Wednesday, November 15, 2017

What I am writing

I have not posted much in the last few months because I am writing a political textbook of sorts. Most political theses take the form of either a manifesto or a treatise. They all suffer from the flaw of proscribing "one-shot" solutions, e.g. Karl Marx proscribes that everything can be solved if the government owns the means of production, Reactionary Future thinks that governments only do evil things if the sovereign does not have enough power, anarchists think the solution is to abolish the state, libertarians think the one solution is to have the smallest state possible, etc.

None of these work completely. There are no single solutions that solve everything. Some get damn close, but never fully arrive.

The problem is that all government solutions create problems. Indeed, even non-governmental solutions, (anarchism) create problems.

In fact, frequently, the solutions either create a greater number of problems than they solve, or a problem of greater magnitude, or both.

Compounding this is the fact that rent-seekers can only profit from an increase in social entropy, and they always favor the solutions that worsen society overall, and all governments are dominated by them. Dictatorships may have fewer rent-seekers on the payroll, but they also provide fewer government services such as roads, functioning markets, stable currencies, land tenure insecurity, etc. They may operate smaller states, but they also impoverish their economies with a basic failure to run functioning markets.

Government follows a "solve a problem, create a new problem" method of operation. Every problem demands a solution. Every solution creates one or more new problems, and often these problems are worse than the problem they were intended to solve. It is essentially a chain reaction.

For example; the corn subsidy was intended to solve malnutrition. It did that, and now decades later it is causing an obesity epidemic by making corn syrup and meat, (cows are fed corn), artificially cheep.

Another example; Medicare forces the healthy to subsidize the old and unhealthy, driving up the cost of insurance. The healthy see that health insurance is too expensive, don't buy it, and costs go up further in an endless spiral.

I could list twenty examples of situations where a government solution created more problems than it solved, and twenty when it did not. Generally, as a rule of thumb is, every problem you are seeing in society is the result of some past government solution. In fact, politicians only remain employed on the basis of the incompetence or corruption of their predecessors. Problem solving should naturally reach an end where the society is almost perfect if it is done properly. But it is not.

The point of all this is not to rant about libertarian politics, but to point out that if solutions produce less entropy than they cause, then society gets better, while if they produce more entropy than they solve it gets worse. A society can "solve its way into chaos," and also "solve its way into a better state." The reason it never seems to get better is that rent-seekers always control the state, (regardless of weather or not it is a democracy), and they always push to make things worse.

Anyway, what I am writing is a diagnostic manual for politics. Instead of a screed or manifesto, I am taking a medical approach. I am taking a value-neutral "if this is what you want from the state then this is how you should proceed to get it," approach. My book is intended to treat and cure the diseases of government, and even non-government (that is, anarchism). It will probably take my whole life to write, and may run to a thousand pages or more. It might be finished in ten or twenty years at the earliest. It will complete The Untitled Magnum Opus. Indeed, it is the Untitled Magnum Opus. I have taken my writing offline because it requires so may continuous revisions as new research is done that it is not acceptable to produce a new version of every chapter every week.

The medical approach is the only one that will work in political science because no one who studies this field is able to conduct experiments in order to falsify claims. The patient is the whole society, and people will not tolerate novel experiments. The medical approach is a diagnostic and treatment approach. It takes the regime as it currently is, (whatever it might be), and then proceeds to develop one solution for each and every problem, and explain all the side effects of each solution. It is political medicine.

It is divided into topics. The first part of the book is about the algorithms of nature. It will talk about the origin of male dominance in reproductive patterns, the genetic function of religion, etc., etc. Then it proceeds to ground the reader in a knowledge of political economics of corruption. Then it goes on to talk about the chain reaction of problems in democracy, and how one problem leads to a solution, how that solution creates problems that are then solved, which then create problems, etc., etc. It talks about the same effect in anarchism, and it talks about how the method of choosing leaders determines the power system and chain reaction of the whole society. It also proposes a Dewey Decimal-like classification system that organizes all problems in a society by their location in a hierarchy of chain reaction. In short, it organizes society as a historical chain reaction of effects, and gives a decimal number to each. This allows the book to be endlessly updated as new research progresses with new editions. Like the DSM it is designed to expand as new knowledge is gained.

Here is the outline so far.

00 The Thesis (Introductory material).
01 The Outline
02 The Algorithms ← all about the natural forces that shape mankind
03 The Narratives ← political explanations, Hoppe, Moldbug, Quigley, de Jouvenal, Olson
04 The Reasons ← why urban degeneracy (short-term relationships),
why political correctness, (substitute Veblen goods), many other explanations.
05 The Cycles ← all about the feedback loops that block progress, and how to counter-engineer them. Counter-engineered to solve problems like, high rents, immigration, and other small-scale problems.
06 The Problems ← political taxonomy of multiple chain reactions. Decimal system outlined.
     Reactionary Capitalism
07 The Solutions ← all about negentropy markets, environmental catastrophe and its solutions


  1. It sounds like Public Choice Theory with realistic assumptions in place of Lockean feelgood. Is that a fair shorthand assessment? I'd also like to read a brief response from you to the Reactionary Future hypothesis. In my opinion, it is at-best non-falsifiable.

    1. At the very end of the interview with RF, he admits to having never read his arch nemesis, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, (who refutes everything he says), who basically says "power can never be too thoroughly divided."

      He says;
      "I haven’t read it, so I am not able to give any serious comment. It would seem to be very compatible at first glance, but again, I can’t give much comment."

      It's not compatible at all.

    2. Indeed, though I would question both hypotheses on the same grounds. The optimal power distribution in a given society appears to be highly relative to the participating peoples. The more cooperative and better suited to peaceful debate a people are, the more distributed their political optimum can potentially be. The more immediate kinship tribalism and violent dispute inclined a people are, the more centralized political authority must be to prevent a cascade of tribal conflict.

    3. Our response to the (non) response:

      We have already read the book in question and make extensive use of it throughout our entire output (as you can see from the comment).

      As to compatibility, this is what we wrote in response:

      " One final point. As with Jouvenel (who was a liberal) we read Mesquita "against the text" as it where. He supports democracy, but his conclusions are inconsistent with his premises."

      Basically, ignore everything he says that is positive about democracy as he probably wrote that so that he did not get into trouble. What he says about power and about the Elites, Essentials and what we call the "Expendables" is just High, Middle and Low.

      Mesquita has hit on, via political science methods, what Jouvenel covered from a historical and philosophical perspective.

    4. Henry writes:

      " In my opinion, it is at-best non-falsifiable."

      It is, but that is not the point. Popper blundered badly when he said that evolution was not falsifiable (though it is). Evolutionary theory is justified via abductive reasoning and not via the Hypothetical-deductive method (though it can be).

      What Darwin is to biology, Jouvenel is to political history:

  2. So does your upcoming textbook make predictions for the future and/or account for events like the rise in White American births and the lower ones for White Lefties?

    1. My book avoids race altogether. That might seem like a paradox considering how important genetics are to the formation of society, but when we examine trends in birth rates it is best not to be too noisy about the extinction of leftists, least they get wind of it, and fight to survive. It is best to simply continue to promote reactionary and nationalist ideas on the internet, encourage White right-wingers to have lots of kids, form secret fraternal societies, and wait for the left to die.