As this is (probably) central to coordination: is there something like a clear decisionmaking structure to decide what "the community" actually wants (i.e., what is "ursuing EA goals", concretely, in a given situation if there are trade-offs)? Is there an overview/explanation of this structure?
Your Richland-Poorland example is indeed illustrative, thanks. However, it seems the problem caused by immigration does not only occur when incomes in Richland were equalized before the immigration, but rather they also occur when people care about the degree of income inequality in their own country. So if Richlanders are free-market fans, but they do not like domestic inequality, they will want to keep the Poorlanders out.
However, socialism and open borders don't mix well, because once you turn a society into a giant workers' co-op, adding new members always comes at the expense of the current members.
Why should that be the case? Wealth and income of this giant worker's co-op are not fixed, and why shouldn't they scale with the number of members?
However, if journalists just do opinion-writing on their substack, and that kind of journalism becomes dominant, these boundaries may dissolve. That is not necessarily a good thing, though.
This is really interesting. Thanks for the report.
Is the topic of arms trade that he mentions considered in the EA community?
Wie definieren wir große Koalition?
Ab wann gilt eine Schule eigentlich als geschlossen?