The application of this principle to physical resources is novel, sure -- but the observation that "enforced coordination solves the rational self-interest problem" isnt novel.

Hobbes, Rousseau were effectively both trying to solve the "tragedy of the commons" problem with political collaboration. Hobbes is widely misunderstood by (romantic, naive, libertarian) fools to have said that absent a powerful soverign, life is "nasty brutish and short". What he more accurately said is that, "an unmanaged commons is nasty bruitsh and short" -- to use that kind of language

Rousseau, to the same romantic strain is widely misunderstood to have said that 'the unmanaged commons' is a delight. Instead, he basically said politically community isnt that required anyway, and if you're in trouble, just run away.

In either case, the tragedy of the commons issue is well known in other guises throughout the history of philosophy

eg., OpenAI has gone a long way to making reasoning token-efficient by having reasoning piovot off terse langauge -- whereas anthropic appears to be doing the opposite.

The former is asking "are my weighing scales accurate?" the latter is, "do I look like i'm loosing weight?"

What's actually being tracked by people using this data is the delta from previous years -- which, conditioning on the same collection methodology etc -- is more reliable.

The actionable piece of info is sign(delta)

So they replace everything with extensional contexts, ie., in/out sets -- where things are replaceable by their values. And then use the machinery of very simple mathematics to analyse the situation.

In ML, consider comparing two classifiers extensionally, so that two classifiers "are the same" if they partition some input data exactly the same vs., declaring them different if they do so by means of some differing internal representation.

Since intensional contexts are the archetypal feature of mental representations, they're rarely analysed well by computer scientists.

Blockchain doesn't have anything esp. to do with data loss. It solves exactly one problem which is distributed double spending in accounting ledgers.

In such a world, isnt it useful that governments are stupid enough to give adversaries reasons to undermine it? When the government props up a corporate tyranny domestically, and racketeering, should we make a temporary alliance with all its enemies?

(Eg., the provision to AI companies of all corporate secretes and competitive practices via prompts, eventually to be used against their capital interests and their labour interests).

Dividing the wealth of nations between all, even if it could be done, would be ruinous to all our weatlh.

We are a species of ape to whom the fruits of our labour acrew in proportion to those fruits. And we operate that way because reality does so. So nature has prepared us well to have familial and ethnic feelings which do well to preserve our wealth, or else, we'd all be ruined.

You may well hate that, and hate the world and our species for it. But bankrupsy and fables for children arent state policies.

No state in the world today, nor in all of history, has that view. Nor is it, on the face of it, even really coherent. There is nothing to be said about the "All" of the others. Only that we don't owe them much.

Either way, it's a hypothetical to be taken literally. Suppose it, then what's your analysis? Is the coincidence of their race salient?

Why does medicare/medicaid end at the US border?

I'll await your grant of medicare to the population of africa

The existence of a state pressuposes two "classes" of people: citizens and non-citizens.

Citizens are those who have lived and died, who have laboured and been taxed, and have made the very state which is constituted by them -- and they are owed, by that state, a society they wish to live in.

Non-citizens are everyone else. They are owed very little, at best, not to be killed elsewhere; but certaintly, not even to be aided. Unless you want to divide the wealth of every nation by 8bn and watch all of it disappear.

In any case, to non-citizens nothing is owed. Certainly not being carefully scruitnized under a microscope to see if a border agent can detect a lack of cultural or ethical fit.

And in any case, such a fit can be determined by citizens themsevles. And polled, overwhelming, citizens of western nations have spoken. And they have seen your dice rolling at the border, and havent appreciated its concequences.

THe presumption you have on the consent of your fellow citizens to give what you eblieve is owed to other citizens of other states -- this presumption is extraordinary, obniouxous, and short-lived. And much of your attitue here is shortening it.

Import 1 million people, 800,000 of which are racist, sexist, homophobic and militantly conservative -- and you'll do that because the policy to prevent it is, as you say, "Racist" ?

You may think these imports are on your side for now, because of the cross you've nailed yourself to -- but be assured, as you see today in the US, their cultural conservatism comes out when their social position is safe.

You are importing the very people you claim to despise : racists, sexists, misoginsits, and the like. And you're doing it why?

> Article 50. In accordance with the interests of the people and in order to strengthen and develop the socialist system, citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations.

https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/Russian/const/77cons02....

---

which is to say, "constitutions" as pieces of paper, do not matter. A constitution isnt a document, its literally, how power is constituted by the people.

Paper has no magical power to bring about anything in the world.

One day, decades or centuries or millenia from now -- there will be no USA SC: at one point they will have been arrested, or killed, or retired and not replaced. At once point democracy in the US will fail, and the US will fail, and something else will replace it. Sic transit gloria mundi. So it goes. History goes on.

The world isnt a program, words are not its code. History goes along because power as insittuitionalised by groups of apes, comes and goes.