A Female Exemption Hypothesis

Feminism makes a fundamental assertion, no matter what flavor of feminism you read, it is always asserted that

men are to blame because they do things.

The mirror image of this assertion is that

women are to blame because they don't do things.

When you are dealing with a series of unfalsifiable assertions, arguing facts is pointless. Nobody who builds an ideology on unprovable ideas gives a damn about truth, facts, or reason. They only want power. When you are dealing with an animal you have to house break it. You train a puppy not to crap on the floor by rubbing its noise in its own shit, and that is how you house break a feminist too.


When you insult a man you can call him by various different insults; douchebag, dumb-ass, idiot, coward, creep, weirdo, perv, fool, fag, etc. Each of these insults defines a standard that is implied to have been violated, and most are unique. "Douchebag" implies that a man is not supposed to be carelessly inconsiderate. "Dumb-ass" says that he should be smart. "Coward" asserts that masculinity should involve courage. "Creep" says that a man should be smoother with women. "Fag" requires that he be heterosexual.


The essential characteristic of masculine insults is their uniqueness; every insult implies a unique moral standard for the male sex. If you call a man a creepy, douchey, asshole faggot, you are implying that he is (a), not smooth with women (b), inconsiderate and self-centered (c), unjustly mean, and (d) takes it in the ass. You have insulted the man in 4 unique ways.


Women's insults are completely different. All insults for women imply that she is either insane or a whore; none of them are unique. If you say that a woman is a skanky, slutty, over-stuffed psycho-whore thundercunt, all you have done is use five terms to call her a whore and three terms to call her crazy.


Insults are gendered. You would never, for example, call a woman an asshole. Unless you are a misogynist, you would never call her a coward or a pussy, even though you can call men cowards, dicks, or assholes — or all three. Referring to men by their obscene body parts is fine, (dick, asshole) but referring to women by their body parts is verboten, (cunt, piece-of-ass) or simply not done (asshole).


A woman cannot be a creep, weirdo, asshole, fag, douchebag, or perv, even though in real life most women are assholes, and lots of women are will creep through your phone while you are in the shower, or have fag relationships with other women.


A man cannot be a cunt, (outside of the UK), but he can be a cunt in the UK, because the British.


The essential difference between male and female insults is that all insults for men imply accountability. Calling a woman insane is completely different. Madness implies exemption from moral accountability. That is why the insanity defense exists. To be insane is to be unaccountable. All of these insults for women imply madness and therefore exemption from moral responsibility. Women are exempt, and this causes countless harmful negative social effects.


Men are accountable.
Women are exempt.


If women are exempt they will be perceived as less competent than men, will be perceived as victims in cases when men are not perceived as victims, and society will be eager to convict men who commit crimes against women, and to acquit women who commit crimes against men.


If women are exempt, they will be perceived as less competent and reliable than men, and indeed, will psychologically internalize the standard of exemption and discount their own abilities. Their performance will suffer because they either don't think of themselves as being capable, because no one else thinks they are capable, or because the lower standard let them slack off, or all three. Women will rise to a standard, but because the standard is essentially non-existent for them they will rise to a lower standard and accomplish much less, if anything at all.


With no standard to live up to, women will be paid less, promoted less, will accomplish less, and will get away with more, be regarded as victims for trivial reasons, be treated like children, etc., etc., etc.


Basically all the phenomena you observe with the "double standard" in our society will occur. Society will precisely reflect the current order in every way.


Reality is recursive, and so the standard of exemption will both create all the behavior you see, and the interpretation of that behavior in the human mind.


Because women are exempt and men are accountable, women (and the entire society) will interpret all of the disparities and disadvantages women face through the lens of exemption, and will blame men for women's lack of progress. Women are exempt, remember? How can they be blamed for their own failures? If women are paid less it must be men's fault. If women perform less — men's fault. If women are promoted less, start businesses less, get loans less — men's fault.


Men will notice all of this, and a profound hatred and jealousy will develop in some men, especially men who are not sexually successful. These men pay all the costs of women's exemption and receive none of the benefits. This jealousy will be called "misogyny." Exempt women will enjoy rubbing their exemption in the faces of unsuccessful men by emasculating them, calling them "insecure."


Men want something that women have, something between every woman's legs, and are frequently willing to bend the rules in the hope that exempting women from moral responsibility will win them the favor of women, and give them the thing they desire. It doesn't work. Women just interpret lenience as low quality.


Since men are held accountable and women are not, men will be convicted at higher rates for identical crimes. Indeed, exemption will inform the very definition of rape. Which is;

"Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."

The definition, of course, makes the male role in the sex act guilty. I say male role, not male sex. If a lesbian penetrates her girlfriend with a dildo she can also be found guilty under the law, if consent is not obtained or possible. Similarly, if two gay men have sex, only the penetrator can be found guilty. It is the masculine role that is guilty, though because women are exempt, lesbians generally won't even have the police called on them, and because prosecutors, juries, defense attorneys, cops, and judges are all believers of exemption at the unconscious level, in practice they will go easier on a butch women than a man in an equivalent position. This means that in practice only straight and gay men can be guilty of rape, and only the one who penetrates. Lesbians engaged in sex in the masculine role will not really be convicted most of the time.


So the law is not technically biased against the male sex, but it is biased against the male sexual role — against the male gender.


In such a monstrously unjust society man will naturally have anger issues, since exemption violates everyone's fundamental sense of fairness. Women who lack empathy will take pleasure in rubbing exemption in men's faces, and there will be lots of women who lack empathy, since they are exempt from having empathy towards the male sex, (but not the female sex). Exemption will also make many women hate their own sex, and prefer male bosses over female bosses. Who would you rather have as an employer? Someone you can hold accountable or someone you cannot?


The rage that exemption induces in the male sex will be labeled "toxic masculinity," as a way of shaming men for their natural reaction to injustice. Because society is used to holding men accountable it will have far less empathy toward men than women. Men will actually have more empathy towards women than reverse, but everyone will believe it is women who are the empathetic sex.


Society will let men die homeless in the gutter while fretting over the smallest sexual harassment towards women. In short, the whole society will have a backwards perception of reality. Their implicit belief in female exemption is creating all the phenomenon which they observe and compulsively misinterpret.


At one point there was a "double standard" for men and women. After birth control, the requirement that men be good providers and women be good mothers evaporates, and the double standard collapses. This is interpreted as a moral victory for women's rights, and not as a mere outcome of technological corruption. As usual, humans over-estimate their free will and capacity for controlling their circumstances. Exemption is the "single standard" for men only, that replaces the double standard that used to exist. Wait for sex robots to abolish the single standard. Then the idiots will interpret it as a moral victory for men's rights.

A Concise Domestication Thesis

A man commits a murder at the age of 20. He serves a minimum 15 year sentence. The earliest age he will be eligible for parole is 35. Thus, most of his prime reproductive years are spent in prison, and the time he would normally spend forming a family is taken from him. If the prison guards are not female, (or not fucking the inmates) you can expect the mass-incarceration of violent men to gradually lower the level of violence in society, since the violent ones have fewer children in each generation.


A rapist commits a rape. In the past rape might lead to pregnancy, but now his genes are sucked out between the stirrups of the abortion clinic. This makes men less predatory over time, since a process that was previously stable (reproduction of rape genes) is being destroyed.


A nation fights a war and calls for volunteers. Most of the men who volunteer are racist, and they die in disproportionately high numbers. The Civil War, WWI, and WWII all take their toll. A few decades later the Civil Rights Movement occurs, women win the right to vote, and Western nations begin taking in refugees by the millions. Who would have thought.


But domestication can have terrible consequences. . .


Domesticated animals are sicker than their feral counterparts. Humans living in cities are sicker and fatter than tribal peoples. There is a tendency to ascribe moral language to to this process: "eugenics" is the term used to talk about the improvement of a breed, but most dog breeds have been more or less ruined by breeders.


The Basset Hound has vertebra problems, eyelid problem, and excess skin. The Boxer has breathing and overheating problems. The English Bulldog is do deformed it cannot breed without medical intervention. Dachshunds have spine problems, dwarfism-related disorders, progressive retinal atrophy (PRA), and leg problems. The Pug suffers from high blood pressure, heart problems, breathing problems, dental issues, and over heating problems. In fact, there are no completely healthy breeds developed by humans.


If you tax the middle class and subsidize the poor, the effect will be high birthrates among the poor and lower birthrates among the middle class, since all income affects reproduction levels. This will show up as dramatically rising levels of inequality, since there is no difference between a wider income pyramid at the bottom and a narrower pyramid at the top, as both situations look identical. Having more serfs will naturally mean more income for the 1 %, and perversely, increasing inequality will be met with more demands to subsidize the poor. Poverty elimination efforts will strain national budgets while going nowhere, and the richest people will support the welfare state the most, since they profit from it the most by having more consumers.


There are a thousand small ways humans are domesticated by the system.


Hitler is said to have committed a eugenic genocide, but the average Ashkenazi Jew is smarter than the average German, and thus, his genocide made Germany dumber!


It is my humble opinion that civilization is a process of domestication, that this process is a mixed bag, and that it occurs in three stages; (1) feudalism, (2) capitalism, and (3) artificial intelligence.


It is also my belief that the longer an ethnic group has lived in settled societies the more domesticated they are, and as a result, the ethnicities of the world are not all evenly domesticated, but that some are more "feral," (for lack of a better term) than others.


It is also my belief that this accounts for why some racial groups have higher levels of violent crime; they, having lived under the oppression of governments for a shorter period of time, have been subjected to less domesticating pressure.


"Eugenic" is a loaded term because it describes something which is supposed to improve humans, but the term is a moral judgment, and what really happens is not an upward change but a "sideways change" — humans become sicker and dumber, but also less violent and more eager to please authority — just like their dogs.


Liberals actually believe the triumph of liberal values is the result of some kind of heroic moral struggle where good literally triumphs over evil, and not just the side effect of domesticating (human) animals. Liberals, and liberalism itself, is the result of domestication, and proceeds on the back of the historical process of genocide they abhor. These people are literally only possible because of the mass murders of the past. Only a totally domesticated population could be naive enough to believe in "equality" or "moral progress."


It is my belief that civilizations all follow a process that results in their rise, and also guarantees their doom. First they domesticate their own animals through the ruthless imposition of law and order on their own people, then they impose it on the periphery as their empire expands. But this sequence of events means that the center becomes more domesticated than the periphery, and that means that the people at the center lose the will to fight before the periphery. Afterward, they are overrun by Barbarians, Mongols, invaders, immigrants, or whatever, who then set themselves up as a new ruling class with a new center. The process then repeats, on and on, forever.


The center of the Sasanian Empire is replaced by the periphery of Islamic conquers.
The center of Rome is replaced by the periphery of Europe.
The center of the Song Dynasty is replaced by the periphery of The Mongol Hordes.
etc., etc.


The phase of domestication we are in now — late stage capitalism — is both the best thing ever and destroying the world. In fact, that is the only way any system could destroy everything: if it was wonderful. Human evolved to obey incentives as a matter of survival, and only something totally awesome could hack our reward function could destroy us. Saying that "capitalism will destroy us all," and saying that "capitalism is the best thing ever" are only moral contradictions — not factual ones. It is completely possible that both statements are true.


Capitalism performs a bait and switch: it promises equality while delivering something else entirely.


It embeds a form of equality in itself — not the equality of tribal communism — but the equality of standardization: capitalism wants to standardize the human race. This explains why it hates the disabled but embraces the genderless: the disabled are not productively useful. Their "special accommodations" make them less productive and more of a legal liability, but the genderless are the opposite, a sexless-genderless worker is one with few sexual harassment issues.


This is also why capitalism hates patriarchy (it's in the way), loves transwomen (no sex), hate race (they're non-standardized humans), and hates White men (they are expensive and troublesome).


Capitalism wants a standardized human; genderless, asexual, sexless, light brown, able-bodied, and productive. Anything unique about the individual must be no more than a commodity; religion becomes a "preference," sexual orientation becomes a "preference," etc.


Reproduction is expensive so it pays women less. It discriminates to remove costs. If it seems like it contradicts itself morally you must realize that its only moral is profit, and that profit is maximized by standardizing workers.


Standardization proceeds in waves. First kings kill millions of violent men in genocidal conquests. Then sterilizing effects remove antisocial people under democracy. Then AI gets its metal claws on the human genome itself.


Combined with gestation chambers, humans turn into a product line, and every year a new "Human 3.0" comes into existence in order to consume the products of the corporation. In fact, this process leads eventually to designing people for products rather than products for people, so that in a strange inversion the corporation builds you to process the new flavor of Soylent, before injecting your fat ass with more of it. You are upgraded to want the new product.


Eventually every consumer cow will come with a plug in the ass and a straw in the mouth to pump in and evacuate the paste.


Liberals believe in an "expanding circle of moral concern" that involves the heroic triumph of bullshit over evil, but the "expanding circle of moral concern" is really just an increasing level of miscegenation. With the exception of White liberals, people generally feel love and affection for their ancestors. If your ancestors are composed entirely of only one clan then you will be clannish. Similarly, if ones ancestors are a mixture of only French clans, then you will be nationalist. If your ancestors are a mixture of nations belonging to only one race, you will be a racist, and if your ancestors are a mixture of two or more races you will be globalist.


The nationalist who hates a clannish individual is psychologically identical to the globalist who hates a racist — only two steps down. Historically, the larger orientation has always beaten the smaller orientation. Racist Americans beat nationalist Europeans in World War II, while national governments subjugated clans prior to that.


It is important to point out that globalism is not the absence of xenophobia, but a reversal of its direction. Normally xenophobia directs itself outward towards the Other, but once a person's blood line is an amalgamation of multiple races, it directs itself inward against the family and race of oneself. Since there is nothing "higher" than all the races of the Earth, and there is nothing "outside" the Earth, there is no genetic "Other" in the globalist mind, and the definition of the word "human" comes to include everyone, while the "Other" becomes everyone who is not globalist.


In the amalgamated person, aggression and hatred of the Other will still be present, but with no exterior to direct itself against, it will latch on the political causes, and seek to subjugate nationalists, racists, and clannish peoples. Violence and xenophobia becomes political rather than racial.


The graph curve of aggression is strange: the more outbred the person becomes the more violently xenophobic their personality. Americans dominate the world because of their unified White racism, but as they continue to outbreed with other races they will be overtaken by the Chinese. The ability of a group to dominate the planet increases dramatically as they become more outbred, and then falls off a cliff the instant they couple with other races. This is because as long as they are composed of only one race there is still an "outside," but as soon they produce humans that are amalgamated with other races they develop moral concern for those others. Racism is the largest possible circle of moral concern that leaves an outside intact, and thus the most violent and capable of conquest. The expanding circle of moral concern becomes ever more violent until it reaches the global level, at which point it reverses direction, and begins to subjugate the interior.


The more people in a society are mixed, the more moral attachments they develop to foreigners, and the less willing a people will be to use violence to dominate those foreigners.


For example, most White Americans would never consider using military violence against the British, while Mexican-Americans would be appalled by plans to invade Mexico, and Jews would violently oppose military action against the state of Israel. As foreign mixture increases, so do emotional attachments. Eventually invading the Middle East will be unthinkable, once enough Muslims have intermarried with Americans, and pervasive guilt will exist over the "crimes of our ancestors" against the Middle East.


The mixed country develops a strange motherly attachment to all of its reproductive political origins. England is "mother," and thus, must be both protected and dominated. When Mexico, the Middle East, Armenia, Iran, Israel, Africa, etc., also become mother they too must be dominated and protected, and so the military commitments of the US must expand without bound, attacking everyone who threatens anyone else. This is the origin of the "invade the world, invite the world" policy.


The Chinese will triumph for now because their process of outbreeding has just begun. They are composed of clans who are now marrying out. They will develop a strong national/racist identity which will unify them against the rest of civilization. Most likely the conquest of Africa will backfire. Chinese men are wealthy and African women are poor, there is a surplus of bare branches, and an abundance of hypergamous African women who will open their legs for rich men, and the Chinaman will be unable to resist the loose pussy offered to him so far from home.


Eventually the children of these mixtures will immigrate back to China, depressing the Chinese national IQ and ruining them as a world power. Furthermore, since they are now as outbred as globalists they will lose the appetite for conquest, and the Chinese will waste centuries of carefully cultivated intelligence bred by the imperial exam system, on some half-African bastard children that their corrupt public officials are unwilling to neuter, due to familial attachments. Unless their strides in genetics compensate for the loss of intelligence, or unless they categorically prohibit back-migration, they will be plowed under by a sea of African immigrants.


At this point the West, emerging from some bloody civil war — or even world war — will retake the globe as political xenophobia replaces racial xenophobia, and as stratification based on income replaces separation based on race.


As the xenophobic tendency within our species sublimates into politics, the world will fracture into competing political systems, and political difference will overtake race as the largest source of animosity. This will happen as proxy wars increase the number of states in existence. In previous eras the size of an army mattered, and the bigger the empire the more threatening it was to its rivals. The ancient world is defined by a military competition to be the strongest, culminating in World War II. But we now have the atomic bomb, and the pressure to be the strongest has been replaced with endless proxy wars. The trend is now the opposite: states increase in number through fracture rather than decreasing in number through conquest. We also have an "upward" trend manifest as both increasing income stratification, and movement into space. Elon Musk has lowered the cost of launch forever, and so the future looks like a combination of trends involving a metaphorical "vertical" separation based on income, a literal "vertical" movement based on space travel, with an increasing "speciation" occurring everywhere. If there was ever a time patchwork could emerge the future is it.


So with all this exit is there hope? No, of course not. "Exit" just means that some will become "gods" while others become "pets." AI means humans will become the product rather than the consumer, and progressives will go to Mars on the rockets developed by the very man they hate, let the world drown in a sea of 4 billion Africans, and fire on anyone who enters orbit. They will exit from you, all the while condemning you to live on the planet they wrecked.

How to know if a theory is nonsense

Reality is like a metaphorical tree of knowledge, with all branches connecting eventually to mathematics. For example;

Modern dysgenics is based on female psychology + political incentives.

Female Psychology:

6. Female psychology is based in evolutionary psychology
5. Evolutionary psychology is based on the mathematics of gene selection
4. Gene math is based on biochemistry
3. Biochemistry is based on the laws of general chemistry
2. General chemistry is based on atomic physics
1. Atomic physics is based on quantum physics.
0. There is nothing below quantum physics, (that we have proof of).

Political Incentives:

3. Political incentives are based on the game theory dynamics of democracy.
2. Game theory is based on the prisoner's dilemma.
1. The prisoner's dilemma is based on pure mathematics + maximizing gain under evo psych assumptions.

Thus, modern dysgenics has its root in mathematics of political incentives + quantum physics of evolutionary psychology.

The tree on knowledge has three trunks.

• Quantum physics
• Astronomy
• Pure Mathematics

All of these are "math subjects" — that is — all is reducible to math. Math is the zeroth trunk of the tree.

Now here is an example of a bullshit theory.

1. Male dominance is based in patriarchy.
2. Patriarchy is based on systems of oppression.
3. Systems of oppression are based on white supremacy.
4. White supremacy is based on historical injustices.
5. Historical injustices are based in patriarchy.

Wait a minute! Your chain of causality goes in a loop!

Or it might not be a loop. It might just be a web of ideas that all refer to each other, like this;

Not all bad philosophies commit the fallacy of circular reasoning. Some commit the fallacy of self-referential reasoning, where the pattern of logic is much more complex than simply going in a circle, but goes in a self-referential pattern nonetheless. Circular reasoning is simple, e.g.,

The Bible proves the existence of God.
How do you know?
Because God inspired the writing of the Bible.

Self-referential reasoning is vastly more complex. A random possible example is given below.

A is proven by B
B is proven by C
C is proven by D
D is proven by B

AND

C is proven by B
B is proven by D
D is proven by A
A is proven by C

AND

C is proven by A
A is proven by D
D is proven by B
B is proven by C

And yet, no matter how complex it is, or how many twists and turns it makes, it never connects to one of the branches of mathematics. It never refers to anything outside of itself. If feminism were cogent it would go something like this,

1. Male dominance is based on the fact that equal societies fail, and are out-competed by male dominated ones.
2. Equal societies fail because women sabotage them.
3. Women sabotage because of hypergamy.
4. Hypergamy exists because it is a holdover from tribal mating behaviors, (rape).
5. Primate rape is the outcome of the mathematics of coercive mating strategies.
6. Coercive mating strategies have their origin in the mathematics of gene flow.
7. Gene flow maps to biochemistry
8. Biochemistry has its origin in general chemistry
9. General chemistry has its origin in physics.
10. Physics has its origin in quantum physics.

All cogent theories connect with a scientific subject below them. Economics, anthropology, mimetics, and political science are all based on evolutionary psychology. Evo psych is based on biochemistry, which is based on chemistry, etc.

As already stated, there are three trunks; quantum physics, astronomy, and pure mathematics.

Quantum physics has molecular physics and Newtonian physics as its branches, and maybe other branches also.

All living systems are a subset of chemistry and molecular physics.

All humanities subjects should trace their origin to the math of living systems, that is, to chemistry or molecular physics.

Your theater arts degree is bullshit because it cannot trace performance to evolutionary psychology, which traces itself to biochemistry, etc., etc.

Science is a hierarchy while the "humanities" are a cluster fuck of disconnected subjects.

Reality is recursive.

• A principle builds a system.
• The same principle builds the brain that interprets that system.
• The same principle builds the moral reasoning of the brain that is outraged by the implications of the principle.
• The brains built by that system, build political systems based on their own psychology, and then fail to grapple with the principles that built them.
• The brains commit genocide when they finally begin to (mis)understand the principle.
• The brains develop a taboo against understanding the principle.
• The brains built by a principle then have to unlearn their own taboo to avoid the next catastrophe.

Our tribal past has given us a capacity for make-believe. Make-believe gives your tribe cohesiveness in the face of existential threats. You have 2 parents, 4 grand parents, 8 grand parents, etc. As a result everyone in your tribe is a distant genetic relative. If you die for your tribe, but your tribe survives, your genes are still passed on in the other members. Individual death is thus preferable to the annihilation of your whole society, since there are more total copies of your genes in a few thousand relatives than just your own body.

Make-believe creates the Schelling point around which tribal unity occurs. It does not matter what you believe as long as it gives you unity. Make-believe, (religion) is more useful to genetic survival than reality itself.

Because the tribe is more useful than the individual, humans have,

Communist tendencies
Conformity
Religion in adults, (make-believe in children)
Ritual
Folk activism
Xenophobia
High School Cliques
Egalitarianism
Heroism
Self-sacrifice
A sense of morality
Schelling points
Virtue Signaling
Story Telling/Entertainment
Exchange
Trade
Punishment
Reciprocity
Desire for respect
Shaming the unusual

All of these traits persist in the modern era. Most college level subjects can be expected to be proxies for religion (Women's Studies, African Studies, Chicano Studies, etc.) , story telling, (History, Anthropology), exchange, (economics), trade, (accounting, quants), and other subjects. Most subjects relate to tribal nature more than the scientific tree of knowledge.

Because make-believe has more use than reality, humans act like morality is more true than reality. A famous example of this is Marx's labor theory of value, LTV, which pretends that what ought to be, actually is.

This is the most important lesson here, and the lesson is this; humans compulsively insert morality into reality, conflating the two with each other. Science is corrupted because the tribal always makes its way into the scientific. Scientific debates are heated because of folk activism. Genetics is taboo because of xenophobia. The humanities are left-wing because of communist tendencies. Theories that threaten the status quo receive punishment.

People actually have the nerve to say, "we can't study that because of moral consequences," as if science was the problem instead of tribal legacy genes. Morality itself is tribal.

So how do you know that a theory is nonsense? Because it goes in a loop, or forms a self-referential pattern, or has its origin in human nature itself, or because it presents moral assertions as factual ones, or a combination of these behaviors. And if it does not connect up to the tree of knowledge that is a dead give away that it is nonsense.

P.S. Self-referential reasoning is also the cognitive pattern of a schizophrenic.

Go-ocracy: An Alternative Republic

When we begin to redesign democracy we see that majoritarian systems are an accident of history.

A republic can be conceptualized as a game consisting of three parts;

Constitution = rules
Elections = the game
Supreme Court = the referee

Typically, we think in terms of three branches (executive, legislative, judicial) and rules, (habeas corpus, equal protection, rule of law, separation of powers, etc.), but the UK has no real written constitution, and its supreme court does not have real power like the US version does.

We may add to this the fact that a republic is based on the consent of the governed, but there is no reason the game has to take the form of elections. It can be based on the Chinese game of Go.

Yes, seriously.

I.

The Constitution of Rules, 

and the Game Itself

First we must understand how Go works. To quote Wikipedia;

The playing pieces are called "stones". One player uses the white stones and the other, black. The players take turns placing the stones on the vacant intersections ("points") of a board with a 19×19 grid of lines. Beginners often play on smaller 9×9 and 13×13 boards,[8] and archaeological evidence shows that the game was played in earlier centuries on a board with a 17×17 grid. However, boards with a 19×19 grid had become standard by the time the game had reached Korea in the 5th century CE and later Japan in the 7th century CE.[9]

Once placed on the board, stones may not be moved, but stones are removed from the board when "captured". Capture happens when a stone or group of stones is surrounded by opposing stones on all orthogonally-adjacent points.[10] The game proceeds until neither player wishes to make another move; the game has no set ending conditions beyond this. When a game concludes, the territory is counted along with captured stones and komi (points added to the score of the player with the white stones as compensation for playing second, which is normally either 6.5 or 7.5 depending on the rule-set being used) to determine the winner.[11] Games may also be terminated by resignation.

Go-ocracy, pronounced go-ock-ra-see, adapts the game of Go to serve the function of elections within a republic, with little else changed constitutionally.

Imagine that each parcel of land is a square on the board.

Imagine that the inhabitants who own land (or mortgage it if mortgaged) constitute the "squares" that need capturing.

Then you capture them by getting them to sign a literal social contract to obey the laws defined by the player who is soliciting their permission. Basically, instead of political parties and congressmen you have players. Each player has his own legal code written by his firm. The player goes house to house in meatspace asking the inhabitants of a parcel for their delegation, (not their vote), or calls them on the phone, or whatever. He basically campaigns for delegations, the same way a congressman campaigns for votes.

The inhabitant is defined as the person, (not bank) who pays the mortgage on a property if the property is under mortgage, and the owner of the property if it is not under mortgage. With apartment complexes this is the landlord, and with houses this is the person who bought the house, the mortgagor. It has to be this way, otherwise banks would determine the legal system and control everything.

If one gets a series of delegations of properties that are adjacent to each other, with adjacent being defined as either (a) the property lines touching, or (b) the property lines being across the street from one another, then he begins to build a "ladder" which he can eventually use to encircle some parcels. Once parcels are encircled they are "captured" and fall under the legal jurisdiction of the the player and his laws.

To prevent gangs from terrorizing people into delegating to one player or the other, players are not allowed to have armies or police forces, and the cops are a separate part of the government. Players make law but do not enforce the law.

Also, to prevent the endless harassment of home owners by campaigners for their delegations, each home owners fills out a card which rank orders his his preferences like this;

First choice: Mayfield's legal system

If I am in jeopardy of being captured by any of the following;

Jim's legal system
Bob's legal system
Jack's legal system

And If it will get me uncaptured then my second choice is;

Mark's legal system

If the above is not available, and if it will get me uncaptured, then;

Ethen's legal system

Etc., etc.

This is a simple version, but basically one can program a whole flowchart of alternatives which says, "to avoid being captured by X, Y, or Z, I will choose automatically Σ, Φ, Ψ, Ω in that order."

Every parcel of land on the board is like this, with rank ordered preferences of alternatives.

This makes the board fiendishly complex and can set off cascades of territory change.

To prevent the police from being confused, a snapshot of the arrangement of law-territory is taken once per year on September 1st and that becomes the configuration of the law for 12 months until August 31st of the following year. The game is played in real time 4 hours per day, 3 days per week on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, but the territory of law changes one year at a time.

No one player may capture more than 20% of the territory in a given county. In one state, up to 25 players per million inhabitants may play the game. If there are more than 10 applicants, new players are added on a first come first served basis.

A homeowner may update their rank ordered preference at any time with their local brokerage office. If a person does not make a decision by the cut-off date one is automatically assigned to a player by lottery.

II.

The Referee

Someone needs to enforce the rules.

Instead of a single supreme court there are multiple competitive supreme courts. A supreme court is a private entity funded by whomever wants to fund one. A single one can be corrupted, but a competition cannot. Let me explain.

Whenever there is a dispute between two players one brings suite against the other. But first they must determine which court it shall be tried in.

Say there are 100 supreme courts. Then each fills out a card with a rank ordering of 51 preferences from most preferred (1) to least preferred (51). There is always at least one guaranteed overlap. The number of rank ordered preferences is equal to 50% plus 1 if the total number of registered supreme courts is an even number, and 50% rounded up if it is an odd number. Thus, there is always 1 overlap.

The highest ranked preference, which is shared by both parties in the dispute, is the court in which the case is tried. All decisions are final. If there is more than 1 overlapping preference the highest mutual preference for both is the one chosen. If there is a situation where both parties have a total of 4 highest mutually agreed upon rank ordered preferences, then a coin toss decides. For example;

Now you may object and say, "but what is to stop someone from being tried in a biased court?" Competition. Think about it. Let's us say that you run a terribly biased supreme court. Well that will get you ranked at the top of someone's list, but it will get you ranked at the bottom of their political opponent's list. The overlap is the one who gets the business, and so every court is competing to be as unbiased as possible in order to get business. The court that gets the business gets a voucher from the state, and gets paid. The one that does not get the business does not get paid. Thus, all referees compete on neutrality.

III.

The Way Rules Get Made

Right now we have a House and Senate. The Federal government is only allowed to make game rules, and not laws themselves. The competitive supreme courts ensure that because they compete for business. Game rules are proposed in an elected House, but then they go directly to the people for voter approval. All approvals are temporary since they are additions to the existing constitution of rules. The length of approval depends on the level at which they are passed. Like this;

For each percentage above 50%, take the percentage above 50%, multiple by 100 and divide by 2 to get the number of years the new game rule is in effect, and round up.

For example;

A game rule passes with 65% of the vote.

65% - 50% = 15%

.15 x 100 = 15

15/2 = 7.5

7.5 rounded up is 8 years.

The new game rule shall be in effect 8 years, and then automatically expire.

This assumes you even want new rules to be possible. A different configuration is possible with owners rather than voters making the rules.

New rules are tested out like this. Rules that work well are resubmitted for voter approval whenever they expire.

IV.

Modeling the System with AI

Because this is a game it can be modeled with AI, and modeling it is a strength rather than a weakness. No doubt players will use AIs to model strategy. The benefit of this is that the results of game play can be anticipated in advance of creating any system, and the constitution of game rules can be adjusted to produce any kind of outcome or equilibrium we desire. That is the point: stability. Since game play can be simulated a game can be designed that reaches a stable but competitive state. The system remains dynamic without producing a single winner, and since both the players and the game rule makers use AI to model everything they can anticipate results of rule changes in advance. This means that whoever makes the rules has a pretty good idea of what they are doing.

V.

The Ownership Alternative

There has to be some sort of point at the top where game rules get made. If that is a democracy then you still need a congress and a president, and that means you will still have a minimum of majoritarian politics. The alternative is to have congress elected by share holders rather than voters, or to have a king unify the whole system. Why would a king or share holders let ordinary people determine the laws they live under? Because they have an apolitical desire to create regime stability by invoking the consent of the governed. Granted that is a stretch though. A bad king may just destroy the game and opt for direct control. A congress will probably exceed its authority. Shareholders may put greed above the good of the nation, or serve private agendas. I have not figured out how to guarantee territorial unification without the federal government potentially over reaching its authority. If the federal government is nothing but the competitive supreme courts this would work, but how to maintain competition? How to prevent invasion? As usual the threat of external enemies presents a problem to internal freedom.