Vance quotes Yarvin

Western Civilization was supposed to be a series of interlocking social technologies that allowed freedom to exist in the space created by their mutual reinforcement. It was supposed to be freedom without hell. The Church enforced morality while the state enforced freedom. Parents taught manners, colleges taught civic responsibility, and the news media did, for a time, its job. But every one of these institutions is now corrupt and we have the hell of freedom without morality.

The above quote is taken from JD Vance, himself quoting Curtis Yarvin. In the case of Vance I think what he means is that people have a fear of just putting a person in charge and letting them get with whatever task we charge them with carrying out, that second guessing the man in charge always prevents things from getting done. The phobia of a possible dictator prevents us from just letting somebody accomplish what they're charged with accomplishing.

Introducing Family Capitalism

Imagine there are two groups, one that values having children even if they cannot afford it, and another that values having money and does not want children.


Group A will out-breed Group B. They will have all of the children and none of the money.
Group B will out-accumulate Group A. They will have all of the money and none of the children.


Superficially, this will look like "rising inequality." There will be a tiny group with all the money and no kids, and a vast group with all the children and none of the money; the "rich" and "poor" respectively.


Also, it is not black and white. There will be a group in the middle that values having some money and some children. They will be called the middle class. There is no force that ensures the middle group has to have a stable existence. The wealthy are perpetuated by their continuous preference for money over children, which destroys the competition from other business owners by limiting the number of progeny they have. If they had lots of offspring their wealth would be divided, or some of their children would go into business for themselves, either of which would tend to multiply competitors. In contrast, the poor are also self-perpetuating since their preference for children they cannot afford keeps them poor. The middle class, on the other hand, faces genetic decline if it starts acting like rich people, and financial decline if it starts acting like poor people; it is buffeted from both directions, since children are expensive and cut into the time needed to run a business.


Since IQ is positively correlated with valuing money more than children, the world will become radically unequal, dysgenic, and stupider, as the poor relentlessly expand and the rich relentlessly decline in number.


The connection between valuing wealth over children, and high IQ, is probably due to centuries of income being connected to birth rates under the feudal system. If you live in a society with high infant mortality rates, people who have children they cannot afford may have more children, but their children die in greater numbers. It makes sense that most humans would come to prioritize having sufficient income before having children, since their children would live to adulthood more often if they did, and greater survival selects for responsible family planning attitudes. On a farm children are also an asset rather than a liability, since they provide labor. Whereas in a city they are purely and expense you cannot recoup.


In the modern world these two aspects, income and birth rates, are detached from one another. Infant mortality rates are low, so poor children do not die as often as they used to, female education rates are high, so the smartest women have the fewest children because they waste their reproductive years in college, and no one lives on a farm, so children are a financial liability rather than an asset.


But what if they were an asset?


All this is exacerbated by Baby Boomers who work with governments to inflate housing prices to enrich themselves, by lobbying local governments to restrict the housing supply, which has the side effect of raising rents on their own children. If housing prices are high young people cannot afford children and everything implodes.


We need a way to make children an asset in such a manner that the reproduction of the next generation is aligned with the profit of the current generation. We also want parents to have a stake in the reproduction of their children so they vote accordingly.


Men and women have different needs. Let first work out two methods for how children might become a financial asset. It will become evident why one method is appropriate for women and not men, and the other vice versa.





Method 1: The Method for Daughters and Granddaughters

Every parent is entitled to 5% of a daughters income, for a total of 10% of income collected by the couple. The income starts accumulating when the girl starts working and is deposited into a locked account. The parent can invest the money but not withdraw it, and once the daughter has a child of her own the parents can unlock the account and make a withdraw.


If a daughter never produces a child the parents can unlock the account by selling it nor earlier than age paternal 70, to a broker, who the receives the income right.


You get the money locked away that is already yours and whatever fee the buyer pays you for income rights to the future income of your daughter. A daughter can "forward" up to 10 years worth of payment obligations to her own daughter, whose bill is calculated by taking the average income of the daughter up until then, multiplying it by 10%, and then attaching the bill to the granddaughter(s) financial obligation. If there are more than 1 granddaughter the obligation is split by all the granddaughters that are descended from that daughter, and the obligation starts on the granddaughter(s) 18 birthday(s), or whenever she/they start working, whichever is later, and the obligation is divided over 20 years. Forwarded time must only be used to have children, and one may only take a maximum of 2 years per child. Falsifying forwarded time constitutes fraud, and carriers a steep criminal penalty.


Say a couple has a baby girl when they are 20 years old, and the daughter begins working at age 17. She works until 75, and takes 10 years off from work to raise children, "forwarding" that bill to her own two daughters, (her parents granddaughters), which descend from her. The initial grandparents have a total of 3 children, 2 girls and 1 boy.

As a result the daughter earns a living for a total of 48 years, (75 - 17 = 58 - 10 years off = 48 years).


Adjusting for inflation she makes an average of 38,000 for each year of work, for a total of 1 million 824 thousand dollars of income.


(48 years x 38,000 = 1.824 million).


Each parent gets 5%, for a total of $ 91,200 dollars per parent.


The 2 granddaughters start working when they are 18, and they both make the same average pay as their mother, (38 K), so collectively pay 3,800 each into the grandparents fund, per year for 10 years, bringing the total payout to the grandparents to $220,400.


However, since the grandparents had her when they were both 20 and they both die when they are 85, and the daughter has her first kid at 20 and stops working at 75, the grandparents miss collecting 10 years worth of income, and so the total number of years of income is only 58 years, with 10 of those years being paid for by the granddaughters.


(Age of first conception + age of daughters first employment) minus (age of granddaughters conception + age of grandparents death).


(20 + 17) - (20 + (75-10)) = 48 years of work x 3,800 per year = $ 182,400 total.


This money is paid from the time the daughter has her own first child at age 26 until the death of the grandparents at the grandparent age of 85, 10 years before the daughters retirement.

• Age of grandparents at daughters conception: 20
• Age of daughter at first grandchild's conception: 26
• Age grandparents were when they received their first payment: 46
• Age when daughter first started working: 17
• Age of grandparents when they both died: 85
• Age of daughter when she retired 10 years after death of grandparents: 75
• Number of years daughter continued to work after age 26, while grandparents were still alive: 39 
• Average yearly salary of daughter: $38,000
• Grandparents take: 5% per parent, for a total of 10%.
• Initial payment to both grandparents: $34,200 lump sum and 316.66 per month for 39 years thereafter, with a 10 year gap in payments. (Subtract the 10 years she didn't work because she had a daughter of her own).
• Total "bumper payment" from both granddaughters for the 10 years the mother didn't work: $38,000 total, or $19,000 each, divided over 20 years or 240 months, for a total of 79.17 per month per granddaughter.

The grandparents have a second daughter who makes exactly the same average salary per year, so multiply everything above by 2.


Total payout to the grandparents by their 2 daughters: $ 364,800


Now let us imagine that they have a son who makes and average of $75,000 per year. Sons are calculated differently using Method 2, which is simpler.





Method 2: The Method for Sons and Grandsons


We don't care if sons take time off from work to raise children since their wives can handle that. We also don't care as much if the son has sons of his own. Our goal is to maximize his income.


The son also owes his parents 5% each parent for a total of 10%. But there is no requirement that he have children for the parents to receive payout. The money from his paycheck is withheld until he has at least one child of his own, or until he reaches age 45, whichever is first.


The strategy with sons is therefore, invest in your sons for maximum income and marry them off. While the optimum strategy for daughters is turn them into brood mares so you can get paid immediately, and so you don't have to lose money by selling your income rights to a broker.


You can sell the income rights in daughters to a broker if they do not produce children, since production of children, or sale no earlier than parental age 70, is required for withdraw, but you can not sell the income rights for sons, since you will get paid if they reach 45 and you are still living.


With an average income of $75,000 the son produces a take home of 3,750 per year, per parent. If the son also begins working at 17, and the parents have him when they are 21 (he is the middle child), the the son begins accumulating income in a locked account when the parents are 38. If he is a bachelor the parents can withdraw from that locked account when he is 45, (making them 66 at the time), and they will receive a haul of $210,000. In addition, they will continue to receive $625 per month for the rest of their lives. They will live until age 85, and so collect another $142,500 over the course of 19 years.


The total income from all three children is therefore $ 709,700 broken down as follows;

• First lump sum payment of $34,200, and 316.66 per month thereafter from Daughter No 1, starting when the parents are 46.
• Second lump sum payment of $34,200 and 316.66 per month thereafter from Daughter No 2., starting when the parents are 49.
• Third lump sum payment of $210,000 and $652 per month thereafter from the son, starting when the parents are age 66.
• A total of $1,285.32 in monthly income coming from all three children at age 66.

Cha-ching. Don't we love family values?


(Daughter No. 2 technically begins working 3 years later than Daughter No. 1 and therefore the total haul is $709,700, or $7,800 less than what you would think).


Now add this to the normal Social Security you get and retirement is looking somewhat comfortable. Naturally, smart parents will want to maximize the income of their children by pushing them into high paying careers. This may have a negative effect on college enrollment since parents will prefer to maximize aggregate income of the child's entire lifetime. Anything that delays work delays profit. The best strategy is to get them working and earning money at a young age, push them into some high paying trade that only requires a couple of years of education, and have the daughters take a few years off work to crank out a bunch of kids so the parents can get the payoff right now. Then use the payments your getting from your children to get a mistress and a second round of kids.


Breed. Train for high income. Get you kid a high paying job. Repeat.


Alternately you may specialize by training most of your kids for high income while having a few of them produce grandchildren. Or you might start a business to ensure they all have high incomes, or you might pass on the family trade to all of your sons, or have a brother train your sons in his high income trade. Whatever the case, the parents will want to get their child into a high paying job, and get them married off to produce grandchildren.


Of course the children will want to repeat the process because of their own greed. And the grandchildren, and great grandchildren. . .


Remember that all of these calculations are before decades of investment interest are calculated in. This money is not sitting idle. At 8% interest an initial investment of $100,000 compounded over 30 years will yield $1,006,265.69.





Transferable or Non-transferable Rights


Don't give me any horseshit about this constituting slavery, since by that definition all redistribution already is. The welfare state enslaves the productive to the degenerate, Social Security enslaves the young to the old, and liberals enslave the young, productive, and White to the old, degenerate, and brown. They do not actually have a problem with with exploitation and racism. If they did they would not have conspired with regulators to artificially inflate rents in the coastal cities they control. If they did they would not be using those same artificially inflated rents to exclude minorities and poor people. Either they are as racist as the people that hate, or they are so power hungry and conscience free as to place power above their morals. Liberals don't hate inequality; they love sanctimony and power.


Family capitalism represents a property right in the income of children. That right may be transferable or non-transferable. If it is transferable then the parent can cash out the right by selling it to a broker. The broker is going to want to get the son or daughter the highest paying job possible in order to maximize his own take. But the effort he spends on hooking the kid up with a well paying job will never exceed what he expects to make, and he will focus on the ones who show promise the most, and will be unwilling to take lazy and degenerate kids as clients. The brokers job will be to (a), identify the ones with unused ability who are being underpaid by the market, (b), use his connections to get the kid a high paying job, and (c), collect the resulting rents.


Since the broker will always have that kid as a client, so long as he owns the income right, he will always be looking to get him paid more, and map out his career progression. This is like having a social worker who occasionally calls you up to try to add thousands to your salary. "Hey, we have this new position that will help you progress in your career. It pays 18 thousand more than you are currently making. Want the job?"


With transferability there may be an economic incentive to enslave the lazy into jobs where they can be put to use. A criminal might cost money to society as a hoodlum, but getting him into a job as a heavy machinery operator or something might generate a large profit. What if he doesn't want the extra money? What if he would prefer a low paying life of crime over a higher paying life of profit? Then lobbyists might pressure the government to allow them enslave troublesome, but potentially profitable minorities, the same way they endlessly pressure the government to increase the level of slavery/redistribution against White men. Behold the horrific spectacle of a Black guy being forced to make too much money.


If income rights in children are non-transferable then parents cannot sell those rights right away, which means they cannot invest the profits from sale right away, which means that the spendthrift cannot blow those profits as quickly. Making income rights transferable lets those with low time preference invest at an early age, taking the lump some payment early to get more compound interest from investment later, while letting the stupid piss away their wealth faster, while encouraging the system to change the law and enslave troublesome people with potential. Prohibiting transferability does the opposite of all of this; it wastes talent, puts the income in the hands of parents who have less skill at making that income go up, gives the kid fewer job connections, and subsidizes high time preference degenerates by making them wait for the money.





Birth Defects Versus Longer Telomeres


A telomere is a region of repetitive nucleotide sequences at each end of a chromosome. The longer it is the longer lived an organism tends to be. Paternal age is associated with greater telomere length in male sperm, which codes for longer lived offspring. Many octogenarians are the result of multiple generations of men having children in old age. In contrast to this, the older a woman is the more birth defects her eggs will have. Paternal age is productive for health in offspring while maternal age is destructive.


Method 1 is designed to get women to hurry up and have children, since their period of fertility is shorter and young maternal age is associated with positive genetic benefits. Method 2 is designed to allow men to have children at a later age so they can concentrate more on earning income to support a family, and because longer telomeres breed longer lived children. Any method is possible and this post is just meant as an example.





How Do You Do This In a Democracy?


In a democracy only collective and publicly managed slavery is legal. How do you adapt this for commie madness? Why you collectivize it of course.


You peg Social Security payouts to the number of children people have. You do all the same crap but you call it a childcare benefit, and you have the government administer it. It's all about branding. Slavery is fine if it's "the will of the people."


FYI: this whole system of partial property in the incomes of children could be a plausible alternative to Social Security under a system of anarcho capitalism, so long as the patch of sovereignty is willing to use the courts to enforce it. But don't expect it to spontaneously work without enforcement.

Go-ocracy Rewritten

I have decided to re-write portions of the original go-ocracy post in order to make upgrades to the design. For the original article, click here.

Introduction

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.  People sign a social contract because the codex of laws of the person they signed with protects them from crime by giving them legal recourse.

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. Unlike Go there are multiple players operating at the same time.


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. The local sheriff and mayor are still elected just like in democracy, but they handle only essential services. 


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. If there are five or fewer operating in the market then new players are recruited.


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 arbiter courts, each of which can fulfill the role of a court of last appeal through a process of selection. 


An arbiter court is a private entity funded by whomever wants to fund one. A single one can be corrupted, but a competition cannot. Allow me to 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 94 arbiter courts. Each player fills out a card with a rank ordering of 48 preferences from most preferred (1) to least preferred (48). 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 arbiter courts is an even number, and 50% rounded up if it is an odd number. Thus, there is always one overlap, and exactly one.


The highest ranked preference that occurs on both lists, 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;

If there are more than two overlapping preferences then some other lottery method is used. 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 court. Well that will get you ranked at the top of someones 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

Federal laws, aka., game rules are proposed in a parliament, 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. New constitutional rules may be created but the original ones may not be repealed. 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 a number of years n, to which the integer 2 is added, and then rounded up.


For example;


A game rule passes with 65% of the vote.


.65 - .50 = .15

.15 x 100 = 15

15/2 = n

n + 2 is 9.5

9.5 rounded up is 10 years.


The new game rule shall be in effect 10 years, and then automatically expire.


New rules are tested out like this. Rules that work well are resubmitted for voter approval whenever they expire. Any formula can be used. The point is to make federal laws temporary so that meddling in game play is kept to a minimum, and system diversity preserved. The higher the percentage of players agree upon a new constitutional law the longer that law remains in effect.

IV.

How The Federal Government is Appointed

Using a process similar to the one described for the arbiter courts, a selection process occurs for who shall be appointed to a unicameral elected House of Game Players.


One player files a "Notice of Argument" against another. The two players fill out rank-ordered lists of who they would chose as a neutral third party. Instead of having players vote for federal representatives the format is like a series of fights where a third party is chosen for each argument. One does not seek power in this system, one cooperates with another player to choose a neutral player for power. Typically, strong players will choose weak or distant players as their third parties.


Just like when choosing an arbiter, when each player is choosing a representative, each of them makes a list of rank-ordered preferences with 50% + 1 of the members in the system. Each time a player is selected for a seat in the House a vote is recorded for that player. No more than one notice of argument may be filed per player with any other player. The 100 players with the highest number of votes fill the seats of the House. Law making then proceeds just like it would with a regular parliamentary system, except that bills must be approved by the direct vote of a majority of the population in accordance with the procedure outlined in Part III. This differs from democracy by having the lawmakers at the local level "elect" the ones at the Federal.

V.

Discovery of a Method

The definition of a republic has never been fully clear, and has always relied on some assertion that republics differed from direct democracies because they upheld the ethical principle of individual rights, and that republics have representative rather than direct rule. While this distinction is technically correct, (rights vs. majority rule, representative vs. direct), it lacks precision and specificity. It is much simpler to say the difference between a democracy and a republic is that the former is simply a game-based form of government, while the latter has the game subject to a referee and rules. Viewing republics as systems built on games brings a remarkable clarity to political science, and also shows the way forward to developing other designs for systems, possibly even communist republics that actually work. It also allows the introduction of predictive elements, since games can be modeled with AI, can be played at a small scale before being played at a large scale, and can be designed iteratively. This opens the door to knowing in advance whether or not your communist revolution will work, or at least knowing that it has a pretty good chance of working. For ethical reasons complex systems must be simulated beforehand, and game design bridges the gap between theory and praxis. It is not morally acceptable to try a system without proof that it will work, and games modeled with AI can provide that proof. Marxism could never be as ethical as this, since no amount of words can compensate for observation of game play. The Founding Fathers were on essentially the right track and the subsequent contribution by Marx derailed the whole project. 


Furthermore, the whole point of a game-based political system is the rules. Having a game that decides how power is allocated suppresses the natural tendency of humans to engage in a violent struggle for power, since the power hungry do not really want to risk their lives to get it, and the game itself provides an excuse for the much more important introduction of constitutional rights, since rights are limits on game play, and keep them game working by limiting its viciousness. Seen in this light the game itself is simply the brilliant excuse for the rule of rights. Laws are restrictions on the people, but game rules are restrictions on the state, and that is wonderful. Games give you an excuse for rights.


With all of this knowledge we now understand that the correct way to seek a greater perfection of government is an iterative method that involves a sequence of events. First a literal game is developed, and it is played at a small scale with different individuals forming the three elements of any republican game; (a.) players/parties etc., (b.) referees (supreme court). and (c). the people who give their consent to be governed. The game is played in real life so that the kinks can be ironed out and the rules perfected. This is done for any new republican design. Ideally, the first step would involve a massively multiplayer online game that includes things like virtual currency and allows for bribes and side economies in order to predict the effects of corruption on the system. Once this is done, the second step is building a city-state to perform further real life analysis. And once that is done then, and only then, can you implement things at a larger scale. But something tells me revolution will never be necessary if your system is truly an improvement over the status quo, since it will be wildly popular by then anyway, and have proven results.


A world of multiple city-states competing for citizens, operating under a many different forms of government is the ideal outcome. Not a utopia of some worldwide monolithic communist dictatorship, from which no one can escape, but a series of competing systems where escape is the very essence of it all. The reason for this approach over others is that there is no one game everyone can win, because of how humans vary in their talents, but with a multiplicity of games there may be one in which every person can win at least one, and that is actually a much better prospect than equality because it is fun.


Republics are political systems controlled by a game that decides who gets power. The game is elections. The Supreme Court is the referee. The Constitution is the rules. The whole thing is worshiped by the American right, proving that anything becomes sacred if there is enough dust on it.


Capitalism is an unconstructed game — by unconstructed I mean that it has no designer because it self-assembles. Near as I can tell there are only three types of political systems on Earth; (1) hierarchies, (2) "games" (republics), and (3) "anarcho capitalism" (a temporary state).


Systems tend to evolve towards ritualized games, even in the courts of emperors. This is because rule based systems avoid violence. One can see this at any city council meeting in America. 

Left and right are spooks; there is only degrees of game. There are communist societies that act fascist, just like there are "liberal monarchies." The reason you apply the concept of left and right to the world is because the game of democracy produces two players as an inevitable consequence of its internal game rules. Two is the number that accrues the maximum amount of power in a competitive game without merging with the last remaining enemy. If there were three parties one of them would eventually consolidate into one of the two parties, since a larger party would co-opt it to get more votes. Thus, the number of parties is always exactly two, and no more. All other parties either don't matter or are in the process of being absorbed. In parliamentary democracies the third parties always join one faction or another. There are two major parties in a democracy for the same reason that if you played a Chess game with three parties one of the players would join with another against the third, eliminate the third, and then go on to battle each other, leaving only two in the final round. In contrast to a majority rule system, in go-ocracy players govern their clients directly, and do not share power with anyone else, and in contrast to the layers of majority rule that comprise a federal republic, the only place majority rule exists is the top level, and there are no elections to get there, unless you count being in "the top 100" of non-threatening preferences an election.

VI.

Meta Rules of Republican Game Design

There are essential principles that govern the development of all political systems based on games. These principles are meta rules, meaning "rules governing the construction of rules." The first two of these are that (1), the system must be based on the consent of the governed, that (2), the people must not be intimidated by power, and that (3), no permanent winner must ever emerge. From these three meta rules all other rules flow, for example;


In a democracy the consent of the governed is obtained through votes, while in a go-ocracy it is obtained through delegation. Consent is essential, otherwise you do not have a free society. Even anarcho capitalism contains an element of consent by creating a transferable property in justice.


Next, you must prevent the usage of coercion against individual citizens by players or political parties of the game. In the past, political parties would beat up voters and send them to the polls to vote over and over again. Voter registration combined with the secret ballot was used to put an end to this practice. Political parties still use handouts to buy votes, and immigration is used to manipulate the outcome of elections. One particular political party in America has even at one time in history or another used gangs to ethnically cleanse whites from their neighborhoods, or used white supremacist organizations to intimidate black voters!



The problem with introducing a game where the pieces on the board must give their consent is that a dynamic tension is created between the needs of power and the laziness of the citizen. This problem exists in all game-based systems, whether democracy or otherwise, but manifests differently depending on the system. In a go-ocracy it will be more necessary than usual to prevent political players from having their own police powers or armies, since territory is what is being argued over rather than positions of power. Thankfully, in a go-ocracy it is unlikely that immigration would be used for political purposes. A go-ocracy should be free of majoritarian politics, and thus, of a two-party system. With multiple players on the board it is unlikely they could get away with manipulating demographics, and with the consent of the governed being defined in terms of space rather than popular will, the individual citizen can delegate for immigration restrictions to prohibit illegal immigrants on their property, the property of anyone who delegates to the same player, and all the public property of streets and thoroughfares in between those parcels. This aspect of space over leadership shifts society from the stated preference system of democracy to a revealed preference system. A liberal might vote to bring in immigrants to someone else's neighborhood, but never his own backyard. Go-ocracy is therefore a form of republic based on revealed preference rather than virtue signaling, since all delegations concern one's own property, taxes, and benefits. It would probably be substantially libertarian since the citizens choose based on their own consumer self-interest rather than in argument with others. There is no incentive for irrational extremes in order to pull the center towards one's true position.


Lots of other rules are actually restrictions on intimidating the citizenry. If free speech is compromised then the voter has an incentive to vote for the violent overthrow of the government. The right to bear arms raises the cost of violating the rights of game players. If you think guns are fruitless against modern armies then you have not been paying attention to Americas foray in Afghanistan, and the success of the Taliban at holding back the worlds most powerful army.


Rights are economic; they raise the cost of overthrowing the game (the right to bear arms), or prevent the development of perverse incentives (free speech), or get voters to behave more rationally (separation of church and state), prevent black mail (right to privacy), keep certain things neutral (eliminating the spoils system), etc.


Lastly, no permanent winner must be allowed to emerge, or the system will convert to a dictatorship. A one-party state eventually captures the referee, (the Supreme Court) destroying the game, and foreclosing the possibility of a future challenger to power. The first aspect of democracy is there there are elections at regular intervals. A government seat is never held permanently. The second feature is term limits. A nation should have party term limits as well, just to be on the safe side. If a party holds power for too long it should automatically lose the majority after a fixed period of time. In a go-ocracy similar procedures will be needed. The game will need to have a "partial reset" every generation, where all territory not held through delegation or capture is uncaptured and played over again. It will also need "player term limits" where no one player can hold a piece of territory for more than, say, 12 years concurrently, and where after 12 years someone else must capture that territory for at least 2 years. Both parties and players themselves should be limited, so that every 75 years a political party/player is dissolved and new parties/players given the chance to enter the board.


Any other game-based political system will need analogous rules for its design. These problems will spontaneously emerge as a consequence of game play, and you will need to develop rules and rights to fix that. Every set of constitutional rights will differ based on the game chosen for selecting leaders, but similar patterns will abound with all of them.


The point this entire article is to demonstrate one possible configuration for the design of an alternative republic, in order to fire the imagination of the reader, and encourage them to develop their own alternative designs.

Thoughts on the American Civil War and election-free republics

Whenever the issue of exit is brought up, people invariable point out that the fact that secession was used as a pretext to extend the institution of slavery. This is faulty logic, because there was simply no one fighting for the right position during the Civil War. The right-wing was fighting against the exit of Negros, while the left was fighting against the exit of their masters. This compounded the original error where the North tolerated slavery on the basis of the principle of exit, hypocritically denying exit to blacks while simultaneously supporting it for whites.

The moral action would have been to free the slaves and then kick the South out of the Union. You can't deny exit for them, but you can't make us deny exit for you either, and if you try to re-institute slavery once we leave we will invade you again.

The left is engaged in a similar folly today with free speech, and the right is engaged in a similar trap. The right is using free speech to advocate the destruction of ethical principles, forcing the left to compromise its own principles just like the South forced the left to compromise the principle of exit. Then as now, the right-wing is using a principle to violate a principle. Back then, they used the right of exit (secession) to deny exit to blacks. Now they use free speech to intimidate and silence the free speech of minorities. The answer is not to play into their hands and turn against the principle of free speech, but to answer the exercise of a right (the right to engage in hate speech) with another exercise of speech, (the rational defense of classical liberal values). Yes, we will allow you a platform for your hateful ideas, and no, we will not shout you down, but we will present a reasoned argument for why equality of rights is necessary even if equality of ability is not possible.

Rather than censoring them they should construct a media megaphone for blasting the principles of human rights into every mind. They should double down on classical liberal principles, and not the folly of equal outcome. But they will allow this right to be destroyed also, by allowing themselves to be maneuvered into a position of contradicting their own principles, and then the left will then be authoritarian like the radical right, and there will be no one left to support freedom.

The right breaks an institution and forces the left to bring down the jackboot, affirming the principle of jackboots; a right-wing principle. The right makes an agency dysfunctional and then calls for its privatization, denying that functional agencies were even possible. This would be like the left unionizing a company to bankrupt it, and then claiming private corporations don't work.

The more concentrated power becomes the more insane politics becomes. The right says it wants to end politics, but nothing is more political than the frequent civil wars and religious conflicts under monarchy. The 1950's was more democratic and less political than today, and the government power was less concentrated and intrusive, and yet reactionaries still insist on thinking more concentrated power will yield saner results! Are these people stooopid? Why yes Sherlock, they are.

In communism the government owns all the business and land, and manages it under a one-party state. The communists act like capitalists because when you conquer all the industry in a society the incentives of industry conquer you. Eventually, the communists begin to sell favors and jobs for bribes. Afterward they begin to pass on their jobs to their sons. Eventually all the corruption becomes formalized and certificates of paper are issued entitling the people who bought these government jobs to "rights." There is a holy state religion called "Marxism-leninism" that all must study and obey. The religion is new, so people take it seriously, and the regime is relatively free from corruption.

In a feudal monarchy all the land and industry is owned by the king. The king sells favors and government jobs in exchange for bribes he calls "fees" which sell at a regular price according to a fixed fee schedule. Government jobs can be purchased with bribes and these jobs are called "royal titles." The whole abomination of corruption is made sacred by having so much ancient dust on it, and is controlled by a holy state religion that all must study and obey.

Communism is a cleaner, more bureaucratic form, of feudalism.

Monarchies have civil and religious wars.

Communism has civil and ideological wars.

Christianity believes in the equal ability of all to be saved by Christ.

Communism believes in the equality of all.

Supposedly these are all radically different things.

Republics are political systems controlled by a game that decides who gets power. The game is elections. The Supreme Court is the referee. The Constitution is the rules. The whole thing is worshiped by the American right, proving that people can make anything sacred if it is old enough.

Capitalism is an unconstructed game — by unconstructed I mean that it has no designer because it self-assembles. Near as I can tell there are only three types of political systems on Earth; 1. hierarchies, 2. "games" (or republics), and 3. "anarcho capitalism."

In other words,

Pure hierarchies (dictatorships)
Games controlled by a hierarchy (republics)
Games not controlled by a hierarchy (anarcho capitalist markets).

Left and right are spooks; there is only degrees of game. There are communist societies that act fascist, just like there are "liberal monarchies." The reason you apply the concept of left and right to the world is because the game of democracy produces two players as an inevitable consequence of its internal game rules. Two is the number that accrues the maximum amount of power in a competitive game without merging with the last remaining enemy. If there were three parties one of them would eventually consolidate into one of the two parties, since a larger party would co-opt it to get more votes. Thus, the number of parties is always exactly two, and no more. All other parties either don't matter or are in the process of being absorbed. In parliamentary democracies the third parties always joins either the left or right coalition. There are two parties in a democracy for the same reason that if you played a Chess game with three parties one of the players would join with another against the third, eliminate the third, and then go on to battle each other, leaving only two in the final round.

A game that requires a majority to get things done, or which allows one winner to control the whole system, will always produce either a two-party or one-party outcome depending on how it is set up. It is possible to design an alternative republic where there are no parties, by structuring the game to allow multiple players, and eliminating majority rule. A system can be set up where instead of elections, disputes decide who is elevated to congress. One party sues another. The lawsuit can be "blank" and does not actually have to contain any grievance. The two players fill out rank-ordered lists of who they would like the dispute to be tried by. Each list must contain the names of 50% +1 of the judges in the system. The highest ranking person on both lists tries the suite. Any grievances are combined into the blank suite and tried by the same judges. The system therefore selects for the most neutral arbiter in all cases.

The 100 most popular and respected arbiters, (as measured by the amount of business they get) are elevated to congress automatically, where they write the laws governing the whole system. Federal laws need the direct vote of the people for approval.

There. A republic with no political parties, no elections of politicians, no political parties, and no meaningful politics. The rest of the system is go-ocracy parts 1 thu 4. If you read the article on go-ocracy you will probably also realize that such a system would probably have no welfare state either, since the people elevated to congress don't need votes to get elected, or at least, no welfare state at the federal level. A welfare state might still emerge as a result of people choosing players who offer it, but such a system would be governed by market equilibrium rather than party politics.

Elon Musk and the third alternative

Humans have a fundamental nature caused by their ancestral environment. Absent genetic intervention, that nature evolves slowly. It is tribal, communist xenophobic, religious, and limited in trade activities. It integrates equality and racism not as opposites but as two sides of the same coin since equality is shown towards members of the tribe while racism is shown towards outsiders.

Since the industrial revolution, capitalism, has evolved at a far more rapid pace than human nature. It is mechanistic, polluting, greedy, winner-take-all, fast-evolving, rerouting, exiting, and so far emergent AI.

The gap between this slowly evolving condition, and the fast evolving mechanism of high capitalism, I am going to call "rift" because it is a widening gap between us and the machine.

Near as I can tell humans have only four major approaches to the problem. 

They are;

1. Abolish capitalism to accommodate human nature (the Marxist-communist plan)
2. Abolish human nature to accommodate capitalism (manifests as either fascism or transhumanism)
3. What capitalism run amok (destroying biological life to replace it)
4. Go into space (the method championed by Elon Musk)

Space is a weirdly communist environment. A starship is basically a tribe on a ship. A space station is basically a city state. A settlement on Mars is little more than a small band of humans living in tribal configuration.

Space is brutal, violent, and deadly, just like the ancestral environment. Cohesiveness is forced on people by circumstances, but the threats come mainly from the natural world rather than other groups. Thus, evolutionary pressure is very high, but works to make people practical rather than religious. Religion is a tribal adaption that allows you to form armies to defeat genocidal threats to your tribe, but on Mars the threat is running out of air, food, or water. Space breeds hyper-pragmatic communists, while Earth has already bred religiously hysterical communists.

By "pragmatic communist" I mean someone who will kill you if you don't get off your ass and fix the air processor.

"Fix the air machine."

"No, because rights and shit."

"Throw him out an airlock."

But hyper-capitalism reemerges in space too. Once the population of Mars achieves a critical threshold hyper-capitalism comes back, and on a rotating habitat of many millions of square miles it emerges again. At the level of a Bishop Ring it emerges again. (A bishop ring is one of the largest possible megastructures that can be built with carbon nanotubes).

No doubt, a Dyson swarm composed of millions of rotating space habitats would be governed by hyper-capitalism; one might envision a form of insurance that guarantees the swarm will collectively point its mirrors at any aggressor if one of them is attacked, turning the swarm into a mega-laser, aka., a "Nicoll Dyson Beam," that destroys any space station that invades any other.

It also makes for a useful way to defend a solar system, and such a system can be coordinated with a market instead of a centralized government.

Space recreates the stress of the ancestral environment. It cannot be overstated how important this is. In the absence of threats to survival humans become physically obese, and mentally deranged. Our bodies have been built by evolution to confront daily challenges and threats to survival, and a sports car is not meant to idle.

Space is deadly enough that it may solve the issue of mutational load. Yes, the radiation of space increases mutation, but one can have a genetic archive for that, and one is evolving everyday to be more pragmatic. Lastly, space is the last frontier. If humans can survive there then we have made it as a species.

Whether Musk knows it or not he is pursuing the third strategy, though it may overlap with capitalism and with eventual abolishment of the species in favor of AI and a mind uploading, also known as substrate independence.