Sunday, September 10, 2017




Central Assertions:
1. Common values are impossible in large societies. In large societies widespread value systems can only be manufactured by power.
2. A leftist definition of freedom is impossible if it includes all four left-wing ideals of representation, voice, common values, and equal participation.
3. Three of 4 design criteria can be met with patchwork.

Instead of challenging the leftist definition of freedom, let us take it as a given and see where that line of reason leads us. Let us steelman the left-wing argument that voice is necessary for freedom, and look at the logical conclusions of that.

Let us define the word "freedom" as;
(a), having a state that represents the values of the people contained within its borders.
This is of course a very Whig definition because it makes no reference to God or commandments. Leftists value voice, and this is the definition they use. They also hold other premises: they believe that (b) the people should have a voice in politics, that (c), society MUST agree on a common set of values, that (d) every person must have an equal say in what those values are.

These premises make each other impossible — as we will see in a second.

Proof of impossibility.

The number of relationships in a group is defined by R = [(N (N-1))/2], where R is the number of relationships, and N is the number of people.

A group of 3 people has 3 relationships.
A group of 4 people has 6 relationships.
A group of 30 people has 435 relationships.
A group of 1,000 people has 499,500 relationships.
A group the size of the population of America, with 400 million people has 79.8 billion relationships.

It is exponential.

If it takes 5 minutes for ever person in a group of 400 million to negotiate with every other person in order to arrive at a "common set of values" then it will take 79.999 quadrillion years for them to arrive at that common set.

The amount of time required to argue over a common set of values would then exceed the lifespan of the nation. Obviously, a non-hierarchical system where common values are arrived at is mathematically impossible at any scale above the tribal level.

If you impose a one-to-many system where every member of the public must argue with a central authority over what the common set of values must be, then you can greatly cut down on the amount of time necessary to achieve this. Unfortunately anytime you have a one-to-many relationship you have power, because the one person sitting at the center has more control over others than they have over him. Power is the opposite of equality; it automatically implies that some are "above," and some are "below." To even have a one-to-many relationship is to have power, and to destroy equality. One-to-many relationships render (d) impossible (every person must have an equal say in what those values are), since the one at the center of the one-to-many relationship will have more power than those on the periphery.

  • If the lifespan of a nation is assumed to be 1,000 years, and if every political conversation takes 5 minutes, then the time required for a non-hierarchical communist society to negotiate on a common set of values will exceed the lifespan of any nation at a population of greater than 14,499, assuming they debate 24 hours per day, 365 days per year with no breaks for 5 minutes each person.
  • ∴ non-hierarchical systems cannot function at super-Dunbar levels.
  • Common values are impossible at large scales without the imposition of power.
  • Equality of power is impossible at large scales of political organization, since the one-to-many relationship define an inequality in power.
  • ∴ large nations cannot have freedom under the Whig definition.
Per the Whig definition of freedom, freedom is impossible.

Since it is functionally impossible to divide society up into units as small at 15 K or less, (a) either centralized tyranny must give way, or (b) only a political patchwork of microstates that creates a "menu" of political values can ever hope to express all political opinions, and therefore represent individual values per the Whig definition. Only patchwork can create freedom.

The point of this discussion is not to assert the validity of the Whig definition of freedom, but to point out two things; first, the complete definition renders itself realistically impossible; second, 3 out of 4 conditions can be met by dumping the requirement of equal voice, (d), and replacing it with a menu of political systems. In other words, a due concern to for right of representation concludes that only forms of patchwork are up to the task; forms like micorstates, private law, agorism, and others.

Edited 09/11/2017 at 3:36 pm


  1. Freedom as in Free? Like GNU/Linux, or how I like to call it, GNU plus Linux?
    Seriously now, you guys need to evaluate your ideas more, to check out if they're stupidity-avert, if they're not actually some Utopia that's unfeasible to work in real life, for instance, like people already do when judging Communism.
    Sometimes, your bias prevent you from seeing that your thoughts are impossible.

  2. And what if I find hardcore productivity more important muh freedumb?

    1. This is a "if this is true, then that must also be true" argument. IF YOU ACCEPT THE WHIG DEFINITION OF FREEDOM, then it contradicts itself, and still leads to the conclusion that patchwork is the best. Since I was not clear I will add this to the post.

  3. Still not seeing the appeal of Patchwork if I'm trying to maximize productivity.