Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Responding to Antinomia Imediata

Cyborg_nomade critiqued Chapter 4a of my sprawling thesis on exitocracy. I figured I should get off my ass and respond.

To put it in the briefest way possible, exitocracy is halfway between democracy and monarchical patchwork. It is patchwork where private governments stand for election. It is a system designed to decay into patchwork. When exitocracy is "corrupted" by the inevitable movement towards greater privatization that it would incentivize, it leads to patchwork. Decay is not considered evil in itself; all political systems decay. The current system is the result of dictatorship decaying into monarchy, (gradually after William), monarchy decaying into aristocracy, (some time around the era of the Magna Carta), aristocracy decaying into timocracy, (with the American Revolution), timocracy rapidly decaying into democracy, (with abolition of property qualifications and the 17th Amendment), democracy rapidly into oligarchy, (starting in the 1980's), caused by a vast increase in political donations. It is not decay per say that is the problem but its uncontrolled nature. Decay is inevitable. A system may "decay" into something better if it is controlled correctly. That is the purpose of exitocracy.

Since I wrote only Chapter 4a at the time, some of your questions may be answered in 4b, Exitocracy at the Federal Level, which covers one possible mechanism of enforcement.

You agree with a lot of what I say so I will limit myself to your major objections. For the sake of ease your remarks will be italicized and mine will not except when emphasis is needed.

Your remarks;
“Demotism is Conserved.” Nope. Although mass communication (and, more to the point, the ever greater dissipation of mass lethal power) is an ongoing fact since the dawn of modernity, and one that is unlikely to go away (short of Peak Oil or something), there is ever less a need to control the mob’s minds. The trend set in motion with the internet is much more of cultural, social and (therefore) political fragmentation than of mass maneuver of opinion. The very costs of attempting something like that are ever greater.
So, from what I grasp of the political trends in the 21st century, demotism has its days numbered, T minus the time necessary to build safe exit options. Bit-nations contracting with luxury gated cities for free pass, and ever more nomadic elites wandering around the world. No need for mob control, except insofar as “heavier walls” is mob control.
This really boils down to technology. No one can know the future, but one can guarantee that elites will fight like hell to prevent succession. Personally, I think Elon Musk has a better chance of colonizing Mars than anyone does at abolishing demotism. There will always be a vast incentive to weaponize crowds / useful idiots for conquest against your neighbors. What is worse is that propaganda works because humans want to be told what to think.

Let's list them out;

Technologies in favor of continued demotism;

Nukes, (as long as the supply can be effectively constrained)
University education
K through 12 education
All armies everywhere

Technologies against continued demotism;

An uncensorable internet, (may be impossible).
Crypto currencies, (as long as they don't get co-opted by elites).

Anything that makes demotism obsolete also makes nuclear weapons abundant. Atomics follows the law of supply and demand like everything else. Governments are hell-bent on controlling supply—and that is a good thing. We want non-proliferation. Anything that makes atomics available to city states possibly also lowers their cost to the threshold of terrorists getting their hands on it. That would be a catastrophe for mankind. Governments will go through hell to prevent that scenario. In any case, a future where city states can afford atomics is no future at all. It is a post atomic horror. In that case you get whatever tribalism you desire—and cannibal biker gangs.

Another possible technology is small handheld EMP weapons. There have been two eras in human history when people have has access to weapons of equal power to their governments. The first was the Greek city states. In that era the weapon system was the phalanx. When the highest quality weapon is affordable to the average man democracy ensues. Equal weapons = equal society. Granted, you got city states. But you also got Athenian direct democracy. Of course they created quite a few other political systems; Spartan Communism, Sicilian Tyranny, Thebes and its oligarchy.

The next phase was the American revolution. The enabling technology was the Kentucky long riffle. But both of these weapons systems reinforced demotism rather than suppressing it. EMP weapons will do the same by rendering tanks and bombers no more effective than a handheld device. Though this will only last until those machines are reengineered with shielded analogue components. See this.

So it boils down to which technology wins, and I see no evidence that guarantees the trajectory will go exactly towards fragmentation without democracy. For that you need a specific technology that reinforces tribalism without reinforcing individualism. One way, is for it to have an exact price point that is most efficient to deploy with that price point being determined by the size of the group, (say 100,000 to 1 million people). Any more and you gat vastly escalating costs. Any less and you can't afford it. Steel mills are a technology like this. Bigger mills only result in greater administrative costs. If some equivalent economics in weapons systems could be worked out then maybe it would work. You need a technology that favors a certain number of people and no more. Basically, I see no reason for the future to move along the vector we want it to unless deliberate efforts are made to engineer the technology that gets us there.

You quoting me;
1. “Formalism ends violence by making the outcome of a dispute known. Another way of saying this is that a process is formalized when violence is eliminated through a rule based mechanism that turns it into a game or contract of sorts.” It’s important to keep in mind that one needs an unambiguous unbreakable rule for this to work – enforcement matters. I’m saying this to make clear that the criteria for Multi-Part Elections to work is that it provides not only unambiguous rules for conflicts, but also an enforcement mechanism.
This is now covered in Chapter 4b, which was written after your remarks.
“Power creates ideology.” This is unconvincing, if only because ideology is itself a source of power. You seem to admit it straight away: “any different system will seem immoral to you, because you, having been indoctrinated by the current system, share its morals“. To distinguish between power and the idea of power will demand something more than mere affirmation.
The following discussion, based on this distinction, is not so wrong as it reverses the true complication: “The ideology becomes whatever is necessary to justify the power system. In the System of systems, aka, the exitocracy, a form of “live and let live” becomes the standard. The federal government is forced to take a culturally relativist position in order to maintain military control over its territory.” Can the federal government maintain that position and have military control? What does the military believe? What is the ideology of those with military capability? Power is this ideology, what will make them pull the trigger.(?)
Ideology may itself be a source of power. I have never claimed it isn't. In Chapter 1 of Neocameral Future I described it as follows;
"Culture really is downstream from power, but what we are missing is that power is downstream from incentives. We may go even one step further and say that incentives are the outcome synthesis of several material conditions in combination with human nature. Also, ideology programs peoples morals. When we put this all together we get a chain of causality. This gives us a diagram that looks something like this:
Technology +
Material Conditions +
Human Nature +
Past Political Programs +
=   A  Synthesis of Incentives -----> (Political + Social Response) ------>Ideology -----> Morals
Another way of saying that is:
(1) Human Nature + Material Conditions + Technology + Past Political Programs = Incentives.
(2) Incentives cause political programs and social change; that is, society reacts.
(3) Political/social action is justified with ideology.
(4) Ideology programs indoctrination, creating the morals of society.
(5) Morals are the psychological internalization of ideology.
What I am describing here is the major flow of social organization. It is certainly possible for something lower on the chain to effect something higher, but in general the flow is downward. One thing I have not decided is whether religion belongs in the location of (1) or (4). It appears to have characteristics of both at it reflexively reacts to new technologies and simultaneously defies their influence. I suppose it depends on how embracing of fads and trends a faith is. More cathedral prone religions are in the category of (4)."
Everything influences everything else. The only claim being made here is that the major flow is downward from phase 1 forces to phase 5. A lot of "ideology influencing things" is false. If Obama makes a "moral decision" (and it is truly motivated by moral concern), this would indicate that phase 5 is affecting phase 3. But in reality, he derived his morals from left-wing indoctrination. Thus, the expression of morals is still consistent with downward flow.

In other words, a lot of ideology influencing things is actually recursive within the overall pattern. It is entirely enclosed by it.

Second, humans, because we are primates, have a compulsive need to think that argument matters. Actually, it really doesn't. We evolved in Dunbar limited environments. In those societies argument can actually change the whole society. This causes an instinctive predilection towards folk activism. This instinctive tendency is why Iceland as a democracy works better than America. (It is small). Democracy doesn't scale well. At large scales it becomes factional and monopolized by special interests. But I digress. The point is that your brain wants to think that ideology matters, but it really doesn't. The entire system runs on blind idiot forces of nature, and not ideology. Reactionary future has a whole thing on this, 1, 2, 3—about how ideology is downstream of power. This is a basic tenant of the whole neoreactionary field. Because of genetic legacy, humans will always compulsively want to believe that the reverse is true, and they must constantly be told that it is not. So this is not just mere affirmation.

So there you go. I hope that answers it. Leave a comment below if you have any thoughts.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Don't post under the name Anonymous or your post will be deleted. There is a spam bot using that name and I just delete everything he posts.