> Who would place the cap? How would it be determined? How would it be enforced? Would have to be legislative, a legal mandate. We have studies on fraud and management at scales proving diminishing returns. I would anticipate these would be the basis for caps. What's the down side to capping all cities at 500,000 people? 1,000,000? > As @vastrightwing mentioned, cities tend to be eventually filled with niggers and other societal drains. Would we export a proportion of them into the smaller cities as the larger ones filled? IMOHO, this would prevent such congregation or perhaps even facilities segregation of non-Whites into their own cities. Right now they all flock to centralized large cities to feast upon the corruption and preferential treatment. Treatment which exists specifically because they congregate and garner preferential treatment because of their centralized population sizes. > What's happening now (in cities and states) is that the smart, productive people are moving to places where they can live with like-minded folk. That leaves behind the lazy and the grifters (and a smattering of people who are stuck there for one valid reason or another) to live in the mess they've made. At least here in the US of A, anyway. This has all changed because of Obama. Now, they are already forcing non-Whites into every White area and the government is subsidizing it. If you're not already seeing it, you will. > Yes, some leftists leave their shit holes behind to ruin a new locale (sorry, Colorado) and the system isn't perfect, but I'd rather people self-select than be shuttled around where some government entity decides they should be. Which triggers White flight. At worst, the number of people they can destroy is much smaller and it makes it much harder for their to hide their graft, fraud and preferential treatment to non-Whites. I'm still not seeing a down side.