@CronoSaturn I didn't say it was a problem. I simply said that this is the reason "accelerationist election" doesn't work.

Although I do hope America collapses in the near future.

In what way could that possibly be positive?

>In what way could that possibly be positive?
America collapses.

I don't think I need to state how much of a malicious, money and land-grabbing unimpeded superpower Muttland really is.

Balkanization of the States will be for the country's own good.

I fail to see that the balkanisation of the states is anything near plausible, let alone a good for the us or indeed any other nation

It's fantastic for almost any nation besides Amerika. As for the mutts themselves, the downfall of such a superpower will balance the playing field much better than any of Amerika's "democracy" wars ever did.

As a free-marketer will certainly understand, competition is killed by monopolies.

And if America doesn't have a monopoly on trade, economy, media and culture, I don't know who does.

No-one.

America is highly central, many global transactions involve America to some degree but it is not a monopoly and American companies compete not only with foreign rivals but among themselves

A free marketeer also realised that economics is not a zero sum game and that comparative advantage allows for both parties to benefit from an exchange of trade, culture and ideas

Are there other concerns? Of course. Something I’m grappling with at the moment is the implications of what has recently been introduced to me as geoeconomics (https://youtu.be/lswiu1K1Vnk is an exceptionally good exploration of the concepts being introduced) that seeks to justify mercantile thought while accepting the validity of liberal economic arguments. It sees the strategic influence of supply chains as a risk not captured in conventional economic discourse and that it allows influence in decision making to advance the achievement of a set of goals. In the past we’ve also discussed my apprehension towards the increased capacity for war that a higher level of economic activity would provide to poor global actors

On the other hand I realise however that restricting this activity only serves to cement the established regimes influence on these poor actors as the domestic population is less equipped to maintain the proper function of apparatus I outlined earlier as they simply don’t have the means of doing so. There is then a tension in US decision making in the normal economic arguments and the desire to combat abhorrent regimes at their core by providing a means of mutual wealth by which such constructs can be developed to reduce the influence of these regimes and the requirement to keep such nations with these regimes at the helm in check

I’m unsure as to what the best course is to achieve these seemingly contrasting aims but I am becoming increasingly convinced that relying on these regimes to starve themselves out is ineffective both in success and failure.

To play the otherside, I think it’s massively important to realise the role America plays in global stability, development and prosperity. We’re having this discussion on discord, a primarily American platform using primarily American designed hardware bankrolled by American institutions. It is unrealistic to expect that in America’s absence that the same capability would spring up and then some because the demand far exceeds the supply already but other nations simply lack the same capacity to supply a global centre of excellence on par with Silicon Valley as of now. In order to even consider standing that kind of thing up it’s difficult to see where the amount of materials, expertise, planning etc might come from except from the land of excess and exception that is the United States

It’s counterproductive then to seek a level playing field by tearing down the leader where that wealth could be leveraged to mutually beneficial ends to ensure your own prosperity

Most people can live without Discord. Hundreds of thousands of people stop living because of America's influence and meddling.
Tearing down the leader is beneficial (unlike in the Middle East, which Amerika doesn't realize) because (unlike the Middle East) the power vacuum would be filled equally by several other countries.
It is productive specifically because a sole superpower causes stagnation.

I don’t think that’s what we’ve seen nor as you seem to acknowledge for middle eastern countries but ignore in the case of America would the vacuum be likely filled without conflict

Global prosperity is rising, technological growth has increased year on year, people are lifted out of crippling poverty at historically unprecedented rates not because of America’s charity, but by its excess

Nor is America alone in meddling, China, Russia and European powers certainly feel no remorse interfering even violently in the affairs of other nations when it suits them and American leadership has done much to keep large scale conflict at bay and keep things at a very limited scale

The russian military has not shown for example the same restraint as American forces in Georgia, Chechnya or the Ukraine

China similarly has shown itself unable to distinguish or even create a distinction between civil groups and threats in Tibet or during current counter insurgency ops to support its belt and road initiative

Both the administration of xi jinping and putin have demonstrated an aggressive posture and in the case of putin we have a demonstrated history of expansionist actions. What makes you think @Kazimir Malevich that the absence of American power would turn these tigers into cats?

Do you not think this would rather entice their ambitions?

It's less of "I think Putin and Xi Jinping will be pacifists when America is gone" and more of "A world oligopoly is still better than a monopoly".

Given America is not the only country it is not a monopoly now and ww1, ww2 had a number of powerful actors

I’m curious as to how you think that translates to better outcomes

It's a false equivalency, as of now, due to both the increased trade and nuclear weapons the "world wars" are proxy wars. It's not going to get better or worse, but will fare better for 2nd and 3rd world countries in the long run.

I would prefer if Ruffia was finally defeated and then fractured into several smaller countries Thx but no thx!

This but for America. You see, us Russians have based and redpilled views on balkanization!

So rather than unlimited, wars of attrition your quibble is that we see limited wars of mobility and you see this as a bad thing? In absolute terms we live in one of the most peaceful times in history as a bushwar in some tplac simply doesn’t have the same capacity to wreck devastation on the scale of a global conflict. This also ignores that modern thought regarding 4th generational warfare makes little distinction between hard and soft power, meaning such “conflict” is often seen as development of infrastructure, cultural exchanges, technological upskilling, etc. hardly a poor outcome for the developing world

I don't see this as a bad thing. I see this as one more argument for balkanization of America. If the remaining, good countries won't go to WW3 because of Amerika's ruination, all the better.

That’s unlikely to be the outcome, however

In the absence of a dominant hard power there would be little necessity to apply soft power rather than hard

Cold War did that fine when there were two equal superpowers.

Less so then the current period but the absence of America would not result in the immediate creation of a plurality of superpowers in its wake as no nation as of now has the capacity to project power on a level equivalent to the ussr or they would already be doing so.
This comparison also fails in that I don’t think the potential candidates to fill that position would have the stability or interest in being seen as humane to the degree of the ussr, which I think the history speaks to how low that bar is. Nor would any actor have the same capacity and interest as the US to compel other actors to do so which again, not a high bar