Scott Alexander describes three fictional and slightly absurd systems of government: an acausal democracy, a constitutional mobocracy, and a meta-republic with representatives from various governing philosophies. Longer summary

This post presents three fictional systems of government in a satirical and creative manner. The first, Clamzoria, is an acausal democracy where elections are held at the end of a term and prediction markets determine who takes office. The second, Cognito, is a constitutional mobocracy where protests serve as the legislature. The third, Yyphrostikoth, is a meta-republic with representatives from various forms of government, including some absurd positions. Each system is described with its unique features, advantages, and eventual downfalls or quirks. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explains a reactionary philosophy model distinguishing between culturally evolved (right-wing) and memetically evolved (left-wing) policies, exploring its implications and potential applications. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses a key insight into reactionary philosophy, proposing a model where right-wing policies are those selected by cultural evolution, while left-wing policies are selected by memetic evolution or the marketplace of ideas. He explores the implications of this model, including how it categorizes various political movements and the challenges democracies face in balancing these forces. The post then examines the reactionary idea of a system of small dictatorships as a way to facilitate cultural evolution, discussing its potential benefits and drawbacks. Scott concludes by reflecting on the increasing speed of memetic evolution in modern times and the need to understand and possibly strengthen the role of cultural evolution as a counterbalance. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores 'bicameral reasoning', comparing how we often weigh issues equally (like the US Senate) instead of proportionally to their importance (like the House), leading to potentially skewed decision-making. Longer summary

This post discusses the concept of 'bicameral reasoning', drawing parallels between the US House and Senate representation systems and how people make decisions or judgments. Scott Alexander argues that often we give equal weight to issues of vastly different importance, much like how the Senate gives equal representation to states regardless of population. He illustrates this with examples from political issues, animal welfare considerations, and environmental concerns. The post suggests that this 'Senate-like' thinking can lead to poor decision-making by equating minor issues with major ones. While acknowledging some potential benefits to this way of thinking in extreme cases, the author ultimately argues for a more proportional 'House-like' approach to evaluating issues based on their actual impact or importance. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander compares Singapore to Hong Kong, Macau, and Sweden using various socioeconomic indicators to challenge the claim that Singapore's success is due to its Reactionary policies. Longer summary

Scott Alexander examines the claim that Singapore's success is due to its Reactionary policies. He compares Singapore to Hong Kong, a similar city-state without Reactionary policies, and also includes Macau and Sweden in the analysis. Using various socioeconomic indicators, he finds that while Singapore performs well, it doesn't significantly outperform Hong Kong or Sweden. Scott concludes that the success of Singapore and Hong Kong is likely due to their shared characteristics (Chinese population, British influence, laissez-faire capitalism) rather than Singapore's Reactionary policies. Shorter summary