Just because an island has a smaller population doesn’t make it any more or less predisposed to egalitarianism, nor do large populations have to be predisposed to authoritarianism.
I should have been more clear. I never said the words “egalitarianism” or “authoritarianism”.
That would be those “either” of the things I was referring to me having not said.
Smaller population simply means each person’s vote counts for more. Easier for small groups to have an effect when they only need to reach a smaller number of potential voters.
Smaller population simply means each person’s vote counts for more.
What about the smaller tribes who live under strict patriarchies that can’t vote? Plenty examples of those in history and today (cults for instance). There are also examples of massive cities with egalitarian urban planning with no centralized temples or food storage. So again I ask, what makes you think population size has anything to do with their politics?
Dude who are you arguing with? I never said anything about those incredibly specific situations you’re talking about.
I already gave two things that a smaller population size might effect when it comes to elections. I am sure there are many other things that having a smaller population affects that I haven’t even considered.
I’m just wondering why you speak with such casual conclusiveness that smaller population size is even worth mentioning, when all evidence says that population size has little to nothing to do with political trends that lead to authoritarian fascism (being that the subject is NZ not being as right wing as USA). I’m trying to argue the fact that there’s zero anthropological data suggesting that population sizes, even climate environments, have any correlation with certain cultures leaning more in a certain direction. You however seem to think it’s worth bringing up, or that there are “many other things that having a smaller population affects” I just want to know where you get that idea from, again, when all evidence points to the contrary.
Just because an island has a smaller population doesn’t make it any more or less predisposed to egalitarianism, nor do large populations have to be predisposed to authoritarianism.
…I never said either of those things?
“It’s a much smaller population” literally your second sentence, or do you not comprehend your own writing? Why is their smaller population relevant?
I should have been more clear. I never said the words “egalitarianism” or “authoritarianism”.
That would be those “either” of the things I was referring to me having not said.
Smaller population simply means each person’s vote counts for more. Easier for small groups to have an effect when they only need to reach a smaller number of potential voters.
EDIT: spelling
What about the smaller tribes who live under strict patriarchies that can’t vote? Plenty examples of those in history and today (cults for instance). There are also examples of massive cities with egalitarian urban planning with no centralized temples or food storage. So again I ask, what makes you think population size has anything to do with their politics?
Dude who are you arguing with? I never said anything about those incredibly specific situations you’re talking about.
I already gave two things that a smaller population size might effect when it comes to elections. I am sure there are many other things that having a smaller population affects that I haven’t even considered.
I’m just wondering why you speak with such casual conclusiveness that smaller population size is even worth mentioning, when all evidence says that population size has little to nothing to do with political trends that lead to authoritarian fascism (being that the subject is NZ not being as right wing as USA). I’m trying to argue the fact that there’s zero anthropological data suggesting that population sizes, even climate environments, have any correlation with certain cultures leaning more in a certain direction. You however seem to think it’s worth bringing up, or that there are “many other things that having a smaller population affects” I just want to know where you get that idea from, again, when all evidence points to the contrary.