site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5d ago (text post)   1685 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for January 4, 2026

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

If Trump tomorrow conquers Greenland and says it is US territory - do you think that future 2028 democratic president will return it or the usg will drag their feet for the next couple of centuries on the matter?

I don't really think anywhere needs more sovereignty than Alabama, so as long as it's made a state I think it's a positive thing to bring it into the union. Good first step to adding Cuba, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines, and every Canadian province.

But you realise that this also means adding their voters and dealing with their opinions/needs, right? At least, unless America goes full-hog imperial.

Yes. 2 senators each, plus a rejiggering of the house.

Basically what @Bartender_Venator said. Integrating foreign polities into your empire means more than a few extra senators hanging around the place.

Leading to a more intensive federalism at home and abroad.

We can start by integrating countries like Greenland, Canada, Singapore which are already compatible.

I see your line of thought, but federalism has only decreased in the last century of high immigration, moving towards machine politics at first (gibs for specific ethnic groups, major jobs assigned by ethnicity, corruption) and then towards straightforward centralising absolutism. I think that you would be gambling big to assume the pattern wouldn't repeat itself.

How many federal countries are there / have there been in history when the federal element had the ability to control the states but refused to do so? (So excluding e.g. the Holy Roman Empire where control just wasn't practical).

How many federal countries are there / have there been in history when the federal element had the ability to control the states but refused to do so?

Does fucking around so hard that they completely fail at their responsibilities and the Provinces take over international diplomacy and trade count? That was Canada under Trudeau for a while. Same with Saskatchewan unilaterally deciding it wouldn't pay the Carbon Tax on home heating.

I'm trying to tease out the difference between a powerful, confident country deliberately deciding not to exert control over its provinces in a formal manner vs. failing to keep them in line, so no it doesn't count.

The former I think is almost unique to Anglo countries (America historically, Canada historically?, maybe devolution in the UK) and rare within those. I'm looking for examples proving that theory wrong. If the theory is right then you cannot get to more intensive federalism by integrating other countries into the USA as per @FiveHourMarathon's proposal, unless it weakens America so much that federal government collapses.

EDIT: the main counterexample is probably Switzerland. GPT suggests also modern Germany (which doesn't sound right to me, plus their constitution was heavily influenced by America rather than arising from native proclivities) and Austria.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats