are supportive of it. 
1. Agree:
1. Evidence-based policy relies on scientifically tested facts, which can be more convincing than opinions or anecdotal evidence. 
2. It promotes transparency and accountability, as decisions are based on demonstrable evidence rather than personal biases or political interests. 
3. It encourages continuous learning and improvement, as policies are regularly evaluated and updated based on new evidence.
2. There are enough independents in some locations, or enough Republicans and Democrats can be swayed from their traditional party affiliations in order to allow us to win. 
1. Agree:
1. A growing number of voters are disillusioned with the two-party system and are open to alternatives. 
2. The success of independent candidates in some locations indicates that it is possible to win outside of the two major parties. 
3. As societal issues become more complex, more voters are looking for nuanced and evidence-based approaches to policy, rather than partisan ideologies.
3. Evidence-based policy forums could be made to be effective enough to produce better policies than the Republican and Democratic parties.
1. By drawing on a wide range of research and expertise, evidence-based policy forums can generate a broader and more innovative range of policy options. 
2. The focus on evidence over ideology can result in more pragmatic and effective solutions to societal problems.

What unstated assumptions must one accept to disagree with this belief

1. Too many people will always vote based on party loyalty to ever allow an evidence-based political party to win.
1. Disagree:
1. Recent trends show an increase in independent voters and declining party affiliation, indicating a potential openness to new political alternatives. Furthermore, increasing dissatisfaction with the current political climate might prompt voters to seek alternatives outside their traditional party preferences.
2. Those who want to keep the current system will say: "Evidence-based policy forums can not be designed to yield policies that align with the core values of a country's citizens."
1. Disagree:
1. Evidence-based policy isn't at odds with a votor's values. In fact, it is a tool to identify the policies that most effective at accomplishing the things they say they want. By using data and research to inform decisions, evidence-based policy can provide practical, effective solutions that fulfill core values like justice, equality, and prosperity.
3. The party system is too entrenched to allow for a new party to win over substantial numbers of Republicans or Democrats.
1. Disagree:
1. The current dominance of the two-party system doesn't mean it's unchangeable. History shows that political shifts can and do occur, often in response to societal changes. With the right message and strategy, a new political party that offers a compelling, evidence-based approach could resonate with voters dissatisfied with the status quo.

b) Alternative Ways of Saying the Same Thing:

1. A political party employing fact-based policy-making could appeal to Republicans or Democrats.
2. Republicans or Democrats could be won over by a political party that prioritizes evidence-driven policy development.

c) Objective Criteria for Assessing the Validity of this Belief:

1. The number of independent voters, plus the number of Republicans or Democrats who express willingness to switch party affiliation based on policy, in a given location. 
2. The success rate of people who try to explain the benefits of a specific well function in evidence-based policy forums (build it and they will come).
3. The popularity of policies resulting from evidence-based policy forums among Republicans and Democrats.

d) Most Common Shared Interests or Values to Encourage Dialogue and Understanding:

1. A desire for effective and rational policy-making.
2. A belief in the importance of evidence in decision-making.
3. A mutual interest in the success and betterment of the nation.

e) Most Significant Differences in Interests or Obstacles to Navigate:

1. Differences in core values and principles between Republicans and Democrats.
2. Party loyalty and the potential reluctance to switch affiliations.
3. Skepticism about the effectiveness of evidence-based policy forums.

f) Strategies to Encourage Open Dialogue, Mutual Respect, and a Shared Commitment to Truth:

1. Build a well-functioning web forum that does a good job of identifying the best policies. 
2. Find politicians willing to tie their votes to the outcome of online debate forums. This could be a hard connection where they are fully bound to the scores given to each argument and the math provided by specific counting algorithms, or a loose promise to show which arguments they accept or reject and show that the pro scores of the policy they accept have more points
3. Make social media posts that highlight the importance of evidence in policy-making.
4. Edit the evidence-based policy Wikipedia page. 
5. Promote the understanding that changing political affiliations based on policy does not equate to betraying one's core values.
6. Encourage people to trust that their core values would win an open, honest, well-organized fight. 
7. Encourage an environment where party loyalty is respected, but so too is the openness to new ideas and approaches.

We need a cost-benefit analysis political part to address the dogma:

Dogma, in essence, is applying truths without considering their conflicting counterparts. Undertaking the intricate task of balancing pros and cons in our minds is akin to complex mathematical equations. This complexity escalates when we must weigh the relative importance of competing truths.

The problem arises when we insist on a single belief being the ultimate truth, neglecting the relevance of differing perspectives in various scenarios. Our world is filled with advocates for compassion or strict justice, defenders of tradition, or proponents of societal reconfiguration. While many dogmas carry elements of truth, they require balancing with alternative approaches.

The virtues of compassion, kindness, and mercy are indisputable, but they are not one-size-fits-all remedies. There are instances where the application of these virtues can lead to unintended harm: excessive compassion towards adults can neglect children's needs, and misplaced kindness towards criminals may lead to additional victims. Even trust, a valued virtue, can sometimes be misplaced, resulting in tragic outcomes.

Political philosophies often revolve around single-word approaches, creating a tendency to avoid balancing opposing principles. The crux of political issues lies in the imbalance between order and chaos, novelty and tradition, justice and mercy. If you are not constantly weighing these opposing forces in your mind, you have succumbed to dogma.

Our current methods of debate are flawed. Broadcast media, for example, lacks an effective feedback or correction mechanism. It's difficult to trust entities that spread information without allowing for feedback. Those who control the media are often motivated by power or profit, using their control to propagate their dogma or addict us to content that promotes anger or hatred.

The time-based nature of broadcast news and infotainment is particularly damaging. Each time-based broadcast is designed for a different audience, limiting its depth and preventing it from building on previous broadcasts. Organizing content by time not only removes context but also prevents the grouping of related issues. This leads to a constant reiteration of shallowly addressed topics that fit within the average viewer's attention span.

To address this, we need a paradigm shift in how we communicate and debate. We need a system that allows for in-depth analysis and feedback, one that does not oversimplify complex issues for the sake of filling a time slot. Only by breaking away from dogma and encouraging a multifaceted perspective can we hope to make meaningful progress.

Dogma: Applying truths without regard for other truths:

The act of balancing pros and cons is a complex task, particularly when it involves weighing competing truths. Our world is replete with advocates for compassion, staunch defenders of justice, preservers of tradition, and champions of societal transformation. The fallacy emerges when we cling to a single belief as the infallible truth, disregarding the varying contexts that could shift its relevance.

While many dogmas harbor elements of truth, they require counterbalance from alternative perspectives. Virtues such as compassion, kindness, and mercy often hold true, yet there are circumstances where their application can inadvertently inflict harm. Trust, another highly-regarded virtue, needs to be tempered with caution. Blind, short-term compassion may inadvertently reward and perpetuate detrimental behavior.

Political philosophies that shun the balancing of conflicting principles foster an imbalance between order and chaos, tradition and innovation, justice and mercy. We must continually strive to strike a balance between justice and mercy, and discern when more order or chaos is warranted. The refusal to question these aspects implies a surrender to dogma and an unwillingness to embrace the complexities of our ever-evolving world.

Harnessing Collective Intelligence: A Proposal for Transparent, Data-Driven Decision Making

Peter Thiel has argued that aside from advancements in data, our society has seen little progress in the past century. Google's success, valued in hundreds of billions of dollars, stemmed from their innovative use of links as a voting system for website rankings. This suggests that we could apply similar principles to rank ideas directly, rather than merely directing users to external websites. Google's algorithm places trust in websites with more links, but this can be flawed as people often make mistakes.

A more robust algorithm could consider the number of valid arguments supporting a claim, rather than merely counting links to a website. By refining this approach, we could harness the power of big data to improve decision-making. What we need is collective, transparent intelligence, not closed, artificial intelligence.

Imagine a system where we assign scores to various elements, thereby building conclusion validity from evidence validity. These could include:Linkage scores, addressing the relevance of evidence to a conclusion,

• Uniqueness scores, indicating the lack of redundancy,
• Data validity scores, addressing verification,
• Logical validity scores,
• Bias-free scores.

This could provide a solution to life's most pressing challenges. Rational collective thinking necessitates the dissection, evaluation, and scoring of arguments. We can't begin to address our problems without this process.

Transparent, collective cost-benefit analysis is the key to avoiding major catastrophes such as wars, artificial intelligence threats, global warming, extinction events from comets, supernovae, and super-volcanoes.

As it stands, our public policy is declining in intelligence. We're filtering all our decisions through our limited attention spans, compounded by the demands of our full-time jobs. We must embrace the complexity of these issues and start working towards solutions.

Harnessing the Power of Crowdsourced Policy: The Cost-Benefit Analysis Party!

Welcome to the Cost-Benefit Analysis Party! Here, I plan to introduce a unique approach to crowdsourcing government policy that I've been refining over the past two decades. The primary goal? Automating conflict resolution and mediation processes.

A wealth of literature exists on effective conflict resolution. These tried-and-true techniques can be powerfully integrated into a policy analysis web forum.

A book that perfectly encapsulates the essence of my vision is David's Sling. It embodies the spirit of utilizing reason and logic to dissect policy matters.

This forum is designed to methodically analyze the potential costs, benefits, and risks of policy propositions. Each factor is evaluated based on the strength of its supporting arguments, thus determining its likelihood. This is not a simple process; it involves intricate mechanisms promoting quality argumentation. The defeat of weak arguments and the support of quality ones lead us to reliable conclusions about the potential outcomes of various policy actions.

Quality-promoting algorithms form the backbone of this framework. They incorporate elements of upvoting, downvoting, ranking, moderation, and expertise validation, akin to systems you'd see on LinkedIn, Wikipedia, and Kialo.

My vision extends beyond the forum itself. Why not establish a political party that endorses candidates willing to utilize this forum to inform their decisions?

In essence, this post serves as an argument for the potential effectiveness of crowdsourced policy forums. Together, we can revolutionize policy-making and foster a more inclusive, informed, and democratic future.

Revamping Democracy: The Imperative for Evidence-Based Political Parties

We stand at a crossroads. Our political parties and our collective decision-making processes are in disarray. The remedy? Replacing our existing political affiliations with parties rooted in cost-benefit analysis. This approach paves the way for rational political entities that resist the pull of personality cults and reject blinkered, one-sided worldviews.

Implementing the scientific method in politics is not just beneficial - it's vital. It is the fulcrum on which the future of democracy, freedom, and our planet balances. By harnessing the techniques of conflict resolution, we can chart the most effective path forward, meticulously weighing the costs, benefits, and risks associated with each policy decision.

Imagine open online forums that challenge the stronghold of special interests, biases, emotional reactions, and anecdotal evidence. Picture a political landscape that sidesteps the futile cheerleading and antagonism inherent in our existing political parties. Instead, the strength of our beliefs would be directly proportional to the robustness of the evidence supporting them.

This is more than a pipe dream; it's a necessity. Basing our policy decisions on solid evidence is the most cost-effective and reliable method for problem-solving. Moreover, it's the only approach capable of addressing the multifaceted challenges we face. Now, more than ever, we need to revamp our democratic processes to ensure a viable and sustainable future.

Curbing Hysteria: The Need for Reason and Cost-Benefit Analysis in Decision Making

In the latter half of 2009, a wave of fear swept over hundreds of Toyota owners. They raised a terrifying claim: their cars were suddenly accelerating out of control. The aftermath was a whirlwind of activity - Toyota recalled 10 million vehicles, settled numerous lawsuits, and paid fines exceeding $1 billion. The conclusion appeared self-evident - there was a significant flaw in the world's most popular cars. Except, there wasn't. What transpires when hysteria supersedes common sense?

Mentioned Podcast

Our society teeters dangerously close to the precipice if we continue making decisions based on narratives, biases, anecdotes, and infotainment. It's time we pivot towards a more pragmatic approach - a political party that leans on reason and cost-benefit analysis to steer its decision-making process.

Malcolm Gladwell's insightful podcast delves into the intricacies of public folly. Instances like the Toyota acceleration debacle wouldn't occur if we prioritized deliberation and rationality over raw emotion.

Sure, a billion-dollar fine for Toyota and a few months of fear may not signal the end of the world. But it serves as an alarming illustration of how misinformation and hysteria can proliferate unchecked. We must learn from these episodes and strive for a more rational, evidence-based society.

Redefining Democracy: The Case for a More Informed and Inclusive Voting System

In the realm of political thought, a provocative idea has emerged - should we lower the voting age to zero but weigh votes based on voters' understanding of relevant information? This concept was recently discussed by Robin Hanson:

"Can we extend voting to younger ages, but also weigh votes via informedness?" (Link to source)

That would combine the liberal and conservative approaches, such as from @jasonfbrennan.

Let me clarify - I'm not advocating for an immediate drop of the voting age to zero and the introduction of a test to rank votes. Instead, I'm more interested in questioning the roots of our current voting age limit. Is it a blanket assumption that older individuals possess more knowledge? That's certainly not always the case. So, why not consider testing knowledge directly, rather than using age as a loose proxy?

One might question, "Who gets to decide what it takes to be informed?" A fair counter, but couldn't the same be asked of our current system, "Who gets to decide how old is old enough to vote?"

This line of thought inevitably leads to another question: Should we judge individuals who are uninformed? It's not always their fault - they may have had poor educational opportunities or lack positive role models. This brings us to the crux of the matter: who bears responsibility if one's life is less than ideal? Traditional conservative thought posits that individuals should largely be held accountable for their own circumstances, under the belief that society functions more effectively when we assume the existence of free will.

The question I propose is this: "If you are uneducated, is that more a result of your circumstances or your age?" It seems unjust to penalize young, knowledgeable individuals by depriving them of their right to vote. In contrast, a person's lack of knowledge may be more attributable to their own choices than a child's youth is to their own.

Now, consider this: do we even need to vote for representatives anymore? In the age of the internet, we could potentially create an online platform for direct democracy. We could use a system similar to Wikipedia, where people propose costs, benefits, and risks for each policy. Everyone could post reasons to agree or disagree with the likelihood of these outcomes, allowing users to rank arguments. This dynamic could be continually updated as better arguments or new information emerge.

However, we should acknowledge that people are often resistant to change. Despite voicing a desire for progress, many people are inherently uncomfortable with it. But I firmly believe that reason will eventually triumph, though not without a certain amount of inevitable trial and error.

Creating a political party that operates on open cost/benefit/risk analysis might sound outlandish, but consider these points:

• There's no reason for the federal government to act without first conducting a cost-benefit analysis.
• There's no reason for such analysis to be hidden from public view.
• Wikipedia has demonstrated the efficacy of group efforts, provided quality is rewarded.
• There's no reason not to base our conclusions on the strength of the evidence.

As for the concern about implementing online democracy and using algorithms for decision making, consider the success of Wikipedia and Google. Both have demonstrated that algorithms can effectively analyze and prioritize quality content. The ultimate truth is that our conclusions should be based on the strength of the evidence.

In conclusion, I'm not a blind believer in technology as the panacea for all our woes. I have faith in reason and order. I believe that we can reason together, if we are organized. We need to lay out all the arguments, data, causal relationships, and scientific studies, link them, and vet them thoroughly. With the right tools, people can solve their problems. That's whyI'm a firm advocate for Direct Democracy.

In this potential new world of direct democracy, the question of who gets to decide what it takes to be informed could be answered fairly by the collective. We could implement a graded system, wherein if you match your parents' score, your vote is weighted 100%. Score twice as high? Your vote counts for 200%.

Now, some may argue that the use of algorithms in decision-making is a dangerous path. However, our current systems, such as the electoral college and primaries, already utilize algorithms. A direct democracy, even in its simplest form, cannot function without some sort of algorithmic assistance. In this context, I argue that an online democracy, utilizing algorithms and clear reasoning, could flourish, much like Wikipedia has.

Is there a potential for abuse in such a system? Certainly. However, Google has proven capable of outsmarting link farms, and Wikipedia has managed to maintain a high standard of quality through community efforts. I firmly believe in the strength of evidence and sound logic. We can identify and account for bias, we can discern causal relationships, we can dissect problems into individual components, and we can collect and analyze reasons to agree on the same page. Through the teachings of conflict resolution, we can focus on the interests of conflicting sides, rather than their positions, helping us navigate towards resolution.

To those who argue that reliance on technology is a fallacy, I would argue that I'm not placing blind faith in technology itself. I have faith in reason and order. I believe that we can reason together, if we organize. We need to lay out all the arguments, data, causal relationships, and scientific studies, link them, and vet them thoroughly. This approach requires a highly systematic and organized method to address our problems.

Ultimately, the goal is to equip people with the tools they need to solve problems. By bridging the gap between liberal and conservative approaches, as proposed by thinkers such as @jasonfbrennan, we could create a more balanced, fair, and effective political system. I believe that with the right tools and an openness to change, society can advance towards a more reasoned, more democratic future.

Towards a More Nuanced Understanding of Capitalism: Building Bridges, Not Walls

The internet has given rise to numerous discussions, debates, and ideological sparring platforms. From LateStageCommunism to LateStageCapitalism, these forums often present divergent views of the world. While critical discussions are essential for growth, it's equally important to acknowledge the need for nuance and compromise, especially when discussing economic systems like capitalism and communism.

We indeed need to educate everyone about the gulags and the failures of communism, but simply mocking or belittling those who contribute to forums like LateStageCapitalism is not the solution. Winning hearts and minds is not about outdoing the other side in low-quality, over-simplistic rhetoric. It's about out-thinking them, out-facting them, and engaging them with empathy and respect.

One common critique that often surfaces in these discussions is the issue of monopolies. While opponents of capitalism criticize its potential for creating business monopolies, they often overlook the potential for monopolies in government. Transparency and competition should be encouraged in both sectors. We should unite in our common goal to fight corruption and oppose the concentration of power, the real enemy of free societies.

It's essential to question why people would want to give more power to the government, knowing that a leader like Trump could potentially wield that power. We must be consistent in our belief systems, advocating for less government interference regardless of who is in power.

In our democracy, why does the president have the power to pardon or dictate trade? Shouldn't we prioritize trade with the least corrupt or most free countries? As advocates of capitalism and democracy, we need to ask these questions and strive for answers that align with our principles.

On this subreddit, LateStageCommunism, we need to work not just to debunk misconceptions about communism but also to convert people to a more nuanced understanding of capitalism. This can be achieved by building on common beliefs and jointly fighting corruption and power concentration.

A fantastic resource for this perspective is "The Cost-Benefit Revolution" by Cass Sunstein. The book argues that government policies should be based on careful consideration of their costs and benefits rather than on intuition, popular opinion, or pressure from interest groups. This principle, which could be found here, aligns seamlessly with our advocacy for reason-based decision-making.

In my view, the goal of capitalism is to remove arbitrary power from government officials who decide our lives behind closed doors. We need science and reason to predict the outcomes of specific regulations. If a regulation fails to achieve its intended result, it should be automatically revoked. Good intentions do not justify harmful results.

Capitalism rewards effort and allows for failure, but it should not reward the idle descendants of successful ancestors indefinitely. Each generation should start from a relatively equal footing, promoting fairness and competition.

I consider myself a moderate. I believe in a capitalist approach for adults, where individuals are responsible for their own success or failure. However, I'm more of a socialist when it comes to children, advocating for equal opportunities for all, regardless of their background.

While I'm critical of well-intentioned government programs that inadvertently cause harm, I believe that intelligent analysis can determine which programs and regulations truly benefit society. The person responsible for making these decisions should be ruthlessly practical and concerned with real-world results.

Capitalism is often accused of being a utopian dream, but I believe it's the closest we've come to a system that works in the real world. It prioritizes efficiency, aligns motivation with results, and rewards hard work. It's not about worshipping a doctrine but about improving society based on evidence and reason. My politics are rooted in reality and the desire to see improvements in society, not emotional needs or tribal allegiances.

We should reject radicalism, which is the rejection of the ordinary, the imperfect, and the real for an unattainable utopia. We should focus on what works, continually improve it, and respect our history. We don't need to destroy to rebuild but to enhance what we have based on reason and facts.

I encountered comments on this subreddit that resonate with my beliefs. One comment suggested that we're united by our dislike of communism and that there's no point in discussing our disagreements. I believe we can balance unity with open discussion as long as our goal is improvement and not division. Let's not fall into the trap of fostering hatred, as was seen with the Russian-paid trolls who fanned the flames of division. We can win with honesty, openness, and positivity.

As for the comment that seemed to dismiss the idea of fixing capitalism, I understand the sentiment. However, acknowledging the imperfections of our system is crucial to its continual improvement. It doesn't mean we're betraying our beliefs, but rather that we're committed to making them better.

To the person who labeled my thoughts as "commie talk," I assure you I am not a communist. I have worked for moderate Republican campaigns and strongly believe in capitalism. However, I also believe in maintaining an open dialogue and not turning our space into an echo chamber.

In conclusion, our love for capitalism should not be a blind devotion to an unachievable utopia but a commitment to a system that we can continuously improve. Let's respect our past, acknowledge our present, and work towards a better future, guided by reason and facts. The only group worth being a part of values diverse perspectives and follows the side with the best arguments. In the end, we're all in this together, striving to create a world that is just, fair, and prosperous for all.

If you're interested in joining the conversation or learning more, you can visit GroupIntel or check out the IdeaStockExchange. Let's keep the dialogue open, respectful, and focused on creating a better world.