Adam Gurri

Quebec has some laws that are different.

Louisiana here actually has civil law, for example, versus common law.

You know, you can have these like various differences at the legal level, um, that are healthy, um, for, uh,

taking down the temperature of national politics.

Since there's hundreds of millions of people that are voting for and represented by the people in Washington, having to decide for all of them on everything,

It's not just a matter of it's bad from an imposing power from the center perspective.

It's also bad from a, well, there's some questions that we could let people make different choices on by having all these different jurisdictions where they have the option of having different choices, right?

Yeah.

And so Levy's conclusion, which I still believe very much, is that neither approach is correct.

You need both.

And both have failure modes, right?

So the rationalist failure mode is very much just the enlightened dictator argument.

The pluralist failure mode is the one that is most common in American history, because especially before now, the main problem in American history were completely reactionary localities.

So like Jim Crow was not really...

a national problem.

It was a national problem in terms of how our national government was constructed.

But Jim Crow was a majority of the country unpopular regime for a while before it was actually defeated.

But that's because the states and especially the localities had a lot of power to keep it that way.

So pluralism and legality means you're potentially allowing, just as I said, you can have a democracy that's in theory a Muslim Brotherhood democracy, even if you give women, again, all the rights that they need to have.

you can have a lot of illiberal laws that are passed anyway.