Post-Moldbug, the writer software-genius imagines a CEO-Monarch who can restore order in a world gone chaotic. While he takes new progressives to tasks, he often sounds like old ones.
Also, Jefferson was correct that the "consent of the governed" is a moral requirement. But the system he and the pro-constitution Founders created is not especially consensual.
I am about halfway through Daniel Mallock's "Agony and Eloquence," which is about Jefferson, Adams, the French Revolution, etc. Thus far, Mallock is trying his best to defend Jefferson, but it is hard to avoid the impression that the guy could be a real jerk. He said really nasty things about people in letters…said one thing to one person, another to another, etc. I totally get that he was a brilliant, energetic man, and such men are often like this. But still…definitely not a good look.
He was closer to the mark than the Federalists, of course. He had a lot of great ideas about decentralism, ward republics, etc. I would like to learn more abo0ut the Anti-Federalists and some of their ideas, too.
Ultimately, though, they all (as far as I know) still believed that voting mitigated the moral problem of involuntary governance, and it doesn't.
I don't blame them for that—that was the state of classical-liberal thought at the time. We needed a few more decades for the Spooners of the world to come along and start pointing the way to the next evolution.
Yarvin is overrated as a "thinker". Case in point:
"His most persuasive contention is that democracy simply doesn’t work very well"
Democracy works just fine as long as you don't extend suffrage to low IQ, cluster-B, high time-preference, r-strategist mutants. It's an economics problem, incentives must be aligned.
In my Hoppean covenant community, voting rights will only be allowed for grandparents of living grandchildren, and only with permission of the grandchildren.
The rest of your criticisms are spot on. Philosopher-kings don't exist, and never will.
I have read some Yarvin, but not a lot. I had developed the impression that what he wanted was small, seceded polities run as for-profit 'countries'—not running the whole of America that way. Did I get him really wrong? (Perhaps the anarcho-phylarchist in me was just hearing what it wanted to hear.)
The former is a workable possibility within a phylarchic (competing governance systems) model. We could at least see then if it was a successful idea and judge accordingly.
The latter is an appalling notion—just one more one-size-fits-all/one true way 'solution' imposed upon everyone against their will. Yikes!
He's a Hoppean to some degree. I think his error lies in lauding the efficacy of what he perceives as technocratic achievement, such as FDR's New Deal or the Manhattan Project. If he were more explicit about liking Lee Kwan Yew as opposed to FDR, I'd be warmer to it. And the conflation of monarch and CEO seems kind of weird, Liechtenstein notwithstanding.
I have read a few, but it was years ago. He's definitely an interesting and brilliant guy. Also, I misspelled his name above. It's: Lee Kuan Yew. You might also want to look into Sir John Cowperthwaite.
"more rules, and fewer rulers? -- SO-then...a de-humanized govt of a few hundred competing City-State Master-AI-Programs -- a dozen or so different Islamic, Christian, Jewish and Secular Globalist AI-Run independent City-States -- where NO ONE (B-gates/blackrock CEO or C-schwab, P-diamandis/RKurzweil nothwithstan-ding)...EVER believes they are RIGHT (smartest-in-room) or forms an neo-Oppenheimerr Drone-Bomb-Project -- to take the Chips, Power and Control of the others...benevolently delivering their OWN Utopia for all Global-Humanity!!!! Hallelujah -- we have conquered the Nature of Man!!!
Sorry for my overly succinct sarcasm! Only trying to imply that what you seem to wanna describe (a largely AI-Rules-Managed cluster of independent City-States) is not only a LONGSHOT -- but that to expect or postulate the various Factions that would hypothetically create them (Islam, Christianity, Judaism...Secularism) all live in peaceful harmony is likely MOOOrRRE a long-shot BEYOND human HISTORY, than it actually happening.
But you might retort, "You may say I'm a dreamer...and Not the only one!" Granted...I wish you well in this host of AI-Governed Contractual City-State(s). Gotta do one well first...before others follow. At root...it still strikes me as but another more elaborate form of the Secularized Revolutionary dream. Or, it is salvation & reform of fallen/flawed human nature without any need of Internal moral transformation of human nature...from External powers. Neither Ancient nor Modern history give any reason for optimism here.
Well, you're making a lot of assumptions about what I propose, starting with the idea that I'm under illusions about there being just abstract rules, that I'd want AI anywhere near such rules, and that I'm for skipping ahead to a global template rather than local experimentation. I think you'll find that my entire shtick is not about being a governance rationalist, but a try-test-evaluate-repeat kind of guy.
I might have an ounce of "dreamer" in my pound of pragmatism, but (e.g.) the Constitution of Consent project is designed to get people to rethink governance, not to assume that a handful of us are going to create some revolutionary document that everyone is going to line up behind. In short, I don't understand the sarcasm.
Simply put, the idea of more rules, fewer rulers is just a renewed call for people to re-embrace the rule of law, because, as you know, men are fallen, sinful, and sometimes sociopathic. While men create laws, the idea is to create laws that require the least intercession of fallen men. I mean, this is pretty basic to the American Founding, even as its coming apart.
Now, IF what you're praying for -- literally or figuratively -- is a theocracy, I don't know what to say about that. That's just downright illiberal and dangerous, as it has always been. A pious army and jackbooted police force are no less dangerous than what we're looking at today. One could argue there are exceptions, but they are exceedingly rare. Most theocracies are not peaceful, not pluralist, and not free.
But, I don't want to make any assumptions about your views. Maybe your position is merely that we just gotta get out there and vote harder (for some person or party, you know filled with fallen men). Or that we need to be much more conservative in our proposals. Alas, what is it that we are trying to conserve? It's pretty much all rotten now. I acknowledge that you and I have connected on the moral basics and the cultivation of virtue. But virtue must be taught and practiced, not enforced at gunpoint.
Anyway, I invite you describe just what you think will get us even remotely out of the mess we're in. After all, such sarcasm means that SURELY you have compelling answers!
Sorry to touchy a nervy my friend. Wouldn't $subscribe if I didn't think your thinking worth my time. Did imagined I was mostly replying to Yarvin's article. But I do wish you both well in preserving whatever liberties for us the next few decades... especially the possibilities of Contract/Constitutional City-States.
While I believe the Modern romance with "democracy' historically naive and fraught with libertine adolescence...our understanding of liberties under Monarchies equally ahistorical. Nor should we assume most Monarchies were Theocracies -- especially in worse pejorative modern trashing. Were the Christian Monarchies of Europe (Elizabeth, Hanover, George...) abject Theocratic dictators. Or, were they more likely ruled by a host of accomplished advisory councils to the King(s)? Much to sift through and qualify. Press on good man. On your side...but still willing to question and disagree. ;-)
You haven't touched a nerve at all. I fully expect feedback, criticism, and even sarcasm. I will say that Yarvin was inspired by Hoppe to some degree, though Hoppe's 1000 Liechtensteins imply 1000 Singapores or 1000 Dubais, there are limits to the CEO-monarch that Yarvin fails to appreciate, as he seems to want to scale a Liechtenstein into a Leviathan. Now, believe it or not, I don't mind small monarchies, small private cities, or even small theocracies, so long as they build in a right of exit and are of course SMALL. Experiments should run locally rather than be imposed on 330 million souls, say. The key thing is myriad local experiments make for a discovery process that can move towards stable equilibria -- Taleb's "antifragile." In fact, my "dreamer" Constitution of Consent project is designed to get folks to imagine a legal framework such that jurisdictions -- whether principalities or private city-states -- can be spawned in local self determination. My concern is that any given failure is less likely to be catastrophic (that is, system wide). The Magisterium of Ought, where virtue is practiced, cannot sustainably be imposed. Still, I hope smaller jurisdictions can originate in practiced virtue. // Anyway, I think we agree more than we disagree. And I wanted to tease that out in this thread.
Much like this reply...and suspected from the getgo we agree far more than appears at 1st blush. Thrilled at the thought of Small Experimental Monarchies...gradually relaxing more liberties in "Open Markets"...without assaulting/disturbing the moral/spiritual Center holding it all together (ala W-Ropke), which is revered & nurtured. Dubai Will...& Should feel/Be different than St. Petersberg.
Also, Jefferson was correct that the "consent of the governed" is a moral requirement. But the system he and the pro-constitution Founders created is not especially consensual.
Jefferson did not approve of the Constitution, but once he returned from France and entered politics, he had to carry its water.
By the way, I have been meaning to tell you…
I am about halfway through Daniel Mallock's "Agony and Eloquence," which is about Jefferson, Adams, the French Revolution, etc. Thus far, Mallock is trying his best to defend Jefferson, but it is hard to avoid the impression that the guy could be a real jerk. He said really nasty things about people in letters…said one thing to one person, another to another, etc. I totally get that he was a brilliant, energetic man, and such men are often like this. But still…definitely not a good look.
Not only was he a shit talker, but apparently he was getting busy with his slaves.
He was closer to the mark than the Federalists, of course. He had a lot of great ideas about decentralism, ward republics, etc. I would like to learn more abo0ut the Anti-Federalists and some of their ideas, too.
Ultimately, though, they all (as far as I know) still believed that voting mitigated the moral problem of involuntary governance, and it doesn't.
I don't blame them for that—that was the state of classical-liberal thought at the time. We needed a few more decades for the Spooners of the world to come along and start pointing the way to the next evolution.
Yarvin is overrated as a "thinker". Case in point:
"His most persuasive contention is that democracy simply doesn’t work very well"
Democracy works just fine as long as you don't extend suffrage to low IQ, cluster-B, high time-preference, r-strategist mutants. It's an economics problem, incentives must be aligned.
In my Hoppean covenant community, voting rights will only be allowed for grandparents of living grandchildren, and only with permission of the grandchildren.
The rest of your criticisms are spot on. Philosopher-kings don't exist, and never will.
I have read some Yarvin, but not a lot. I had developed the impression that what he wanted was small, seceded polities run as for-profit 'countries'—not running the whole of America that way. Did I get him really wrong? (Perhaps the anarcho-phylarchist in me was just hearing what it wanted to hear.)
The former is a workable possibility within a phylarchic (competing governance systems) model. We could at least see then if it was a successful idea and judge accordingly.
The latter is an appalling notion—just one more one-size-fits-all/one true way 'solution' imposed upon everyone against their will. Yikes!
He's a Hoppean to some degree. I think his error lies in lauding the efficacy of what he perceives as technocratic achievement, such as FDR's New Deal or the Manhattan Project. If he were more explicit about liking Lee Kwan Yew as opposed to FDR, I'd be warmer to it. And the conflation of monarch and CEO seems kind of weird, Liechtenstein notwithstanding.
Well, now I gotta know more about Lee Kwan Yew. Is there a summary you like?
I have read a few, but it was years ago. He's definitely an interesting and brilliant guy. Also, I misspelled his name above. It's: Lee Kuan Yew. You might also want to look into Sir John Cowperthwaite.
"more rules, and fewer rulers? -- SO-then...a de-humanized govt of a few hundred competing City-State Master-AI-Programs -- a dozen or so different Islamic, Christian, Jewish and Secular Globalist AI-Run independent City-States -- where NO ONE (B-gates/blackrock CEO or C-schwab, P-diamandis/RKurzweil nothwithstan-ding)...EVER believes they are RIGHT (smartest-in-room) or forms an neo-Oppenheimerr Drone-Bomb-Project -- to take the Chips, Power and Control of the others...benevolently delivering their OWN Utopia for all Global-Humanity!!!! Hallelujah -- we have conquered the Nature of Man!!!
Hey David,
Can you clarify your concern here, as in what it's aimed at and the nature of your skepticism?
Sorry for my overly succinct sarcasm! Only trying to imply that what you seem to wanna describe (a largely AI-Rules-Managed cluster of independent City-States) is not only a LONGSHOT -- but that to expect or postulate the various Factions that would hypothetically create them (Islam, Christianity, Judaism...Secularism) all live in peaceful harmony is likely MOOOrRRE a long-shot BEYOND human HISTORY, than it actually happening.
But you might retort, "You may say I'm a dreamer...and Not the only one!" Granted...I wish you well in this host of AI-Governed Contractual City-State(s). Gotta do one well first...before others follow. At root...it still strikes me as but another more elaborate form of the Secularized Revolutionary dream. Or, it is salvation & reform of fallen/flawed human nature without any need of Internal moral transformation of human nature...from External powers. Neither Ancient nor Modern history give any reason for optimism here.
Well, you're making a lot of assumptions about what I propose, starting with the idea that I'm under illusions about there being just abstract rules, that I'd want AI anywhere near such rules, and that I'm for skipping ahead to a global template rather than local experimentation. I think you'll find that my entire shtick is not about being a governance rationalist, but a try-test-evaluate-repeat kind of guy.
I might have an ounce of "dreamer" in my pound of pragmatism, but (e.g.) the Constitution of Consent project is designed to get people to rethink governance, not to assume that a handful of us are going to create some revolutionary document that everyone is going to line up behind. In short, I don't understand the sarcasm.
Simply put, the idea of more rules, fewer rulers is just a renewed call for people to re-embrace the rule of law, because, as you know, men are fallen, sinful, and sometimes sociopathic. While men create laws, the idea is to create laws that require the least intercession of fallen men. I mean, this is pretty basic to the American Founding, even as its coming apart.
Now, IF what you're praying for -- literally or figuratively -- is a theocracy, I don't know what to say about that. That's just downright illiberal and dangerous, as it has always been. A pious army and jackbooted police force are no less dangerous than what we're looking at today. One could argue there are exceptions, but they are exceedingly rare. Most theocracies are not peaceful, not pluralist, and not free.
But, I don't want to make any assumptions about your views. Maybe your position is merely that we just gotta get out there and vote harder (for some person or party, you know filled with fallen men). Or that we need to be much more conservative in our proposals. Alas, what is it that we are trying to conserve? It's pretty much all rotten now. I acknowledge that you and I have connected on the moral basics and the cultivation of virtue. But virtue must be taught and practiced, not enforced at gunpoint.
Anyway, I invite you describe just what you think will get us even remotely out of the mess we're in. After all, such sarcasm means that SURELY you have compelling answers!
Not perfect and don't agree with all --- BUT Much, Much to learn here with a careful reading. Democracy, The God That Failed, Hoppe.
https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Economics-Politics-Perspectives-Democratic/dp/0765808684/ref=sr_1_1?crid=207V2CA3GO3C1&keywords=democracy+the+god+that+failed+hoppe&qid=1704752918&sprefix=Democracy+The+%2Caps%2C204&sr=8-1
Sorry to touchy a nervy my friend. Wouldn't $subscribe if I didn't think your thinking worth my time. Did imagined I was mostly replying to Yarvin's article. But I do wish you both well in preserving whatever liberties for us the next few decades... especially the possibilities of Contract/Constitutional City-States.
While I believe the Modern romance with "democracy' historically naive and fraught with libertine adolescence...our understanding of liberties under Monarchies equally ahistorical. Nor should we assume most Monarchies were Theocracies -- especially in worse pejorative modern trashing. Were the Christian Monarchies of Europe (Elizabeth, Hanover, George...) abject Theocratic dictators. Or, were they more likely ruled by a host of accomplished advisory councils to the King(s)? Much to sift through and qualify. Press on good man. On your side...but still willing to question and disagree. ;-)
You haven't touched a nerve at all. I fully expect feedback, criticism, and even sarcasm. I will say that Yarvin was inspired by Hoppe to some degree, though Hoppe's 1000 Liechtensteins imply 1000 Singapores or 1000 Dubais, there are limits to the CEO-monarch that Yarvin fails to appreciate, as he seems to want to scale a Liechtenstein into a Leviathan. Now, believe it or not, I don't mind small monarchies, small private cities, or even small theocracies, so long as they build in a right of exit and are of course SMALL. Experiments should run locally rather than be imposed on 330 million souls, say. The key thing is myriad local experiments make for a discovery process that can move towards stable equilibria -- Taleb's "antifragile." In fact, my "dreamer" Constitution of Consent project is designed to get folks to imagine a legal framework such that jurisdictions -- whether principalities or private city-states -- can be spawned in local self determination. My concern is that any given failure is less likely to be catastrophic (that is, system wide). The Magisterium of Ought, where virtue is practiced, cannot sustainably be imposed. Still, I hope smaller jurisdictions can originate in practiced virtue. // Anyway, I think we agree more than we disagree. And I wanted to tease that out in this thread.
Much like this reply...and suspected from the getgo we agree far more than appears at 1st blush. Thrilled at the thought of Small Experimental Monarchies...gradually relaxing more liberties in "Open Markets"...without assaulting/disturbing the moral/spiritual Center holding it all together (ala W-Ropke), which is revered & nurtured. Dubai Will...& Should feel/Be different than St. Petersberg.
Also, thank you for being a $ubscriber. :) I promise never to let money come between us when we're wrestling.
and a queen