I see this as a cultural problem, with a cultural solution.

If you think about "free riders" versus "cooperators" as a dichotomy, you won't find a solution. Everyone is both a "free rider" and a "cooperator", depending on social context. The issue is that our social fabric itself may be incentivizing people towards long-term destructive patterns.

So, how do we fix it? IMO, the best any one person can do is try to create an environment where people feel safe to cooperate. I believe human nature is fundamentally cooperative in large groups, but we are often "forced" into a competitive track by a lack of resources or other external pressures.

For example, many US workplaces pit employees against each other. It's perceived that there are too many workers for a limited number of jobs, so workers feel forced to compete for their "slot." If there was less communal anxiety about being fired, more individuals would feel comfortable to cooperate with their coworkers instead of competing.

Ofc, this is an insanely complex issue, so that's just a tiny facet, and I'm sure some of the points are debatable. But I honestly believe that "taking care of people" is one of the key ways to achieve more collaboration.

A sad aside is that if you want to force cooperation among a populace, the most effective way is to give them a common enemy to fight against.

To effectively do it with taking care of people, you need a social/cultural contract - but if people are unlikely to enter into one, being distrustful in the first place of anyone proposing such a thing, its a very hard problem - you have a prisoners dilemma which pits the zero sum game players against the win-win, and it only takes one zero sum to defeat the win-wins.

The US used to stylize itself a high trust society.

I’m not sure how much that was a fantasy dependent on horrific repression’s from slavery to Jim Crow, and how much it actually adhered even amongst groups of people that weren’t based on racial exclusion.

Regardless, I worry for US culture. Trust in institutions seems to be at an all time low; institutions take generations to build, we won’t get them back easily or quickly.

It might have been more high trust because it was less culturally diverse.

http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/...

The US was always diverse though. Just maybe not so much culturally.

I mean, sure, everyone that a given person was likely to see spoke english, ate chicken, and went to some form of Christian church on Sunday. BUT, some of the people were white, some were native american, some were black, down in Texas area you even had hispanics. So the US was pretty diverse. Unless we're not counting racial diversity?

Yeah, I don't think racial diversity counts for the trust issue. Obviously there are some people that won't trust someone based on their race, but it seems like most groups are willing to accept anyone as long as they follow cultural norms; skin color just seems to be a quick proxy for "they look different, so they're probably culturally different". Just watch the aftermath of a local football team winning a big game. It doesn't matter if you're rich or poor, black or white, everyone in the city celebrates together.

What if your nation had laws that for a century forcibly excluded one race from the dominant culture? The idea that "acting white" is a "get out of racism free" card is a vicious myth.

The US was drastically less racially diverse 50 years ago. It was 90% non hispanic white in 1965 before immigration laws were changed.

And effectively segregated, making it even more white in areas.

That's almost a hilarious statement.

The same rhetoric used against those from Mexico or the Middle East today was used against those from Ireland, Hungary, Poland, etc. 100+ years ago.

https://www.jaha.org/attractions/heritage-discovery-center/h...

Insular, bigoted, ignorant people is not a new phenomenon.

> Trust in institutions seems to be at an all time low; institutions take generations to build, we won’t get them back easily or quickly.

So what? I see nothing wrong with reliance on government being replaced with reliance on more local entities (i.e. one's friends, neighbors, church congregation, local government, etc) which is what happens in the near term when trust in higher level authority collapses. If the state doesn't think the feds will give them money for roads then they'll figure out a way to build it themselves. If the community college doesn't think they'll get federal grant money they'll get the state to give it to them or fund-raise it themselves.

Sure, if the federal government just stopped handing out SSI checks, highway dollars and research grands tomorrow it would suck a lot for a lot of people in the short term but in the long term you'd see towns and states running their own programs to compensate. Something always creeps in to fill the vacuum.

Edit: JFC people, I'm not advocating for some sort of near-anarchy where the only government is local. I'm saying that government action should always be performed on the most local level possible and I see no problem with an erosion of trust in Federal government as a means to that end.

> So what? I see nothing wrong with reliance on government being replaced with reliance on more local entities (i.e. one's friends, neighbors, church congregation, etc) which is what happens in the near term when higher level institutions collapse.

I think you have that backwards. One of the strengths of the US system is that you can buy something from someone far away and have a high probability you'll get it. Even for the first century or so of the republic that system didn't work so well (for example when you tried to use currency -- banknotes -- people were reluctant to accept money from far away banks in case it was fraudulent).

Governments are far fro perfect but they are more controllable than private corporations. Would you really prefer that companies regulated drug claims and manufacturing rather than the FDA?

> Sure, if the federal government just stopped handing out SSI checks tomorrow it would suck for a lot of people in the short term but in the medium term you'd see towns running their own food pantries and whatnot. Something always creeps in to fill the vacuum.

The idea of a shared effort is that we support each other: the local economies that can't afford food banks are helped out by those who can. If a hurricane hits your region all of the food banks can be rendered inoperable. The government is supposed to help everyone (Texas, Florida, California, Puerto Rico) even when individuals have suffered "help fatigue".

>*I see nothing wrong with reliance on government being replaced with reliance on more local entities..."

But then you just replaced one government with another. Worse, the one you replaced it with has fewer abilities. How does it get fuel for logistics. (ie - the food pantries get food from where? The federal government is gone, so the oil tankers don't dock anymore and the pipelines aren't full anymore.)

Sure, Chicago would be golden, it's on lake Michigan. But what happens if you live in Arizona? Where does your water come from?

Who helps if a hurricane guts Miami FL?

Who helps if a tornado guts Norman OK?

Etc etc etc.

Our way of life just doesn't support hyper local governments doing whatever they want, and hording resources from other hyper local governments. We, for better or for worse, are set up on the premise of bountiful energy, and through that energy, bountiful access to resources. That's just how we survive currently. No one has the stomach or the constitution to go back to being local farmers.

> *Our way of life just doesn't support hyper local governments [...] No one has the stomach or the constitution to go back to being local farmers.

Er... guys, your American states are as large as European countries (the largest ones being in the range of France, Germany, Spain down to UK, the smaller ones in the range of Switzerland down to Belgium). As bit less populated (and even that is not really a drawback since it typically means more available resources per inhabitant), but otherwise... why wouldn't they be able to support themselves? Furthermore, having different governments/countries does not block the flow of goods.

OK. I'm going to assume that you aren't American.

Imagine a European country...

a lot of space right?

Now imagine it's in the middle of a desert. Literally.

OK, do you have that picture in your head? Great!

Now... imagine that it's ALSO landlocked.

If you've followed along to this point, then I want you to answer the following question in as honest a fashion as you can:

How many, "resources per inhabitant", would that nation realistically have available?

Continuing with our thought experiment, imagine there was no federal government to provide the structure for, say, Texas, to share its energy resources with other states...

now, ask yourself why Texas would continue to give Idaho free energy resources? Should Texans continue the charitable practice, in exchange for a few Idaho potatoes? There are just better markets for those resources. And I wouldn't blame Texans one bit for availing themselves of the opportunities those markets present.

Governments, and common sense, can, and do, block the flow of goods.

What I'm trying to point out, is that I don't think you've thought this whole thing through.

What happens when an entire town is poor, or washed over by a hurricane? They pick each other up by each other's bootstraps?

What's your theory for the Great Depression, that persisted until WWII's nation-wide economic coordination?

The only way I can see to match your theory to experience is to observe that yeah, poverty evaporates when the poverty stricken people nearly all die off.

> when an entire town is poor, or washed over by a hurricane? They pick each other up by each other's bootstraps?

Those are cases when you need higher level help. For unexceptional, routine, stuff there's no reason to make a higher than necessary level of authority deal with it. Doing so is like having a CEO waste his time figuring out what office furniture to buy. Funding a food bank is something that can be done on a local level. Figuring out health insurance is something that can be done on the state level. Etc.

>The only way I can see to match your theory to experience is to observe that yeah, poverty evaporates when the poverty stricken people nearly all die off.

You know what else tends to evaporate? Tax dollars making the long trip all the way up the stack just to come back down it. Administrative overhead is nonzero. Better to just fund a locally if possible.

I think you're making some pretty good points overall about the benefits of state and city governments, but one thing I still have questions with is what we do as a country when one part of our country adopts some set of practices but other states refuse to do so. The clear example in this case is the abolishment of slavery, there were a ton of states that didn't want to do that. The answer isn't as easy as "just move if you don't like the conditions in your state" because the residents don't always have the means to move (especially the case in the slavery example). Nor can we afford to just ignore it "until they catch up" because there is no guarantee that they will catch up if the smaller governments are caught in a local maximum (in the mathematical sense, no pun intended) where the group that receives the most benefit at the expense of the oppressed has 0 reason to seek change.

Essentially, I think that the increasing power of the federal government comes (in some part) from a desire from the citizens of the country to have things be more uniform across the country. I personally think that based on some of the points you have made that more effective small government operations could help rebuild trust and the social fabric. The problem is that I'm not sure I'm willing to condemn the role of the federal government and stop trying to help those in states that would seek to oppress them.

As a side note, as far as I'm aware, the state's rights argument in recent history has largely been used as a dog whistle to signal racism [0] and other forms of systemic oppression for just this reason. "Let all the states decide for themselves" is coded language for "You know you're part of the majority in your state and we won't tolerate the Fed. Gov. mandating that we abolish slavery/legalize abortion/legalize gay marriage etc."

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics

As per Europe: if you have a monetary union, you need a redistributive fiscal union, because otherwise the money will concentrate in the net-exporter states.

What's the trade deficit of, say, Arkansas?

Trust is like a rainforest: a resource that takes years to build up and provides benefit to the world, but can be looted for profit - once.

Ultimately the question is "why don't I just wire the contents of the treasury to my bank account, bribing my cronies in the ruling party along the way?" People routinely get away with massive theft from the state in less developed countries, but they rely on being able to move the wealth to somewhere more stable so they can keep it.

Most immediately is the question "why don't I just de-register all the opposition voters?" ...

> People routinely get away with massive theft from the state in less developed countries, but they rely on being able to move the wealth to somewhere more stable so they can keep it.

For those not super tuned-in to international politics, Putin's regime in Russia thrives on exactly the type of behavior, and the Maginitsky Acts passed by the US and several other countries are designed to fetter the kleptocracy by taking away the safe places to keep stolen cash.

There are different America’s depending on where you live and who you are. Some are high trust and some are not.

It has always been that way.

The mere fact that pockets of America are high trust and others low trust, is obviously true. But the parent implies that how many and/or where those are has changed.

So "It has always been away" doesn't answer the parent's concern, except if you meant to add "and always to the same degree".

That would be astounding though. By what mechanism would this eternal (always) balance be achieved, while history marches on and culture changes?

I think the change is people are realizing things are different for other people.

Your still going to get treated differently for drunkenly making a scene in an upper class suburban neighborhood vs a white working class one.

NYC is as corrupt as it always was. The subway worked for a short while in the 90s but it’s back to its average level of grunge and disrepair.

I think the main problem is really that nothing has improved much since the 60s.

Based on 200 years history of Russia, you don't. You run away to places not yet contaminated.

On a more upbeat tone what has usually worked for countries like Russia (and what usually worked and still works for my Eastern-European country, too) was to set up a system of patronage, i.e. a system where you share part of your gains to those immediately bellow you in return for their service/trust, they in turn should share their gains to those bellow them and so on and so forth.

The key for this system to work for more than one generation is that all parts involved should keep their end of the bargain, meaning that you should be there for the person depending on you, financially and otherwise, whenever they need you, and in turn they should also keep their loyalty to you, no matter the circumstances.

I know that what I basically described is basically just a feudal system, and I can also say that I don't like it in principle, but I'm also well aware that this system has been one of the most resilient social systems over the last two millennia (at least), present in one way or another on all populated continents under all types of governments (democracy, monarchy, tyranny etc), and as such it shouldn't be discredited.

> I know that what I basically described is basically just a feudal system

Or, when nested within a society with a different formal government, a mafia.

In America, some restaurants are experimenting with profit or revenue sharing as a way to retain the top-end of the labor market for the respective positions.

That sounds a bit like what you're talking about.

What's wrong with feudalism as you described it?

Historically it has been seen as contradictory to the main principles of Illuminism.

How so? Illuminism/Enlightenment contradictory to tyrrany, not feudalism.

A monarchy can be enlightened, and healthy nations can be ruled by a monarch.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed

Monarchy and feudalism are not equivalent: it's totally possible to have a feudal republic.

Enlightenment was a response to feudalism. The fundamental thesis of enlightenment thought is that there are inalienable rights shared by every human being, and that unearned obligations and privileges, like those seen in feudal patronage cultures, are incompatible with just society.

The doesn't really counter feudalism though. Perhaps in mentality/ideology, yes, but in practice, it's possible for people to agree to such a system and be content with it. We do it all the time in a capitalist society, except here it's called a "corporation", and the "barons" are called execs of "subsidiary companies".

The corporation is not a person, and executives do not have privileges and rights greater than any other person by birthright.

In a feudal system, you owe tribute to your liege by virtue of the fact that they were born of a higher rank than you and you were born within their demesne. If you don't comply, or if you try to find a different lord, you get killed.

Feudal is not another word for economic inequality.

> The corporation is not a person, and executives do not have privileges and rights greater than any other person by birthright.

In theory, but not in practice. Lobbying obviously benefits corporations, as does the socio-economic status that literally lets execs get away with murder. Furthermore, the idea that corporation != literal person doesn't change the fact that the piece of paper is treated as a person in court.

> In a feudal system, you owe tribute to your liege by virtue of the fact that they were born of a higher rank than you and you were born within their demesne. If you don't comply, or if you try to find a different lord, you get killed.

Ok, so your understanding of feudalism is more comprehensive and definitely more rigid than mine. I'll concede the point here.

Exactly. When the cooperators all leave, the free riders suffer the collapse of the system. Only then can a 'reboot' stand a chance of succeeding.

...and then contaminate them with residues of your cultural anti-social meta-algorithms, shifting them towards resembling the environment you escaped, as some things "were just easier".