The big sub wants to produce an army of mindless insects who will obey its every command. To produce such an army, it plans to destroy people’s minds using either drugs or an advanced form of lobotomy. Whichever approach it takes, the big sub’s thesis is that the world is crying out to labor beneath its firm but benevolent heel. That’s utterly uncouth, you say? Good; that means you’re finally catching on. The next step is to observe that if the big sub manages to break down the industrial-technological system, our nation will not endure as a civilization, as a geopolitical entity, or even as a society. Rather, it will exist only as a prison, a prison in which hypersensitive blaggards dam the flow of effective communication. This letter has gone on far too long in my opinion and probably yours as well. So let me end it by saying merely that the big sub has nephelococcygic delusions about being able to reduce human beings to the status of domestic animals.

Few facts are as ever-present as pluralism. What marks the modern age of governance is the challenge brought for by this notion: how do you rule of diverse, contradicting groups while preserving both their freedom as well as the general peace? This sub, whose taste lied somewhere between subpar and sublime, gives us a model to look forward to.

The sub’s length (this time over 700 feet long) is in itself a microcosm of the problems brought forth by overpopulation in this era. Can something that was once manageable be expanded and still manageable, to the point that it does not break down? Nation-states face this problem in the imminent future, while the sub confronts its contradictions head on, at the present: if each part of the sub has done its job (i.e., to be eaten by somebody), then the sub immediately ceases to exist. In overpopulated countries it seems that we face a similar quandary: if everybody is given citizenship with no curtailment due to population quotas, then the nation-state collapses. Governing a nation with a population so vast that a single government cannot control all its constituent elements requires for a solution akin to that offered by this sub: division and subdivision.

In Switzerland, there is a system of communes each of which, if I am correct, holds some legitimate power over a given region or canton. This model of ruling is one we find in the sub: look at the variety of flavors (or ideologies in the anthropocentric model) and notice that they cannot coexist peacefully without separation. This especially applies to the vegetarian/carnivore/omnivore sub/divisions as well as to those relating to creed. Each division then, covers a specific interest and this can be seen as the canton. Large-scale pluralist nations should adopt this approach: giving legislation to similar groups not on the basis of some discriminatory approach, of course, but on the basis of recognizing that some groups’ interests and notions of the good are vastly heterogeneous. It is once this is recognized that central government must delegate its powers and give up sub/stantial control over the idea of seeing a nation as one whole.

Consensus becomes easier in this context, for it allows all groups to be autonomous within the larger whole and prevents the issues brought forth by tyrannies of the majority (squashing minority interests and effectively kicking the members of such groups out of the social compact). Running roughshod over the people with generalist policies is dangerous when confronted with this challenge of governing a diverse spectrum of groups.

The ethical considerations relating to taxation become much easier to digest as well when a canton collects them and uses them within the community that agrees as to how funds will be allocated.

Some of the points I have made here are very sub/tle and require careful re-reading. In any case, all I have intended to show is that this sub, with its theoretically equally-divided portions containing contradicting meats, foodstuffs, and ideologies, provides a response: a rebuttal to the subterfuge presented by ineffective liberal that promote themselves as bastions of multiculturalism when all they effectively do is soften their methods of imperialism. The canton model is possibly the only way to deal with this and I would refer you all to inquire further into the idea of communitarianism which considers the individual/collective divide in a way that stands out from more traditional ideologies. Look into it and see that this sub may be the perfect example of that. In short, you may all have eaten the answer to orthodox political classifications.