Tuesday, July 11, 2017



And that is the problem


Communism is Just Sharing

Or more accurately, it is forced sharing. At first blush this may now appear to be a problem. Sharing is good, is it not? No one associates a fair allotment with injustice, and that tells you a great deal about the human race: its desires, its cognitive biases, and especially its legacy genetics. Compulsory sharing is the single most destructive behavior in all of human history. It has generated nearly one-hundred million deaths in communist revolutions. It held humanity in permanent economic recession for a million years?, since the beginning of the species? It lead to the butchery of the the Khmer Rouge, and will lead to the failure of American democracy.

Equality is an atavistic tendency; no civilization ever died from a lack of it. But plenty of nations have destroyed themselves from a surplus of equality. Communism lasts about seventy years until it inevitably converts into either a fascist corporatism, or feudal monarchy. Democracies last a few hundred until they bankrupt themselves. In contrast, ancient Egypt endured two thousand seven hundred years of slavery without any harm to its ability to function as a civilization. History shows that the more equal the society the faster it destroys itself, and democracies only last as long as they do because they conceal the hand of oligarchy.

The inability to prevent the forced sharing, (or stealing) of one's property by one's neighbors is the reason that prehistorical societies remained in a state of economic depression. Without hording one can never build up the surplus necessary to build a factory. Without hording one can never have capital, can never get a loan based on that capital, can never grow a surplus of food, and can never escape slavery to animal needs. Hording, that is not sharing, is the basis of all prosperity, and compulsory sharing is the basis of its destruction. One refuses to share today so that one may build up a surplus tomorrow. And in the end, this benefits everyone.

But we should not have to appeal to the common benefit. That is pandering to the atavistic communist tendency of human legacy genetics. Whether or not my success does you any good is none of your concern. You are not entitled to it either way.

Capitalism is the domestication of man, and this is a good thing. Politics is the remainder of what capitalism has not yet absorbed. Humans are genocidal xenophobic communist monkeys. They need to be domesticated. Contrary to every assertion by the left, the ancestral environment was not a paradise, but a nightmare of brutality, violence, and rape. Many scientists — like Steven Pinker have documented in detail the horrible levels of violence in ancestral environment. Liberals continue to repeat Jean Jacques Rousseau's ignorant lie that man was innocent in the state of nature. This has nothing to do with the evidence, and everything to do with their own atavistic desires for communism to somehow work, and the industry related to Native American federal grants. In short, it pays to promote the idea of the "noble savage," and their own legacy genes compel them to want communism to succeed. Humans have an irresistible desire to go back to the environment of their evolution. They perceive that the modern world is — quite accurately — inhuman, barren, artificial, sterile, meaningless, godless, soulless, void, alienating, indifferent, hyper-rational, algorithmic, mathematical, economic, and simply could not care at all about them. They are right. And they deserve it.
What else would a pile of genocidal monkeys deserve?

It fact it goes beyond this. It is far more accurate to say that they are unqualified for capitalism, that capitalism is so superior to them as to stand as gods to monkeys to them, that they never earned their domestication, and that they are totally unworthy of it. Capitalism progresses to deeper and deeper levels over time. Human nature needs to be drowned in the bathtub of capitalism, and mankind will get what it needs good and hard. This is justice.

It is not the system that is the problem. It is us.

Capitalism has gone through phases, with each phase representing a deepening of the previous one: industrial capitalism, financial capitalism, and monopoly capitalism— to use Carroll Quigley's classification of its development. Marxists believe that this will end with its abolishment, but every unemployment statistic leads to the conclusion that it is the worker that it being abolished and not the system. Communism is the past, and not the future. The development of technology moves irrevocably towards a more anarchist future. Eliezer Yudkowsky has stated that "every 18 months, the minimum IQ necessary to destroy the world drops by one point." Technology expands and comes down in cost. Since technology represents a decrease in the labor, and skill necessary to perform an action, it necessarily empowers more and more people. Simultaneous to this we see a trend towards more "constitutional" systems of rule-making: meaning, decentralized networks of governance under formal computerized systems. This is apparent when we look at blockchain technology, or Ethereum.

The future of governance is probably a constitutional smart contract that specifies who gets paid and why, and for what, in such a manner as to produce order in the society for enforcing the meta-rules of an anarcho capitalist private law society, with the constitutional computer code being programmed by an AI designed to maximize market order, and minimize crime. It would probably compete with other constitutions for market share.

Let me explain. Imagine a society where every person pays a fee to a "constitution" of their choosing. Imagine that this constitution is nothing but a system of computer code running on a distributed blockchain. Imagine also that the fee paid is based on income: people with more assets to protect pay more while the poor are insured against crime for free. The constitutional code then gives vouchers to every person for the purchase of rights protection via a consumer union. The individual buys the enforcement of their rights using the voucher that they give to a consumer union, that in-turn buys services from a series of private police companies. The common law is the market equilibrium. The constitutional code is written by an AI that continuously monitors the market to prevent violence and crime of any kind. The market regulations that it creates, or "constitutional code" are designed to perform this function. It is programmed to maximize social harmony, and to learn on a continual basis how to do this better. It is a computerized government running a market for private law enforcement, and its programmers are its ultimate legislators.

Now imagine that territorial governments are replaced by competing constitutional codes.

The evolution of humanity has been towards consistently more forms of political exit, towards more distributed systems of governance, towards less violent coercion, and towards more rule-based and incentive-based systems. This is nowhere close to a dictatorship of the proletariat.

1 comment:

  1. >It is not the system that is the problem. It is us.

    I agree, biodeterminism is more true than not.

    >Now imagine that territorial governments are replaced by competing constitutional codes.

    If we accept the generally biodetermninist statement above, the constitutions are irrelevant (at-best predicate to the subject people).

    >The evolution of humanity has been towards consistently more forms of political exit

    Only the higher forms of humanity, an important distinction.