[indigochill]

> Party politics were a mistake

Agreed, but I don't see practically how to avoid them in a democracy/republic, even if you started from a totally clean slate and could unilaterally make all the rules before setting it loose.

A successful political campaign requires funding and if you don't want directly corporate-sponsored politicians then let's assume for the sake of argument you can create parties which don't take corporate funding. Can't have them running on public funding or you give incumbents a massive potential for corrupt campaign funding.

And different geography drives different motivations. What someone farming in Kansas cares about is probably significantly different from what a lead engineer in San Francisco cares about, even if you zeroed out all their existing cultural biases. People with similar interests then will naturally gather to campaign for their interests. Those interests will probably fund candidates they want to succeed.

And that then leads into a vicious cycle where the winners (even if they're not actual corporations) get economic benefits they use to fund the next favorable candidate and so on and you end up eventually more or less where the US is now.

[sph]

There is no simple answer to the problems you've described. To me it's clear it is impossible to create a state that is vast (i.e. like the US but also as large as most countries), efficient and largely free from lobbying and corruption.

A government's efficiency is inversely proportional to its size, but the hold it has on its population scales with size. The tendency of the modern government is to restrict its citizens more and more, while becoming less and less efficient. Parties are self-serving entities of the Large and Inefficient State, perpetuating this uncontrollable growth.

To me and most people walking with a circled A on their T-shirts the solution is obvious. The state should simply be smaller, in reach but also in width. The smallest, the better. Why is everyone trying to find a workable solution for a continent-sized country with 300 odd million citizens? Chances are, the problems of Kansas are often quite different than those in California.

[indigochill]

I've tended to hold that view as well, but a fellow circled-A enthusiast of my acquaintance pointed out that a challenge may arise when it comes time to enforce the will of the small state against the will of larger states.

I see the Meiji Restoration in Japan as a historical example of this. Japan wished to enforce an isolationist policy which the Americans were able to violate with their military advantage. In response, Japan chose to transition from a feudal shogunate to a centralized empire. My understanding is this was so that the military of Japan could be consolidated so they could negotiate internationally on more equal terms than they could when they needed to also manage relationships with the regional daimyo.

But as you mentioned in another reply there are examples of small European countries which have managed to maintain their sovereignty despite having larger neighbors, so there's probably still more to it (which I'm assuming can be summed up as diplomacy and probably some degree of being lucky with which neighbors you get).

[novariation]

> The efficiency of government is inversely proportional to its size

This is arguably false, which the libertarian centrists at Niskanen were forced to accept: having an efficient government is key to prosperity, but [most efficient governments are quite large](https://www.niskanencenter.org/quality-government-not-size-k...).

Quoting a [similar article](https://www.milkenreview.org/articles/quality-of-government), a former Niskanen staffer [said](https://x.com/hamandcheese/status/1491474440558895106?s=20):

  "Countries with high functioning public institutions also tend to have high functioning market institutions. This hints at a deeper continuity between the two domains, and/or a third factor that underlies both."

[sph]

Thanks for the sources. At first sight, I think there are many factors at play, and these sources are mistaking cause for effect. Most prosperous countries are large, but simply because a large state can raise much larger amounts of money, that if wisely used can be allocated to long term investments that improve prosperity. This does not mean that they are prosperous because they are efficient. My thesis is that they are prosperous despite being utterly wasteful.

In fact, there are many small but rich countries that have very high quality of life, like Switzerland, Britain, Netherlands, Hong Kong to name a few.

It becomes like a U curve where you either are small, or have to grow very very large for waste not to impact prosperity too much.