After I asked, I wondered if placing max population caps on cities would be universally beneficial. Rather than large cities annexing smaller land, it would work in reverse. As a large city hit its population max, it would force the smaller surrounding cities to annex away from the larger cities until they were under their max, with a margin (say 20%). This would continue until those surrounding cities maxed, and ripple outward. Repeating until all were under max. This would limit city revenues and graft and fraud, in turn removing power centralization from massive cities. It would encourage expansion rather than centralization. In turn minimizing the power and graft of massive, centralized cities.
What you think about that?
Who would place the cap? How would it be determined? How would it be enforced?
As 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?
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.
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.
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 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.
While you make numerous valid points, where you lose me is this:
I'm still not seeing a down side.
You're looking to the government to be the solution for a problem caused by the government.
The solution isn't a cap as much as keeping bad actors like shit skins and jew politicians that enable destruction out.
Ultimately it still encourages centralized power. For example, New York. Even without totalitarian Jewish control, it disproportionately controls the politics of the entire state. IMOHO, these megacities are a blight upon ever state in which they exist.
(post is archived)