Imagine if your brain ruled your entire body? What might happen? Our bodies are a complex layer of communities, each acting in their own interest and for the betterment of the whole individual. Each cell in our body is an individual, looking out for number one, itself. But each cell in our body has learned that the way to achieve the most, the best healthiness for itself is a balance of competition and cooperation with other cells, to create communities of cells that work together for higher goals. What goals? The goals of bodily tissues. Each tissue in our body is a community of cells, with specific community goals. These communities of tissues look out for themselves first, competing with each other for resources, but they also have a large component of cooperation. We can see that their competitive nature is weaker and their cooperative nature stronger than that of cells. Tissues, in communities, form limbs and organs. Normally, limbs and organs operate in communities of cooperation - and the cooperation of limbs can produce phenomenal abilities - to run, jump, juggle and dance. But no-one brain or mind rules these communities. Organs likewise, generally function as individual communities of cells and tissues, competing with other organs, other individual communities of cells and tissues. Two kidneys cooperate, but they are always balanced ready to compete. If one fails or is damaged, the other grows and takes over. Even our brain is comprised of communities of cells, each with different goals, each competing. If one community is weaker, and other might grow stronger benefiting every community in every layer. Our minds are communities of ideas, facts, and calculations, making decisions for the whole, affected by every decision of lower layers in powerful harmonic feedback loops. The mind is a community of intentions, cooperating and competing, always moving forward, sometimes deciding that moving back is the best forward movement. And above the communities of mind?
Humans live in communities. We create families, extended families. Partnerships, businesses, temporary communities to dance or play a game, communities to prepare food, governmental communities to rule and faith communities to obey. Many communities are complex. Many communities are communities of communities of communities.
What makes a community? Cooperation and competition. Individuals in a community create morals of the community - rules for cooperation and rules for competition within the community. Different communities, different rules, different levels of communities, different levels of rules.
Centralization is natural and healthy in communities. Centralization is cooperation. Decentralization is also natural and healthy in communities. Decentralization is competition. It's easy to mistake centralization for the community and decentralization for the individual. But every community is an individual in higher level community.
Global centralization is dangerous when it destroys communities. We are healthier when our communities are healthier - when our communities large and small - are able to cooperate and compete with minimal boundaries. When boundaries to competition arise - efficiency, effectiveness, and opportunities for harmonies disappear. When boundaries to cooperation arise - efficiency, effectiveness and opportunities for harmonies disappear.
When we aim for "one community" the global community, we lose healthiness. The stronger the one community becomes, the more ability it takes from other communities, the more we limit the ability of other communities to act and to find decisions. When we have many communities, many layers of communities, each with their own community powers - we have more conflict - but it's healthier conflict. Competition between communities is healthy because competition between stronger communities cannot exist without healthy cooperation.
Centralization is forced cooperation - unnatural. Decentralization facilitates both cooperation and competition. Centralization can be important on important issues, when we all agree ono a goal. But disagreement, healthy disagreement requires decentralization.
Centralization can also be a power grab. Those who promote centralization across communities can grow their power. They see decentralization as a loss of power - because it is a redistribution of power to less powerful communities.
The healthiest goals for global communities is to foster the healthiness of their non-global sub-communities, creating global rules that facilitate healthy cooperation and competition at all levels..
The healthiest thing a parent can give their child is independence.
The healthiest goal of centralization is to facilitate healthy independence, healthy decentralization.
to your health, tracy
Founder: Healthicine, the Arts and Sciences of Health and Healthiness
Love Hudson's Razor. Let's be clear about concepts.
Hudson's Razor is about "one (global) community, one ruler." The goal of globalism is not globalism, it is to "take advantage of globalism." Communities exist, survive, and grow by taking advantage of their status.
Life is about community. Without communities, nothing is alive. Even a single cell, as soon as it reproduces, lives in a community. Humans live in communities of communities of communities of communities. We create communities, we destroy communities. What do communities do?
Individuals in healthy communities "cooperate and compete." The community defines acceptable cooperation and acceptable competition activities. The community defines the morals of individuals in the community. Individuals in different communities have different morals. That's healthy. Wolves have different morals, in their wolf pack, than sheep in the herd.
But note: wolf-packs do not have morals. Wolf-packs do not have "peer" wolf-packs to monitor and control cooperation and competition between wolf packs.
Communities have no natural morals. The "global community" has no morals. The goal of the global community is to ensure that all other communities are irrelevant. The "global community" fears and hates national communities - lest they become competitors. The global community wants to eat nations. It also wants to eat corporations.
With this understanding, let's look at Hudson's Razon in a more general sense:
Hudson's (community) Razor "any problem presented as a community crisis admitting only one community solution and amid silencing of dissent, is a scam."
What is a scam, in this concept? It is a "power grab" by the community.
- a "community crisis" is a crisis to the community that is speaking, because it fears other communities.
for example:
"X is an existential threat to our democracy" can be translated as
"X (indicates a community that) is an existential threat to our (community's) democracy.
We can also generalize the "the science" concept.
...whenever your community presents something as "the truth (the science)" be on the lookout for a scam.
The truth, belief in "the truth" defines community membership. And it also defines community non-membership - those who do not believe.
to your health, tracy
Founder: Healthicine, the Arts and Sciences of Health and Healthiness
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.
Imagine if your brain ruled your entire body? What might happen? Our bodies are a complex layer of communities, each acting in their own interest and for the betterment of the whole individual. Each cell in our body is an individual, looking out for number one, itself. But each cell in our body has learned that the way to achieve the most, the best healthiness for itself is a balance of competition and cooperation with other cells, to create communities of cells that work together for higher goals. What goals? The goals of bodily tissues. Each tissue in our body is a community of cells, with specific community goals. These communities of tissues look out for themselves first, competing with each other for resources, but they also have a large component of cooperation. We can see that their competitive nature is weaker and their cooperative nature stronger than that of cells. Tissues, in communities, form limbs and organs. Normally, limbs and organs operate in communities of cooperation - and the cooperation of limbs can produce phenomenal abilities - to run, jump, juggle and dance. But no-one brain or mind rules these communities. Organs likewise, generally function as individual communities of cells and tissues, competing with other organs, other individual communities of cells and tissues. Two kidneys cooperate, but they are always balanced ready to compete. If one fails or is damaged, the other grows and takes over. Even our brain is comprised of communities of cells, each with different goals, each competing. If one community is weaker, and other might grow stronger benefiting every community in every layer. Our minds are communities of ideas, facts, and calculations, making decisions for the whole, affected by every decision of lower layers in powerful harmonic feedback loops. The mind is a community of intentions, cooperating and competing, always moving forward, sometimes deciding that moving back is the best forward movement. And above the communities of mind?
Humans live in communities. We create families, extended families. Partnerships, businesses, temporary communities to dance or play a game, communities to prepare food, governmental communities to rule and faith communities to obey. Many communities are complex. Many communities are communities of communities of communities.
What makes a community? Cooperation and competition. Individuals in a community create morals of the community - rules for cooperation and rules for competition within the community. Different communities, different rules, different levels of communities, different levels of rules.
Centralization is natural and healthy in communities. Centralization is cooperation. Decentralization is also natural and healthy in communities. Decentralization is competition. It's easy to mistake centralization for the community and decentralization for the individual. But every community is an individual in higher level community.
Global centralization is dangerous when it destroys communities. We are healthier when our communities are healthier - when our communities large and small - are able to cooperate and compete with minimal boundaries. When boundaries to competition arise - efficiency, effectiveness, and opportunities for harmonies disappear. When boundaries to cooperation arise - efficiency, effectiveness and opportunities for harmonies disappear.
When we aim for "one community" the global community, we lose healthiness. The stronger the one community becomes, the more ability it takes from other communities, the more we limit the ability of other communities to act and to find decisions. When we have many communities, many layers of communities, each with their own community powers - we have more conflict - but it's healthier conflict. Competition between communities is healthy because competition between stronger communities cannot exist without healthy cooperation.
Centralization is forced cooperation - unnatural. Decentralization facilitates both cooperation and competition. Centralization can be important on important issues, when we all agree ono a goal. But disagreement, healthy disagreement requires decentralization.
Centralization can also be a power grab. Those who promote centralization across communities can grow their power. They see decentralization as a loss of power - because it is a redistribution of power to less powerful communities.
The healthiest goals for global communities is to foster the healthiness of their non-global sub-communities, creating global rules that facilitate healthy cooperation and competition at all levels..
The healthiest thing a parent can give their child is independence.
The healthiest goal of centralization is to facilitate healthy independence, healthy decentralization.
to your health, tracy
Founder: Healthicine, the Arts and Sciences of Health and Healthiness
Love Hudson's Razor. Let's be clear about concepts.
Hudson's Razor is about "one (global) community, one ruler." The goal of globalism is not globalism, it is to "take advantage of globalism." Communities exist, survive, and grow by taking advantage of their status.
Life is about community. Without communities, nothing is alive. Even a single cell, as soon as it reproduces, lives in a community. Humans live in communities of communities of communities of communities. We create communities, we destroy communities. What do communities do?
Individuals in healthy communities "cooperate and compete." The community defines acceptable cooperation and acceptable competition activities. The community defines the morals of individuals in the community. Individuals in different communities have different morals. That's healthy. Wolves have different morals, in their wolf pack, than sheep in the herd.
But note: wolf-packs do not have morals. Wolf-packs do not have "peer" wolf-packs to monitor and control cooperation and competition between wolf packs.
Communities have no natural morals. The "global community" has no morals. The goal of the global community is to ensure that all other communities are irrelevant. The "global community" fears and hates national communities - lest they become competitors. The global community wants to eat nations. It also wants to eat corporations.
With this understanding, let's look at Hudson's Razon in a more general sense:
Hudson's (community) Razor "any problem presented as a community crisis admitting only one community solution and amid silencing of dissent, is a scam."
What is a scam, in this concept? It is a "power grab" by the community.
- a "community crisis" is a crisis to the community that is speaking, because it fears other communities.
for example:
"X is an existential threat to our democracy" can be translated as
"X (indicates a community that) is an existential threat to our (community's) democracy.
We can also generalize the "the science" concept.
...whenever your community presents something as "the truth (the science)" be on the lookout for a scam.
The truth, belief in "the truth" defines community membership. And it also defines community non-membership - those who do not believe.
to your health, tracy
Founder: Healthicine, the Arts and Sciences of Health and Healthiness
Author: A New Theory of Cure
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.