18 05 11 - 08:26Instead of stability, which is dysgenic, aim for dynamism:
A patchwork - please feel free to drop the capital - is any network consisting of a large number of small but independent states. To be precise, each state's real estate is its patch; the sovereign corporate owner, ie government, of the patch is its realm. At least initially, each realm holds one and only one patch. In practice this may change with time, but the realm-patch structure is at least designed to be stable.
Of course, Italy in the fourteenth century was anything but stable. Anything like a patchwork needs a strong security design to ensure that it does not repeat the constitutional solecisms of feudalism, and nor will it be subject to the same pervasive violence or meet the same demise. In a worst-case scenario, we could end up right back at liberal democracy! But don't worry - we will discuss this issue in considerable detail.
To be a reactionary is not to say we must reinstall the exact political structure of the fourteenth century tomorrow, although that would surely be an improvement on what we have now. To be a reactionary is to borrow freely across time as well as space, incorporating political designs and experience from wherever and whenever. As Nick Szabo has observed, the most interesting, detailed and elegant European forms are found in the period we call feudal, and thus it is only natural that a reactionary design for future government will have a somewhat feudal feel.
But Patchwork is something new. It will not feel like the past. It will feel like the future. The past - that is, the democratic past - will feel increasingly gray, weird, and scary. - UR
I like the idea, although it obliterates the major value of nation-states, which is concentrating money into R&D and non-failing political objectives. The main reason the patchwork failed in the past was that when Mongols attack, no unity happens and so an attack which could be easily checked in Kiev rages on into Vienna.