I look at the centralisation problem with a "failure-size" context. The greater the central power and decision making, the larger the consequences of mistakes.
With 50 states, the US can mitigate some of the larger failures, and the Covid outcomes between North and South Dakota are an easy study. Canada with an overly powerful Ontario and Quebec is not so well distributed and demonstrates the large failure example.
Small distributed failures tend to be self-correcting without too much general damage.
As always, excellent, Nick! For a little context, I offer a relevant quote, “The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race.” This was stated by Thomas Malthus, the "author" of the type of end-of-the-world scenarios that can ONLY be addressed by massive collectivist, i.e., government, action. By the way, that quote is from 1798, when the population of Earth was somewhere between 8 and 10 TIMES smaller than it is now. And yet, here we are, still having to deal with people who believe this guy's (insanely stupid) predictions and the fallout thereof.
Love this -- "Hudson's Razor" -- "The general rule of thumb is that if any problem is presented (1) as a global crisis (2) admitting only global solutions, and (3) amid silencing of dissent, then it is a scam."
Also from this same wonderful man, "Pandemic is a nonsense construct." - Nick Hudson ❤️❤️❤️ I love this and have used it with credit to Nick several times since I heard it. Quote is from Nick's conversation earlier this month with Doc Malik on Rumble. (I'm sure Nick has said it elsewhere and many times over, as well.)
So insightful, well written, and clear! It is a brilliant and necessay understanding.
Only one thing: "subsidiarity" is a bit of a mouthful and the kind of word not easily recalled by those who have rare occasions to use it. Also, "subsidiary" denotes "sub" which means "under" and therefore semantically retains the presence of an "over" which implies a centralized control.
Can there be another word, or other words to descibe this generative "from the ground up" process of an organizing world as described here?
(My friend Steve Lucie - a farmer in central Illinois - is worth a follow along those lines. Champion of local control and the power thereof. Elected and has served on multiple county board. Respected pillar in his community.)
the central authority is a subsidiary to the local authority. I don’t have a great synonym, but ‘local decision-making’ is easier to say after a formal definition has been established. Although not part of your discussion, it’s worth noting disadvantages of subsidiarity, which is why a tension between opposite concepts can also force the evolution or determine fitness. Great presentation!
I think it's semantically trickier than that. Could start with the noun that is the opposite of centralisation, IOW Decentralisation. Then plug an adjective. "Dynamic" perhaps? "Dynamic decentralisation" would still require explanation of the process of de-atomisation as ground up functional and effective groupings and cooperations form and grow to reach the optimal locally responsive and flexible level. "Right-sized Decentralisation"? "Optimised Decentralisation"?
My sense is that subsidiarity already implies a balance, in the sense that you don't decentralise more than would be compatible with resolution of the relevant problem. Of course there are other forces driving towards centralization, classically economies of scale, but my commercial experience is that economies of scale are rapidly eroded by diseconomies of scale, which are largely related to the principal-agent problem and other behavioural phenomena. The exception to this is the lobbying power that comes with extremely large scale, but that is not something we want in society.
Your subject, that you have *so* well analysed, is one of the most important we can raise up right now IMO. Incredibly powerful forces for example want us to cede even more sovereignty and centralised control to the W.H.O. and the U.N. And the march of socialist central planners, especially here in Australia, is absolutely relentless. Then there are the efforts to get us all into the digital slavery and control system known as Digital ID. My own view is that our current class of political "leaders" all went to China and came back absolutely green with envy at the level of citizen monitoring and control. But they also absolutely *love* the context. If there is one thing politicians hate worse than elections, it's voters. You know, those uppity people who can unemploy them at regular intervals. In China, there are no politics, and there are no elections. The next thing our politicians hate is the press. All of those annoying questions about what they are doing and why. Of course in China there is no press. No pesky press conferences with journalists asking uncomfortable questions that make them feel icky and foolish. So lastly, of course, we get the relentless global push for *even more censorship*. The legislation making its way through across the West is absolutely terrifying, true Orwell-level Ministry of Truth stuff. <Steps down reluctantly from soapbox>
They want full control.. free from culpability... even after they make stupid decisions.. it’s always your fault for letting them drive us off a cliff.
I look at the centralisation problem with a "failure-size" context. The greater the central power and decision making, the larger the consequences of mistakes.
With 50 states, the US can mitigate some of the larger failures, and the Covid outcomes between North and South Dakota are an easy study. Canada with an overly powerful Ontario and Quebec is not so well distributed and demonstrates the large failure example.
Small distributed failures tend to be self-correcting without too much general damage.
Two recent Brownstone articles by way of juxtaposition:
https://brownstone.org/articles/repeal-the-17th-amendment-yesterday/
https://brownstone.org/articles/a-vision-for-a-new-liberalism/
Nick, this is from Ed Dowd
'The Great Federal Centralisation' in which he provides data and implications of the increase in federal vs state debt since 2009.
https://phinancetechnologies.com/content/2023-10-20%20-%20LinkedIn%20Post-13%20V2%20-%20The%20great%20federal%20centralisation.pdf
As always, excellent, Nick! For a little context, I offer a relevant quote, “The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race.” This was stated by Thomas Malthus, the "author" of the type of end-of-the-world scenarios that can ONLY be addressed by massive collectivist, i.e., government, action. By the way, that quote is from 1798, when the population of Earth was somewhere between 8 and 10 TIMES smaller than it is now. And yet, here we are, still having to deal with people who believe this guy's (insanely stupid) predictions and the fallout thereof.
Excellent piece Nick Hudson.
Great work Nick. I will be using Hudson’s Razor in my advocacy work against the revised pandemic treaties!
Great to hear that. Please stay in touch regarding your progress there.
Excellent work!
Thank you, Nick.
Superb! Would love to download those slides!
Love this -- "Hudson's Razor" -- "The general rule of thumb is that if any problem is presented (1) as a global crisis (2) admitting only global solutions, and (3) amid silencing of dissent, then it is a scam."
Also from this same wonderful man, "Pandemic is a nonsense construct." - Nick Hudson ❤️❤️❤️ I love this and have used it with credit to Nick several times since I heard it. Quote is from Nick's conversation earlier this month with Doc Malik on Rumble. (I'm sure Nick has said it elsewhere and many times over, as well.)
Precisely correct!
Unless different things are happening to ty and solve problems there can never be any learning. There will be no comparatives.
Thus the WHO modelled cures/algorithms will be incapable of challenge. Evidence based medicine will be dead.
Bigpharma's dream world edges closer - hepled by the tamed MSM, junk food and dodgy/deadly/life altering mRNA jabs.
Never mind though, our wonderful genetic engineers have all the answers.
A heartening view of a near extinct faculty - intelligent common sense.
So insightful, well written, and clear! It is a brilliant and necessay understanding.
Only one thing: "subsidiarity" is a bit of a mouthful and the kind of word not easily recalled by those who have rare occasions to use it. Also, "subsidiary" denotes "sub" which means "under" and therefore semantically retains the presence of an "over" which implies a centralized control.
Can there be another word, or other words to descibe this generative "from the ground up" process of an organizing world as described here?
Thank you!
The number of times I trip over that word as it comes out of my mouth! I have often searched for synonyms in vain! Help me!
"Local control" is what we say in the U.S.
(My friend Steve Lucie - a farmer in central Illinois - is worth a follow along those lines. Champion of local control and the power thereof. Elected and has served on multiple county board. Respected pillar in his community.)
https://x.com/SRLucie92/status/1432755931880775692?s=20
That is a good one, though I'm not sure it captures the multilevel nature of subsidiarity.
Simple
'decentralization'. Works every time.
the central authority is a subsidiary to the local authority. I don’t have a great synonym, but ‘local decision-making’ is easier to say after a formal definition has been established. Although not part of your discussion, it’s worth noting disadvantages of subsidiarity, which is why a tension between opposite concepts can also force the evolution or determine fitness. Great presentation!
I think it's semantically trickier than that. Could start with the noun that is the opposite of centralisation, IOW Decentralisation. Then plug an adjective. "Dynamic" perhaps? "Dynamic decentralisation" would still require explanation of the process of de-atomisation as ground up functional and effective groupings and cooperations form and grow to reach the optimal locally responsive and flexible level. "Right-sized Decentralisation"? "Optimised Decentralisation"?
My sense is that subsidiarity already implies a balance, in the sense that you don't decentralise more than would be compatible with resolution of the relevant problem. Of course there are other forces driving towards centralization, classically economies of scale, but my commercial experience is that economies of scale are rapidly eroded by diseconomies of scale, which are largely related to the principal-agent problem and other behavioural phenomena. The exception to this is the lobbying power that comes with extremely large scale, but that is not something we want in society.
No one knows what subsidiarity is. No one with a 'lesser' education will 'get' it. If this is to appeal to the masses, we have to do better here.
Your subject, that you have *so* well analysed, is one of the most important we can raise up right now IMO. Incredibly powerful forces for example want us to cede even more sovereignty and centralised control to the W.H.O. and the U.N. And the march of socialist central planners, especially here in Australia, is absolutely relentless. Then there are the efforts to get us all into the digital slavery and control system known as Digital ID. My own view is that our current class of political "leaders" all went to China and came back absolutely green with envy at the level of citizen monitoring and control. But they also absolutely *love* the context. If there is one thing politicians hate worse than elections, it's voters. You know, those uppity people who can unemploy them at regular intervals. In China, there are no politics, and there are no elections. The next thing our politicians hate is the press. All of those annoying questions about what they are doing and why. Of course in China there is no press. No pesky press conferences with journalists asking uncomfortable questions that make them feel icky and foolish. So lastly, of course, we get the relentless global push for *even more censorship*. The legislation making its way through across the West is absolutely terrifying, true Orwell-level Ministry of Truth stuff. <Steps down reluctantly from soapbox>
They want full control.. free from culpability... even after they make stupid decisions.. it’s always your fault for letting them drive us off a cliff.